FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[emma17]

Fact is, I'm tired of trying to defend the WIAC and UWW with delicacy so as not to hurt the sensitivities of others.
People on various boards have posted such BS as argument for their side-literally assigning meaning or intent that wasn't there, to build support for their position- and it goes uncontested.   

Here's an example of some of the complete BS that gets posted, often in relation to something WIAC or UWW:

E17, you clearly don't understand what Division III is all about.

Really?  Go check yourself.  This post comes from a fan of a school that beats its chest about the competitive academic environment.  So let me get this straight, D3 is about striving for academic excellence but frowns upon striving for athletic excellence?
D3 is about being the best you can be, while not misplacing priorities.  Playing to win isn't a misplaced priority.

Here's one that's used if you think Pools B and C should be restricted to teams the committee feels will provide the greatest level of competition in the playoffs:

It's rather an injustice if a qualified team is excluded because of elitism. Not on a civil or human rights scale, of course, but the little guys deserve it as much as the so-called elites

.
or

The strong should not get more teams in because of who they are; the so-called elite should not remain in perpetuity.  They need to earn it. Earn it by winning a conference title. Not 2-losses.

The elite- really?  You are an elitist if you feel a UWO or a NCC or a SJF would elevate the level of competiveness of the playoffs, in fact helping to reduce the chances that the Purple Powers should meet again.  You're an elitist even though you feel for the kids from UWO and NCC as much as the poster feels for the players on the team the committee may subjectively decide isn't likely to enhance the competiveness of the playoffs.  I call BS on this.   

Here's one if you think the WIAC has helped UWW get better and conversely, if you think UWW has helped the WIAC get better:

Of course not, but the transitive effect from a Purple to another conference member has not been proven.

and

It's not teams from the same conferences getting deep in the playoffs every year.  It's the same teams.  Conference doesn't matter.
Platteville gets no bonus points for beating Concordia.  None.  UWO had a transcendent player in 2012.  They're not the same outfit since.  2012 UWO was good because of Mara.  Not because of WIAC.

Excuse me?  Maybe the conference this poster is from has done nothing to elevate the top team and vice versa.  I remember reading an article from UWO's coach Cerroni where he mentioned he was recruiting the type of athlete with the mentality that wanted to take down the giant.  So UWW didn't help?  How about the roster at UWP- do you think UWP is getting some of those highly talented IL players only because of tuition discount?  Or is it possible IL players are choosing UWP for a shot at UWW, and national prominence?
UWW doesn't benefit from the competitiveness of the WIAC?  That's a ridiculous statement and I call BS. 

Even more ridiculous is the slap in the face to UWO and UWP.  I've had the pleasure of attending the last 4-5 UWW vs UWO games.  UWO isn't what they were with Wara, just as UWW isn't what it was with Justin Beaver.  But UWO is loaded with good football players.  I have zero doubt they would have tested any team they faced.   

And discredit UWP because of who they beat in the first round last year?  They beat the team they were paired against, just like Wabash did this year.  UWP played NCC the second round, and lost to a team most feel was champion caliber.  I had the pleasure of attending the UWP vs UWW game this year (and prior years), UWP is the real deal.  They may not be championship caliber, but they'd give any team they played a run for their money.  Yes I know, I'm using the eye test.  But it's a well seasoned eye. 

There are the guys that love to use exaggeration to make their point, like this comment:

Saying a "C" can only come from 'better' conferences means the others have no chance, even if they do things right (win their non-cons and they scheduled up, and lose one game)

No, that's not the point.  The point is the Pool C teams should be those that had the strongest auditions during the regular season.  These are the teams the committee should have greater confidence to enhance the overall strength of the playoffs.  Whether the teams are in the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, Independent or the MWC or anywhere else is irrelevant.  Prove you can enhance the competitiveness of the playoffs, and you get in. 

And then you get to read their gloating:

Looks like Muhlenberg proved their playoff mettle, despite the nay-sayers. Took Widener down to the last seconds before losing.

As somehow playing Widener tough means anything at this point in the playoffs. Widener is an absolute unknown because they have no playoff pedigree (as in beating the top teams).  They may turn out to be championship caliber this year, but nothing, absolutely nothing at this point suggests Muhl's ability to play a tight game means they were the best Pool C selection. 
And oh, this argument applies to the TLU tight game with MHB.  I'm truly happy for TLU that they played MHB so close in the playoffs.  I've posted many times that I despise blowouts.  However, the fact remains TLU should not have been the Pool B selection based upon their audition during the regular season.  Another team somewhere had a stronger audition, and that team should have played MHB. 

And should you think that your eyes and experience can identify a high quality, playoff caliber team:

I trust Massey when there's not true common opponents.

