FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

Really what's amazing is that in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary that you yourself provided (I hereby retract my uninformed descriptor...that was presumptuous of me), you still managed to reach the conclusion that:

I can see Morningside crumbling when the going gets tough since they have really never faced that kind of pressure for a complete game.

Your POV is so clouded by the last 8 years that even when presenting the entire case that supports the idea that Morningside is a team that annually plays in very high stakes games, you conclude that they'll "crumble" in exactly that situation vs. UWW**.  You're trapped in this construct that any game that doesn't involve UW-Whitewater isn't a big game or doesn't involve good teams.  That's lunacy.  Normally I'm fine to just let you rant and rave and shower yourself in Lance Leipold's success, but sometimes man, sometimes you say something so incredibly off base that it needs to be pointed out.  This was one of those times. 

**This game actually has no real stakes for either side...we should probably at least semi-acknowledge that this thing is a glorified exhibition. I think the game is interesting and I think it is a fun spectacle, but there are no real consequences here.  

I may or may not seem like it but I'm extremely old, competitive & if you challenge me to something I will slaughter you & destroy any pride you have.

Roger Goodell thinks that this might not have been a proportionally appropriate response.  Good effort. 

[emma17]

Wally,
Question.  When you say this game has no real stakes for either side, can you clarify that for me as it relates to a Pool C bid?  Now don't get to reading into anything I'm saying, I truly have the question.  As you recall UWO's losses to non conf teams last year actually did matter.  I know you are well versed in the Pool C process, which is why I ask- Is the criteria different this year? 

On a similar note, there will be very interesting consequences to the NAIA rankings should UWW win. 

[wally_wabash]

Wally,
Question.  When you say this game has no real stakes for either side, can you clarify that for me as it relates to a Pool C bid?  Now don't get to reading into anything I'm saying, I truly have the question.  As you recall UWO's losses to non conf teams last year actually did matter.  I know you are well versed in the Pool C process, which is why I ask- Is the criteria different this year? 

On a similar note, there will be very interesting consequences to the NAIA rankings should UWW win.

I've wondered to myself if Whitewater losing this game might dislodge them from a top seed in the tournament- my lean is toward no, but it's an interesting possibility and one we might talk about more after Thursday. 

As far as Pool C goes, I don't think this is going to have a huge affect really.  For UWW to land in Pool C, they'll have to lose somewhere in the WIAC portion of the schedule.  So let's say they do (presumably to either Oshkosh or Platteville based on September results) and they end 8-2, 8-1 in D3 play.  The criteria won't be great for UWW, particularly if the Belhaven and Finlandia records influence UWW's SOS (this I'm not sure of...there always seems to be confusion about whether new teams and reclassifying teams' records count), but I'm basically counting on the West RAC to not really care about that.  At worst, I could imagine a scenario where that 8-2 Whitewater team winds up behind a 1-loss MIAC runner up (no easy feat to go 9-1 through that league) and maybe a one-loss Wartburg team in the regional rankings.  That's the absolute worst case scenario for UWW, IMO.  That scenario probably plants them on the last in/first out bubble.  More likely, I think, is that UWW would be the first non-qualifier available from the West and would be invited into the field pretty early on in the process. 

[OzJohnnie]

Breast is better than leg. Indisputable.  It takes the gravy better.  Anyone who likes leg better is self-evidently anti-pilgrim and wishes William Bradford had never set foot upon Plymouth Rock.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Breast is better than leg. Indisputable.  It takes the gravy better.  Anyone who likes leg better is self-evidently anti-pilgrim and wishes William Bradford had never set foot upon Plymouth Rock.

Dark meat or white meat?

There is only one right answer to this question.  I will vote you off the island if you get it wrong.

[emma17]

Wally,
Question.  When you say this game has no real stakes for either side, can you clarify that for me as it relates to a Pool C bid?  Now don't get to reading into anything I'm saying, I truly have the question.  As you recall UWO's losses to non conf teams last year actually did matter.  I know you are well versed in the Pool C process, which is why I ask- Is the criteria different this year? 

On a similar note, there will be very interesting consequences to the NAIA rankings should UWW win.

I've wondered to myself if Whitewater losing this game might dislodge them from a top seed in the tournament- my lean is toward no, but it's an interesting possibility and one we might talk about more after Thursday. 

