Around the Nation board

[middlerelief]

"Before I write off the OAC"  -- sorry, I wrote them off a long long long time ago.

Coach you put two conferences in a brown paper bag and say Conference A has produced one conference champion the last 10 seasons, and within that conference play said champion has held its in-conference foes to 7 points or less 70% of the time.  Or Conference B has produced 7 different champions, with in-conference play being decided by less than 10 pts per.  -- which is the better conference?  Anyone not named Pat or K-Mack will likely tell you that Conference B is a better one -- competition being the key.

The best program does not dictate the best conference.  I know that stings many in the rust belt that wear their beating with pride with the idea being that if it weren't for MUC they really would have a shot -- and in the the event as you're reading it you think it may sound foolish . . . is because it is foolish.

OAC is home to the best program, maybe of all time in Mount Union.  It is not home to the best conference. 

[Pat Coleman]

"Before I write off the OAC"  -- sorry, I wrote them off a long long long time ago.

Coach you put two conferences in a brown paper bag and say Conference A has produced one conference champion the last 10 seasons, and within that conference play said champion has held its in-conference foes to 7 points or less 70% of the time.  Or Conference B has produced 7 different champions, with in-conference play being decided by less than 10 pts per.  -- which is the better conference?  Anyone not named Pat or K-Mack will likely tell you that Conference B is a better one -- competition being the key.

If your definition of "better" is "more competitive within itself" then yes. If your definition of "better" is "more competitive with other conferences" then your hypothetical tells us 100% of nothing. The strength of a conference lies in its non-conference games.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

"Before I write off the OAC"  -- sorry, I wrote them off a long long long time ago.

Coach you put two conferences in a brown paper bag and say Conference A has produced one conference champion the last 10 seasons, and within that conference play said champion has held its in-conference foes to 7 points or less 70% of the time.  Or Conference B has produced 7 different champions, with in-conference play being decided by less than 10 pts per.  -- which is the better conference?  Anyone not named Pat or K-Mack will likely tell you that Conference B is a better one -- competition being the key.

The best program does not dictate the best conference.  I know that stings many in the rust belt that wear their beating with pride with the idea being that if it weren't for MUC they really would have a shot -- and in the the event as you're reading it you think it may sound foolish . . . is because it is foolish.

OAC is home to the best program, maybe of all time in Mount Union.  It is not home to the best conference.

I will agree that the best program does not dictate the best conference... but your argument isn't correct either. The NEFC has produced 8 different champions in the past 12 years and had 13 out of 16 teams have played in the conference championship game... does that make them a better conference than the OAC and their lone champion in the same time period? While the best program doesn't dictate the best conference, neither does only conference results dictate the best conference. The most exciting and unpredictable maybe but not the best.

[middlerelief]

Non-Conference Games that include:  NC Wesleyan, Mt. Saint Joseph, Case Western Reserve, Wooster, Alma, and on and on

In the event WIAC and OAC wished to show they are tops, then perhaps the tops could have played each other when they both had a bye week (9/8) but opted not to.  UWW instead scheduled big time out of conference foe Buff State.  At least MHB & Wesley had the stones to schedule each other.

Why the best conference is such a good post patterns topic is that there's no way to prove it -- when a mind is made up, they will see things that support that argument.  My mind is made up that being a door mat for a decade plus does not make up a good conference.  Is the NEFC Boyd? I don't know for sure, but I do know the coaches know how to be competitive with one another, and when they've made the playoffs have seen them put wins up on other conferences such as the E8 champ once in the dance. 

[HScoach]

"Before I write off the OAC"  -- sorry, I wrote them off a long long long time ago.

Coach you put two conferences in a brown paper bag and say Conference A has produced one conference champion the last 10 seasons, and within that conference play said champion has held its in-conference foes to 7 points or less 70% of the time.  Or Conference B has produced 7 different champions, with in-conference play being decided by less than 10 pts per.  -- which is the better conference?  Anyone not named Pat or K-Mack will likely tell you that Conference B is a better one -- competition being the key.

The best program does not dictate the best conference.  I know that stings many in the rust belt that wear their beating with pride with the idea being that if it weren't for MUC they really would have a shot -- and in the the event as you're reading it you think it may sound foolish . . . is because it is foolish.

OAC is home to the best program, maybe of all time in Mount Union.  It is not home to the best conference.

Writing off the OAC simply because Mount has consistently won the conference is an overly simplistic and incorrect view.

