FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[bleedpurple]

When do the regional rankings come out?

I believe the first "regional ranking" will be released Wednesday. From my understanding, the first list of regionally ranked teams will be released in alphabetical order rather than ranked in the traditional sense of the word.  Then a week from Wednesday, we should get a true regional ranking.

[bleedpurple]

Good day for the young Warhawks today.

JV Game Final

UW-W. 41
North Central College. 0

[hazzben]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

[02 Warhawk]

Yeah, I would bet Wheaton would be a solid #2 in the WIAC, especially this year. Looking forward to UWW/UWL game next week, and see if UWL can hang with us for 4 quarters. They seem to be our #2 this year. I have my doubts, especially with it being a home game for the Hawks. Then again I had my doubts about UWRF, and they gave UWW a scare. UWL probably should have lost to UWP a couple weeks ago, and UWW destroyed UWP. So we'll see...

[emma17]

For all anybody knows, Wheaton could be the #1 team in the WIAC.
Thankfully D3 has playoffs.

I just hope Wheaton doesn't get in the way of a UWW - NCC rematch.

[02 Warhawk]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about Wheaton. But I didn't want to be ridiculed for saying such stuff on here. 

[emma17]

I imagine Wheaton will have a role to play in the WIAC when it comes to Pool C selections. If UWL loses to UWW, they are a one loss D3 team as is Wheaton. If UWW loses to UWL, well that would get interesting too.
If UWW were to lose to UWL while UWRF wins out, UWRF would be a two loss team deserving of Pool C consideration (although I understand a serious long shot). 

[bleedpurple]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

That doesn't sound like WW. He can speak for himself, but I don't remember reading that. I did see D3Fletch say Wheaton would lose 3 WIAC games this year.

[WW]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

Oh key-rist, hazzben, I've written or implied nothing of the kind and merely pointed out that Wheaton will be at a significant disadvantage in the SOS criteria specifically vs Chicago, should the Maroons be a 9-1 pool C candidate. That's fact. Continue on your path of knowledge resistance if you so choose.

[hazzben]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

Oh key-rist, hazzben, I've written or implied nothing of the kind and merely pointed out that Wheaton will be at a significant disadvantage in the SOS criteria specifically vs Chicago, should the Maroons be a 9-1 pool C candidate. That's fact. Continue on your path of knowledge resistance if you so choose.

My bad WW ... you are totally correct. I amalgamated your posts with D3Fletch ... no excuse. Totally my error, and my apologies.

[USee]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

Oh key-rist, hazzben, I've written or implied nothing of the kind and merely pointed out that Wheaton will be at a significant disadvantage in the SOS criteria specifically vs Chicago, should the Maroons be a 9-1 pool C candidate. That's fact. Continue on your path of knowledge resistance if you so choose.

WW did a lot more than "merely point out" the SOS criteria. He isolated on that and mocked Wheaton fans (and others--Hazzbeen, Wally, Pat) for merely pointing out there are other primary criteria for determining regional rankings besides SOS.

He said:

Not sure if you are saying this, but I don't think there is much of a chance of Wheaton, at 9-1, to be ranked below a 9-1 MWC team in the Regional rankings. Wheaton's issue will be on selection Sunday when they are at the table with Pool C teams from other regions.

If "RRO results don't live in a vacuum," what other criteria are being considered?

I'm not making a case here, I'm asking a question. Say Chicago is 9-1, as is Wheaton. Say they are both winless vs. RRO (although Wheaton will have played one RRO). Say Chicago has a stronger SOS using the metrics that appear to be in use (and they would have the stronger SOS by a decent margin).

What criteria, without preseason bias or the "eye test", would trump SOS (or cause rankers to disregard it) and elevate Wheaton past Chicago?

Wheaton's strongest argument for Pool C inclusion appears to be "because they're Wheaton." And that don't carry much water.

No matter. This will give us the best matchup of the tournament's first weekend, and it won't even be a tournament game: Wheaton Vs. Oshkosh in the Culver's Isthmus Bowl.

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

It is absolutely more nuanced than that, especially in football where there are only 10 games and often only one non-conference game.

Well, if nuance, preseason biases, 2019 results and historic "standing" all have bearing on their RR, Wheaton really has little to worry about.

We'll see how this plays out in the next 2 weeks.

[WW]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

Oh key-rist, hazzben, I've written or implied nothing of the kind and merely pointed out that Wheaton will be at a significant disadvantage in the SOS criteria specifically vs Chicago, should the Maroons be a 9-1 pool C candidate. That's fact. Continue on your path of knowledge resistance if you so choose.

My bad WW ... you are totally correct. I amalgamated your posts with D3Fletch ... no excuse. Totally my error, and my apologies.

No worries. Please amalgamate more carefully in the future.

[WW]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

Oh key-rist, hazzben, I've written or implied nothing of the kind and merely pointed out that Wheaton will be at a significant disadvantage in the SOS criteria specifically vs Chicago, should the Maroons be a 9-1 pool C candidate. That's fact. Continue on your path of knowledge resistance if you so choose.

WW did a lot more than "merely point out" the SOS criteria. He isolated on that and mocked Wheaton fans (and others--Hazzbeen, Wally, Pat) for merely pointing out there are other primary criteria for determining regional rankings besides SOS.

He said:

Not sure if you are saying this, but I don't think there is much of a chance of Wheaton, at 9-1, to be ranked below a 9-1 MWC team in the Regional rankings. Wheaton's issue will be on selection Sunday when they are at the table with Pool C teams from other regions.

If "RRO results don't live in a vacuum," what other criteria are being considered?

I'm not making a case here, I'm asking a question. Say Chicago is 9-1, as is Wheaton. Say they are both winless vs. RRO (although Wheaton will have played one RRO). Say Chicago has a stronger SOS using the metrics that appear to be in use (and they would have the stronger SOS by a decent margin).

What criteria, without preseason bias or the "eye test", would trump SOS (or cause rankers to disregard it) and elevate Wheaton past Chicago?

Wheaton's strongest argument for Pool C inclusion appears to be "because they're Wheaton." And that don't carry much water.

No matter. This will give us the best matchup of the tournament's first weekend, and it won't even be a tournament game: Wheaton Vs. Oshkosh in the Culver's Isthmus Bowl.

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

It is absolutely more nuanced than that, especially in football where there are only 10 games and often only one non-conference game.

Well, if nuance, preseason biases, 2019 results and historic "standing" all have bearing on their RR, Wheaton really has little to worry about.

We'll see how this plays out in the next 2 weeks.

I didn't "mock" anybody.

[hazzben]

Oh wow. I gotta set some time aside this weekend to catch up on that, WW.

I've been on those types of debates, in enemy territory, many of times. It can be rough.

WW has been going out of his way on the CCIW board to act as though SOS is the only primary criteria, ignoring RRO, common opponents, etc. Also claimed Wheaton wouldn't finish in the top 3 in the WIAC. The WIAC is really good this year. But I think Wheaton would have the inside track on the No 2 spot.

Oh key-rist, hazzben, I've written or implied nothing of the kind and merely pointed out that Wheaton will be at a significant disadvantage in the SOS criteria specifically vs Chicago, should the Maroons be a 9-1 pool C candidate. That's fact. Continue on your path of knowledge resistance if you so choose.

My bad WW ... you are totally correct. I amalgamated your posts with D3Fletch ... no excuse. Totally my error, and my apologies.

No worries. Please amalgamate more carefully in the future.

Will do 

[USee]

Offering Chicago's 1930s big ten prowess and their Heisman trophy winner as criteria to rival actual committee criteria that will be used to evaluate teams is what I would  call "mocking"