FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[emma17]

Ex,
Thanks for providing the data on the recent Pool C teams.  If allowed, I'd like a mulligan on what I posted yesterday.  I was running out to my daughter's volleyball game and rushed the post.

I think there is a history of too many Pool C teams getting into the tourney with little evidence that they can compete with the better teams, and as such, they don't add competitive value, which means they don't increase the chances that a higher ranked team could get knocked off, which means it's more likely we get UWW vs UMU for so many years.  When deciding if a potential Pool C team would "raise the bar", we have to dig deeper than W's and L's and SOS, and look for evidence that the team can compete with the best teams.  The evidence should be from current and recent (last 3 years I reckon is good, maybe last 2 years).  I should not have limited "getting smoked" to the first round.  Getting smoked applies to the Pool C team and to any team the Pool C team loses to.  It's not good to have a "got smoked" result in your tree of evidence.         

Specifics:
Muhl.: Sure, they played competitively vs. Widener, but Widener's pedigree (I know some hate that term, I'm open for suggestions) isn't impressive.  Widener went on to beat CNP and then got shellacked by Linfield.  It's possible my memory isn't completely accurate, but I don't recall any of these teams playing well against a top team, and as such, they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. I just checked on Widener, in 2012 they got beat in the second round by Mt Union, 72-17.  Yes, 2012 may be too far back, but it gives some perspective.   

Centre: Never, ever, ever should have been a Pool C team.  They were the obvious choice for Pool B, which would have forced TLU into Pool C.  As much as Centre wasn't going to raise the bar, an undefeated team can't be left out.  We now have evidence to rely upon should Centre be in the Pool C running.

Regarding IWU, I think I posted a while back that they are not a team with obvious pedigree.  I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have been a Pool C team in 2013- it depends who the other candidates were.  If they were as likely to raise the bar as others in contention, then we just live with the fact that sometimes blowouts will happen.

Lastly, regarding UWSP losing at Wartburg.  Granted, Wartburg wasn't a "power" at that time, but they also didn't go on to get shellacked by one of the better teams.  Compare Muhl and CNP losing to Widener only to have Widener go on to get beaten badly by Linfield; to UWSP and Monmouth (I believe that was Alex Tanney) losing to Wartburg, who went on to lose to UWW 34-17. Oh, and UWSP beat UWW in the regular season that year.

There is evidence we can look to beyond the current year's record and SOS to inform the decision on the 6 Pool C slots.  I know D3 is big into Regional competition, but for the 6 spots available for Pool C for a National Championship tournament, I think the regional ranking gets in the way of having the most competitive tournament possible.


 

[wally_wabash]

I should not have limited "getting smoked" to the first round.  Getting smoked applies to the Pool C team and to any team the Pool C team loses to.  It's not good to have a "got smoked" result in your tree of evidence.         

Specifics:
Muhl.: Sure, they played competitively vs. Widener, but Widener's pedigree (I know some hate that term, I'm open for suggestions) isn't impressive.  Widener went on to beat CNP and then got shellacked by Linfield.  It's possible my memory isn't completely accurate, but I don't recall any of these teams playing well against a top team, and as such, they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. I just checked on Widener, in 2012 they got beat in the second round by Mt Union, 72-17.  Yes, 2012 may be too far back, but it gives some perspective.   

Regarding IWU, I think I posted a while back that they are not a team with obvious pedigree.  I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have been a Pool C team in 2013- it depends who the other candidates were.  If they were as likely to raise the bar as others in contention, then we just live with the fact that sometimes blowouts will happen.

Lastly, regarding UWSP losing at Wartburg.  Granted, Wartburg wasn't a "power" at that time, but they also didn't go on to get shellacked by one of the better teams.  Compare Muhl and CNP losing to Widener only to have Widener go on to get beaten badly by Linfield; to UWSP and Monmouth (I believe that was Alex Tanney) losing to Wartburg, who went on to lose to UWW 34-17. Oh, and UWSP beat UWW in the regular season that year.

Why is it that for some teams who "get smoked" we should ban them and their entire conference from at-large consideration forever, but then for others who suffer the same fate "we just live with the fact that sometimes blowouts will happen"? 