I trust my judgment. 

I call BS to all these quotes.  I don't apologize for believing the WIAC provides excellent competition.  I don't apologize for believing I have a good idea of what a playoff competitive team looks like.  I don't apologize for thinking teams need to build some credibility and pedigree to increase their chances of getting in through Pool B and C.  Yes, I get that it's hard to build pedigree in Pool C if you don't get in the first time.  The answer isn't the Robin Hood approach, the answer is they need to win their conference and do well in the playoffs.  The same way other teams built their pedigree. 

[emma17]

So make your point about the system with a team from another conference, say North Central. They got left out and were obviously better than UWP and arguably better than Oshkosh.  And plenty of WIAC fans know how they have fared in the playoffs recently.  Same point different league, more powerful argument. 

Problem is you can't really argue for UWP and not for NCC can you? Bute. You have to use the UWSP result and it gets more complicated. Which is the whole point.  How does a team dominate UWP and lost to UWSP?

Usee,
I am going to start calling BS where it's warranted.  BS on you.  Facts rather than exaggeration and we can have a fair debate.   Domination is a flat out exaggeration and has no place in this discussion.  I agree entirely NCC was better than UWP.  UWP fell behind 21 points in the 1st quarter.  From that point forward, the game was played to a 7-7 draw.  In fact, the score was 21-7 with most of the 3rd quarter left to play.  Not a fair minded football fan on the planet would say that 21-7 is domination.  BS on you.

Then I call BS on your argument Emma. Football is 4 quarters. You don't start ignoring the parts you don't like, otherwise Wabash lost 10-7 to UWW in the first half. They were as close as any team UWW played this season to knocking them off, if you ignore the inconvenient parts of the game that disprove your assertion. Something you conveniently just did.

Over the course of a game, NCC almost monkey stomped UWP. Maybe they let off after steaming up the first quarter, maybe they didn't, but no fair minded football plan on the planet would ignore what actually happened over a full game in order to try and make a piss poor argument rebuttal.

Call BS on other people if you want, but at first try and be aware of your own.

BS back at you buddy.  Nothing you can say or write will convince me that 21-7 early in the third is a domination.  Nothing.

[emma17]

7.3 yds per rush for NCC. BS on you Emma. That game wasn't nearly as close as the final score. And yes NCC rushed it on everybody but the ONLY opponent to give up anywhere close to 7 yds per carry was UWP.  If you watched it you may be able to distinguish these stats from eye test. NCC, that day, was a dominant football team.

I don't recall saying UWP stopped the NCC rushing attack.  Good for NCC, as you probably know, but would hate to admit, I'm very familiar with NCC and I am a big fan of theirs. 
The game isn't based on average yards per rush, the point remains, 21-7 early in the third quarter looks nothing, nothing like dominance. 

[emma17]

7.3 yds per rush for NCC. BS on you Emma. That game wasn't nearly as close as the final score. And yes NCC rushed it on everybody but the ONLY opponent to give up anywhere close to 7 yds per carry was UWP.  If you watched it you may be able to distinguish these stats from eye test. NCC, that day, was a dominant football team.

Here's your Drive Chart Usee.
Like I said, I don't see domination.  I see NCC clearly outplayed them in the first quarter until UWP settled down. 
http://d3football.com/seasons/2014/boxscores/20140920_mo65.xml?view=drives

[USee]

7.3 yds per rush for NCC. BS on you Emma. That game wasn't nearly as close as the final score. And yes NCC rushed it on everybody but the ONLY opponent to give up anywhere close to 7 yds per carry was UWP.  If you watched it you may be able to distinguish these stats from eye test. NCC, that day, was a dominant football team.

Here's your Drive Chart Usee.
Like I said, I don't see domination.  I see NCC clearly outplayed them in the first quarter until UWP settled down. 
http://d3football.com/seasons/2014/boxscores/20140920_mo65.xml?view=drives

So you didn't see the game? And you are using stats to make your point? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I watched it and, based on my credentials I thought they were dominant. UWP never threatened to win that game. It wasn't close. So I guess it wasn't 67-0 dominant (where UMU rushed for 6.2 yds per rush) and in that case it may depend on how you define dominant. But it certainly didn't look much different to me than the 2nd round game between those two in 2013. Incidentally, that was the last time an NCC team rushed for more than 7 yds per carry (8.5 yds per carry in that game). And no, I don't think domination is defined by yds per rush. But I do think it is defined as who wins the battle at the LOS and NCC did that convincingly.  I thought a 21 pt win was a "monkey stomp" in this room? And something twice that is a "double monkey stomp"? Maybe I misremember.

