FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

@Wally

I'm pretty sure the 2010 Bethel team was a pool C bid. They were West champs that year. So there is evidence. In 2000 SJU had a decent Pool C run, if losing by a last second FG to Mt in the Stagg counts.

Right...there are occasional instances where this happens.  The two you mentioned (which are 10 years apart).  Wheaton in 2008 is another.  But we're talking about 16 seasons worth of Pool B/C tournaments here and there are not results, with any sort of reasonable proximity in time, that identify a subset of conferences that are better than the others because an abundance of teams from conferences crush it in the tournament. 

Part of the issue is that the West is a really deep region. I know you'll argue it's just perception, but there have been multiple years where the West had 5-6 teams in the Top 10 when the post-season started. That's a brutal road and there's bound to be Pool C attrition. It's typically a lot tougher top to bottom than the 'East' and 'South' brackets have been. And the 'North' often has a quality team added their way from the 'West' and vice versa. Because of season where there are 2 or 3 potential 1 seeds from the West.

Kind of a self-perpetuating philosophy isn't it?  West teams are better than everybody else because they do better in the tournament...except for when they don't because they had to play other West teams so we just don't pay attention to those results.  The tournament is hard for everybody, in every region.  Full stop. 

[emma17]

Sometimes (Wally) I find people want to over-complicate a rather uncomplicated subject. I get that you may not be convinced that 2014 UWO and NCC were better teams than Centre, Del Val and Muhl (3 of the Pool C teams from 2014), but I simply do.
It literally amazes me that you see it differently. I may just be flat out wrong, but I have to believe an overwhelming majority of knowledgeable D3 fans would pick UWO and NCC to beat each of the 3 Pool C teams listed above. If that's true, than it's true that Pool C isn't providing the best level of competition it could be. And if that's true, it's also a reason more Pool C teams aren't progressing as far in the tourney.

Fact- the three WIAC teams that made the playoffs through Pool C ALL played competitively. When a team is competitive it has a chance to win, which means upsets can happen- and that's exactly what makes for a healthy tourney. The playoff history is loaded w examples of Pool C teams that got smoked in the first round- adding no competitive value to the playoffs.

[emma17]

I slightly differ on how I'd look at that UWSP-Wartburg result from 2008; I see a Pool C team that got the gift of a home game against an 8-2 team, not really one of the field's best teams, and lost.  That was as winnable of a game as a Pool C team is ever going to get (save for a matchup with a UMAC/NACC champion or something, like Wisconsin Lutheran).  But that's just our perception of the games.

emma, I posted something on the top 25 board which I'd be curious for your opinion on: keeping the AQ system in place to preserve "access" for all, but restricting Pool C bids to teams from a league with at least one playoff win in a certain timeframe.  This would at least moderately thin out the number of teams competing for C bids (by removing teams from a league that never wins anything in the playoffs), and would allow more space for teams from leagues that consistently produce playoff winners, while still preserving access for all teams through Pool A.  Over time we would have a field that included more runners-up from the "good" leagues but still have everyone a way in.  Your thoughts?

Gift or no gift, the most important point imo is that UWSP played a competitive game.  My entire goal for Pool C is to improve the overall competitiveness of the teams that get in.

I'm interested in your post and will take a look.  To be clear though, although it looks like it, I'm not arguing for WIAC or "conferences".  I'm arguing for teams that have a proven track record of playing competitively against the recognized best competition.  It's easy to focus on the WIAC simply because we get to see how each team plays against UWW.  But it's easy to extend this.  If there are 8-2 teams that didn't win their conference but played competitively with Mt Union, St. Thomas, Linfield, UMHB, etc, I'd rather see them in Pool C than a 9-1 team that literally has zero evidence, current or recent past, of being capable of competing with the best.       

