FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[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. 

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!

Franklin might have something to say about that. Good luck in round one.

[02 Warhawk]

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.

Oshkosh beats Centre as well. But it's tough to leave an undefeated team off the board.

[MasterJedi]

Do we have any news on if Kumerow will be playing this weekend?

[wally_wabash]

Do we have any news on if Kumerow will be playing this weekend?

This...this right here is the question.  Whitewater hasn't quite been the same outfit with Kumerow out (and FWIW because I've seen this somewhere else...Kumerow > Holton Walker and this shouldn't really be a debate).  I think Whitewater winning a championship rests on the answer to this question.  The Warhawks are certainly capbable of advancing two rounds without the star WR, but after that it might get tricky.   

[bleedpurple]

Do we have any news on if Kumerow will be playing this weekend?

My strong guess is that he won't play this weekend. It wouldn't even make sense. He has run hundreds (thousands?) of routes for Behrendt over the past couple of years. Two days of practice and they will be good to go.  They don't need him Saturday.

Here's my guess: he will be a game time decision for the second round game. 

[02 Warhawk]

I agree. As soon as he went down I thought rest him until week 2 of the playoffs.

I remember him dressing and warming up against UWSP last week. He even went out to do the coin toss to start the game....but never played a snap. Not sure if he made the trip to UWRF or not, with the travel restrictions for the visiting team and all.

With that being said, I'm sure we'll see him dressed and jumping around the sidelines on Saturday like he normally does prior to each game....but won't play a down. We'll see the following week though against Wabash/Franklin if he plays or not.

I'm hoping this doesn't play out like Blanchard's injury in 2010. Seems like Matt was day-to-day each game throughout the playoffs, but never took a post-season snap. Then again, that year didn't turn out too bad. 

[bleedpurple]

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.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out. 

[bleedpurple]

I agree. As soon as he went down I thought rest him until week 2 of the playoffs.

I remember him dressing and warming up against UWSP last week. He even went out to do the coin toss to start the game....but never played a snap. Not sure if he made the trip to UWRF or not, with the travel restrictions for the visiting team and all.

With that being said, I'm sure we'll see him dressed and jumping around the sidelines on Saturday like he normally does prior to each game....but won't play a down. We'll see the following week though against Wabash/Franklin if he plays or not.

I'm hoping this doesn't play out like Blanchard's injury in 2010. Seems like Matt was day-to-day each game throughout the playoffs, but never took a post-season snap. Then again, that year didn't turn out too bad. 

No, it won't. Barring a re-injury, he will be playing sooner than later. However, I do strongly disagree with Wally's assessment of the Hawks chances if he is out. They will be fine either way. But it will be fun having him back. How many chances in a lifetime that we can see a WR drive the other team's best corner 10 yards off of him on a simple comeback route? 

[USee]

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.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

[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

- 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.

Thanks for your post Wally.  I didn't state it clearly in my original post, but I did know that TLU was the 2nd pool B.  My point was, it would have made their job easier if they had put Centre in as the Pool B, given the very unusual situation for them- and especially given that this very unusual situation necessitated a very, very subjective approach to get Centre in.  If I'm in the committee's shoes trying to decide who should go in through B, Centre at 10-0 vs TLU with a horrific loss to a playoff team is a much better choice.

Once they make the right decision with Centre for Pool B, then TLU is compared with all the other Pool C candidates.
I do understand the selection process (who's up next in each round).  My point is, if you toss out the "process" and just discuss as football people, the conclusion is that UWO (and St. Thomas and NCC and UWP and SJF and probably more) were all better selections to improve the overall competitiveness of the playoffs than TLU. 

TLU has their chance in the regular season to prove that they belonged in the playoff discussion.  When they lost 72-16, that should have sealed the deal for all. Every other team that got passed over for Pool C because TLU was granted the Pool B (thus automatically taking up a Pool C for Centre) was short changed on this irrational decision.     

[MasterJedi]

Do we have any news on if Kumerow will be playing this weekend?

This...this right here is the question.  Whitewater hasn't quite been the same outfit with Kumerow out (and FWIW because I've seen this somewhere else...Kumerow > Holton Walker and this shouldn't really be a debate).  I think Whitewater winning a championship rests on the answer to this question.  The Warhawks are certainly capbable of advancing two rounds without the star WR, but after that it might get tricky.

I definitly agree. That comparison happend in the HCAC board by an HSC fan. Just having Kumerow out there helps out the offense tremendously. The defense has to watch out for him which opens up the routes for our other WRs and then keeps more of the defense in pass defense which opens up more holes for our RBs. I don't think we need Kumerow in the first round but against Franklin and Wabash I would feel a lot more comfortable if he was playing.

[jknezek]

When looking at the Power 4 teams, I think you can make a case that UWW and UMU are less difficult? mountains to climb than UMHB or Wesley this year. Historically whenever we've thought that we've been wrong, so this could be the same thing again. However, it's not exactly calling a team over-rated to name them Annapurna instead of K2. Both would leave the vast majority of mountain climbers well over their heads.

[Pat Coleman]

Hamline wasn't 2-6 in the MIAC, Duff.

According to the MIAC website, they were.  They beat St. Olaf and Augsburg and lost to GAC, SJU, Bethel, U$T, Concordia, and Carleton.

Dang -- you're right, my bad. I put Carleton in the W column.

[NewHawk]

I agree. As soon as he went down I thought rest him until week 2 of the playoffs.

I remember him dressing and warming up against UWSP last week. He even went out to do the coin toss to start the game....but never played a snap. Not sure if he made the trip to UWRF or not, with the travel restrictions for the visiting team and all.

With that being said, I'm sure we'll see him dressed and jumping around the sidelines on Saturday like he normally does prior to each game....but won't play a down. We'll see the following week though against Wabash/Franklin if he plays or not.

I'm hoping this doesn't play out like Blanchard's injury in 2010. Seems like Matt was day-to-day each game throughout the playoffs, but never took a post-season snap. Then again, that year didn't turn out too bad. 

Kumerow was at RF but he did not dress.  He was jumping up and down on the sidelines and appeared to be in pretty good shape.  He was not favoring his leg in the least, nor was it in a boot or wrapped.  I am guessing they are just not taking a chance with re-injuring the leg before round 2.  I dont know how to explain the RF game.  RF played exceedingly well.  They were obviously much more excited about the game than UWW.  But as it has been said before, a lot of Championship teams have a really bad game, but they find ways to win. I believe the 2013 team was behind in more than one game that they came back and won (platteville and others), no one expected them to win the Championship other than the faithful.  The Hawks will come to the play offs ready to win.  I hope that every team we play has the idea that UWW is overrated just like a few thought last year.

[OzJohnnie]

Let's start a drive to get Osh to play Bethel on a neutral field. Beer and cheese in abundance.

But no dancing.