FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[retagent]

Matt Blanchard was signed to the Indianapolis Colts practice squad today.  That makes five different organizations that have signed him.  I really hope he gets a shot at the 53 man roster some day.  Obviously multiple organizations see something but will it be enough for him to finally get over the hump.  I wonder how many players have been on five different practice squads?  There can't be that many, can there?

Don't remember the exact details, but Kurt Warner did a bit of travelling - in lesser circles - and did pretty well later. I'm not saying Blanchard will follow in his footsteps, but, there's a chance.

[ExTartanPlayer]

wally's post there actually got to my next question about that list, and it's a serious one, not a ****-stirring one.  I do want to make sure I understand the proposal properly. 

Is that the list of teams who are considered viable candidates for Pool C in the "emma17 proposal" or is that a list of teams that someone has to have a good result against to be considered a candidate for a Pool C?  Can you punch your ticket (or at least put your name into the ring) if you have a good result against a team on that list in 2014-2015?

[emma17]

wally's post there actually got to my next question about that list, and it's a serious one, not a ****-stirring one.  I do want to make sure I understand the proposal properly. 

Is that the list of teams who are considered viable candidates for Pool C in the "emma17 proposal" or is that a list of teams that someone has to have a good result against to be considered a candidate for a Pool C?  Can you punch your ticket (or at least put your name into the ring) if you have a good result against a team on that list in 2014-2015?

Thanks for seeking clarification before forming an opinion, it's incredibly refreshing especially as it relates to this subject.
First, I'm not suggesting I've devised the perfect plan, I'm simply offering a concept that could possibly be built upon. 
The process would work along the following lines:
-The regional rankings system is scrapped for Pool C.
-Prior to the end of the season the committee begins to look into teams that are likely to not win their conference but would be Pool C candidates, which means they look at current year records.
-Once the regular season is over, they develop a national ranking of their view of the strongest teams not eligible for AQ.  This list must be published and there should be commentary available.
-The committee's goal for the 6 Pool C slots is to find the 6 teams most likely to raise the level of competition in the playoffs (this has multiple benefits, including encouraging teams to schedule tough non conf games as they won't be penalized).
-It would be best if the current year results were enough to convince the committee of the 6 best teams, however, that's highly unlikely.
-The committee will then look for proof of competitiveness in the current year and two prior years, based either on head to head results with teams I previously listed, or with "common opponent" comparisons.  Yes, this isn't the best solution, but it's not as bad as the current SOS model.
-Example, taking teams from Wally's list.  Let's assume Cal Lutheran goes 9-1 but doesn't win conference.  Let's assume Salisbury loses a competitive game to Wesley this year, and they finish 8-2, not winning conference.  Cal Lutheran at 9-1 with a close loss to Redlands seems like a Pool C candidate.  However, Redlands was beat badly by Linfield this year, and Linfield is a Level A team.  Salisbury on the other hand, with 2 good losses (they lost 24-23 to currently undefeated Albright), with one loss to a Level A team, would be a better Pool C candidate and as such, should be ranked ahead of Cal Lutheran in the Pool C national rankings.     

Thus, the list I provided isn't the list of 2015 eligible Pool C candidates.  It's a list of teams that have proven in the very recent past to be highly competitive with other highly competitive teams.  The 2015 Pool C candidates should be measured against each other based upon their performance against the proven teams.

Lastly, for those that think this somehow prevents other conferences or regions from Pool C participation, that is simply not true.  Every team that gets in through the AQ has a chance to establish credibility.  For those feeling sorry for the MIAA, don't.  The conference champion lost 63-3 to Mt Union in the first round last year.  In 2013, the conference champion lost to NCC 63-7 in the first round.  in 2012 the conference champion lost 42-10 to Franklin and in 2011 the conference champion lost 59-0 to UWW.  For the MIAA to have Pool C credibility, their conference champion must perform better against the level A and level B teams. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

First, I'm not suggesting I've devised the perfect plan, I'm simply offering a concept that could possibly be built upon. 

And that's fine.  Despite our past jousting, I am willing to put my sword away and try to refine it with you.

Thus, the list I provided isn't the list of 2015 eligible Pool C candidates.  It's a list of teams that have proven in the very recent past to be highly competitive with other highly competitive teams.  The 2015 Pool C candidates should be measured against each other based upon their performance against the proven teams.

Useful clarification, thank you.

