FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[voice]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated
[/quote]

Definitely not easy. But UW-W is--compared to the other top dogs--absolutely the most vulnerable. And Wartburg is a big ol question mark to me. Their status at #5 seems more to do with a pre-season-ranked-team not losing, and less to do with anyone's real enthusiastic "Wartburg is awesome, y'all." [/quote]

[/quote]

UWW is vulnerable?   Wow.   The team that pasted Mount in the Stagg last year was pretty young.   Especially on offense.   Whatever you're smoking must be some good stuff.   UWW is the last of the top 4 seeds that I'd want to play on the road.   
[/quote]

We disagree. Have you watched them? That is definitely an offense not-on-par with the rest of the top tier.
[/quote]

[bleedpurple]

For Fans looking to learn more about UW-W's first round opponent, Macalester College, I've basically started separate page devoted to them and to links where you can learn about them. 

www.warhawkfootball.com

[wally_wabash]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated

I don't believe anybody said this.  You've just made that up for no real good reason. 

[badgerwarhawk]

I thought Oshkosh was deserving a bid but a team's record against non-DIII teams is a secondary criteria and I assume four losses is just too many to overlook.  Oshkosh would drill more than one team that will be playing next weekend.  That's just way it goes I guess.

Way to go out on the limb with that prediction bw?

In all seriousness, I could name at least 1/2 the field (if not more) that they would drill, if given the chance to play. I wouldn't be 100% confident that the Warhawks would beat the Titans if they played them tomorrow.

There was one way for Oshkosh to avoid the whole mess they were in ... win the conference title, they didn't so that's just the way it goes.

It's a pretty thin branch, BoBo.     

I also think Oshkosh could drill more than half of the teams playing but I just didn't like the sound of that so I toned it down. 

Unfortunately they're being penalized for their schedule.  From what I've heard they are having some of the same problems we've had in finding willing opponents.  But it is what it is and probably will continue to be.

[badgerwarhawk]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated

I don't believe anybody said this.  You've just made that up for no real good reason. 

I'm not going to take the time to check but I believe this discussion occurred on the OAC forum and not Wabash's.  It definitely was debated but I think Voice is just mistaken about it's location.  No offense intended.

[02 Warhawk]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated

I don't believe anybody said this.  You've just made that up for no real good reason.

Unfortunately it wasn't made up:

Definitely not easy. But UW-W is--compared to the other top dogs--absolutely the most vulnerable. And Wartburg is a big ol question mark to me. Their status at #5 seems more to do with a pre-season-ranked-team not losing, and less to do with anyone's real enthusiastic "Wartburg is awesome, y'all."

Anyway, this is the first time ever I've looked at a Wabash quadrant and checked off each game as competive, competitive.... comptetive!

Does spelling the word "competitive" differently three times make his point stronger?

[bleedpurple]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated

I don't believe anybody said this.  You've just made that up for no real good reason.

You are right, Wally. I didn't see "over-rated". I saw "vulnerable". I saw "Wabash got a GREAT DRAW" I saw, "It won't be easy but..." (LOL). I also saw inaccurate information shared about UW-W's offense.  So while "over-rated" may or may not have been overtly stated, I think it's a bit harsh to say he just "made it up".  Wabash fans are clearly thankful they "get" to play UW-W in the second round. That's cool. Looking forward to seeing their mood after the game. 

[badgerwarhawk]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated

I don't believe anybody said this.  You've just made that up for no real good reason. 

I'm not going to take the time to check but I believe this discussion occurred on the OAC forum and not Wabash's.  It definitely was debated but I think Voice is just mistaken about it's location.  No offense intended.

I stand corrected. 

[02 Warhawk]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated

I don't believe anybody said this.  You've just made that up for no real good reason.

You are right, Wally. I didn't see "over-rated". I saw "vulnerable". I saw "Wabash got a GREAT DRAW" I saw, "It won't be easy but..." (LOL). I also saw inaccurate information shared about UW-W's offense.  So while "over-rated" may or may not have been overtly stated, I think it's a bit harsh to say he just "made it up".  Wabash fans are clearly thankful they "get" to play UW-W in the second round. That's cool. Looking forward to seeing their mood after the game. 

How soon they forget 2007.

[wally_wabash]

I don't believe that using the word "vulnerable" to describe any team that got taken to the limit by River Falls is out of bounds. 

I just wanted to make sure you guys know we don't think Whitewater is overrated.  They are very properly rated.  But they may not be invincible.  I think that's a fair thing to say. 

[emma17]

Too early for me to talk Wabash.
I'm still stuck in playoff selection bs.

I realize there is a process followed when they pick B and C.
Just putting that aside for a moment and coming at this from the perspective of common sense:

If the goal of the tourny is to determine a National Champion (which I describe as the best team in D 3 typically).
- Once AQ's are determined, Job # 1 is to fill the B and C slots w the teams that most likely will compete for victory in each game.
- As an aside, I agree w committee finding a way to get Centre in as they're undefeated.
- The obvious choice to me was to put them in pool B, leaving TLU to have to compete w all the other pool C candidates. 
-  If the goal is to get the most competitive playoff bracket possible, how can the committee think TLU team that played a regular season game against a proven playoff team in UMHB and lost

[emma17]

Too early for me to talk Wabash.
I'm still stuck in playoff selection bs.