[hazzben]

Other people did his homework for him, but the answer is that it doesn't happen.  WIAC and MIAC and CCIW are good leagues because they have all kinds of teams with all kinds of postseason success- is a myth.  That isn't happening

I responded to this. You claimed these top leagues were never having Pool C teams make a run.

That is simply false. Even with the standard set extremely high (semifinals or Stagg Bowl) we have evidence these leagues have teams up to the task. If we lowered the bar and said just winning a game or two in the West and North region is legit for these teams, who as Pool C teams are usually on the road against higher seeds, then there are more examples.

Bottom line, the West and North have dominated the playoffs for 20+ years. And the top leagues from the MIAC, WIAC, NWC and CCIW have all had Pool C teams win against higher seeds, on the road and/or go on deep runs. And those runs are never stopped by an East or South 'power.' It doesn't happen. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Fact- the three WIAC teams that made the playoffs through Pool C ALL played competitively. When a team is competitive it has a chance to win, which means upsets can happen- and that's exactly what makes for a healthy tourney. The playoff history is loaded w examples of Pool C teams that got smoked in the first round- adding no competitive value to the playoffs.

Is this really true though?  I'm honestly not sure.  I'm going to dig up the Pool C results for the last four or five years and post them here.

Before I do, I want to highlight that you specified "got smoked in the first round" as the reason they added no competitive value.  So if they win a game or two and then lost to Mount by 50, they still added some competitive value before that happened.  You've given 2008 UWSP credit as "playing competitively" when they lost to a very ordinary playoff team, not a national powerhouse, so I'm going to give the teams I look up the same benefit of the doubt.

[d-train]

Did emma mean Autobid/Pool A in that bolded part?

[ExTartanPlayer]

2014 Pool C

Wabash (9-1): beats Franklin 33-14, loses to national champ UWW 38-14.
St. Thomas (8-2): lost 37-31 to quarterfinalist Wartburg.
Muhlenberg (9-1) lost 36-35 to quarterfinalist Widener
Delaware Valley (9-1): lost 29-26 to second-round loser Christopher Newport
John Carroll (9-1): beat Centre 63-28, beat Wheaton 14-12, lost to Mount 36-28

I'm having a hard time remembering who officially counted as the last C bid.  I think officially TLU was a B and Centre was a C, in which case we had the unusual pairing of Centre and John Carroll (two Pool C's) playing each other in the first round.  JCU did blow out Centre.

That's one Pool C team "smoked" in the first round (and ironically enough, it came at the hands of another Pool C).  That was kind of an odd choice, because Centre was undefeated and (IMO) the committee more or less had to take an undefeated team (very anomalous for an undefeated team to even end up on the board, really).

The second-worst first-round result is definitely Delaware Valley losing to a marginal Pool A team in 7-3 Christopher Newport.  That is not a very good result, but still, is it really that different from UWSP losing to Wartburg?  Remember, you used the definition of getting smoked in the first round / adding no competitive value.  Del Val was plenty competitive in its game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 Pool C teams

John Carroll: lost 25-16 to St. John Fisher
UW-Platteville: beat Wisconsin Lutheran 54-20, lost 52-24 to North Central
Pacific Lutheran: lost 42-21 to Linfield
Illinois Wesleyan: lost 41-7 to Wartburg
St. John Fisher: beat John Carroll 25-16, beat Hobart 27-6, lost 45-23 to UMHB

So this is interesting.  Again, we had a C vs. C pairing in the first round, but considering that it was a tight game and the winner (SJF) advanced after that game, I assume we can agree that they were sufficient to add competitive value to the playoffs.  UWP won a game and then lost to North Central.  PLU lost to Linfield in a regular-season rematch (and it's worth noting that PLU had beaten SCIAC champ Redlands during the regular season; if the committee had set up the Western bracket differently, they could have won).  Finally, Illinois Wesleyan did get smoked in the first round, but that's not a result anyone saw coming - in fact, most people had IWU favored in that game (including all 3 pickers from Triple Take).