Lastly, for those that think this somehow prevents other conferences or regions from Pool C participation, that is simply not true.  Every team that gets in through the AQ has a chance to establish credibility.  For those feeling sorry for the MIAA, don't.  The conference champion lost 63-3 to Mt Union in the first round last year.  In 2013, the conference champion lost to NCC 63-7 in the first round.  in 2012 the conference champion lost 42-10 to Franklin and in 2011 the conference champion lost 59-0 to UWW.  For the MIAA to have Pool C credibility, their conference champion must perform better against the level A and level B teams.

And here is a key point where I want to give you some credit.  You've stayed pretty on-message throughout this entire process that you're only talking about Pool C slots, not the AQ's.  Others have at various points talked about taking away AQ's, which I think is a dangerous path to go down because then we won't always know when a league perceived as lower-tier produces a really good team or two.  By keeping the AQ, you ensure that the league gets a chance to prove itself.  That was partly where I was trying to go with the idea that I floated somewhere about only granting Pool C bids to leagues that had a playoff win (any playoff win, not a Pool C win) in the past X years, although Bombers pointed out that there were some holes in that idea - teams changing leagues, etc.  But as long as everyone has AQ access, then ultimately there is always a chance for a really good team to prove itself.

[wally_wabash]

-The committee will then look for proof of competitiveness in the current year and two prior years, based either on head to head results with teams I previously listed, or with "common opponent" comparisons.  Yes, this isn't the best solution, but it's not as bad as the current SOS model.

This SOS model stinks for sure, but this stinks in a different way.  Why would we give credit to a 2015 team for games that were played in 2013?  That's not fair.  Or let's look at it from the other side of the coin- why would we penalize 2015 teams that maybe weren't as good in 2013?  What you're doing here is preventing teams from proving that they've made a jump.  You're protecting the establishment with this moving average of competitiveness.   And I know you don't think that's what you're doing, but that's what you're doing.  For example, in your world, the MIAA runner up just cannot be considered for an at-large bid because their teams have been wasted by Mount Union and Whitewater in the past.  But the thing is that in 2015, that MIAA runner up might be pretty good.  We'd never know in your world because one time Adrian lost to Franklin.  We might not know in this world either, but I hope we at least consider Albion/Olivet on what their teams have done in 2015 alone. 

And there's this lingering issue around your phrases "raise the level of competition" and "proof of competitiveness".  These terms are the means to your end, but they are wholly undefined.  How do we determine any of this in a way that is consistent and fair?  In most of your examples the application of the logic changes to fit the desired outcome.  MIAA teams can't be considered good because they've been destroyed by Mount Union and Whitewater.  Wesley though- mulligan.  You gave a list of teams of that are the teams that other teams have to play well against to get at-large consideration.  I yanked 78 teams out of Division III that have "proof of competitiveness" versus your list of elites.  So I don't think your method, if we apply your criteria fairly amongst all teams, does a good job of identifying the "most competitive" teams, whatever that means.  You've got to do a better job of defining what it is you mean by "raise the level of competition" and "proof of competitiveness".  I understand the idea, but you're still not putting forth a set of criteria that goes much beyond eye tests and reputation (which lets us easily dismiss things like losing, which we shouldn't be doing).  It needs more definition. 

[emma17]

-The committee will then look for proof of competitiveness in the current year and two prior years, based either on head to head results with teams I previously listed, or with "common opponent" comparisons.  Yes, this isn't the best solution, but it's not as bad as the current SOS model.

This SOS model stinks for sure, but this stinks in a different way.  Why would we give credit to a 2015 team for games that were played in 2013?  That's not fair.  Or let's look at it from the other side of the coin- why would we penalize 2015 teams that maybe weren't as good in 2013?  What you're doing here is preventing teams from proving that they've made a jump.  You're protecting the establishment with this moving average of competitiveness.   And I know you don't think that's what you're doing, but that's what you're doing.  For example, in your world, the MIAA runner up just cannot be considered for an at-large bid because their teams have been wasted by Mount Union and Whitewater in the past.  But the thing is that in 2015, that MIAA runner up might be pretty good.  We'd never know in your world because one time Adrian lost to Franklin.  We might not know in this world either, but I hope we at least consider Albion/Olivet on what their teams have done in 2015 alone. 