It's just one of those games.  It's Alex Tanney.  There's ALWAYS an out for you excuse the losses for the teams you like while at the same time burying the teams you don't. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I think there is a history of too many Pool C teams getting into the tourney with little evidence that they can compete with the better teams, and as such, they don't add competitive value, which means they don't increase the chances that a higher ranked team could get knocked off, which means it's more likely we get UWW vs UMU for so many years.  When deciding if a potential Pool C team would "raise the bar", we have to dig deeper than W's and L's and SOS, and look for evidence that the team can compete with the best teams.  The evidence should be from current and recent (last 3 years I reckon is good, maybe last 2 years).  I should not have limited "getting smoked" to the first round.  Getting smoked applies to the Pool C team and to any team the Pool C team loses to.  It's not good to have a "got smoked" result in your tree of evidence.         

I don't like the idea that getting smoked "anywhere along the way" in the playoffs disqualifies a Pool B/C team from "adding competitive value" to the playoffs.

Wesley was smoked very, very, very, very badly last year by Mount Union (56-0 at halftime).  If Wesley loses to Rowan this year and falls into the C pool, does that get considered?

Trickling further down, since Wesley got smoked by Mount Union last year, does that mean North Central still gets points for playing a good game against Wesley this year?  Or with Wesley's apparent non-competitiveness against the nation's top teams, does that loss no longer give them the golden star?

[ExTartanPlayer]

I guess I just don't understand why Widener getting smoked by Linfield counts against Widener (and by proxy, Muhlenberg, the Pool C selection that lost to Widener) as evidence that Pool C selection of Muhlenberg did not add competitive value...but then North Central's close game against Wesley is supposed to count as a positive point for their Pool C case, even though Wesley was smoked even worse by Mount Union than Widener was by Linfield.

[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?

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

My point was that when a WIAC team actually gets a Pool C, they have some postseason success.  Often times however they are "left at the table" like Oshkosh was last year, despite the WIAC having moderate success when given a Pool C bid in the past.

[emma17]

I should not have limited "getting smoked" to the first round.  Getting smoked applies to the Pool C team and to any team the Pool C team loses to.  It's not good to have a "got smoked" result in your tree of evidence.         

Specifics:
Muhl.: Sure, they played competitively vs. Widener, but Widener's pedigree (I know some hate that term, I'm open for suggestions) isn't impressive.  Widener went on to beat CNP and then got shellacked by Linfield.  It's possible my memory isn't completely accurate, but I don't recall any of these teams playing well against a top team, and as such, they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. I just checked on Widener, in 2012 they got beat in the second round by Mt Union, 72-17.  Yes, 2012 may be too far back, but it gives some perspective.   

Regarding IWU, I think I posted a while back that they are not a team with obvious pedigree.  I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have been a Pool C team in 2013- it depends who the other candidates were.  If they were as likely to raise the bar as others in contention, then we just live with the fact that sometimes blowouts will happen.

Lastly, regarding UWSP losing at Wartburg.  Granted, Wartburg wasn't a "power" at that time, but they also didn't go on to get shellacked by one of the better teams.  Compare Muhl and CNP losing to Widener only to have Widener go on to get beaten badly by Linfield; to UWSP and Monmouth (I believe that was Alex Tanney) losing to Wartburg, who went on to lose to UWW 34-17. Oh, and UWSP beat UWW in the regular season that year.

Why is it that for some teams who "get smoked" we should ban them and their entire conference from at-large consideration forever, but then for others who suffer the same fate "we just live with the fact that sometimes blowouts will happen"? 

It's just one of those games.  It's Alex Tanney.  There's ALWAYS an out for you excuse the losses for the teams you like while at the same time burying the teams you don't.

Life on these boards would be more peaceful for me if you didn't twist ideas and exaggerate.
Who got smoked that I gave a pass to?  UWSP?  I'm completely befuddled by this made up contention.

[wally_wabash]

IWU, genius.  You wrote it, I quoted it, you requoted it. 

[emma17]

I guess I just don't understand why Widener getting smoked by Linfield counts against Widener (and by proxy, Muhlenberg, the Pool C selection that lost to Widener) as evidence that Pool C selection of Muhlenberg did not add competitive value...but then North Central's close game against Wesley is supposed to count as a positive point for their Pool C case, even though Wesley was smoked even worse by Mount Union than Widener was by Linfield.