Who wins the conference championship is not the only sign of conference strength.  Balance, yes.  But not strength.  You dismiss the OAC simply because they can't beat Mount?  Well then you can dismiss the rest of D3 outside of the WIAC for the last few years.     Since 1996, there have been exactly five (5) teams that have beaten Mount Union, and only one of them has done it multiple times:
Whitewater (WAIC) – 4 times
Ohio Northern (OAC) - once
Mary Hardin Baylor (ASC) - once
St John's (MIAC) - once
Rowan (NJAC) - once

So outside of the WIAC, the OAC has done exactly what the rest of the nation has done against Mount.  Beaten them every once in a while.   

Here's a brief synopsis of the last 20 years of Mount results in terms of toughest/closest games that season and what conference that team was from.   If you take the time to read it, you'll see that the OAC has often provided the toughest test for Mount.  Not always, but the conference has often put up as tough a fight as the best playoff teams from around the nation.

2011 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 14-6
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 25-20
Wesley (ind):  Mount win 28-21
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 13-10
     
2010 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Marietta  (OAC)  :  Mount win 28-14
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 31-21
Next closest regular season game was Otterbein (OAC) by 18 pts, next closest playoff game was 20 pts

2009 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Capital  (OAC)  :  Mount win 28-21
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 38-28
no other team, including playoffs, was closer than 17 pts.

2008 – National Champion (15-0)
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount win 31-26
No other team, playoffs included, closer than 21 pts

2007 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 31-21
No other team, playoffs included, closer than 24 pts

2006 – National Champion (15-0)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 14-0
Capital  (OAC) in Round 3  :  Mount win 17-14
St. John Fisher (E-8):  Mount win 26-14
    NOTE:  beat Whitewater (WIAC) by 19 in Stagg

2005 – National Champion (14-1)
Ohio Northern  (OAC):  Mount loss 21-14 
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 17-3
Capital  (OAC) in Round 3  :  Mount win 34-31
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount win 31-26

2004 – Semi-Finalist (12-1)
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-27
Mary Hardin Baylor (ASC):  Mount loss 38-35 to runner-up

2003 – National Runner-up (13-1)
St. John's (MIAC):  Mount loss 24-6
Only decent games were John Carroll  (OAC)   34-16 and Baldwin Wallace  (OAC) 24-0.   No other team, including playoffs, was closer.

2002 – National Champion (14-0)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 28-21
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 35-16
Capital  (OAC)  :  Mount win 38-22
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 34-24
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 21 pts.  Beat John Carroll  (OAC) in semi-finals.

2001 – National Champions (14-0)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 17-3
Bridgewater (ODAC):  Mount win 30-27
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 21 pts

2000 – National Champions (14-0)
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-31
Wittenberg (NCAC):  Mount win 32-15
St. John's (MIAC):  Mount win 10-7
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 24 pts.  Beat Ohio Northern   (OAC)    in Round 1

1999 -  Semi-Finalist (12-1)
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 57-51 in  3 OT's 
Augustana (CCIW):  Mount win 42-33
Rowan (NJAC):  Mount loss 24-17 in OT to runner-up
Played Ohio Northern   (OAC)    in 2nd round of playoffs.

1998 – National Champion (14-0)
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 21-14
Albion (MIAA):  Mount win 21-19
Wittenberg (NCAC):  Mount win 21-19
Trinity Tx (ASC):  Mount win 34-29
    NOTE:  beat Rowan (NJAC) by 20 in Stagg

1997 – National Champions (14-0)
Allegheny (NCAC):  Mount win 34-30
Closest regular season game 38-14 over Ohio Northern  (OAC)  .  Other than Allegheny, no playoff game within 45 pts.  Played John Carroll   (OAC)    in 2nd round of playoffs.

1996 – National Champion (14-0)
Allegheny (NCAC):  Mount win 31-26
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 18 pts.
     NOTE:  beat Rowan by 32 in Stagg

1995 – Semi-Finalist (12-1)
Marietta  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-37
Wisc La Crosse (WIAC):  Mount loss 20-17 to eventual champs
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 21 pts

1994 – Regional Finalist (10-2)
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-35
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC):  Mount loss 23-10 
Allegheny (NCAC):  Mount win 38-19
Albion (MIAA):  Mount loss 34-33 to eventual champs

1993 – National Champs (14-0)
Heidelberg  (OAC)  :  Mount win 24-7
Albion (MIAA):  Mount win 30-16
Rowan (NJAC):  Mount win 34-24

1992 – Semi-Finalist (12-1)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 23-14
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 24-14
Wisc La Crosse (WIAC):  Mount loss 29-24 to eventual champs
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 17 pts.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Non-Conference Games that include:  NC Wesleyan, Mt. Saint Joseph, Case Western Reserve, Wooster, Alma, and on and on

In the event WIAC and OAC wished to show they are tops, then perhaps the tops could have played each other when they both had a bye week (9/8) but opted not to.  UWW instead scheduled big time out of conference foe Buff State.  At least MHB & Wesley had the stones to schedule each other.