And there's this lingering issue around your phrases "raise the level of competition" and "proof of competitiveness".  These terms are the means to your end, but they are wholly undefined.  How do we determine any of this in a way that is consistent and fair?  In most of your examples the application of the logic changes to fit the desired outcome.  MIAA teams can't be considered good because they've been destroyed by Mount Union and Whitewater.  Wesley though- mulligan.  You gave a list of teams of that are the teams that other teams have to play well against to get at-large consideration.  I yanked 78 teams out of Division III that have "proof of competitiveness" versus your list of elites.  So I don't think your method, if we apply your criteria fairly amongst all teams, does a good job of identifying the "most competitive" teams, whatever that means.  You've got to do a better job of defining what it is you mean by "raise the level of competition" and "proof of competitiveness".  I understand the idea, but you're still not putting forth a set of criteria that goes much beyond eye tests and reputation (which lets us easily dismiss things like losing, which we shouldn't be doing).  It needs more definition.

Instead of your endless dissertations on why something like what I presented won't work, how about offering a suggestion?

Also, if you want to do a test run, give me a small number of teams to review as Pool C candidates and I'll be glad to take a shot w explanations as to how I would rank them.

[emma17]

Wally
One more point.
Advancement is all about proving yourself worthy.
You mention the MIAA losses to UWW and Mt and conveniently omit their losses to Franklin and NCC- this is a never ending pattern of yours.
The MIAA, through the AQ, has an equal chance to prove themselves. As a conference they have failed. Does that possibly hurt a 2015 MIAA team for Pool C?  Sure it does. There are consequences. There are rewards. Life works that way.
When I prove myself this year in certain tasks, the boss trusts me w more next year.

[jknezek]

When I prove myself this year in certain tasks, the boss trusts me w more next year.

The problem with this analogy is that you are essentially the same person year to year. A college football team is not. Last year's team is not this year's team, but last year's Emma is this year's Emma. That's why a lot of us resist history as a future determinant.

Wartburg last year is not Wartburg this year. W&L at 2-8 last year, is not W&L at 6-0 so far this year. These changes matter.

[wally_wabash]

Instead of your endless dissertations on why something like what I presented won't work, how about offering a suggestion?

First, I would close the book on the previous season and any season that happened prior to the current one.  This point is a lynchpin of your "better" way to do this and I find it the most offensive point.  I'll echo exactly what jk said on this as he hit the nail on the head there. 

Next, I think a major problem with the current selection process is a lack of useable information.  There is useful information out there, but the committees aren't allowed to use it.  To that end, I would do the following:
- re-instate the "once ranked, always ranked" provision when determining which teams count as regionally ranked opposition
- add one more week of rankings: published after weeks 8, 9, and 10.  Then the secret ranking after week 11, which I would like to see not be secret, but that isn't critical.  The main point is that we do a better job of giving credit to teams that won important games against good teams. 
- split the RRO criteria as follows: make "wins vs. RROs" a primary criteria and "results vs. RROs" a secondary criteria.  I want to know who you beat.  I know your team can lose, that's why you're in the at-large lane to begin with.  I want to know who you beat. 
- Give credit to teams who have won a game against a team that is already qualified for the field.  Did you beat a conference champion this year?  If so, that needs to count for something. 
- I think we're mainly doing this already, but make sure to count all of the games, not just regional games for records and SOS purposes.  Also count games vs. provisional teams or reclassifying teams.  We really shouldn't be throwing any divisional information out. 

So that's some criteria changes that I think would be really useful.  As far as the selection process itself goes, I would take the regional rankings, scrub them of the AQs and their regional ranking enumeration and place the Pool B eligible teams on a list to be voted on/ranked by the national selection committee.  Committee votes, selects the Pool B team and moves on to Pool C. 

Similarly, from all of the regional rankings, list the teams and their criteria all in one big pot (ranking enumeration redacted) and vote/rank them based on the criteria and without being tethered to one team from one region at a time.

So for instance, if we look at last year (and I'm using the final mock selection here) we would take the regional rankings and get rid of the Pool As.  Then we'd take out the Pool B teams- any Pool B eligible team that is in the rankings:
Chicago
Wesley
TLU
Centre
Rhodes

Now the selection committee looks at all of those teams, compares and debates the criteria, and orders them 1-5.  Top vote getter gets Pool B #1.  Repeat the process with the remaining four teams to get the second Pool B.  Toss the leftovers here into Pool C. 

Now we do the same with the Pool C eligible teams that are listed in the rankings:
Delaware Valley
SJF
St. Lawrence
John Carroll
Wabash
Heidelberg
Muhlenberg
Thomas More
Louisiana College
UW-Oshkosh
Bethel
St. Thomas
Redlands
UW-Platteville
plus the leftover Pool Bs

Now, the committee debates and discusses and ranks these teams.  You might have to pare this down some and first rank a top 10, then re-rank those 10 to get a top 6-7, then vote on those top 6-7 through the same kind of iterative process that we use currently, but instead of adding a team from a certain region, you'd just add in the next team on the top 10 that was made initially.   I hope I'm explaining that properly.  I think the process alleviates some of the regional queuing pressure that I think a lot of people aren't comfortable with (self included, despite the kinds of interesting drama that can crop up during the selection process).  It also gives the national committee the ability to fairly review all of the eligible teams without undermining the work the RACs do.  Win-win I think. 

