FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

It is bad enough that conferences get AQs.  Pool C's should be reserved for teams that have been very good that year AND come from historically good conferences.  They have earned that respect.

This is where we differ. I disagree. Games versus RROs helps separate the wheat from the chaff. A UMAC team that goes 9-1 is likely to be, at best, 0-1 versus an RRO. A 9-1 MIAC team, at worst, is going to be 1-1. That difference should, and does in the current system, put the MIAC team ahead of the UMAC team. We can account, in the current year, pretty well for who played a hard schedule and who didn't.

That is why SJF, who was judged to have had a hard schedule in 2013, made the playoffs at 8-2 over a 9-1 Wabash squad deemed to have played a softer schedule.

Current year metrics, while not perfect, already help. What they don't, and shouldn't do, is reward last year or last decade, this year. That just perpetuates and elite that may or may not exist in the current year.

[wally_wabash]

"Earned Access" +1k

If I am reading Wally and others correctly they argue that we need to award Pool C bids based purely on results from this year.  We shouldn't take into consideration results from prior years as those were just that.. prior years.

Yes!  I think we just had a breakthrough, WWW.   

All 9-1 and 8-2 teams should be viewed the same no matter who they played.

Uh oh...inflection point.

A 9-1 Wittenberg should be viewed just the same as a 9-1 St Johns or UWP even though both St Johns and UWP played a much more difficult schedule (I know.. I know... data bias and all the fancy terms for getting around rankings... )

No, that's not what I'm saying.  9-1 Wittenberg should not be viewed the same as 9-1 St. John's or 9-1 UWP.  They should be evaluated alongside one another and let the profiles painted by the 10 games they each played tell the story.  Who's got RRO wins?  Who's got a stronger SOS?  Are there common opponents to look at?   They're not all the same.  But Wittenberg doesn't deserve to be tossed out simply because we might think the MIAC is better than the NCAC or because one time a couple of years ago the NCAC champion (who may or may not have been Wittenberg) got beat by a lot by a national champion.  That's silly. 

At some point score differentials in playoff results have to factor into how we view relative strengths of conferences.  If the UMAC keeps getting beat by wide margins in games against the MIAC then at some point we have to be able to say that the MIAC is a much tougher conference than the UMAC.  Especially if the UMAC champion is rolling thru their conference.

Dude, we do this already.  Once or twice a year. 

A 9-1 UMAC 2nd place team wouldn't deserve a Pool C bid over an 8-2 MIAC team that lost to the conference champion and a tough non-conference opponent.  But from what it sounds like many of you want to argue that they would....

I don't think anybody at any time has said this or even implied it.  And this isn't even a hypothetical.  This happened.  In 2013, Greenville went 9-1 and they were never, ever, ever in play for an at large bid.  Not even close.  And to further the point, a two-loss team did get in via Pool C that year (SJF).  If I remember correctly, I think there was a MIAC team on the board there at the end (St. Thomas, I think), but they were left out at 8-2. 

It is bad enough that conferences get AQs.  Pool C's should be reserved for teams that have been very good that year AND come from historically good conferences.  They have earned that respect.

Those conferences have all the respect in the world.  They've earned it.  But for access to the 32, let's go ahead and look at what happened in the current season and maybe be open minded to the idea that a good team or two might exist elsewhere and might be ready to build their own histories.  That's not to say that we just let in any ol' 9-1 team.  Evaluate with the criteria and choose.  And truthfully, what you're going to find more often than not is that those at-large bids are being delivered to the "power" leagues organically and without putting up official walls to teams from the UMAC or NACC or wherever else. 

[emma17]

Wally, Ex or Jk, (or anybody for that matter),
Would you be willing to share w the board the teams you would have selected for Pool C last year (2014)?  Wally listed them a few posts back- and include your Pool B choices too. Perhaps at the end of the day our results would be the same but our methods would differ. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

A 9-1 UMAC 2nd place team wouldn't deserve a Pool C bid over an 8-2 MIAC team that lost to the conference champion and a tough non-conference opponent.  But from what it sounds like many of you want to argue that they would....