Humorously enough, this year the committee did almost exactly what you want this year, emma: this is a full slate of teams that have either some history of playoff success (SJF), or a close game against a top national opponent (JCU, UWP, Linfield), or play in a tough league (IWU)...and guess what?  We got a couple really good ones and a couple of clunkers.  IWU turned out to be a lemon, but they were a team from the favored list of conferences, according to most people.  I don't think that's a selection anyone would have argued.

This is taking me a lot longer to compile than I thought, but I'll post this for now.  Maybe I'll come back later and add a couple more years' worth of results.

[Gregory Sager]

You guys just got called out by an Oshkosh assistant coach:

Steve Brown @CoachBrown19
It's amazing how quiet the WIAC board on @d3football gets when U Dub Dub suffers a loss.  #crickets #HailTitans #WonTheDay

https://twitter.com/CoachBrown19/status/654107555371859971

Shots fired...  Brady Grayvold has an appropriate comeback though!

Brady Grayvold ‏@brady__G
Almost as quiet and empty as your National Title trophy case. #WinTheYear 

https://twitter.com/brady__G/status/654110276950753281

Oshkosh's National Title trophy case has 31 trophies in it

How many from Football? 

Would venture to guess that the vast majority of them are from Track and Cross Country....

2 from baseball
4 from men's cross-country
1 from men's indoor t&f
1 from men's outdoor t&f
1 from women's basketball
4 from women's cross-country
9 from women's indoor t&f
9 from women's outdoor t&f

Zero from football.

UWW (6) and UWL (2) are the only WIAC schools that have won D3 football titles.

UW-Oshkosh ranks fifth on the list of the most loaded national-title trophy cases in D3:

Kenyon	60
UW-LaCrosse	40
College of New Jersey	39
Williams	32
UW-Oshkosh	31
Middlebury	29
Methodist	28
North Central	28
*UC-San Diego	20
Wartburg	19
Washington (MO)	19

*UCSD is now a member of D2.

[ScreamingEagles]

2 from baseball
4 from men's cross-country
1 from men's indoor t&f
1 from men's outdoor t&f
1 from women's basketball
4 from women's cross-country
9 from women's indoor t&f
9 from women's outdoor t&f

Zero from football.

UWW (6) and UWL (2) are the only WIAC schools that have won D3 football titles.

UW-Oshkosh ranks fifth on the list of the most loaded national-title trophy cases in D3:

Kenyon	60
UW-LaCrosse	40
College of New Jersey	39
Williams	32
UW-Oshkosh	31
Middlebury	29
Methodist	28
North Central	28
*UC-San Diego	20
Wartburg	19
Washington (MO)	19

*UCSD is now a member of D2.

Building off this - UWL officially recognizes 67 National Titles - 23 Women's and 44 Men's.  For Football, this includes a 1985 NAIA National Title, two Division 3 Football Titles (1992, 1995) as well as two from the 1950's (which I'm fine if you don't count those).  There are also some NAIA (Men's Gymnastics and Men's Bowling) and NCGA titles that won't appear on the above list.

The obvious strength long-term of our athletic program is our Men's Track and Field program - 17 Indoor Titles and 13 Outdoor Titles, all since 1987 and all in Division 3.

http://www.uwlathletics.com/sports/2009/10/4/GEN_1004093927.aspx?id=14

[wally_wabash]

I may just be flat out wrong, but I have to believe an overwhelming majority of knowledgeable D3 fans would pick UWO and NCC to beat each of the 3 Pool C teams listed above.

You're not wrong at all.  But at the same time, the overwhelming majority of D3 fans pick NCC to win pretty much all of the games that they wind up losing.  So that really isn't a good barometer to determine whether or not the right teams are being invited.  To wit:

If that's true, than it's true that Pool C isn't providing the best level of competition it could be. And if that's true, it's also a reason more Pool C teams aren't progressing as far in the tourney.