As far as Pool C goes, I don't think this is going to have a huge affect really.  For UWW to land in Pool C, they'll have to lose somewhere in the WIAC portion of the schedule.  So let's say they do (presumably to either Oshkosh or Platteville based on September results) and they end 8-2, 8-1 in D3 play.  The criteria won't be great for UWW, particularly if the Belhaven and Finlandia records influence UWW's SOS (this I'm not sure of...there always seems to be confusion about whether new teams and reclassifying teams' records count), but I'm basically counting on the West RAC to not really care about that.  At worst, I could imagine a scenario where that 8-2 Whitewater team winds up behind a 1-loss MIAC runner up (no easy feat to go 9-1 through that league) and maybe a one-loss Wartburg team in the regional rankings.  That's the absolute worst case scenario for UWW, IMO.  That scenario probably plants them on the last in/first out bubble.  More likely, I think, is that UWW would be the first non-qualifier available from the West and would be invited into the field pretty early on in the process.

Agreed to table any UWW talks until after Thursday.  We'll have to add UWO to the list as well. 

The strength of the MIAC and WIAC and likely the CCIW will make Pool C selection quite a discussion topic this year.  Now would be the time to dispense of the Rotating Regional Pez Dispenser method of team selection.

[wally_wabash]

Wally,
Question.  When you say this game has no real stakes for either side, can you clarify that for me as it relates to a Pool C bid?  Now don't get to reading into anything I'm saying, I truly have the question.  As you recall UWO's losses to non conf teams last year actually did matter.  I know you are well versed in the Pool C process, which is why I ask- Is the criteria different this year? 

On a similar note, there will be very interesting consequences to the NAIA rankings should UWW win.

I've wondered to myself if Whitewater losing this game might dislodge them from a top seed in the tournament- my lean is toward no, but it's an interesting possibility and one we might talk about more after Thursday. 

As far as Pool C goes, I don't think this is going to have a huge affect really.  For UWW to land in Pool C, they'll have to lose somewhere in the WIAC portion of the schedule.  So let's say they do (presumably to either Oshkosh or Platteville based on September results) and they end 8-2, 8-1 in D3 play.  The criteria won't be great for UWW, particularly if the Belhaven and Finlandia records influence UWW's SOS (this I'm not sure of...there always seems to be confusion about whether new teams and reclassifying teams' records count), but I'm basically counting on the West RAC to not really care about that.  At worst, I could imagine a scenario where that 8-2 Whitewater team winds up behind a 1-loss MIAC runner up (no easy feat to go 9-1 through that league) and maybe a one-loss Wartburg team in the regional rankings.  That's the absolute worst case scenario for UWW, IMO.  That scenario probably plants them on the last in/first out bubble.  More likely, I think, is that UWW would be the first non-qualifier available from the West and would be invited into the field pretty early on in the process.

Agreed to table any UWW talks until after Thursday.  We'll have to add UWO to the list as well. 

The strength of the MIAC and WIAC and likely the CCIW will make Pool C selection quite a discussion topic this year.  Now would be the time to dispense of the Rotating Regional Pez Dispenser method of team selection.

My early read on UWO is that they are in a far better position for tournament invitation this year than they were last year.  Does it make any common sense at all that playing Finlandia is better than playing South Dakota State (or whoever it was)?  Sure doesn't.  But that's basically the way it plays out.  If UWO winds up being the 8-2, 8-1 team instead of UWW, I think they'd have a really good shot at going into the tournament.  I'm not quite as confident on that as I am with UWW just because they don't have UWW's massive cache of benefit of the doubt capital, but I think they'd probably be first or second in line from the West with that 8-2, 8-1 record and would go in. 

In the CCIW...if North Central loses this weekend, they are in elimination mode for the duration of the season.  Even if they lose to Platteville (who may be very good, we'll see), Wesley (who I think we assume is really good even if we're sure they'll step in it in the semifinals), and Wheaton (who I think we think is really good), they aren't going in.  7-3 won't get it done, even if those three are all to regionally ranked teams.  They might be in play if they win this weekend and lose to Wheaton down the line, but that's a big if.  And that loss to Platteville really might be something that crushes them if they ever get to a spot where they're being compared to Platteville directly or to a UWW or UWO team that beat Platteville.  That fourth quarter and overtime was KILLER for the Cardinals.  Just killer.  IWU is also lingering around over there are a bit of a sleeper that may upset the apple cart in the North.  Keep an eye on them. 

[02 Warhawk]

Things would be really interesting for NCC if they beat Wesley, but lose to Wheaton (who wil go on to win the CCIW).