I don't think anybody at any time has said this or even implied it.  And this isn't even a hypothetical.  This happened.  In 2013, Greenville went 9-1 and they were never, ever, ever in play for an at large bid.  Not even close.  And to further the point, a two-loss team did get in via Pool C that year (SJF).  If I remember correctly, I think there was a MIAC team on the board there at the end (St. Thomas, I think), but they were left out at 8-2. 

www, if your take-away from this discussion is that anyone is arguing that a 9-1 UMAC team should be selected over an 8-2 MIAC team, I don't think you're reading that closely.  No one has said that conference strength and quality of results should be left out of the discussion.  They are considered already; perhaps you've read about the regional rankings and SOS?  Have you even read the current selection criteria?

What has been debated is whether something like "close game in the last 2 years against a really good team" and/or "got blown out in last year's playoffs" should be taken into account.  And, as both jknezek and wally have said, in general the Pool C's have (mostly) not been blindly awarded to really weak 9-1 teams over 8-2 teams.  They might have occasionally gone to a Muhlenberg or a Delaware Valley, but those teams at least would play a competitive game against most of the playoff field, albeit not the tippy-top of the field, and when they have been in they've held up just fine in their first and second round games; I don't think the committee has let in a Pool C that got toasted in Round 1.  The current criteria are already taking care of at least that much.

As for the AQ's, please go re-read my last post on the page before this turned.  The AQ structure is exactly the thing that allows teams to schedule tough in non-league play; they still have a path to the tournament.  I don't know why this keeps getting ignored.

*Edited to add: I realize that most people in this discussion are not arguing vs. AQ's and staying on-message about the Pool C discussion.  I'm specifically addressing walla walla with his continued complaints about the AQ system.

[emma17]

A 9-1 UMAC 2nd place team wouldn't deserve a Pool C bid over an 8-2 MIAC team that lost to the conference champion and a tough non-conference opponent.  But from what it sounds like many of you want to argue that they would....

I don't think anybody at any time has said this or even implied it.  And this isn't even a hypothetical.  This happened.  In 2013, Greenville went 9-1 and they were never, ever, ever in play for an at large bid.  Not even close.  And to further the point, a two-loss team did get in via Pool C that year (SJF).  If I remember correctly, I think there was a MIAC team on the board there at the end (St. Thomas, I think), but they were left out at 8-2. 

www, if your take-away from this discussion is that anyone is arguing that a 9-1 UMAC team should be selected over an 8-2 MIAC team, I don't think you're reading that closely.  No one has said that conference strength and quality of results should be left out of the discussion.  They are considered already; perhaps you've read about the regional rankings and SOS?  Have you even read the current selection criteria?

What has been debated is whether something like "close game in the last 2 years against a really good team" and/or "got blown out in last year's playoffs" should be taken into account.  And, as both jknezek and wally have said, in general the Pool C's have (mostly) not been blindly awarded to really weak 9-1 teams over 8-2 teams. They might have occasionally gone to a Muhlenberg or a Delaware Valley, but those teams at least would play a competitive game against most of the playoff field, albeit not the tippy-top of the field, and when they have been in they've held up just fine in their first and second round games; I don't think the committee has let in a Pool C that got toasted in Round 1.  The current criteria are already taking care of at least that much.

As for the AQ's, please go re-read my last post on the page before this turned.  The AQ structure is exactly the thing that allows teams to schedule tough in non-league play; they still have a path to the tournament.  I don't know why this keeps getting ignored.

*Edited to add: I realize that most people in this discussion are not arguing vs. AQ's and staying on-message about the Pool C discussion.  I'm specifically addressing walla walla with his continued complaints about the AQ system.

