FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[hazzben]

Can someone explain to me how Redlands beat North Central on the field and is still ranked lower than them? One game into 2011, NCC has no quality wins on their resume to counteract this defeat. They've got last years results and the name recognition that came with it. But the fact they were #4 last week should be almost inconsequential given it was just the preseason poll and based totally on conjecture and prognosticating.

I think NCC could end up back in the Top 15 by seasons end, but given they're sitting 0-1 shouldn't they have to earn/prove it? Or at the very least, you've got to put Redlands somewhere in the Top 14 if you're arguing for NCC at 15 right? What am I missing?

[badgerwarhawk]

It's likely reputation.  NCC has it Redlands doesn't.

[02 Warhawk]

A rare WIAC compliment from retagent.

Hey 02 Warhawk, does that Coppage official WIAC rushing countdown number get reduce for all games played, including NC & playoff games or only conference games?  Maybe you should start a contest to see who can come the closest to the game, quarter, and minute and seconds on the clock that he sets the record.  I would guess Oct 8 vs River Falls, 3rd quarter 9:42 remaining, in case you were wondering!! 

Yea, this is for his career. So it does include post-season play.

Your bet has been placed. 800+ yards in three and a half games, wishful thinking Bobo  . I like it!!

[Mr. Ypsi]

Can someone explain to me how Redlands beat North Central on the field and is still ranked lower than them? One game into 2011, NCC has no quality wins on their resume to counteract this defeat. They've got last years results and the name recognition that came with it. But the fact they were #4 last week should be almost inconsequential given it was just the preseason poll and based totally on conjecture and prognosticating.

I think NCC could end up back in the Top 15 by seasons end, but given they're sitting 0-1 shouldn't they have to earn/prove it? Or at the very least, you've got to put Redlands somewhere in the Top 14 if you're arguing for NCC at 15 right? What am I missing?

It's likely reputation.  NCC has it Redlands doesn't.

I'm sure reputation is a large part of it, but also remember it was a very close game AT Redlands.  If they had won at NCC, things would probably be different.

[02 Warhawk]

Can someone explain to me how Redlands beat North Central on the field and is still ranked lower than them? One game into 2011, NCC has no quality wins on their resume to counteract this defeat. They've got last years results and the name recognition that came with it. But the fact they were #4 last week should be almost inconsequential given it was just the preseason poll and based totally on conjecture and prognosticating.

I think NCC could end up back in the Top 15 by seasons end, but given they're sitting 0-1 shouldn't they have to earn/prove it? Or at the very least, you've got to put Redlands somewhere in the Top 14 if you're arguing for NCC at 15 right? What am I missing?

It's likely reputation.  NCC has it Redlands doesn't.

I'm sure reputation is a large part of it, but also remember it was a very close game AT Redlands.  If they had won at NCC, things would probably be different.

Great point. Plus if the final outcome would have been like the Harden-Simons vs Coe blowout, then I can see the argument of dropping NCC WAY down in the polls. Plus if Redlands was ranked to begin with, then it would be more feasible to rank them higher than NCC right now.

[02 Warhawk]

I knew Point won as close one at Willamette, but I didn't realize how it all went down until I read this:

The game came down to the final minute as Willamette's Jamiere  Abney  scored on a 2-yard run with 27 seconds to bring the Bearcats within two points. On the two-point conversion play Jake Knecht caught a ball from quarterback Brian Widing  near the right sideline that appeared to tie the game. But the points were taken off the board when Knecht  stepped out of bounds then came back in to make the play, giving the Pointers the thrilling win.

[02 Warhawk]

WIAC Players of the Week

Offense: Caleb Voss, UW-Oshkosh (WR)
Defense: Joe Mleziva, UW-Stevens Point (Safety)
Special Teams: Eric Kindler, UW-Whitewater (Kicker)

[emma17]

Bobo, regarding my "tighter" comment about the UWW- Franklin game- I didn't have points in mind. I'm referring to the actual feel and flow of the game. I believe Franklin will pressure UWW in ways that Lacrosse was unable to do- this will create a different feel to the game and especially the players. There will be a greater premium on execution because there will be a greater feeling that "if we dont score"- they just might.  This feeling didnt really exist w Lacrosse.
I'll take Lacrosse and the points.

