FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[02 Warhawk]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

[wally_wabash]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

This is probably not the explanation.  This process isn't as dubious and underhanded as so many people just assume it is. 

[izzy stradlin]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

Nobody will admit this but I suspect it does play a factor, even if it's subconscious on the part of the committee. I've seen it in other D3 sports. People don't like too much success.  It's why we have marginal tax brackets. 

[palum]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

This is probably not the explanation.  This process isn't as dubious and underhanded as so many people just assume it is.

I agree with 02 I posted a few days ago that the selection committee would catch a lot of flack if they took 3 teams from  one conference. I don't want to start a public vs private debate but the fact that they would have taken 3 teams from the the WIAC would have stirred some controversy.  If it came down. to Platteville and Ohio  Northern and they took Ohio Northern because of Platteville's 63-28 loss to Oshkosh why didn't they look at Ohio Nortern's 51-7 loos to Mount Union.   Platteville had a stronger. SOS and beat. 2 ranked teams in the west. I feel bad for the seniors they deserved better. I also see that Oshkosh,  Whitewater and Mt. Union are on the same side of the bracket. A Good luck to Oshkosh and WW.  It's time for a Brandy Ole Fashion.     
 

[wally_wabash]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

This is probably not the explanation.  This process isn't as dubious and underhanded as so many people just assume it is.

I agree with 02 I posted a few days ago that the selection committee would catch a lot of flack if they took 3 teams from  one conference. I don't want to start a public vs private debate but the fact that they would have taken 3 teams from the the WIAC would have stirred some controversy.  If it came down. to Platteville and Ohio  Northern and they took Ohio Northern because of Platteville's 63-28 loss to Oshkosh why didn't they look at Ohio Nortern's 51-7 loos to Mount Union.   Platteville had a stronger. SOS and beat. 2 ranked teams in the west. I feel bad for the seniors they deserved better. I also see that Oshkosh,  Whitewater and Mt. Union are on the same side of the bracket. A Good luck to Oshkosh and WW.  It's time for a Brandy Ole Fashion.     

Dude, if anything, I think the committee can be criticized for NOT taking Platteville. 

It didn't come down to Platteville and ONU.  Read the piece on the front page for a cogent, sensible explanation of what probably happened.  We may even get an explanation from the committee chair tonight. 

[DadofBashWarrior..]

Should have been Platteville....just aweful by the selection committee

[ExTartanPlayer]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

This is probably not the explanation.  This process isn't as dubious and underhanded as so many people just assume it is.

I agree with 02 I posted a few days ago that the selection committee would catch a lot of flack if they took 3 teams from  one conference. I don't want to start a public vs private debate but the fact that they would have taken 3 teams from the the WIAC would have stirred some controversy.  If it came down. to Platteville and Ohio  Northern and they took Ohio Northern because of Platteville's 63-28 loss to Oshkosh why didn't they look at Ohio Nortern's 51-7 loos to Mount Union.   Platteville had a stronger. SOS and beat. 2 ranked teams in the west. I feel bad for the seniors they deserved better. I also see that Oshkosh,  Whitewater and Mt. Union are on the same side of the bracket. A Good luck to Oshkosh and WW.  It's time for a Brandy Ole Fashion.     

First, I happen to agree that UWP would have made a better selection than ONU.

Since I'm not sure everyone that posts here reads all of the different sub-threads, which is quite understandable, I'll steal the explanation from the Pool C board.  Apologies to those who have already read this explanation elsewhere.

The way the Pool C process works, it's likely that UWP and ONU were never on the board at the same time.  Most likely, the West RAC had Whitworth ranked ahead of UWP in the West rankings (which is a ranking that I disagree with, and a ranking that this site's mock selection committee also disagreed with).

Since that was the case, Whitworth was probably the West team on the board when ONU was the North team on the board (probably with RPI from the East, and Guilford from the South) in the fifth round of Pool C selection (with the first 4 selections probably being Wesley, UWW, UMHB, and St. John's in some order).  The committee looked at those four teams - Whitworth, ONU, RPI, Guilford - and concluded that ONU was the choice.  Once that selection was made, UWP's fate was sealed - there was only one more spot left and Whitworth was still on the board as the top West team not yet selected.  Whitworth took the last spot, meaning that UWP probably never got discussed.