They couldn't play when they had a bye week because they already had a full schedule of 10 games. The OAC only have 1 non-conference game a year and teams like Mount Union often have those games scheduled a few years in advance (I believe the home and home deal with Franklin for 2012-13 was announced in 2010)

Why the best conference is such a good post patterns topic is that there's no way to prove it -- when a mind is made up, they will see things that support that argument.  My mind is made up that being a door mat for a decade plus does not make up a good conference.  Is the NEFC Boyd? I don't know for sure, but I do know the coaches know how to be competitive with one another, and when they've made the playoffs have seen them put wins up on other conferences such as the E8 champ once in the dance.

There is no way to prove it unless every team played every other team which isn't possible for just 2 conferences let alone all of them. Until a system is created that allows teams to play 240 games in a season then there will be some subjectivity in rankings whether it be conferences or teams.

[sigma one]

The scheduling discussion is always fascinating, and part of it so because some posters think that School A can Schedule School B--out of conference--just by making a phone call.  It appears that over time some feel that scheduling is that easy.  It's way more complicated, of course.  (And even those who want the quality match ups I think realize this.) 1.  Both schools have to agree to meet.  2. Both schools have to fit the games into their schedules, which are already often very full, and dictated within the conference, including the dates, by the conference office.  The conference sets the conference schedule; the schools then search for outside of conference opponents.  3. Some conferences have agreements with other conferences to cross-schedule.  The NCAC/UAA multi-year agreement is one, perhaps within the NCAA extreme, example.  And not always to the fans' or coaches' liking.  Football coaches generally do not on their own schedule games with out-of-conference opponents.  They don't have that kind of freedom   It's not just one coach (or AD) calling another and saying let's play. And usually it's the ADs who do the scheduling, while consulting with the coach.  And frequently, though I can't say how frequently, there is consultation all the way up to the president of the school about the wisdon of scheduling an opponent.  Budgets matter; travel (geography) matters, and the two are almost always related. Not for everyone, but for a good number of schools.  Some schools only want to schedule "like institutions," however they define that term.
     All this is to say that scheduling is not just a matter of let's play them because the fans think it would be a fantastic idea to see a certain match up.  What we often see when teams travel long distances is a consequence of those teams needing games because, usually weaker, team closer to home will not schedule them as one of their only out-of-conference games.  So, the Wisconsin schools travel or play non DIII opponents to fill up their schedules.  And the strong programs from, say, Texas, end up home and home with schools from the West Coast.  Often these are quality match ups because the weaker teams from those areas won't schedule a strong team from another area.  Mary Hardin-Baylor goes west to play a quality opponent, but not Pacific or LaVerne (no disrespect)!  This is so because teams within a shorter distance won't schedule them.  And as this year, there's the Wesley match ups, and the Huntingdon, because they are not affiliated with a conference and must seek games, and it's only strong opponents who will schedule them (and those opponents themselves can't get games closer to home preciselly because they are strong, too).
      The fans' desire of I can't understand why A just won't schedule B is fun to debate but ultimately constrained by lots of factors--and those doing the scheduling frankly don't care much about you and I wanted to see the big boys clash.  Again, most of the quality early-season match ups (I'm not saying all--see Franklin's scheduling, as one example) are as much a product of necessity as of anything. Finally, with the playoff system set up the way it is, it's dangerous for schools to lose too many games.  Some places will decide it's better to schedule weaker, closer opponents, if they can, out of conference in the hope of winning their out of conference game(s) and their league, no matter that their playoff loss is by a big margin.  After all, they still are in the playoffs.
       Just one example of which I am aware.  A couple of year ago Wabash was having trouble finding an opening game to fill out a 10-game schedule.  They tried for quite some time.  Then, because of a opening at Hanover, Wabash and Hanover decided to play the first game of the year--for Wabash Week 1 is only open date (mybe for Hanover as well).  The two are both Indiana schools.  Travel is minimal.  They could renew an old rivalry that was lost when Wabash joined the NCAC.  I'm guessing the thinking on both sides was the same.  Better than both looking farther away, and some of the choices for Wabash were very far away and would have been a last resort--even if they had agreed to play--and several had already said they would not because of their perception of Wabash's strength.   Just one example, maybe not completely representative, but probably pretty close.  You think Wesley, or Redlands, or Huntingdon, or Hardin-Simmons, etc.  wouldn't like to stay closer to home if they could arrange a schedule that allowed them to?  I don't know, but I think the answer is yes, despite the temptation to give the players a plane trip and a view of another part of the country--just about the only positives I can see for scheduling teams so far away.  Yes, I know another answer is to see our strength against theirs, and this is sometimes in a coaches' mind, but often this at odds with the institution's philosophy of sport, particularly when (hate to say this) their athletic program has to balance many teams, men's and women's.
     This is longer than I planned when I started, but perhaps it gives us reason to continue the conversation.           