[d-train]

Others have at various points talked about taking away AQ's, which I think is a dangerous path to go down because then we won't always know when a league perceived as lower-tier produces a really good team or two.  By keeping the AQ, you ensure that the league gets a chance to prove itself. 

I've mostly stayed out of this conversation. But I'd personally support a small change to the AQ's. If an AQ conference champion has 3 or 4 D-3 losses - that bid converts to an at-large for that year.  The champion joins the pool of teams eligible for that bid, but it essentially becomes an extra Pool C and they'd have to compare favorably to possible 9-1/8-2 teams. 

There probably wouldn't be support for that at the 3-loss level...and the 4-loss scenario is quite rare (only a team/bid every 4 years or so)...but still.  Example: Benedictine made the field last year with a 6-4 record.  Congrats on winning your conference, but I think we've seen what you can do against D-3 competition overall.  There were solid 8-2 candidates for an 'extra' Pool C bid.     

[wally_wabash]

Others have at various points talked about taking away AQ's, which I think is a dangerous path to go down because then we won't always know when a league perceived as lower-tier produces a really good team or two.  By keeping the AQ, you ensure that the league gets a chance to prove itself. 

I've mostly stayed out of this conversation. But I'd personally support a small change to the AQ's. If an AQ conference champion has 3 or 4 D-3 losses - that bid converts to an at-large for that year.  The champion joins the pool of teams eligible for that bid, but it essentially becomes an extra Pool C and they'd have to compare favorably to possible 9-1/8-2 teams. 

There probably wouldn't be support for that at the 3-loss level...and the 4-loss scenario is quite rare (only a team/bid every 4 years or so)...but still.   

Interesting.  Here's a thing that could happen.  Wheaton, North Central, and Illinois Wesleyan could all beat one another and wind up tied for the league lead at 6-1.  They do a funky point differential thing in the CCIW to break this tie and North Central might well win that.  But they'd have 3 losses at that point.  So would you be in favor of taking that bid away from the CCIW? 

[Pat Coleman]

In this hypothetical of a hypothetical, surely the CCIW would not award its AQ to someone essentially ineligible to receive it.

[wally_wabash]

You're probably right, but holy cow, North Central would probably be mighty salty about winning that league and having the league give the auto bid to IWU, who they would have beaten h2h.  That's going to be a hard bylaw to pass...both in the CCIW (or any league) and by the NCAA D3 football folks.  Can't imagine any presidents or ADs are in a big rush to forfeit their tournament access.  Outside of the NESCAC, obviously. 

[d-train]

Yes, I understand that could happen.  And yes, I'd (personally) be in favor of having NCC evaluated (via the criteria) along side other at-large hopefuls in that scenario.  They'd probably be just fine in the regional rankings and other things compared to 8-2 teams with weaker schedules.  But they might stay home at 7-3 if the field is full of solid 9-1 at-large teams (including their co-champions).  Maybe conference championship becomes a primary criteria so that they'd win any otherwise close comparisons for an at-large?  I don't know.   

I understand that there would be more support for this concept at the 4-loss (or 3 out of 9) level.  And I wouldn't be surprised if it changed the tie-breaker used in some conferences.  I don't like that it would serve as a disincentive to schedule multiple tough out-of-conference games.   

Last year, this would have given you Framingham State (9-1) or North Central (8-2) instead of Benedictine (6-4).  Fair?  Worth it?  Again, I don't know for sure - but I have my opinion.

[retagent]

The one thing in emma's proposal that many seem to have a problem with is the historical angle. I don't believe this year's team is last year's team etc, but there are PROGRAMS that have a history of producing quality teams over the years. ( emma now feels that UWW is in this group, but 10 years ago or previous, I doubt that he would make this argument ;-) ) I do believe that history should be at least a minor consideration. There are teams that are considered elite, just because they are from a certain school. I'll use Linfield as an example. UMU is also in that group. This should be a tie breaker type of factor. Things change from year to year, but I think some teams must be considered until it's proven that they no longer belong. Just as a team usually has to prove they are worthy, if the history has shown otherwise. I do believe that, again, using UWW as an example, they had to prove themselves before they got their due respect. Now they have to prove they are not worthy - at least to me.