[hazzben]

Can someone explain to me how Redlands beat North Central on the field and is still ranked lower than them? One game into 2011, NCC has no quality wins on their resume to counteract this defeat. They've got last years results and the name recognition that came with it. But the fact they were #4 last week should be almost inconsequential given it was just the preseason poll and based totally on conjecture and prognosticating.

I think NCC could end up back in the Top 15 by seasons end, but given they're sitting 0-1 shouldn't they have to earn/prove it? Or at the very least, you've got to put Redlands somewhere in the Top 14 if you're arguing for NCC at 15 right? What am I missing?

It's likely reputation.  NCC has it Redlands doesn't.

I'm sure reputation is a large part of it, but also remember it was a very close game AT Redlands.  If they had won at NCC, things would probably be different.

Great point. Plus if the final outcome would have been like the Harden-Simons vs Coe blowout, then I can see the argument of dropping NCC WAY down in the polls. Plus if Redlands was ranked to begin with, then it would be more feasible to rank them higher than NCC right now.

So because North Central lost at Redlands, we shouldn't actually think Redlands is a better team? They might have won on the field, but because they didn't start out ranked in the preseason polls we can't consider them better (what I presume the rankings imply) than the team they just beat?

Neither of those seem valid to me. I'd grant that a blowout win would make it easier. I grant that NCC has some definite reputation. But neither of those change the actual result on the field on Saturday. Yet numerous voters still considered NCC the better team. That's a head scratcher to me.

[02 Warhawk]

Can someone explain to me how Redlands beat North Central on the field and is still ranked lower than them? One game into 2011, NCC has no quality wins on their resume to counteract this defeat. They've got last years results and the name recognition that came with it. But the fact they were #4 last week should be almost inconsequential given it was just the preseason poll and based totally on conjecture and prognosticating.

I think NCC could end up back in the Top 15 by seasons end, but given they're sitting 0-1 shouldn't they have to earn/prove it? Or at the very least, you've got to put Redlands somewhere in the Top 14 if you're arguing for NCC at 15 right? What am I missing?

It's likely reputation.  NCC has it Redlands doesn't.

I'm sure reputation is a large part of it, but also remember it was a very close game AT Redlands.  If they had won at NCC, things would probably be different.

Great point. Plus if the final outcome would have been like the Harden-Simons vs Coe blowout, then I can see the argument of dropping NCC WAY down in the polls. Plus if Redlands was ranked to begin with, then it would be more feasible to rank them higher than NCC right now.

So because North Central lost at Redlands, we shouldn't actually think Redlands is a better team? They might have won on the field, but because they didn't start out ranked in the preseason polls we can't consider them better (what I presume the rankings imply) than the team they just beat?

Neither of those seem valid to me. I'd grant that a blowout win would make it easier. I grant that NCC has some definite reputation. But neither of those change the actual result on the field on Saturday. Yet numerous voters still considered NCC the better team. That's a head scratcher to me.

Like it or not it's the way it goes. D3football.com's pool (consisting of 25 coaches, Sports Information Directors and media members) seem to agree, b/c they also have NCC ranked higher than Redlands this week.

[hazzben]

Just for the record, I was talking about the D3 poll here, not the fan poll. I griped about that over on the fan poll thread 

And I get that it's how it works, the same thing happened last year at the FBS level in the AP poll regarding Wisconsin and Ohio State the week after the badgers won on the field.

My beef is I just don't think it makes sense. Somewhere last year I read an article that agreed with me, but it's too much work to find it. And I totally admit I'm in the minority view. I just like being an ornery little portion of the minority that refuses to admit I'm wrong just because the majority disagrees with me.  Thanks for the spirited debate though!

[02 Warhawk]

Just for the record, I was talking about the D3 poll here, not the fan poll. I griped about that over on the fan poll thread 

And I get that it's how it works, the same thing happened last year at the FBS level in the AP poll regarding Wisconsin and Ohio State the week after the badgers won on the field.