But then again, if we (you and I) were always right with our "eye test" we would be undefeated in the pickems and have the ability to make a lot of dough in Vegas. So I concede that UWP, UWO, NCC, Bethel, etc, may have different results vs each other if they played multiple times. 

[wesleydad]

Well, it seems like things don't change over here.   I have read both points of view and see where both are coming from.  I am a big fan of the eye test since I, like Emma and Smed, see many different teams play during the year.  I have a better selection with my local in the east and a 4 hour drive gets me into New York and as far south as Bridgewater and the Richmond area.  The stats are useful when you try to compare teams that don't see each other or have common opponents.  In the end I have a hard time thinking a team that has lost twice should get an at large bid if there is a team who has only lost once, likely to the conference champion, and seem equal.  I agree with Emma that UWO and UWP could likely beat half the teams in the tournament.  The eye test tells me that Widener is not that good, yet they are in the final 8 and have gotten what could be called the luck of the draw with Muhlenberg, who should have won the game, and then an average at best CNU team.  My eyes tell me they get crushed this week by Linfield, but we shall see.  Having met Emma at the Staff bowl I appreciate his blunt candor and opinions since they are based on what he has seen.  I do not always agree with him, but understand where he is coming from.  I also respect Smed who comes at things from a different perspective.  But, mostly I love the debate, gives me something to do on a slow boring Sunday night.

[wesleydad]

Now, to what matters, the game this week.  What is the feeling about Wartburg?  They have certainly raised their level of play this year and have been pretty dominant, taking out the MIAC's best.  How has Whitewater looked lately?  I have only seen a little of their games since whenever I go to watch them the game is not competitive.

[emma17]

7.3 yds per rush for NCC. BS on you Emma. That game wasn't nearly as close as the final score. And yes NCC rushed it on everybody but the ONLY opponent to give up anywhere close to 7 yds per carry was UWP.  If you watched it you may be able to distinguish these stats from eye test. NCC, that day, was a dominant football team.

Here's your Drive Chart Usee.
Like I said, I don't see domination.  I see NCC clearly outplayed them in the first quarter until UWP settled down. 
http://d3football.com/seasons/2014/boxscores/20140920_mo65.xml?view=drives

So you didn't see the game? And you are using stats to make your point? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I watched it and, based on my credentials I thought they were dominant. UWP never threatened to win that game. It wasn't close. So I guess it wasn't 67-0 dominant (where UMU rushed for 6.2 yds per rush) and in that case it may depend on how you define dominant. But it certainly didn't look much different to me than the 2nd round game between those two in 2013. Incidentally, that was the last time an NCC team rushed for more than 7 yds per carry (8.5 yds per carry in that game). And no, I don't think domination is defined by yds per rush. But I do think it is defined as who wins the battle at the LOS and NCC did that convincingly.  I thought a 21 pt win was a "monkey stomp" in this room? And something twice that is a "double monkey stomp"? Maybe I misremember.

But then again, if we (you and I) were always right with our "eye test" we would be undefeated in the pickems and have the ability to make a lot of dough in Vegas. So I concede that UWP, UWO, NCC, Bethel, etc, may have different results vs each other if they played multiple times.

Again BS on you.  You asked me a question in your first sentence Usee- and didn't wait for an answer before calling me out.  I'll say it again Usee, you asked me a question in your first sentence- and you did not wait for an answer.

Seek first to understand.
Try the question again, and I'll be glad to answer.  And then from the standpoint, we can attempt to have a decent discussion.   

[wally_wabash]

I don't apologize for believing the WIAC provides excellent competition.  I don't apologize for believing I have a good idea of what a playoff competitive team looks like.  I don't apologize for thinking teams need to build some credibility and pedigree to increase their chances of getting in through Pool B and C.  Yes, I get that it's hard to build pedigree in Pool C if you don't get in the first time.  The answer isn't the Robin Hood approach, the answer is they need to win their conference and do well in the playoffs.  The same way other teams built their pedigree.

What exactly did UWO or UWP prove in 2014 that they ought to have been selected instead of the teams that did?  You can crow forever about how good YOU think those teams are and that they would beat the brakes off of the other teams that got selected, but you don't know that.  You're just guessing.  There's nothing substantive in your argument.  It's just a bunch of conference pride chest pounding.  UWO and UWP didn't get wronged by the committee.  They didn't have seasons that merited selection.

[emma17]

7.3 yds per rush for NCC. BS on you Emma. That game wasn't nearly as close as the final score. And yes NCC rushed it on everybody but the ONLY opponent to give up anywhere close to 7 yds per carry was UWP.  If you watched it you may be able to distinguish these stats from eye test. NCC, that day, was a dominant football team.

