FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[emma17]

Emma17,

Great discussion. Thanks for opening the can of worms. I think you make some great points and the system, as Wally points out, is flawed. But MOV is a dangerous thing. It's easy to point to the 56 pt MOV this year by UMHB over TLU. You mention "...I don't know, 28..." as an arbitrary point at which the MOV is too large. That's the danger in your method. Where do you draw the line? In 2012 Elmhurst lost by 34 to North Central but made the field. They beat a higher seeded Coe on the road and then took St Thomas to the wire in St Paul, who ended up playing in the Stagg. Does their 34 point loss disqualify them from the field? What about the 3-4 TD MOV Mt Union put on some of the OAC runner ups, only to see them make the field and do some damage? This seems like a slippery slope. I am not sure how you can get the intended consequences for this.

Usee, I agree entirely that here is a slippery slope involved when looking at scores and I'll tell you now I don't have the exact answer for you of what makes a loss too bad.  But at the same time, we can't possibly have a formula for everything.  Football isn't played on an Excel workbook.  I believe we can all agree that the national committee did resort to some degree of subjectivity in their selections.  If we are comfortable with that, I think we can trust them to consider how a team faired against good competition.  Whether the right number is 21, 28 or 34 I don't necessarily know, but I do know it's not 56.  A team cannot lose it's only game against a playoff team by 56 points and not have it work heavily against them.   

[emma17]

MOV is not a criteria and I don't have interest it making it one. If MOV is a criteria you have even less incentive to play an elite.

Hmmm, that opens up other questions then right?  I mean, I think I heard talk that UWW might pay a price in their seeding (in terms of home field) based on their "bad win" vs UWRF.  What made it a bad win?

Are you suggesting the committee doesn't look at scores at all in anything they do with playoffs and seeding?

That won't happen and it shouldn't. If UW-W paid a price for a narrow victory, then that will give us incentive to go into places like River Falls and wrap up the game with like 5 minutes left. 

And what fun would that be.
Seriously though, I'm not sure if you're serious about your first sentence. 

[emma17]

MOV is not a criteria and I don't have interest it making it one. If MOV is a criteria you have even less incentive to play an elite.

Hmmm, that opens up other questions then right?  I mean, I think I heard talk that UWW might pay a price in their seeding (in terms of home field) based on their "bad win" vs UWRF.  What made it a bad win?

Are you suggesting the committee doesn't look at scores at all in anything they do with playoffs and seeding?

Well, considering where UWW is in the bracket I would say their "bad win" wasn't a factor... What people say on here is not what the committee does. MOV is not a criteria. Do they look at scores? Sure. But does a bad game necessarily mean a team doesn't belong? Maybe not. Multiple losses, probably so.

As I've said, there are points on both sides. Do I think UWO got screwed? No. Do I think they were a bit unlucky? Yes. But that's what happens when you don't win your conference. You throw yourself at someone else's mercy. Never a good place to be.

I understand you want to be able to point to the criteria as the absolute.  But your own posts clearly indicate the criteria isn't the absolute.  You say MOV is not in the criteria- ok agreed- but that's not the same as saying MOV doesn't play a role in the committee's decision.  In fact, your own post says "sure, they do look as scores".  Why would they ever, ever, ever look at a score?  W or L should be all that matters right?  Because W or L isn't all that matters. 

You prematurely state that UWW's "bad win" wasn't a factor based upon how the bracket came out.  Correct me if I'm wrong, we don't know who has homefield throughout the playoffs.  Isn't it altogether possible that if UWW and UMHB are fortunate enough to meet in the semis the game could be in Texas?  And isn't it altogether possible that the reason it would be in Texas is because UWW's "bad win" played a role in the committee's decision?
   
I agree that if you don't want to be at the mercy of the committee then win your conference.  But this discussion is about those teams that didn't win their conference (say perhaps because the defending national champion happens to be in it) or for those not in a conference.  The team in a conference has one loss, 24-7 to the Defending National Champion and #1 (I know it's not a criteria) team in the country- plus a victory over UWP (by the way, absolutely ridiculous that they were dropped out of the D3 Top 25).  The team not in a conference lost 72-16 to the team that was beat last year and every year, by the team UWO lost a close game to. 

It just doesn't seem logical to me.   

[jknezek]

We don't know who has home field. But if you look at the brackets last year UMU was top left, UMHB bottom right. This year UWW is top left, UMU is bottom right. I think the same pattern held for 2012. It is likely UWW will host if everyone holds serve.

I'm not slavish to the criteria, but the criteria is what is used. How the committees emphasize different criteria seems to be the major difference year to year, not whether they use things outside the criteria. I think at this point we just keep repeating points that have been made. Sadly that isn't going to convince the other.

You think MOV shows UWO should have gotten in over TLU. I don't disagree. But with UWO behind UST in the West Region final, it wouldn't matter. As much as you don't like that the South Region used TLU for the "B" instead of Centre, and I agree with you there, the more likely reason UWO didn't make the field was because the West Region committee decided UST's full D3 slate and results were more impressive than UWOs short D3 slate.

TLU and UWO just weren't in competition. Is UWO a better team? I would guess yes, but again, the tournament is not about having the best 32 teams. It's about providing access. In that case, TLU getting in makes plenty of sense.

Interesting debate and thanks. But I think I've said all I can say at this point. There isn't anything new or different to add.