If you guys have an axe to grind, your target should be the West RAC.  It's as simple as "the West RAC ranked Whitworth ahead of UWP" -  which jammed UWP on the board until it was too late.  This wasn't some private-over-public thing or a "wait, we already have two WIAC teams, let's take a second OAC team."  UWP and ONU were (probably) never directly compared.

[bleedpurple]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

This is probably not the explanation.  This process isn't as dubious and underhanded as so many people just assume it is.

I agree with 02 I posted a few days ago that the selection committee would catch a lot of flack if they took 3 teams from  one conference. I don't want to start a public vs private debate but the fact that they would have taken 3 teams from the the WIAC would have stirred some controversy.  If it came down. to Platteville and Ohio  Northern and they took Ohio Northern because of Platteville's 63-28 loss to Oshkosh why didn't they look at Ohio Nortern's 51-7 loos to Mount Union.   Platteville had a stronger. SOS and beat. 2 ranked teams in the west. I feel bad for the seniors they deserved better. I also see that Oshkosh,  Whitewater and Mt. Union are on the same side of the bracket. A Good luck to Oshkosh and WW.  It's time for a Brandy Ole Fashion.     

First, I happen to agree that UWP would have made a better selection than ONU.

Since I'm not sure everyone that posts here reads all of the different sub-threads, which is quite understandable, I'll steal the explanation from the Pool C board.  Apologies to those who have already read this explanation elsewhere.

The way the Pool C process works, it's likely that UWP and ONU were never on the board at the same time.  Most likely, the West RAC had Whitworth ranked ahead of UWP in the West rankings (which is a ranking that I disagree with, and a ranking that this site's mock selection committee also disagreed with).

Since that was the case, Whitworth was probably the West team on the board when ONU was the North team on the board (probably with RPI from the East, and Guilford from the South) in the fifth round of Pool C selection (with the first 4 selections probably being Wesley, UWW, UMHB, and St. John's in some order).  The committee looked at those four teams - Whitworth, ONU, RPI, Guilford - and concluded that ONU was the choice.  Once that selection was made, UWP's fate was sealed - there was only one more spot left and Whitworth was still on the board as the top West team not yet selected.  Whitworth took the last spot, meaning that UWP probably never got discussed.

If you guys have an axe to grind, your target should be the West RAC.  It's as simple as "the West RAC ranked Whitworth ahead of UWP" -  which jammed UWP on the board until it was too late.  This wasn't some private-over-public thing or a "wait, we already have two WIAC teams, let's take a second OAC team."  UWP and ONU were (probably) never directly compared.

If that is true, then that is obviously a huge flaw in the "Pez Dispenser" system as Emma calls it. I'm guessing any system any of us would come up with would have flaws of it's own. 

However, I will throw in that a system flaw would be far better than a committee really conniving to keep three teams from the WIAC (or any conference) making the playoffs.  That would be even worse than conniving to put Mount and UW-W on the same side of the bracket.  And I don't think they did that either. Looks like it just fell that way. Will be interested in how the "experts" feel the committee did.

I don't have an ax to grind (I LOVE UW-W's bracket), but wouldn't those who do look towards the NATIONAL committee? My understanding is that they have the right to shift things around as they see fit.

[ExTartanPlayer]

That's all good stuff bleed, and I agree.  It's definitely a flaw of the Pez Dispenser method, but a mildly flawed system is much preferable to people just making it up as they go (because that would allow more room for "we have two WIAC teams, let's move on" or "here, let's put Mount and UWW on the same side of the bracket" stuff).

Re: the national committee overruling the RAC's, I will admit I don't know much about the regulation there.  I'll wait for someone who actually knows the rules about how that works to chime in.  I feel like I've read that they technically CAN re-order the RAC's work, but are generally reluctant to do so.

[02 Warhawk]

The potential game down in Wheaton will be fun. UWW's offense has come a long way this season, that will be a great test.

[emma17]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

This is probably not the explanation.  This process isn't as dubious and underhanded as so many people just assume it is.