[Pat Coleman]

Good dive into the issues. One thing I noticed, though -- I don't think you are correct about who does the scheduling. When I look on our open dates pages, it's almost exclusively coaches, not athletic directors.

[sigma one]

Thaks, Pat.  I know about that.  What I think, and I can't speak for every school, of course, is that the coaches talk to one another--and sometimes so too do the ADs.  From what I know, often the Ads say to the coaches, go ahead and finish this up.  I am sure it varies from school to school, but I am almost certain that there is serious conversation about scheduling and that coaches are not acting usually acting on their own.

[sigma one]

Pat, sorry for the back to backs.  My knowledge is pretty small, and yours is pretty big.  So I would not be surprised that at more schools that I know what you say is true--that is, coaches do the scheduling.  Still, football is important as a public sport, and I doubt there is not conversation because the ADs sign the "contract."   As you know I am sure, all contests are cemented by a letter from the home AD (or his/her designate) to the visiting team's AD--unless I am mistaken and some ADs turn over that responsibility to the coach as well.  With so many schools playing football and so many different sports representing an institution, practices may vary widely.  Maybe someone else can chime in on their awareness.
      I am open to correction if my sample is not representative.

[02 Warhawk]

But it's also fair to look beyond just the postseason, at in-season interconference competition. And because the OAC only schedules one non-con game, you get a better feel for the WIAC by who they play. And in the blurb both this year and last (or in '10), there's a reference to WHO WIAC teams play ... when their teams, top to bottom, are scheduling North Central, UMHB, St. Thomas, St. John's et. al. and going .500, that's impressive.

Not to mention the 2 or 3 scholarship offering schools the WIAC has played this year (DII and NAIA).

[Ron Boerger]

Hey K-Mack, enjoyed the latest column as always, a bit perplexed on the comment about a D3 sort being difficult on Massey.  Try this, which is fairly easy to get to from the main CF page if you click the "NCAA III" option on the right pulldown menu:

http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf&yr=2012&sub=11620

The NESCAC teams get way too much love here, as you'll see ... their top ten is

Trinity CT
Middlebury
M Hardin-Baylor
Wesley DE
Amherst
Bates   
Linfield
Johns Hopkins
Wesleyan CT
Mt Union

[smedindy]

Massey used to punt the NESCAC to its own little world in the day since they were 'unconnected'.

[Mr. Ypsi]

If I had more ambition, I have the methodological and statistical background to try to decipher by what bizarre metric Massey can have 5 'intramural' teams in his nationwide top 10!  But I just don't care enough about a program that can have even actual compete-against-each-other d3 teams come out with Johns Hopkins two slots above Mount Union!

People care about Massey, why?  Is Lindy's too high-brow?

[jknezek]

Mr Yipsi you don't have to look real hard. The computer rankings require an OOC "score" for the conference based on performance. If he set that score to 0, since they play no OOC schedule, they would be at the back of the rankings. Those rankings must set the score to 100 as a default, therefore they have a perfect conference OOC, making them the best conference in the country. They then further benefit from the faulty math inherent in each game being a zero sum for the conference, one win, one loss. So in every season, the conference has to be .500 overall. If you add those two together, the faulty logic gives you top teams.

It's a perfect example of what a computer science professor would call GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The computer can measure the data provided, and in respect to the NESCAC, part of the assumptions backing the data is flawed, so you get Garbage Out.

Just ignore those rankings. They have no meaning in comparison to the rest of the rankings.