Around the Nation board

[emma17]

I think the significant weight placed on SOS is misleading and flawed at best.  It should be used as a second or third criteria.  The flaws have been stated previously, below is an example: 

Top (in the playoffs or close to making it) non conference opponents played by all teams of the CCIW in 2010:
Franklin
Central

Top (in the playoffs or close to making it) non conference opponents played by all teams of the WIAC in 2010:
Willamette
Wheaton
Central
Mt. Union
Mary Hardin Baylor
St. Johns
North Central
Ohio Northern
St. Thomas
Trine
-you can add a NAIA 7-4 Cambellsville, KY team that UWW played. 

I don't know, all of a sudden the CCIW's SOS doesn't look so darn impressive anymore. 

[usee]

emma17- keep in mind that just because the CCIW played some bad teams in their OOC schedule, doesn't necessarily mean the CCIW teams are bad. Most of those games were blowouts so there is every possibility that NCC, Wheaton, IWU, Elmhurst, Carthage, Augie, etc are pretty good teams that match up with many top 25 teams pretty well. Good thing is they get to show if they are any good starting tomorrow against some excellent competition. That's why we play the games........

[emma17]

I understand Usee and in no way do I mean disrespect to the CCIW.  I've been to see NCC play this year and was very impressed. 

However, as you know, whether the game was a blowout or not isn't the issue, because the score isn't measured, only the win or the loss.  The fact is, the SOS of the CCIW was greately enhanced by playing an overall weaker schedule.  And that in turn, impacted the seeding of UWW.  I am a fan of NCC (followed coach Thorne when at Wheaton Warrenville HS), but they should have to beat the best to be the #1 seed, just as UWW had to do in 2005 and 2008. 

[usee]

No, the committees inconsistent application of the criteria is what affected the seeding, not NCCs scheduling or SOS. SOS has been calculated this way before. And this isn't the first yr CCIW teams have played weak teams in OOC play. It's not NCC's fault UWW is #2. 

[emma17]

I agree the committee should have used greater subjectivity in its selections.  At the same time, however, the WIAC scheduled far more difficult teams than the CCIW, and that's the fact. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

emma, no poster on the CCIW has ever defended their schedule.  Mostly we lapped up cupcakes like crazy.  And it worked!  The committee this year went for the flawed SoS, like white on rice!  After NCC (the WORST SoS team in the conference) got screwed last year, can you blame the coaches?  If the NCAA wants decent OOC games, give some incentive for them.

I WANT to see tough non-con games - but with the current selection committee picking procedures, they are an endangered species.  If two losses and you are toast, you CANNOT risk a non-con loss (since if you have no conferences losses, you are not pool C anyway).

[emma17]

Ypsi,
I'm right there with you on that.  I don't buy Keith's (or NCAA) theory that teams will be motivated to play a tough non con schedule just to improve their SOS.  Had Wheaton scheduled a top team and lost (just as example), they don't get in the playoffs with 2 losses- where is the incentive.

Anyway, like 413 I need to let this issue go.  As we pack up for tailgating today, the reality strikes me that not only is this probably our second to last time doing this, it's also likely the second to last time the seniors on this team will play at The Perk.  These are the kids that did go on the road in 2008 and beat the #1's to earn the right to be given the benefit of the doubt in a SOS comparison.  Not because homefield is such a competitive advantage, but as I've posted before, the fans, community, university and seniors lose out. 

Game day.  I hope all teams play well today and all players come out healthy.     

[ADL70]

A tough (and thankless) job, but one where I would wish they could find a way to steer teams towards scheduling tougher in-region opponents,  Fans everywhere would thank you.

How about just steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents, period, and forget the 'in-region' distinction ?   

I've been trumpeting the end to "in-region" preferential treatment for several years.  Glad to see the thought it gaining support.

Not sure how to go about "steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents."  But if anything, currently you could say that the incentive is to play such teams if they are not "in-region" (at least a loss theoretically wouldn't hurt as much).

As far as the W-L floor for the play-off, conference winners should go (just like DI hoops).  I do think a teams should be over .500 to get a Pool B bid though (an unearned B bid would go to Pool C).  But that probaly won't be an issue as Pool B shrinks to 2 (next year I believe) and probably ultimately 1.

[usee]

Emma17- I hear you on the priceless opportunities that are lost due to the seeding situation. But again, SOS is not the culprit. This SOS calcualation has been in place prior to this year. The culprit is the inconsistency with which  the criteria is applied. This year's seeding mishap is not about who wheaton or NCC scheduled for the non conf games. It's about the committees application of the same criteria that has been in place for a few years now.

[K-Mack]

However, North Central got the bounce from beating a WIAC school that also played Bethel and St. John's (might be one extra degree of separation there, but I think I got it right) ...

The Bethel UWEC played was NAIA Bethel of Tennessee, not Bethel of the MIAC!! 