The bolded is worth calling attention to.  You're exactly correct.  Even in the method I posted that includes prior history, the resulting difference in the teams selected for Pool C would only be 1-2 each year on average I suspect. 

[wally_wabash]

Wally, Ex or Jk, (or anybody for that matter),
Would you be willing to share w the board the teams you would have selected for Pool C last year (2014)?  Wally listed them a few posts back- and include your Pool B choices too. Perhaps at the end of the day our results would be the same but our methods would differ.

My picks are archived, with the added caveat that these selections were made by Pat, Frank Rossi, and myself mocking (no pun intended) the selection process complete with round by round voting.  We chose, in order:
Pool B: Wesley, TLU
Pool C: John Carroll, Centre, Wabash, Delaware Valley, Framingham State, North Central

During the process we had a tie in one round of voting, and the last two rounds were very close.  There wasn't a lot of consensus even amongst just the three of us.  You can imagine how those votes really spread out amongst 8 people. 

So where did we get it wrong?  St. Thomas and Muhlenberg went in instead of Framingham St. and North Central.  I think a big part of the discrepancy stems from differences in the final regional rankings, specifically, the West ranking St. Thomas ahead of Oshkosh and Bethel, which we didn't do.  St. Thomas was a really puzzling choice to me because they didn't have a stellar SOS and they didn't have any RRO wins, unless Concordia-Moorhead got ranked (which we didn't do) which would have also been weird, but possible I guess.  The West was REALLY hard to figure out with Oshkosh's record and Bethel's Augsburg loss in Week 11 creating all kinds of confusion.  I also wonder if Framingham didn't get jumped by SJF in the secret rankings which would have had some effect as well. 

Muhlenberg was on our board after Centre went in, but I don't recall that Muhlenberg was ever on the verge of breaking through into the field.  They had the kind of .500-ish, 9-1, 0-1 vs. RROs profile that the previous year's committee brushed away in favor of high SOS teams with a quality win.  That was really the big departure from 2013 to 2014. 

[emma17]

Wally, Ex or Jk, (or anybody for that matter),
Would you be willing to share w the board the teams you would have selected for Pool C last year (2014)?  Wally listed them a few posts back- and include your Pool B choices too. Perhaps at the end of the day our results would be the same but our methods would differ.

My picks are archived, with the added caveat that these selections were made by Pat, Frank Rossi, and myself mocking (no pun intended) the selection process complete with round by round voting.  We chose, in order:
Pool B: Wesley, TLU
Pool C: John Carroll, Centre, Wabash, Delaware Valley, Framingham State, North Central

During the process we had a tie in one round of voting, and the last two rounds were very close.  There wasn't a lot of consensus even amongst just the three of us.  You can imagine how those votes really spread out amongst 8 people. 

So where did we get it wrong? St. Thomas and Muhlenberg went in instead of Framingham St. and North Central.  I think a big part of the discrepancy stems from differences in the final regional rankings, specifically, the West ranking St. Thomas ahead of Oshkosh and Bethel, which we didn't do.  St. Thomas was a really puzzling choice to me because they didn't have a stellar SOS and they didn't have any RRO wins, unless Concordia-Moorhead got ranked (which we didn't do) which would have also been weird, but possible I guess.  The West was REALLY hard to figure out with Oshkosh's record and Bethel's Augsburg loss in Week 11 creating all kinds of confusion.  I also wonder if Framingham didn't get jumped by SJF in the secret rankings which would have had some effect as well. 

Muhlenberg was on our board after Centre went in, but I don't recall that Muhlenberg was ever on the verge of breaking through into the field.  They had the kind of .500-ish, 9-1, 0-1 vs. RROs profile that the previous year's committee brushed away in favor of high SOS teams with a quality win.  That was really the big departure from 2013 to 2014.

Wally, I think you are saying the teams you picked above are those you would have selected based upon the Pool C selection criteria that was in place last year.  I'm curious if you would have selected different teams based on the changes you suggested to the Pool C selection criteria in your previous post.