See, Division III is huge.  As unhealthy that the amount of time that I spend following Division III football is, I won't even pretend to know how good certain teams are from certain areas/conferences that I just don't have the time to follow closely.  So when you say that North Central or UWO or whatever the flavor of the week might be would obviously smash somebody like Muhlenberg, I don't think you know that.  I don't think you know how good or not good some of those other teams are.  I certainly don't know.  And I'm glad that the selection criteria and the people that get tasked to apply that criteria fairly don't fall into the "strong league" trap.  Good teams play all over the place in all kinds of different leagues- not just the three or four that you favor. 

[wartknight]

I slightly differ on how I'd look at that UWSP-Wartburg result from 2008; I see a Pool C team that got the gift of a home game against an 8-2 team, not really one of the field's best teams, and lost.  That was as winnable of a game as a Pool C team is ever going to get (save for a matchup with a UMAC/NACC champion or something, like Wisconsin Lutheran).  But that's just our perception of the games.

Gift or no gift, the most important point imo is that UWSP played a competitive game.  My entire goal for Pool C is to improve the overall competitiveness of the teams that get in.

I may be wrong, but wasn't USP the AQ in 2008 & UWW received a pool C bid losing to Mt in the Stagg? They both had 1 conf loss & USP won the head to head.

[Pat Coleman]

That is actually the case, yes.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I slightly differ on how I'd look at that UWSP-Wartburg result from 2008; I see a Pool C team that got the gift of a home game against an 8-2 team, not really one of the field's best teams, and lost.  That was as winnable of a game as a Pool C team is ever going to get (save for a matchup with a UMAC/NACC champion or something, like Wisconsin Lutheran).  But that's just our perception of the games.

Gift or no gift, the most important point imo is that UWSP played a competitive game.  My entire goal for Pool C is to improve the overall competitiveness of the teams that get in.

I may be wrong, but wasn't USP the AQ in 2008 & UWW received a pool C bid losing to Mt in the Stagg? They both had 1 conf loss & USP won the head to head.

Whoops!  Big boo-boo on my part.  Have it so ingrained in my head that UWW is #1 that I just assumed any other WIAC team was the Pool C.  You are correct.

[cubs]

It's also important that any Pool C entrants from the WIAC have success in the playoffs as well.

This, I think, is a really great point.  For all of the WIAC's internal competition (which has no doubt hampered them from getting more Pool C bids over the years), I have been surprised that the two Pool C bids that the WIAC did get recently (2013 Platteville and 2008 Stevens Point) did not really distinguish themselves in the playoffs.  Other leagues aren't really sending Pool C teams too deep, either, but I think the perception that the WIAC really has two or three top-15 level programs would have stronger legs if the league had a season with a Pool C entrant or two making a playoff run.

So the WIAC has gotten three Pool C bids in the last ten yars, and in two of the three instances the WIAC team won their first game and in one of the three the WIAC advanced to the Stagg Bowl.  I would say that is a pretty good track record for Pool C bids from the WIAC.  Or no?

[wally_wabash]

It's also important that any Pool C entrants from the WIAC have success in the playoffs as well.

This, I think, is a really great point.  For all of the WIAC's internal competition (which has no doubt hampered them from getting more Pool C bids over the years), I have been surprised that the two Pool C bids that the WIAC did get recently (2013 Platteville and 2008 Stevens Point) did not really distinguish themselves in the playoffs.  Other leagues aren't really sending Pool C teams too deep, either, but I think the perception that the WIAC really has two or three top-15 level programs would have stronger legs if the league had a season with a Pool C entrant or two making a playoff run.

So the WIAC has gotten three Pool C bids in the last ten yars, and in two of the three instances the WIAC team won their first game and in one of the three the WIAC advanced to the Stagg Bowl.  I would say that is a pretty good track record for Pool C bids from the WIAC.  Or no?

I think if you cut the time frame in half, it's a relevant point.  Three bids over 10 years is pretty thin, IMO.