Does a two-loss NCC team get a Pool C bid....with losses to UWP and Wheaton? I guess that all depends on what UWP ends up doing this year. Scheduling a tough nonconference has its downfalls.

[wally_wabash]

Things would be really interesting for NCC if they beat Wesley, but lose to Wheaton (who wil go on to win the CCIW).

Does a two-loss NCC team get a Pool C bid....with losses to UWP and Wheaton? I guess that all depends on what UWP ends up doing this year. Scheduling a tough nonconference has its downfalls.

That depends entirely on what else happens in the North region.  The Witt/Wabash loser, should they finish things out with one loss is going to stay ranked ahead of two-loss North Central.  So that puts North Central second in line, for now.  I'm not high on what John Carroll is doing, but if they get through their season with only a loss to Mount Union, they'll stay ranked ahead of North Central as well.  So that's two teams in front of the Cardinals now.  Now it gets interesting- there's the possibility of a 1-loss runner up in the MIAA (Albion or Olivet).  Maybe that team sneaks ahead of North Central.  Rose-Hulman in the HCAC could be a one loss runner up and could get ranked ahead of North Central.  Really, North Central could wind up as the fourth or fifth at-large team from their own region.  That's not a ranking that I would agree with, btw, but it's something that could possibly happen. 

[OzJohnnie]

That's a strong argument, wally, for good teams to play powder puffs in the non-conference schedule, unfortunately.  NCC could have played UWP in the post season rather than the start of the year if they had scheduled easy.

[USee]

That's a strong argument, wally, for good teams to play powder puffs in the non-conference schedule, unfortunately.  NCC could have played UWP in the post season rather than the start of the year if they had scheduled easy.

Good Lord. Roll the tape........

[USee]

Here is a relevant cut and paste from a conversation a week or so ago on the NCAC board about scheduling. Wally makes some strong points:

Play for national championships, not for pool c invitations.

I definitely understand the sentiment, but you can't play for a championship if you're not in the tournament.  It's a tricky path to navigate and because basically all of the D3 championships in the last 20 years have been won by just two teams, there's not really a blueprint or any evidence of what actually works to get to that point.  Mount Union doesn't play anybody in their non-league game.  UWW can't find anybody to play.  Teams that have jumped in to play those two specifically haven't gotten any better (from a getting-closer-to-a-championship sense) as a result.  I'd rather Wabash play Wesley and Mount Union in November and December than in September.

100% agree. Teams like to beat their chest (yes I am referring to NCC fans) about playing tough competition but you play tough competition in November and December. Playing them in September gets you a seat on the couch more times than not. (see NCC 2014)

If you lose two games in the first ten, against anybody, you're not gonna play for or win the national championship. It's irrelevant. The reward for playing a challenging team in the regular season far outweighs the risk.

Agreed.  If the objective isn't just to make the playoffs as often as possible, but to get to Salem then this is absolutely true IMO.  If you're truly striving for a title then you need to play teams in that upper echelon as often as possible I'd think.

As an aside, I would be a fan of teams finding a good OOC rival and sticking with it.  I wish Mount would do this although I'm not sure who it'd be.  W&J would be fun perhaps.  For Wabash I think it'd be a cool OOC rivalry if they played Franklin week 1 each year for example.  I don't know about other schools, but Mount can never seem to keep anyone around for longer than a home-and-home though.

This may be.  But there is NO evidence that this strategy helps teams get to Salem or be in the upper echelon (wherever you want to draw that line).  Buffalo State played and beat Whitewater in 2012.  Playoff appearances for the Bengals since that monumental win (and I'm counting this as monumental even if that was the season where Whitewater was off for whatever reason): 0.  They've never even played in the tournament.  They beat the champs and all they got out of it was fleeting adoration from the D3 community and a splashy cover photo/headline combo in Week 3 of 2012.  And then it was all gone.  Beat Whitewater in December though- now you've (probably) earned something meaningful, like a trip to Salem or the ultimate celebration at Salem Stadium.

[OzJohnnie]

Here is a relevant cut and paste from a conversation a week or so ago on the NCAC board about scheduling. Wally makes some strong points:

Play for national championships, not for pool c invitations.

I definitely understand the sentiment, but you can't play for a championship if you're not in the tournament.  It's a tricky path to navigate and because basically all of the D3 championships in the last 20 years have been won by just two teams, there's not really a blueprint or any evidence of what actually works to get to that point.  Mount Union doesn't play anybody in their non-league game.  UWW can't find anybody to play.  Teams that have jumped in to play those two specifically haven't gotten any better (from a getting-closer-to-a-championship sense) as a result.  I'd rather Wabash play Wesley and Mount Union in November and December than in September.