You know I know that. Since I wrote a whole dern column about UW-EC's early-season scheduling:

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2010/september-to-remember

Apology for the frain bart.

[K-Mack]

Ypsi,
I'm right there with you on that.  I don't buy Keith's (or NCAA) theory that teams will be motivated to play a tough non con schedule just to improve their SOS.  Had Wheaton scheduled a top team and lost (just as example), they don't get in the playoffs with 2 losses- where is the incentive.

You don't have to buy my point that teams will be motivated to play a better schedule, but you do buy Mr. Ypsi's point that there is little to no incentive to take games, like ones against UWW, as it stands? Which is part of the reason UWW had to play Dakota State and Campbellsville or whoever it was.

It's essentially the same point we're all making. I don't think I really said teams "will be motivated." I said the committee, by doing what it did, provides the incentive for better SoS. If they were to consistently apply it that way, and extend it to two-loss teams, it would reward teams for taking better games.

I definitely made the point about UWW getting hurt by SoS when rewarding it would be the exact thing that would give incentive for teams to schedule them. Why should Trine play UWW instead of Bluffton if it could go 10-0 and get a high seed? Well DePauw (who's not the greatest example of tough scheduling on paper, but had the high .549 number) went 9-1 and got a better seed than Trine and a home game. So in theory, going 9-1 with a better strength of schedule can be seen as 10-0 with weak SoS.

The line definitely blurs where a conference can play lots of teams it can beat and benefit that way via SoS, but that's another discussion.

[K-Mack]

Not because homefield is such a competitive advantage, but as I've posted before, the fans, community, university and seniors lose out.  

I agree with you there and wrote as much. However, from a neutral point of view, another team's fans, community and university and seniors "win out" by getting a home game, so assuming they appreciate it as much as you would, it's not necessarily bad for Division III football on the whole.

Elsewhere, I definitely enjoyed the potential solutions on Page 136 to having four- and five-loss AQ teams, as well as I enjoyed Ralph's passionate "NO!"

I like the .667 idea, especially with the 10-game caveat.

That might reach into the bag of all-games-created equal when SoS determines they're not, but you draw the line somewhere. It's certainly interesting.

I think the most humorous takeaway for me is anyone clamoring for more subjectivity from a committee they clearly don't trust. The whole way we got to the numbers-heavy system and the AQ is from people wanting less subjectivity and more of a trail so they're able to trace how they got where and why.

[emma17]

Keith,
I should have been more clear in what Ypsi said that I was agreeing with.  He said "The committee this year went for the flawed SoS, like white on rice!"  The flawed SoS is the point I agree with- as I agree with you in their failure to apply criteria consistently from year to year.

At the end of the day, it could very well end up that NCC and/or St. Thomas advances to the Stagg.  However, I still believe that despite their 10-0 records and SoS, the reward of home field throughout should first have been earned by dethroning the sitting champion.  Then, if the same situation exists next year at selection time, they are the clear #1 seeds, no complaints from me.  Of course, that would require looking at past performance, I know, I know....it's all about this year only.

[nccfac]

Keith,
I should have been more clear in what Ypsi said that I was agreeing with.  He said "The committee this year went for the flawed SoS, like white on rice!"  The flawed SoS is the point I agree with- as I agree with you in their failure to apply criteria consistently from year to year.

At the end of the day, it could very well end up that NCC and/or St. Thomas advances to the Stagg.  However, I still believe that despite their 10-0 records and SoS, the reward of home field throughout should first have been earned by dethroning the sitting champion.  Then, if the same situation exists next year at selection time, they are the clear #1 seeds, no complaints from me.  Of course, that would require looking at past performance, I know, I know....it's all about this year only.

The question is what will the committee decide next year is the most important factor. Not being consistent is the problem.  But even if you know that Sos  is the criteria you only have so much control and it can vary greatly from year to year. I still like the idea of using d3 and/or the AFCA polls to help determine the seeding. A number one seed in both polls shouldn't end up being a number 2 seed.

[HScoach]

In my opinion there's a point that is being left out of this discussion.  There's a big difference between how the general public views strength of schedule and how the NCAA defines it.  The NCAA looks simply at the number of wins by your opponents and their opponents.  The fan (and reporters) look at the competency of the wins.   

Playing your non-conference games against the ultimate league champions of the ECFC, NATHC and Centennial will get you a lot higher SoS in the NCAA's eyes than playing three middle of the pack WIAC, CCIW and OAC teams even though you played 3 lesser teams on the field.

Outside of trying to take the next step forward and wanting to see how you really stand, I don't see the enticement for anyone to schedule Mount or Whitewater.   When it makes sense to schedule them is when you are clearly the best team in your crappy conference and without a serious test/learning experience, you're going to remain nothing more than an decent team nationally that enters the playoffs 10-0 to only get immediately drilled.  Much like W&J earlier this decade.  A lot of 10-0 regular seasons immediately followed by early round playoff losses because they were simply a good team that made their record on the backs of a weak conference, not being a great team themselves.