My beef is I just don't think it makes sense. Somewhere last year I read an article that agreed with me, but it's too much work to find it. And I totally admit I'm in the minority view. I just like being an ornery little portion of the minority that refuses to admit I'm wrong just because the majority disagrees with me.  Thanks for the spirited debate though!

That's what I'm here for 

[footballfan413]

Can someone explain to me how Redlands beat North Central on the field and is still ranked lower than them? One game into 2011, NCC has no quality wins on their resume to counteract this defeat. They've got last years results and the name recognition that came with it. But the fact they were #4 last week should be almost inconsequential given it was just the preseason poll and based totally on conjecture and prognosticating.

I think NCC could end up back in the Top 15 by seasons end, but given they're sitting 0-1 shouldn't they have to earn/prove it? Or at the very least, you've got to put Redlands somewhere in the Top 14 if you're arguing for NCC at 15 right? What am I missing?

It's likely reputation.  NCC has it Redlands doesn't.

I'm sure reputation is a large part of it, but also remember it was a very close game AT Redlands.  If they had won at NCC, things would probably be different.

Great point. Plus if the final outcome would have been like the Harden-Simons vs Coe blowout, then I can see the argument of dropping NCC WAY down in the polls. Plus if Redlands was ranked to begin with, then it would be more feasible to rank them higher than NCC right now.

So because North Central lost at Redlands, we shouldn't actually think Redlands is a better team? They might have won on the field, but because they didn't start out ranked in the preseason polls we can't consider them better (what I presume the rankings imply) than the team they just beat?

Neither of those seem valid to me. I'd grant that a blowout win would make it easier. I grant that NCC has some definite reputation. But neither of those change the actual result on the field on Saturday. Yet numerous voters still considered NCC the better team. That's a head scratcher to me.

I agree with Hazzben.  Don't know how you rank one team that lost in a head-to-head battle ahead of the team that beat them.  Especially when it is the first contest of the year and the previous ballot was just pre-season speculation based on past success.  When a team, "earns it on the field," that would be the overriding consideration for me.  And I sure don't downgrade the win just because it was at home.  Now the close games does mean that I'd probably consider only putting Redlands one spot above NCC but, I don't know what more you could ask of a team than to win! Again, what is key for me is that it is the first game of the year and there are no other quality wins to use to prop NCC up.  Redlands sure has a quality win now, don't they!  So, they drop and Redlands reaps the reward for beating a team that no one had any problem giving a pre-season #4 ranking to.   Now if Redlands fades quickly and NCC goes on to prove that they just had a hiccup, they move right back up the ladder for me very quickly but for this week, the winner of the head-to-head gets top billing, IMHO. 

[Pat Coleman]

for this week, the winner of the head-to-head gets top billing, IMHO.

What evidence or logic is going to be present in later weeks? How do you justify making the change later?

[bleedpurple]

bp, I'm sure with your vast knowledge, you know plenty of examples of teams doing exactly what you so clearly described - you get a reasonable lead, then take your foot off the accelerator by trying to get too cute by going to things offensively or defensively that didn't get you the lead. The consequences of such actions have the potential to backfire in a hurry. Your opponent finds a little chink in your armor, exploits it - complete momentum shift - yada, yada, yada - and the next thing you know, you find yourself trailing by 4, 1st and ten on your own 17 yard line with a minute to go. You're so shell-shocked you end up losing a game you had in the bag. Baylor nearly did it this past weekend. A team like Franklin, who you know are going to put the ball up 50 to 60 times, if not more, is capable of doing just that. A 14 point lead to a team with quick strike potential could end up being a minefield - and in my view is just not worth the risk, especially on the road. Now, if the D is doing the job, like it was on Saturday in LaX, rotating bodies throughout the game like the Warhawks did makes a lot of sense. It helps when the team you're playing doesn't have a serious threat at the QB position like La Crosse at the moment. A lot of younger guys got some really meaningful action early in the game. And it will pay handsome dividends later on. I just don't think doing it on the road to an explosive team that is pass orientated is all the advisable.

yes, I agree with this whole post. Especially the vast knowledge part!