First, no system will be perfect right?
Second, the current system fails to get the best teams in Pool C. It gets some/many right.
Third, Widener and the others have a history of getting beat badly against the better teams.
Fourth, the Wesley demolishment by Mt last year throws a wrench into every single analysis of strength, not just mine. Nobody knows how to handle that, including me.
Fifth- I don't think it's that difficult for you to look into the histories of Muhl, Del Val, Widener, CNP and others and reach the same conclusion I have. When given the chance to show they can compete w the recognized better teams in the country, they fail to do so.

[emma17]

IWU, genius.  You wrote it, I quoted it, you requoted it.

So you read my post about IWU as giving them a pass?
I thought I posted they are Not a team w obvious pedigree- no?
I actually think I raised a question about their Pool C worthiness.

Sorry but I'm just not understanding your point.

[WarhawkDad]

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.

Not sure I agree.   Batting .333 in the MLB earns you millions  and in all honesty how often does a Conference even get a pool C, let alone advance.  When you consider both probabilities I think it certainly supports the overall conference strength of the WIAC.

[WarhawkDad]

I should not have limited "getting smoked" to the first round.  Getting smoked applies to the Pool C team and to any team the Pool C team loses to.  It's not good to have a "got smoked" result in your tree of evidence.         

Specifics:
Muhl.: Sure, they played competitively vs. Widener, but Widener's pedigree (I know some hate that term, I'm open for suggestions) isn't impressive.  Widener went on to beat CNP and then got shellacked by Linfield.  It's possible my memory isn't completely accurate, but I don't recall any of these teams playing well against a top team, and as such, they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. I just checked on Widener, in 2012 they got beat in the second round by Mt Union, 72-17.  Yes, 2012 may be too far back, but it gives some perspective.   

Regarding IWU, I think I posted a while back that they are not a team with obvious pedigree.  I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have been a Pool C team in 2013- it depends who the other candidates were.  If they were as likely to raise the bar as others in contention, then we just live with the fact that sometimes blowouts will happen.

Lastly, regarding UWSP losing at Wartburg.  Granted, Wartburg wasn't a "power" at that time, but they also didn't go on to get shellacked by one of the better teams.  Compare Muhl and CNP losing to Widener only to have Widener go on to get beaten badly by Linfield; to UWSP and Monmouth (I believe that was Alex Tanney) losing to Wartburg, who went on to lose to UWW 34-17. Oh, and UWSP beat UWW in the regular season that year.

Why is it that for some teams who "get smoked" we should ban them and their entire conference from at-large consideration forever, but then for others who suffer the same fate "we just live with the fact that sometimes blowouts will happen"? 

It's just one of those games.  It's Alex Tanney.  There's ALWAYS an out for you excuse the losses for the teams you like while at the same time burying the teams you don't.

Wally, you can see Emma's post through whatever color glasses you want......but the overall point is that conferences and teams do have a track record and those track records, if close enough to the current year can help/allow a person to deduce the likelihood of an outcome.   And sometimes a superior talent, like an Alex Tanney can alter those outcomes.   

Emma and I will discuss this in greater detail this later afternoon/evening while tailgating................     

WHD

[ExTartanPlayer]

I guess I just don't understand why Widener getting smoked by Linfield counts against Widener (and by proxy, Muhlenberg, the Pool C selection that lost to Widener) as evidence that Pool C selection of Muhlenberg did not add competitive value...but then North Central's close game against Wesley is supposed to count as a positive point for their Pool C case, even though Wesley was smoked even worse by Mount Union than Widener was by Linfield.

First, no system will be perfect right?
Second, the current system fails to get the best teams in Pool C. It gets some/many right.
Third, Widener and the others have a history of getting beat badly against the better teams.
Fourth, the Wesley demolishment by Mt last year throws a wrench into every single analysis of strength, not just mine. Nobody knows how to handle that, including me.
Fifth- I don't think it's that difficult for you to look into the histories of Muhl, Del Val, Widener, CNP and others and reach the same conclusion I have.

But this is exactly the problem.  You're just cherry-picking which games count in that "history of getting beat badly against the better teams" and which don't.

Widener gets blasted by Linfield, and you conclude that it's evidence that Widener can't play with the big boys.  Ipso facto, teams that lost to Widener were bad Pool C choices because they could not compete against the nation's best teams.