I agree with 02 I posted a few days ago that the selection committee would catch a lot of flack if they took 3 teams from  one conference. I don't want to start a public vs private debate but the fact that they would have taken 3 teams from the the WIAC would have stirred some controversy.  If it came down. to Platteville and Ohio  Northern and they took Ohio Northern because of Platteville's 63-28 loss to Oshkosh why didn't they look at Ohio Nortern's 51-7 loos to Mount Union.   Platteville had a stronger. SOS and beat. 2 ranked teams in the west. I feel bad for the seniors they deserved better. I also see that Oshkosh,  Whitewater and Mt. Union are on the same side of the bracket. A Good luck to Oshkosh and WW.  It's time for a Brandy Ole Fashion.     

First, I happen to agree that UWP would have made a better selection than ONU.

Since I'm not sure everyone that posts here reads all of the different sub-threads, which is quite understandable, I'll steal the explanation from the Pool C board.  Apologies to those who have already read this explanation elsewhere.

The way the Pool C process works, it's likely that UWP and ONU were never on the board at the same time.  Most likely, the West RAC had Whitworth ranked ahead of UWP in the West rankings (which is a ranking that I disagree with, and a ranking that this site's mock selection committee also disagreed with).

Since that was the case, Whitworth was probably the West team on the board when ONU was the North team on the board (probably with RPI from the East, and Guilford from the South) in the fifth round of Pool C selection (with the first 4 selections probably being Wesley, UWW, UMHB, and St. John's in some order).  The committee looked at those four teams - Whitworth, ONU, RPI, Guilford - and concluded that ONU was the choice.  Once that selection was made, UWP's fate was sealed - there was only one more spot left and Whitworth was still on the board as the top West team not yet selected.  Whitworth took the last spot, meaning that UWP probably never got discussed.

If you guys have an axe to grind, your target should be the West RAC.  It's as simple as "the West RAC ranked Whitworth ahead of UWP" -  which jammed UWP on the board until it was too late.  This wasn't some private-over-public thing or a "wait, we already have two WIAC teams, let's take a second OAC team."  UWP and ONU were (probably) never directly compared.

If that is true, then that is obviously a huge flaw in the "Pez Dispenser" system as Emma calls it. I'm guessing any system any of us would come up with would have flaws of it's own. 

However, I will throw in that a system flaw would be far better than a committee really conniving to keep three teams from the WIAC (or any conference) making the playoffs.  That would be even worse than conniving to put Mount and UW-W on the same side of the bracket.  And I don't think they did that either. Looks like it just fell that way. Will be interested in how the "experts" feel the committee did.

I don't have an ax to grind (I LOVE UW-W's bracket), but wouldn't those who do look towards the NATIONAL committee? My understanding is that they have the right to shift things around as they see fit.

Excellent post Bleed and the bolded IS the issue.  I don't know whether it's true that the National Committee can overrule the RAC or not.  If it is true, shame on the National Committee.  Again, it's folly.

[AO]

The only explanation I can think of is they don't want one conference to have 3 teams in the tourny.

This is probably not the explanation.  This process isn't as dubious and underhanded as so many people just assume it is.

I agree with 02 I posted a few days ago that the selection committee would catch a lot of flack if they took 3 teams from  one conference. I don't want to start a public vs private debate but the fact that they would have taken 3 teams from the the WIAC would have stirred some controversy.  If it came down. to Platteville and Ohio  Northern and they took Ohio Northern because of Platteville's 63-28 loss to Oshkosh why didn't they look at Ohio Nortern's 51-7 loos to Mount Union.   Platteville had a stronger. SOS and beat. 2 ranked teams in the west. I feel bad for the seniors they deserved better. I also see that Oshkosh,  Whitewater and Mt. Union are on the same side of the bracket. A Good luck to Oshkosh and WW.  It's time for a Brandy Ole Fashion.     

First, I happen to agree that UWP would have made a better selection than ONU.

Since I'm not sure everyone that posts here reads all of the different sub-threads, which is quite understandable, I'll steal the explanation from the Pool C board.  Apologies to those who have already read this explanation elsewhere.