Here's your Drive Chart Usee.
Like I said, I don't see domination.  I see NCC clearly outplayed them in the first quarter until UWP settled down. 
http://d3football.com/seasons/2014/boxscores/20140920_mo65.xml?view=drives

So you didn't see the game? And you are using stats to make your point? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I watched it and, based on my credentials I thought they were dominant. UWP never threatened to win that game. It wasn't close. So I guess it wasn't 67-0 dominant (where UMU rushed for 6.2 yds per rush) and in that case it may depend on how you define dominant. But it certainly didn't look much different to me than the 2nd round game between those two in 2013. Incidentally, that was the last time an NCC team rushed for more than 7 yds per carry (8.5 yds per carry in that game). And no, I don't think domination is defined by yds per rush. But I do think it is defined as who wins the battle at the LOS and NCC did that convincingly.  I thought a 21 pt win was a "monkey stomp" in this room? And something twice that is a "double monkey stomp"? Maybe I misremember.

But then again, if we (you and I) were always right with our "eye test" we would be undefeated in the pickems and have the ability to make a lot of dough in Vegas. So I concede that UWP, UWO, NCC, Bethel, etc, may have different results vs each other if they played multiple times.

In the first quarter, UWP had an 8 play, 61 yard drive ending in a missed field goal.
On their next drive, again in the first quarter, they had a 15 play, 58 yard drive ending in downs. 

You can call what you want dominance.  UWW ran for 240 yards and over 5 yds per carry, but was nowhere close to dominating that game. 
I've called you out for what I feel is an exaggeration on your part of the NCC vs. UWP game.  I've put the facts on the table for all to see.  And not that it matters to you since you're so eager to prove a point with whatever amount of embellishment is needed, I did not attend the game, but I did watch a fair amount of it online. 

[Li'l Giant]

Sorry to get off topic but.....whoa.


Leipold to Buffalo?

[emma17]

Now, to what matters, the game this week.  What is the feeling about Wartburg?  They have certainly raised their level of play this year and have been pretty dominant, taking out the MIAC's best.  How has Whitewater looked lately?  I have only seen a little of their games since whenever I go to watch them the game is not competitive.

I've always appreciated your style Wesleydad, thanks for the candor.
My feeling about Wartburg, without having studied much, is that they are too much like UWW for me to be comfortable.  I understand them to be big and physical, with a QB that can both run and pass, and a defense that seems good but maybe not great?  (based on points scored by St. T and running yards by St J without their star).
UWW is the same as always at this time of year.  Just when they have us doubting they can make a run, they put together an incredible performance like yesterday. 
From a stats perspective, Usee can learn a lot about what dominance looks like on paper. 

[ADAWGISADAWG4LIFE]

Sorry to get off topic but.....whoa.


Leipold to Buffalo?

Buffalo has called a 1pm news conference to announce the hire.

http://footballscoop.com/news/lance-leipold-will-next-head-coach-buffalo/

Huge step up for Leipold. I hope he can carry his success over. Love seeing a D3 guy get a shot at the highest level. Itll be a big transition for him but Im betting he can handle it.

[emma17]

I don't apologize for believing the WIAC provides excellent competition.  I don't apologize for believing I have a good idea of what a playoff competitive team looks like.  I don't apologize for thinking teams need to build some credibility and pedigree to increase their chances of getting in through Pool B and C.  Yes, I get that it's hard to build pedigree in Pool C if you don't get in the first time.  The answer isn't the Robin Hood approach, the answer is they need to win their conference and do well in the playoffs.  The same way other teams built their pedigree.

What exactly did UWO or UWP prove in 2014 that they ought to have been selected instead of the teams that did?  You can crow forever about how good YOU think those teams are and that they would beat the brakes off of the other teams that got selected, but you don't know that.  You're just guessing.  There's nothing substantive in your argument.  It's just a bunch of conference pride chest pounding.  UWO and UWP didn't get wronged by the committee.  They didn't have seasons that merited selection.

Your opinion too.  The committee was wrong.  UWO had one loss.   
The problem Wally, is they both played teams that are proven playoff winners.  UWO had one loss, in a hard fought game with evidence that UWO could outplay UWW in certain areas, to the defending national champion.  If the goal of Pool B and C is to enhance the level of competition, then UWO and NCC for that matter (my argument isn't restricted to just WIAC teams) were better choices than a team that had an audition resulting in a 56 point loss to a proven playoff team.
It's really not that complicated.  Muhl vs. UWO or NCC?  easy choice if you want the best team in the playoffs.  TLU vs UWO or NCC, easy choice again. 
As for UWP, I don't argue that they should have gotten in, they unfortunately played a buzz saw of a schedule.  The point with them is they can play with anybody. 

[02 Warhawk]

Wow is right.....I'm stunned