FB: American Southwest Conference

[UMHB03]

UMHB03, I believe that the D3 budget for its activities for all sports in 3.18% of the NCAA budget. (I will appreciate corrections.)

That money comes from March Madness and not CFP.

3.18% of a colossal sum of money. We're not talking about $10,000 first class flights here.

[UMHB03]

I'd love this bracket, but I can't see the cheap skates at the NCAA allowing a non-flight UMHB/HSU matchup, in the 2nd round at the latest, to get away.

Everybody loves taking shots, but the NCAA absorbed cost to avoid pairing UMHB and HSU in the first round in each of the last two years.  Should they go back to just making this a first round rematch? 

Ofcourse not. They'd be even bigger cheap skates if they did that.

My point is that they stopped being cheap to do UMHB and HSU a favor.  They don't have to do that. 

I understand that UMHB football exists in their little vacuum of excess and luxury, but that ain't the way the rest of D3 lives, man.  You're lucky that you don't get that rematch every single time HSU makes the tournament.  Be grateful.

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with facing HSU in the 2nd round, but to say that the NCAA is doing us a FAVOR by not pitting us against a top 10 team in the first round is laughable. The fact that they EVER did that, and that it is being discussed as a possibility this year, is a travesty. When was the last time Mount Union or Whitewater had to do that when they were undefeated and top 5? I understand the geography issue, and location should be taken into consideration to the greatest extent that reasonably authentic seeding allows, but the NCAA is not so impoverished that they should be excused for completely disregarding fairness and equitability, and discriminating against programs based on where they're located.

Again, I'm glad that didn't happen the last couple of years, but the fact that the NCAA committee finally achieved the MINIMUM level of fairness should not earn them some kind of glowing praise.

No, sir.  You very obviously do not understand the geography issue.

Evidently not, if geography constitutes an acceptable justification for punishing and discriminating against some hard working teams with early playoff exits, while rewarding others with cake walks, based on where they're located. If there is something that makes that right or fair, especially for an organization that claims to care so much about the student athletes, then I clearly must be missing it.

[umhb2001]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in other D1 sports that have true playoffs, there are regional portions of the tournament, so, I believe what we have here is a regional portion of the bracket which has historically pitted UMHB and HSU against each other in the bracket. I don't like it, but we have been very fortunate to not have the "Texas Sub-bracket" in recent years, and as was said previously, HSU hasn't helped their cause by losing consistently.

I believe the committee looks at previous year's results, don't they? Had HSU won at least one of the last two years, then they might warrant a home playoff game.

This may also keep HSU OUT of the bracket this year. We'll know Wednesday.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in other D1 sports that have true playoffs, there are regional portions of the tournament, so, I believe what we have here is a regional portion of the bracket which has historically pitted UMHB and HSU against each other in the bracket. I don't like it, but we have been very fortunate to not have the "Texas Sub-bracket" in recent years, and as was said previously, HSU hasn't helped their cause by losing consistently.

I believe the committee looks at previous year's results, don't they? Had HSU won at least one of the last two years, then they might warrant a home playoff game.

This may also keep HSU OUT of the bracket this year. We'll know Wednesday.

I believe that is only true for seeding undefeated teams.

[trickytroy32]

Match ups in playoffs should be based on seeding. However it is what it is. I don't see HSU being left out. A lot depends on if Frostburg loses this weekend. If that happens Frost burg, Bethel or St. Thomas, John Carroll, Centre are the first four picks (not in that order)which leaves Ithica, HSU, linfield, and Wabash for last spot. Which falls between HSU and Wabash. If Frostburg wins its HSU, Muhlenberg, and Wabash for two spots

[wally_wabash]

I'd love this bracket, but I can't see the cheap skates at the NCAA allowing a non-flight UMHB/HSU matchup, in the 2nd round at the latest, to get away.

Everybody loves taking shots, but the NCAA absorbed cost to avoid pairing UMHB and HSU in the first round in each of the last two years.  Should they go back to just making this a first round rematch? 

Ofcourse not. They'd be even bigger cheap skates if they did that.

My point is that they stopped being cheap to do UMHB and HSU a favor.  They don't have to do that. 

I understand that UMHB football exists in their little vacuum of excess and luxury, but that ain't the way the rest of D3 lives, man.  You're lucky that you don't get that rematch every single time HSU makes the tournament.  Be grateful.

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with facing HSU in the 2nd round, but to say that the NCAA is doing us a FAVOR by not pitting us against a top 10 team in the first round is laughable. The fact that they EVER did that, and that it is being discussed as a possibility this year, is a travesty. When was the last time Mount Union or Whitewater had to do that when they were undefeated and top 5? I understand the geography issue, and location should be taken into consideration to the greatest extent that reasonably authentic seeding allows, but the NCAA is not so impoverished that they should be excused for completely disregarding fairness and equitability, and discriminating against programs based on where they're located.

Again, I'm glad that didn't happen the last couple of years, but the fact that the NCAA committee finally achieved the MINIMUM level of fairness should not earn them some kind of glowing praise.

No, sir.  You very obviously do not understand the geography issue.

Evidently not, if geography constitutes an acceptable justification for punishing and discriminating against some hard working teams with early playoff exits, while rewarding others with cake walks, based on where they're located. If there is something that makes that right or fair, especially for an organization that claims to care so much about the student athletes, then I clearly must be missing it.

What punishment?  What discrimination? 

I'm gonna blow your mind here - every team that loses in the first round worked hard to get there.  Not just the ones from Texas. 

I don't think anybody thinks that the Texas sub-bracket is fair, including the people that put the bracket together.  But that's what they can do given the constraints (budget and geography, specifically).  They made it better two years ago and they should be commended for that, not derided. 