You didn't "go wrong"- you chose different teams while applying the same selection criteria the committee was applying.  Not that you need proof, but this just shows the subjective nature despite the criteria in place.

With my approach, I would have taken (using the list of candidates you provided earlier):
Pool B:
Wesley
Centre

Pool C:
John Carroll, Wabash, St. Thomas, North Central, Oshkosh and it would be a toss up between Framingham State (although they weren't on your ranked list) and St. John Fisher.

[wally_wabash]

You didn't "go wrong"- you chose different teams while applying the same selection criteria the committee was applying.  Not hat you need proof, but this just shows the subjective nature despite the criteria in place.

Nice clarification.  You're right- we weren't wrong, we just picked different teams.  And if we had the same set of regional rankings that the committee had, we may have landed on the same six C teams that they did.  Our mock rankings and their final rankings were very clearly different in very significant ways. 

With my approach, I would have taken (using the list of candidates you provided earlier):
Pool B:
Wesley
Centre

Pool C:
John Carroll, Wabash, St. Thomas, North Central, Oshkosh and it would be a toss up between Framingham State (although they weren't on your ranked list) and St. John Fisher.

We're really not that far apart.  I don't think I would I have touched St. Thomas last year.  That was probably a bigger surprise to me than Muhlenberg, honestly.  It'll take some time, but if I get a chance this weekend, I can go back and look at last year's field and apply some of my own changes to the criteria and re-select.  I'd have to mock up an extra set of regional rankings after Week 8 and then refigure RRO results using a ORAR approach. 

[hazzben]

You guys do know there is a Pool C board right?!  Just trying to give all the WIAC posters a chance to get their thread back 

[Pat Coleman]

Like all those Oshkosh posters who registered -- come on out and post, folks.

[02 Warhawk]

Like all those Oshkosh posters who registered -- come on out and post, folks.

How can you tell? Oshkosh/Appleton IP addresses?

[emma17]

You guys do know there is a Pool C board right?!  Just trying to give all the WIAC posters a chance to get their thread back 

The older I get, the more I don't like to stray too far from home. 
Besides, this is WIAC-centric as everybody knows my ultimate goal is for the WIAC to be guaranteed 2 of the Pool C slots along with the AQ

UWO is a strange program.  You'd think they would have greater support given their success.  I might have to start a new theory.  Football stadiums built with tracks around the field correlate strongly to low fan engagement.
 

[badgerwarhawk]

Like all those Oshkosh posters who registered -- come on out and post, folks.

I don't know if there is a campus and community more apathetic about Titan football than the Oshkosh community and campus.  The Fox Valley is a larger metro area than any other in the WIAC.  The campus is one of the larger ones in the WIAC.  They've had a very good football program for some time now.  Yet they can't draw 3000 fans games.   Aside from cubs and the former football player, who's handle is totally escaping me right now, none of them are interested enough to involve themselves in this forum.  Maybe they're lurking I don't know but they aren't participating and darn few of them are attending games.  If the program sucked I could understand but it doesn't and it's baffling to me. 

I wonder what coach Brown would tweet about it. 

[UWO Titan 78]

I can't figure it out either. It was that way when I played in the 90s, but we weren't very good. Baseball was winning College World Series titles, and didn't get much attendance love. I follow the team (and other sports) religiously, but with living in Chicago and having three kids involved in high school and jr. high sports, I only get back once every couple years. I watched most of Whitewater game online, and there seemed to be a much larger crowd than what was reported in the box score. I'm hoping a second conference title continues the momentum and we can build to something where we can average 4,000 - 5,000.

[bulk19]

Reminder to those in the La Crosse/Eau Claire TV viewing areas who will be unable to attend the game in LAX:
Tomorrow's contest between the UWL Eagles and the UWEC Blugolds will be on at 11:30 a.m. on their respective ABC affiliates - WQOW 18 and WXOW 19.