Wesley gets blasted by Mount and you just say "Oh, we don't know how to handle that" - so you just ignore it.  Wesley has also been blown out, over the years, by both UMHB and UWW (in some cases really, really badly).

This isn't meant to disparage the Wesley program at all.  Hell, I was part of a team that got smoked by them in the playoffs!  It's just to make the point that you selectively apply your criteria to the teams you perceive as strong, and discard the results that don't jibe with your story.  Linfield beats Widener 45-7, and it's time to kick the East region entirely out of Pool C.  Mount takes a 56-0 lead into halftime against Wesley, and yet the next year North Central is supposed to get Pool C bonus points for playing a barnburner against Wesley.

[emma17]

Wally,
You are a great contributor to D3.  I enjoy many of your posts and actually learn from some of your insight.
When we are on different sides of a topic, I simply ask that we discuss the issues without resorting to sensationalism. 
The comment you make below in no way represents my point of view, and yet you inject it into the discussion- why?   
"Why is it that for some teams who "get smoked" we should ban them and their entire conference from at-large consideration forever,"

I'm not arguing for conferences or favorite teams.  I'm not in support of life time bans for teams and conferences.  I'm arguing for the teams, no matter who they are and what conference they reside in, that demonstrated the ability to compete with the best teams to be given the Pool C bids.     

[badgerwarhawk]

Don't complain emma he called you a "genius."   

The series record of the WARHAWKS and LaCrosse is tied 32-32.   

[emma17]

I guess I just don't understand why Widener getting smoked by Linfield counts against Widener (and by proxy, Muhlenberg, the Pool C selection that lost to Widener) as evidence that Pool C selection of Muhlenberg did not add competitive value...but then North Central's close game against Wesley is supposed to count as a positive point for their Pool C case, even though Wesley was smoked even worse by Mount Union than Widener was by Linfield.

First, no system will be perfect right?
Second, the current system fails to get the best teams in Pool C. It gets some/many right.
Third, Widener and the others have a history of getting beat badly against the better teams.
Fourth, the Wesley demolishment by Mt last year throws a wrench into every single analysis of strength, not just mine. Nobody knows how to handle that, including me.
Fifth- I don't think it's that difficult for you to look into the histories of Muhl, Del Val, Widener, CNP and others and reach the same conclusion I have.

But this is exactly the problem.  You're just cherry-picking which games count in that "history of getting beat badly against the better teams" and which don't.

Widener gets blasted by Linfield, and you conclude that it's evidence that Widener can't play with the big boys.  Ipso facto, teams that lost to Widener were bad Pool C choices because they could not compete against the nation's best teams.

Wesley gets blasted by Mount and you just say "Oh, we don't know how to handle that" - so you just ignore it.  Wesley has also been blown out, over the years, by both UMHB and UWW (in some cases really, really badly).

This isn't meant to disparage the Wesley program at all.  Hell, I was part of a team that got smoked by them in the playoffs!  It's just to make the point that you selectively apply your criteria to the teams you perceive as strong, and discard the results that don't jibe with your story.  Linfield beats Widener 45-7, and it's time to kick the East region entirely out of Pool C.  Mount takes a 56-0 lead into halftime against Wesley, and yet the next year North Central is supposed to get Pool C bonus points for playing a barnburner against Wesley.

Ex, I'll say the same thing to you as I did Wally.  You and I can disagree on the concept, but just stick to the facts.  You sensationalize when you claim that I say "t's time to kick the East region entirely out of Pool C." 
I didn't say we would just ignore the Wesley loss did I?  Again, you're sensationalizing.     

I'm simply acknowledging that the Wesley loss makes all comparisons difficult because none of us, that includes you, and Wally and Pat and the selection committee, know exactly how to think of that loss.  That's not the same as saying I will ignore them, is it?

As for comparing Widener, I ask you to show me a game where they played a recognized nationally strong team and performed well. 
It's not as difficult as you're trying to make it.  Despite the ridiculous loss by Wesley last year, at least they have significant recent history of performing well against recognized strong teams.  We can balance their blow out to Mt with their strong games with UMHB and (didn't they play Linfield- I don't recall exactly?) their victories over all the other teams they play in early playoff rounds.