I realize there is a process followed when they pick B and C.
Just putting that aside for a moment and coming at this from the perspective of common sense:

If the goal of the tourny is to determine a National Champion (which I describe as the best team in D 3 typically).
- Once AQ's are determined, Job # 1 is to fill the B and C slots w the teams that most likely will compete for victory in each game.
- As an aside, I agree w committee finding a way to get Centre in as they're undefeated.
- The obvious choice to me was to put them in pool B, leaving TLU to have to compete w all the other pool C candidates. 
-  If the goal is to get the most competitive playoff bracket possible, how can the committee think TLU team that played a regular season game against a proven playoff team in UMHB and lost

Sorry
And lost 72-16, would be better for the competitiveness of the playoffs than a UWO team that lost in a battle to the defending national champion and unbeaten UWW- and beat a recognized strong UWP team also w recent playoff success?

This is where stats blind common sense.

[Schwami]

Wabash, a potential second round matchup with Whitewater, had its fans  spend yesterday in the chatroom calling the Warhawks overrated

I don't believe anybody said this.  You've just made that up for no real good reason.

You are right, Wally. I didn't see "over-rated". I saw "vulnerable". I saw "Wabash got a GREAT DRAW" I saw, "It won't be easy but..." (LOL). I also saw inaccurate information shared about UW-W's offense.  So while "over-rated" may or may not have been overtly stated, I think it's a bit harsh to say he just "made it up".  Wabash fans are clearly thankful they "get" to play UW-W in the second round. That's cool. Looking forward to seeing their mood after the game. 

FWIW, if I were a voter, I would have Whitewater #1 on my ballot.

Some of us were actually hoping for UMHB in the second round, although I personally would have preferred (for purely selfish reasons) Mount Union 

Truthfully, there is enough to worry about this weekend to even be thinking much about the second round.

Haven't forgotten about 2007.  Wabash is improved since then in both defense and running game, which we all tend to think may make us a bit more capable come playoffs.

Also, there is a bit of a Wabash-insider thing going on when we say "it won't be easy, but . . .".  We have a lot of sayings at Wabash (as I suspect you have noticed  ).  One of them is "It won't be easy, but it will be worth it."  Looking forward to putting that one to the test at the Perk in a couple of weeks!

[bleedpurple]

I don't believe that using the word "vulnerable" to describe any team that got taken to the limit by River Falls is out of bounds. 

I just wanted to make sure you guys know we don't think Whitewater is overrated.  They are very properly rated.  But they may not be invincible.  I think that's a fair thing to say.

Speaking for myself, I don't think it's out of bounds. If vulnerable= "Not invincible" , then I actually agree with that. But what the rest of the country sometimes loses in the fog of all the UW-W success is that UW-W has never been invincible. There has not been one single year that they were unbeatable.  They are just very hard to beat. 

Schwami, I think you are on the right track.  The statement that I think is naive (from a different poster) is that UW-W is "more vulnerable" than 4 or 5 other teams. Looking at one game and coming to a conclusion like that is reading into a small data point and taking WAY too much into it. UW-W had already clinched. Now we are in the season UW-W lives for. Different intensity. Different focus. Different level of edge. The UW-W seniors are determined to bring this home. 

Since this board is about opinion, I'll share mine with the Wabash fans that are happy with the draw. Ya'll got screwed. Ya just don't know it yet.

[wally_wabash]

Too early for me to talk Wabash.
I'm still stuck in playoff selection bs.

I realize there is a process followed when they pick B and C.
Just putting that aside for a moment and coming at this from the perspective of common sense:

If the goal of the tourny is to determine a National Champion (which I describe as the best team in D 3 typically).
- Once AQ's are determined, Job # 1 is to fill the B and C slots w the teams that most likely will compete for victory in each game.
- As an aside, I agree w committee finding a way to get Centre in as they're undefeated.
- The obvious choice to me was to put them in pool B, leaving TLU to have to compete w all the other pool C candidates. 
-  If the goal is to get the most competitive playoff bracket possible, how can the committee think TLU team that played a regular season game against a proven playoff team in UMHB and lost

- The chair confirmed that TLU was the second Pool B and Centre was invited via the Pool C process.  That distinction isn't terribly important, but it's nice to know for housekeeping purposes. 

- As far as why TLU went first and Centre was left to fight it out in Pool C, that's on the South RAC.  The rankings put forth by the South RAC definitely had TLU ranked higher than Centre.  I don't know if they had Centre jump Muhlenberg after Saturday or not.  My hunch is yes, but I'm not sure. 

- As far as why TLU and not Oshkosh, a couple of things.  First, TLU went in through Pool B, so TLU and Oshkosh were never "going against" one another.  Second, we can now be certain that St. Thomas was ranked ahead of Oshkosh in the final West rankings- which means Oshkosh was never in play if St. Thomas was the last team in (very possible).  If St. Thomas wasn't the last team in and say the second to last team in, then Oshkosh would have been in play for that last spot with North Central, Framingham State, and Muhlenberg.  Completely possible that with no real good idea on how to deal with UW-O and that 6-4 record, Muhlenberg sneaks in via a close vote.  We'll probably not ever know exactly how that went down, but the more I think about it the more that scenario makes sense. 

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.