FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[hazzben]

Before coming to UWW Lance was an assistant at Nebraska for three years. So he has ties to that program that's looking for some much needed help.

0% chance he lands at Nebraska. The record is abysmal this year, but they have been one of the most snake-bit teams in the country and are trending up pretty rapidly. Frost hasn't lost one iota of fan or institutional support there.

That'd also be a terrible landing spot for LL. Crazy high expectations. And they HATE Eichorst, because he basically made one of the all time worst coaching hires of the 21st century. That UWW connection would be a non-starter.

Eichorst did anyone with a D3 background zero favors in Lincoln. Riley might have been as nice as your grandpa, but he also brought a softness into that program that was beyond belief (they stopped doing squats in the strength program for crying out loud?!?). Classic error of hiring a guy solely because he was the opposite of the previous guy (Pelini) you were firing.

[Pat Coleman]

Regional rankings:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2018/second-regional-ranking

[02 Warhawk]

Regional rankings:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2018/second-regional-ranking

Looking at the notes it says "UW-Whitewater is not moving from the top spot here". That's even with a St. John's win over regionally ranked Thomas More on Saturday?

[WW]

Before coming to UWW Lance was an assistant at Nebraska for three years. So he has ties to that program that's looking for some much needed help.

0% chance he lands at Nebraska. The record is abysmal this year, but they have been one of the most snake-bit teams in the country and are trending up pretty rapidly. Frost hasn't lost one iota of fan or institutional support there.

That'd also be a terrible landing spot for LL. Crazy high expectations. And they HATE Eichorst, because he basically made one of the all time worst coaching hires of the 21st century. That UWW connection would be a non-starter.

Eichorst did anyone with a D3 background zero favors in Lincoln. Riley might have been as nice as your grandpa, but he also brought a softness into that program that was beyond belief (they stopped doing squats in the strength program for crying out loud?!?). Classic error of hiring a guy solely because he was the opposite of the previous guy (Pelini) you were firing.

Frost will be given more than a year. Fleck's seat could be a little warmer, although that almost seems like a can't-win-there type gig too. While Snyder is 100 years old and could retire at any point, he did just sign an extension, so maybe he has another season or more in mind.

The iron will be hot for LL this winter. I think the timing points to Purdue.

[Pat Coleman]

Regional rankings:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2018/second-regional-ranking

Looking at the notes it says "UW-Whitewater is not moving from the top spot here". That's even with a St. John's win over regionally ranked Thomas More on Saturday?

That's my take, at least.

[02 Warhawk]

Regional rankings:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2018/second-regional-ranking

Looking at the notes it says "UW-Whitewater is not moving from the top spot here". That's even with a St. John's win over regionally ranked Thomas More on Saturday?

That's my take, at least.

That'll work

[hazzben]

Regional rankings:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2018/second-regional-ranking

Looking at the notes it says "UW-Whitewater is not moving from the top spot here". That's even with a St. John's win over regionally ranked Thomas More on Saturday?

That's my take, at least.

That'll work

And if SJU wins, is TM still a RRO? I think the top spot is UWW's to lose at this point.

AO brought up a more likely scenario, that SJU edges out Brockport for the final #1 seed. Brockport gets to lean on last years semifinal result. But SJU will have an edge in SOS and potentially RRO. But I think SJU is a #2 seed and #5 seed overall when the dust settles.

[emma17]

I think the three strong teams that the WIAC put out in the last three years colors your perception.  For years and years the complaint was that WIAC only ever got one team out of the mess because everyone beat on each other so hard.  And then for the last three years there have been two or three legit teams above the mess.  That wasn't the new normal; it was the anomaly.  This is just business returning to what you should expect in a district where teams are funding and organised very similarly.

Mr. Oz, aka, the proud troll (not that I think you're trolling, because I really don't know what trolling is, nor do I think I would care if I recognized it).
Your reference to the last three years may not be an accurate time-frame. It would seem the WIAC has had three legit teams for the last seven years- more of a trend I would think than an anomaly.   
2018: UWL and UWO
2017: UWW and UWL (and UWP at 7-3)
2016: UWO, UWP
2015: UWW, UWP  (This would be three years- But, it keeps going below)
2014: UWO, UWP
2013: UWP, UWO (a correction to my previous list, the combined wins/losses with these two was 18-4, not 13-7)
2012: UWP, UWW
2011: UWO, UWP
2010: UW Stevens Point and UW Stout.