100% agree. Teams like to beat their chest (yes I am referring to NCC fans) about playing tough competition but you play tough competition in November and December. Playing them in September gets you a seat on the couch more times than not. (see NCC 2014)

If you lose two games in the first ten, against anybody, you're not gonna play for or win the national championship. It's irrelevant. The reward for playing a challenging team in the regular season far outweighs the risk.

Agreed.  If the objective isn't just to make the playoffs as often as possible, but to get to Salem then this is absolutely true IMO.  If you're truly striving for a title then you need to play teams in that upper echelon as often as possible I'd think.

As an aside, I would be a fan of teams finding a good OOC rival and sticking with it.  I wish Mount would do this although I'm not sure who it'd be.  W&J would be fun perhaps.  For Wabash I think it'd be a cool OOC rivalry if they played Franklin week 1 each year for example.  I don't know about other schools, but Mount can never seem to keep anyone around for longer than a home-and-home though.

This may be.  But there is NO evidence that this strategy helps teams get to Salem or be in the upper echelon (wherever you want to draw that line).  Buffalo State played and beat Whitewater in 2012.  Playoff appearances for the Bengals since that monumental win (and I'm counting this as monumental even if that was the season where Whitewater was off for whatever reason): 0.  They've never even played in the tournament.  They beat the champs and all they got out of it was fleeting adoration from the D3 community and a splashy cover photo/headline combo in Week 3 of 2012.  And then it was all gone.  Beat Whitewater in December though- now you've (probably) earned something meaningful, like a trip to Salem or the ultimate celebration at Salem Stadium.

I'm on the iPhone and it's too hard to delete everything. Sorry.

I just wanted to point out in the highlighted bit hat if you're making the post season with great regularity then your teams are playing the top echelon. Playing the top outside of the post season is only really a valid argument from a meet the competition point of view if you don't make the post season with regularity.

In fact, making the post season is a better bet of playing top teams since their is no guarantee that UWP, for example, can make the post season. The WIAC frequently puts just one team into the playoffs. NCC may have been doubly undone by this loss.

[wally_wabash]

That's a strong argument, wally, for good teams to play powder puffs in the non-conference schedule, unfortunately.  NCC could have played UWP in the post season rather than the start of the year if they had scheduled easy.

It's a really hard topic because I believe there needs to be a premium on wins.  And playing the hard schedule is admirable, but if you lose those games, your season may be over.  Part of the thread copied from the NCAC board carries the point that if you play good teams in your non-league schedule and lose, you were never going to win the tournament anyway.  It's a great point and one I agree with in principle, but selfishly I'd rather see my team play in the postseason and lose to Whitewater or Wesley or whoever than get knocked out of the tournament in September by playing those kinds of teams.  I think there is a lot of program value for being one of the last 32 teams playing, even if the end result winds up being no national championship. 

That said, scheduling is just so hard.  In 2013 Wabash went 9-1 with their non-league game being against Hanover.  Wabash got left out and the feedback from the committee and from D3football.com was that Wabash didn't have a strong enough SOS.  And that's fine- during my pool C analysis from that season, I was pretty up front about that being a very possible outcome.  In 2014 Hanover was gone from the schedule and replaced by Hamden-Sydney, which was met with universal approval.  But in the SOS math, Wabash's increase was just 0.017 points, which is something, but not really a ton.  And an awful lot of that increase comes from the ODAC feasting on USASC teams in their non-league schedule while the HCAC tends to schedule challenging games around the North region (and losing nearly all of them).  Overall, HSC provided Wabash just two more wins for the OWP portion of the math than Hanover did.  The difference, honestly, was negligible.  Wabash wouldn't have been selected over SJF in 2014 with a .520 SOS instead of the .503 that they had.  For all of the hubbub about Wabash having "scheduled up", per the math, there wasn't much difference at all. 

That's kind of a longwinded way to say that the SOS is a bad metric.  Much more important, in my mind anyway, are RRO results (which distills the SOS inputs down to the games that matter most), h2h results, common opponent results, and win percentages.  SOS without any context (which is how the NCAA uses it) can be very misleading.   

[emma17]

I believe a team can start off the season slow, or have a bad span, and still be good enough to win the Stagg Bowl.