The way the Pool C process works, it's likely that UWP and ONU were never on the board at the same time.  Most likely, the West RAC had Whitworth ranked ahead of UWP in the West rankings (which is a ranking that I disagree with, and a ranking that this site's mock selection committee also disagreed with).

Since that was the case, Whitworth was probably the West team on the board when ONU was the North team on the board (probably with RPI from the East, and Guilford from the South) in the fifth round of Pool C selection (with the first 4 selections probably being Wesley, UWW, UMHB, and St. John's in some order).  The committee looked at those four teams - Whitworth, ONU, RPI, Guilford - and concluded that ONU was the choice.  Once that selection was made, UWP's fate was sealed - there was only one more spot left and Whitworth was still on the board as the top West team not yet selected.  Whitworth took the last spot, meaning that UWP probably never got discussed.

If you guys have an axe to grind, your target should be the West RAC.  It's as simple as "the West RAC ranked Whitworth ahead of UWP" -  which jammed UWP on the board until it was too late.  This wasn't some private-over-public thing or a "wait, we already have two WIAC teams, let's take a second OAC team."  UWP and ONU were (probably) never directly compared.

If that is true, then that is obviously a huge flaw in the "Pez Dispenser" system as Emma calls it. I'm guessing any system any of us would come up with would have flaws of it's own. 

However, I will throw in that a system flaw would be far better than a committee really conniving to keep three teams from the WIAC (or any conference) making the playoffs.  That would be even worse than conniving to put Mount and UW-W on the same side of the bracket.  And I don't think they did that either. Looks like it just fell that way. Will be interested in how the "experts" feel the committee did.

I don't have an ax to grind (I LOVE UW-W's bracket), but wouldn't those who do look towards the NATIONAL committee? My understanding is that they have the right to shift things around as they see fit.

Excellent post Bleed and the bolded IS the issue.  I don't know whether it's true that the National Committee can overrule the RAC or not.  If it is true, shame on the National Committee.  Again, it's folly.

They can and should.  Happens more often in hoops.

[emma17]

And when you show us these examples, especially you Ex, just keep in mind you'd better hope there aren't examples of you, or your buddies, doing the very thing you accuse some UWW guys of. 

Time to put up or shut up- especially you Ex.  You've gone too far with your insults.

We'll start with the last couple pages, where BoBo shat all over Oshkosh's program, its history, its attendance, and dismissed them as having turned their program around (despite the Oshkosh poster pointing out that they've won the WIAC in 2 of the last 4 seasons) by citing the 120 years before that.

Show me an example, literally anywhere, of me having put down a program for its history or attendance figures.  Anywhere.  I'll wait.

Go ahead and wait.  You came onto this board with a low blow attack saying "I just think it's funny that some of you UWW guys (certainly not all) are happy to take a crap on other schools in pretty much any way possible". 
You used Bobo's opinion as an example.  We can argue whether that is an attack, but I'm looking for the examples of "some of you UWW guys" doing what you say.  And when you find an example of a UWW guy doing so, understand that I will find, I will absolutely find, examples of it being done by people on all kinds of these boards, and I will search for your posts attacking them in the same way.  And my guess is that I'm not likely to find your attacks.  Why do you think that is?   

[ExTartanPlayer]

You came onto this board with a low blow attack saying "I just think it's funny that some of you UWW guys (certainly not all) are happy to take a crap on other schools in pretty much any way possible". 

You used Bobo's opinion as an example.  We can argue whether that is an attack, but I'm looking for the examples of "some of you UWW guys" doing what you say.  And when you find an example of a UWW guy doing so, understand that I will find, I will absolutely find, examples of it being done by people on all kinds of these boards, and I will search for your posts attacking them in the same way.  And my guess is that I'm not likely to find your attacks.  Why do you think that is?   

I literally just did give you an example.  BoBo took a big, steaming dump on the Oshkosh program - their history, their attendance, and even their recent success.  Show me where I did the same thing to any program, at any time.  As for the last two sentences of the post, I am confused.  You're not likely to find my attacks because...I don't go around taking a dump on other programs?

EDIT: ah, now I understand the last portion.  Sorry that I don't have time to go around correcting every board injustice, emma.  Maybe you can help with the case load.

[D O.C.]

Totally interesting year on the field and on this board.

No injuries!