What are you two defining as a "legit" team? Making the playoffs? A specific record? Emma's personal opinion? OJ's personal opinion?

I assumed it was a team that was clearly a tier above the rest that would be likely to win a few playoff games. Then I saw 2018 UW-0 on the list and uhhhh. I'm not sure anymore.

Or UWL this year. If they would have beaten UWO I would agree with emma about UWL. But a"legit team" shouldn't lose to a .500 team by double digits. Seems like UWL defaulted to 2nd place because no other WIAC top tier team was much good this year. If UWO and UWP were their normal selves, UWL would be in 4th right now.

02 and jamto, you're mixing the context of the posts.
My first post showing combined records of 2nd and 3rd place WIAC teams was to show the drop-off that occurred in 2018.

Oz's point (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the last three years of strong 2nd tier teams led some of us to think it was standard operating procedure for the WIAC to be so strong at the top. I believe Oz's reference to the "last three years" was generally in regard to 2017, 2016 and 2015.
I replied to his post to show him the error of his ways in that the top three teams in the WIAC (not counting 2018) have been very strong for much longer than three years. Nobody is arguing that 2018 WIAC is the same as previous years.

As for what definition to use for legit "Emma's personal opinion? OJ's personal opinion?" - do you want to be right or wrong?

[OzJohnnie]

Oz's point (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the last three years of strong 2nd tier teams led some of us to think it was standard operating procedure for the WIAC to be so strong at the top. I believe Oz's reference to the "last three years" was generally in regard to 2017, 2016 and 2015.
I replied to his post to show him the error of his ways in that the top three teams in the WIAC (not counting 2018) have been very strong for much longer than three years. Nobody is arguing that 2018 WIAC is the same as previous years.

As for what definition to use for legit "Emma's personal opinion? OJ's personal opinion?" - do you want to be right or wrong?

Yes, you understand my point.  The WAIC has for a long, long time turned out good teams but only one could rise above the cacophony to make the post-season.  Over the last three years (the years you list) the WIAC easily placed two and argued for three (did they get three once?).  All through the UWW years, yes, a strong second team was often present but that is consistent with my argument.  My argument is that the schools are largely funded the same, same in admin and goals, etc, being part of the Wisconsin school network.  So normal is only one team, the AQ, getting out because the system is "rigged" to keep everyone competitive.  Abnormal are two clear standouts.  The last three years of a separation were particularly abnormal in with three standouts.

This largely happened, IMO, because UWW dominated for so long that it essentially removed itself from the discussion and a second team was able to make the space to qualify.  Now that UWW has drifted down a bit following coaching changes, the field returns to the normal behaviour.  A year or two on top and a good run followed by a return to the pack as evenly match teams (as per the system) catch up (as per UWO).

Obviously, I could be wrong but when you have a system where essentially even sized marbles are put into a bag then the marbles all tend to get up at one selection time or another.  If one marble becomes particularly sticky, then the rest of the marbles still behave the same after the sticky one comes out first.

[bleedpurple]

Oz's point (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the last three years of strong 2nd tier teams led some of us to think it was standard operating procedure for the WIAC to be so strong at the top. I believe Oz's reference to the "last three years" was generally in regard to 2017, 2016 and 2015.
I replied to his post to show him the error of his ways in that the top three teams in the WIAC (not counting 2018) have been very strong for much longer than three years. Nobody is arguing that 2018 WIAC is the same as previous years.

As for what definition to use for legit "Emma's personal opinion? OJ's personal opinion?" - do you want to be right or wrong?

Yes, you understand my point.  The WAIC has for a long, long time turned out good teams but only one could rise above the cacophony to make the post-season.  Over the last three years (the years you list) the WIAC easily placed two and argued for three (did they get three once?).  All through the UWW years, yes, a strong second team was often present but that is consistent with my argument.  My argument is that the schools are largely funded the same, same in admin and goals, etc, being part of the Wisconsin school network.  So normal is only one team, the AQ, getting out because the system is "rigged" to keep everyone competitive.  Abnormal are two clear standouts.  The last three years of a separation were particularly abnormal in with three standouts.

This largely happened, IMO, because UWW dominated for so long that it essentially removed itself from the discussion and a second team was able to make the space to qualify.  Now that UWW has drifted down a bit following coaching changes, the field returns to the normal behaviour.  A year or two on top and a good run followed by a return to the pack as evenly match teams (as per the system) catch up (as per UWO).