[retagent]

If I could. I think we're talking apples and oranges. The "what should have happened" is too subjective. I think there is a place for subjectivity in this, but the probelem is, is that everyone's subjective opinion is different. You'll still get results that are seemingly wrong to a great number of people, no matter the result.

I think that jknezek would be better not using the term "more impressive." Maybe "more dispositive" would be better, since just by the number of D III games played by each, you have a larger number upon which to base your decision when looking at St Thomas' record. The non D III games played by OWO are just harder to use as  a determinating factor.

[emma17]

Thank you too jknezek
Like a skilled psychologist, you allowed me to unload my frustrations- and I'm feeling better for it.

Ok, I'm ready to move on to round one.
I wish Bleed didn't post the videos of the Mac players - I really took a liking to those guys. 
I imagine we will see a game similar to round one last year.  Not a blow out but a hard fought game w talented seniors playing their hearts out.

[bleedpurple]

If I could. I think we're talking apples and oranges. The "what should have happened" is too subjective. I think there is a place for subjectivity in this, but the probelem is, is that everyone's subjective opinion is different. You'll still get results that are seemingly wrong to a great number of people, no matter the result.

I think that jknezek would be better not using the term "more impressive." Maybe "more dispositive" would be better, since just by the number of D III games played by each, you have a larger number upon which to base your decision when looking at St Thomas' record. The non D III games played by OWO are just harder to use as  a determinating factor.

Except guys like me don't know what "dispositive" means.  Is that another cheap shot at those of us educated at a state school or somethin? 

[bleedpurple]

Thank you too jknezek
Like a skilled psychologist, you allowed me to unload my frustrations- and I'm feeling better for it.

Ok, I'm ready to move on to round one.
I wish Bleed didn't post the videos of the Mac players - I really took a liking to those guys.
I imagine we will see a game similar to round one last year.  Not a blow out but a hard fought game w talented seniors playing their hearts out.

It's so funny you said that. I text a guy the same thing this morning.  Then I addd, "I don't like liking an opponent."

As far as the other post, UW-W isn't and shouldn't be affected by the River Falls result. I wasn't being serious about any of that post, but I absolutely think that game in that circumstance should affect nothing. With all this criteria minutia, there has to be certain anchoring points of common sense holding everything together where possible. An undefeated defending National Champion getting an overall #1 seed would certainly be one of those.  To give more weight to a UW-W at River Falls in what largely was a "get through it game" than the weight given last year's Semi-finals and Stagg Bowl would be wrong IMO (even though the RF result is the most current and in the current year).  IMO, UW-W "earned" the right to hold serve by beating the CRU on their own home field in last year's semi's. Until UW-W or Mount loses a game to anyone other than each other, that should hold. If UMHB had won last year, I would say the same. In that event, UW-W ought to have to head to Texas if they make it to the semi's again this year.

[emma17]

Thank you too jknezek
Like a skilled psychologist, you allowed me to unload my frustrations- and I'm feeling better for it.

Ok, I'm ready to move on to round one.
I wish Bleed didn't post the videos of the Mac players - I really took a liking to those guys.
I imagine we will see a game similar to round one last year.  Not a blow out but a hard fought game w talented seniors playing their hearts out.

It's so funny you said that. I text a guy the same thing this morning.  Then I addd, "I don't like liking an opponent."

As far as the other post, UW-W isn't and shouldn't be affected by the River Falls result. I wasn't being serious about any of that post, but I absolutely think that game in that circumstance should affect nothing. With all this criteria minutia, there has to be certain anchoring points of common sense holding everything together where possible. An undefeated defending National Champion getting an overall #1 seed would certainly be one of those.  To give more weight to a UW-W at River Falls in what largely was a "get through it game" than the weight given last year's Semi-finals and Stagg Bowl would be wrong IMO (even though the RF result is the most current and in the current year).  IMO, UW-W "earned" the right to hold serve by beating the CRU on their own home field in last year's semi's. Until UW-W or Mount loses a game to anyone other than each other, that should hold. If UMHB had won last year, I would say the same. In that event, UW-W ought to have to head to Texas if they make it to the semi's again this year.

Fair enough.  Let's hope we get to have this conversation three weeks from now.

[Desertraider]

Wanted to stop by and wish "the Other Purple Power"  all the best in the playoffs. Hope to see a UWW/Mount re-re-re-re-re(etc..)match - I really do!! What is the word on Kumerow? Here is to no injuries and a great run for you guys.

[BoBo]

Anyone know when the all conference team is announced? I always thought it was a few days following the end of the regular season. bw, bleed, voice anyone know?

[badgerwarhawk]

So did I so I've been checking the past few days but nothing is published yet. 

[voice]

I know the WIAC All-Conference meeting was held early this week.

I know in the past the All- WIAC team was not released until the Milwaukee Journal publishes the all-conference team.

I don't know if that process is still in effect

[Pat Coleman]

I know the WIAC All-Conference meeting was held early this week.

I know in the past the All- WIAC team was not released until the Milwaukee Journal publishes the all-conference team.

I don't know if that process is still in effect

A perfect 1980's approach to media that would not be unlike the WIAC to still do today (like no streaming of conference title games so it can be shown on tape delay three weeks later).

[WarhawkDad]

WIAC All Conference list is out.  http://www.wiacsports.com/news/2014/11/20/FB_1120143702.aspx

Good showing by the Warhawks.

WHD