Obviously, I could be wrong but when you have a system where essentially even sized marbles are put into a bag then the marbles all tend to get up at one selection time or another.  If one marble becomes particularly sticky, then the rest of the marbles still behave the same after the sticky one comes out first.

Interesting stuff Oz. Are you a sociology major?   Also, you mentioned last week your disillusionment with the NFL due to what I perceived you believe is a sort of a forced parity.  Is your view of the WIAC similar? And if so is that part of the reason that the WIAC rubs you the wrong way at times? ...Or does that have more to do with us posters? 

[emma17]

Oz, I think I understand your point and I understand why you suggest the possibility. But isn't that a bit like saying every student attending grammar school ABC will achieve the same results in life?

Although I think you're right in that the marbles are pretty much the same from a funding/centralized admin perspective, the results back to 2011 are pretty clear- It's been UWW, UWO and UWP. And according to Emma's rules of legit, all three of them in any of those years would have competed well in the playoffs. That doesn't mean they'd beat the best teams or top 10 teams, but they'd hold their own and likely win more often then they'd lose.
Maybe your point is that over time it will balance out and we'll see UWSP, UWS and UWRF at the top, but it's hard to support that theory when you consider the conference championships won by each program. Clearly the marbles aren't behaving in the same manner.

[WW]

Oz's point (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the last three years of strong 2nd tier teams led some of us to think it was standard operating procedure for the WIAC to be so strong at the top. I believe Oz's reference to the "last three years" was generally in regard to 2017, 2016 and 2015.
I replied to his post to show him the error of his ways in that the top three teams in the WIAC (not counting 2018) have been very strong for much longer than three years. Nobody is arguing that 2018 WIAC is the same as previous years.

As for what definition to use for legit "Emma's personal opinion? OJ's personal opinion?" - do you want to be right or wrong?

Yes, you understand my point.  The WAIC has for a long, long time turned out good teams but only one could rise above the cacophony to make the post-season.  Over the last three years (the years you list) the WIAC easily placed two and argued for three (did they get three once?).  All through the UWW years, yes, a strong second team was often present but that is consistent with my argument.  My argument is that the schools are largely funded the same, same in admin and goals, etc, being part of the Wisconsin school network.  So normal is only one team, the AQ, getting out because the system is "rigged" to keep everyone competitive.  Abnormal are two clear standouts.  The last three years of a separation were particularly abnormal in with three standouts.

This largely happened, IMO, because UWW dominated for so long that it essentially removed itself from the discussion and a second team was able to make the space to qualify.  Now that UWW has drifted down a bit following coaching changes, the field returns to the normal behaviour.  A year or two on top and a good run followed by a return to the pack as evenly match teams (as per the system) catch up (as per UWO).

Obviously, I could be wrong but when you have a system where essentially even sized marbles are put into a bag then the marbles all tend to get up at one selection time or another.  If one marble becomes particularly sticky, then the rest of the marbles still behave the same after the sticky one comes out first.

Well they're not even-sized marbles. UWW is getting the best players because, currently, they have the best stuff. They also have the highest undergrad enrollment. They're basically the Yankees. They should win.

[emma17]

Oz's point (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the last three years of strong 2nd tier teams led some of us to think it was standard operating procedure for the WIAC to be so strong at the top. I believe Oz's reference to the "last three years" was generally in regard to 2017, 2016 and 2015.
I replied to his post to show him the error of his ways in that the top three teams in the WIAC (not counting 2018) have been very strong for much longer than three years. Nobody is arguing that 2018 WIAC is the same as previous years.

As for what definition to use for legit "Emma's personal opinion? OJ's personal opinion?" - do you want to be right or wrong?

Yes, you understand my point.  The WAIC has for a long, long time turned out good teams but only one could rise above the cacophony to make the post-season.  Over the last three years (the years you list) the WIAC easily placed two and argued for three (did they get three once?).  All through the UWW years, yes, a strong second team was often present but that is consistent with my argument.  My argument is that the schools are largely funded the same, same in admin and goals, etc, being part of the Wisconsin school network.  So normal is only one team, the AQ, getting out because the system is "rigged" to keep everyone competitive.  Abnormal are two clear standouts.  The last three years of a separation were particularly abnormal in with three standouts.

This largely happened, IMO, because UWW dominated for so long that it essentially removed itself from the discussion and a second team was able to make the space to qualify.  Now that UWW has drifted down a bit following coaching changes, the field returns to the normal behaviour.  A year or two on top and a good run followed by a return to the pack as evenly match teams (as per the system) catch up (as per UWO).

Obviously, I could be wrong but when you have a system where essentially even sized marbles are put into a bag then the marbles all tend to get up at one selection time or another.  If one marble becomes particularly sticky, then the rest of the marbles still behave the same after the sticky one comes out first.

Well they're not even-sized marbles. UWW is getting the best players because, currently, they have the best stuff. They also have the highest undergrad enrollment. They're basically the Yankees. They should win.

Oh boy- here we go.
I remember visiting UWW in 1983, along with several other schools- at different levels. None of the other programs/stadiums competed w UWW-I was so impressed. I was also happy with the larger enrollment of UWW as I was coming from a larger high school. Yet amazingly enough, with all that "best stuff" and larger enrollment UWW had in place for all those years, they didn't win a championship until 2007, 24 years after I thought they had it all in place. 

[OzJohnnie]

Interesting stuff Oz. Are you a sociology major?   Also, you mentioned last week your disillusionment with the NFL due to what I perceived you believe is a sort of a forced parity.  Is your view of the WIAC similar? And if so is that part of the reason that the WIAC rubs you the wrong way at times? ...Or does that have more to do with us posters? 

Sociology?  Ha.  I work for a living.

NFL;  Kind of parity, more an issue of universal excellence.  The variability due to it just being damn hard to master the game has been squashed from the competition.  It's engineered to within a hair's width of perfection so there is very little surprise left.  In the NFL disparity is usually do to a player falling down from the universal standard that all teams basically have achieved (mistakes most often turn the game, like the coverage error in last year's playoffs that let the Vikings past the Saints), in DIII it is more because a team rises above the standard.  More inspirational and enjoyable for me.

WIAC;  What's to like?

[WW]

Oz's point (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the last three years of strong 2nd tier teams led some of us to think it was standard operating procedure for the WIAC to be so strong at the top. I believe Oz's reference to the "last three years" was generally in regard to 2017, 2016 and 2015.
I replied to his post to show him the error of his ways in that the top three teams in the WIAC (not counting 2018) have been very strong for much longer than three years. Nobody is arguing that 2018 WIAC is the same as previous years.

As for what definition to use for legit "Emma's personal opinion? OJ's personal opinion?" - do you want to be right or wrong?

Yes, you understand my point.  The WAIC has for a long, long time turned out good teams but only one could rise above the cacophony to make the post-season.  Over the last three years (the years you list) the WIAC easily placed two and argued for three (did they get three once?).  All through the UWW years, yes, a strong second team was often present but that is consistent with my argument.  My argument is that the schools are largely funded the same, same in admin and goals, etc, being part of the Wisconsin school network.  So normal is only one team, the AQ, getting out because the system is "rigged" to keep everyone competitive.  Abnormal are two clear standouts.  The last three years of a separation were particularly abnormal in with three standouts.

This largely happened, IMO, because UWW dominated for so long that it essentially removed itself from the discussion and a second team was able to make the space to qualify.  Now that UWW has drifted down a bit following coaching changes, the field returns to the normal behaviour.  A year or two on top and a good run followed by a return to the pack as evenly match teams (as per the system) catch up (as per UWO).

Obviously, I could be wrong but when you have a system where essentially even sized marbles are put into a bag then the marbles all tend to get up at one selection time or another.  If one marble becomes particularly sticky, then the rest of the marbles still behave the same after the sticky one comes out first.

Well they're not even-sized marbles. UWW is getting the best players because, currently, they have the best stuff. They also have the highest undergrad enrollment. They're basically the Yankees. They should win.

Oh boy- here we go.
I remember visiting UWW in 1983, along with several other schools- at different levels. None of the other programs/stadiums competed w UWW-I was so impressed. I was also happy with the larger enrollment of UWW as I was coming from a larger high school. Yet amazingly enough, with all that "best stuff" and larger enrollment UWW had in place for all those years, they didn't win a championship until 2007, 24 years after I thought they had it all in place.

As usual, I fail to understand the point you're trying to make, unless it's that UWW had garbage athletic administration all those years. Besides, La Crosse had way better stuff in 1983. That's why they won.