[UMHB03]

I'd love this bracket, but I can't see the cheap skates at the NCAA allowing a non-flight UMHB/HSU matchup, in the 2nd round at the latest, to get away.

Everybody loves taking shots, but the NCAA absorbed cost to avoid pairing UMHB and HSU in the first round in each of the last two years.  Should they go back to just making this a first round rematch? 

Ofcourse not. They'd be even bigger cheap skates if they did that.

My point is that they stopped being cheap to do UMHB and HSU a favor.  They don't have to do that. 

I understand that UMHB football exists in their little vacuum of excess and luxury, but that ain't the way the rest of D3 lives, man.  You're lucky that you don't get that rematch every single time HSU makes the tournament.  Be grateful.

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with facing HSU in the 2nd round, but to say that the NCAA is doing us a FAVOR by not pitting us against a top 10 team in the first round is laughable. The fact that they EVER did that, and that it is being discussed as a possibility this year, is a travesty. When was the last time Mount Union or Whitewater had to do that when they were undefeated and top 5? I understand the geography issue, and location should be taken into consideration to the greatest extent that reasonably authentic seeding allows, but the NCAA is not so impoverished that they should be excused for completely disregarding fairness and equitability, and discriminating against programs based on where they're located.

Again, I'm glad that didn't happen the last couple of years, but the fact that the NCAA committee finally achieved the MINIMUM level of fairness should not earn them some kind of glowing praise.

No, sir.  You very obviously do not understand the geography issue.

Evidently not, if geography constitutes an acceptable justification for punishing and discriminating against some hard working teams with early playoff exits, while rewarding others with cake walks, based on where they're located. If there is something that makes that right or fair, especially for an organization that claims to care so much about the student athletes, then I clearly must be missing it.

What punishment?  What discrimination? 

I'm gonna blow your mind here - every team that loses in the first round worked hard to get there.  Not just the ones from Texas. 

I don't think anybody thinks that the Texas sub-bracket is fair, including the people that put the bracket together.  But that's what they can do given the constraints (budget and geography, specifically).  They made it better two years ago and they should be commended for that, not derided.

I'm sure every team, even the Belhavens of the world, work hard. What I was referring to is the teams that actually earn it on the field by going undefeated and achieving a high ranking. By discrimination, I mean the fact that teams like Mount Union always get a cake walk for the first 2-3 rounds, leaving them fresh for the later rounds and lessening the chances of a premature exit if they have an off game, while teams like UMHB are lucky to get one "easy" game, leaving them far less margin for error. All this because of where they are located. Due to the financial constraints caused by geography, that's somewhat understandable after the first round, but there's no ethically sound reasoning for pitting two top 10 teams against each other in the first game. As I said, the committee did the right thing the past two years. I don't commend people for meeting the bare minimum of fairness and equitability, but I'm not deriding them for that either. The criticism was mainly directed in retrospect at the decisions made prior to 2016. Hopefully the committee continues to do the right thing this year.

[wally_wabash]

I'm sure every team, even the Belhavens of the world, work hard. What I was referring to is the teams that actually earn it on the field by going undefeated and achieving a high ranking. By discrimination, I mean the fact that teams like Mount Union always get a cake walk for the first 2-3 rounds, leaving them fresh for the later rounds and lessening the chances of a premature exit if they have an off game, while teams like UMHB are lucky to get one "easy" game, leaving them far less margin for error. All this because of where they are located. Due to the financial constraints caused by geography, that's somewhat understandable after the first round, but there's no ethically sound reasoning for pitting two top 10 teams against each other in the first game. As I said, the committee did the right thing the past two years. I don't commend people for meeting the bare minimum of fairness and equitability, but I'm not deriding them for that either. The criticism was mainly directed in retrospect at the decisions made prior to 2016. Hopefully the committee continues to do the right thing this year.

Ethically sound?  It's football, not Enron.  Have some perspective. 

[Toby Taff]

I'd love this bracket, but I can't see the cheap skates at the NCAA allowing a non-flight UMHB/HSU matchup, in the 2nd round at the latest, to get away.

Everybody loves taking shots, but the NCAA absorbed cost to avoid pairing UMHB and HSU in the first round in each of the last two years.  Should they go back to just making this a first round rematch? 

Ofcourse not. They'd be even bigger cheap skates if they did that.

My point is that they stopped being cheap to do UMHB and HSU a favor.  They don't have to do that. 

I understand that UMHB football exists in their little vacuum of excess and luxury, but that ain't the way the rest of D3 lives, man.  You're lucky that you don't get that rematch every single time HSU makes the tournament.  Be grateful.

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with facing HSU in the 2nd round, but to say that the NCAA is doing us a FAVOR by not pitting us against a top 10 team in the first round is laughable. The fact that they EVER did that, and that it is being discussed as a possibility this year, is a travesty. When was the last time Mount Union or Whitewater had to do that when they were undefeated and top 5? I understand the geography issue, and location should be taken into consideration to the greatest extent that reasonably authentic seeding allows, but the NCAA is not so impoverished that they should be excused for completely disregarding fairness and equitability, and discriminating against programs based on where they're located.

Again, I'm glad that didn't happen the last couple of years, but the fact that the NCAA committee finally achieved the MINIMUM level of fairness should not earn them some kind of glowing praise.

No, sir.  You very obviously do not understand the geography issue.

Evidently not, if geography constitutes an acceptable justification for punishing and discriminating against some hard working teams with early playoff exits, while rewarding others with cake walks, based on where they're located. If there is something that makes that right or fair, especially for an organization that claims to care so much about the student athletes, then I clearly must be missing it.

What punishment?  What discrimination? 

I'm gonna blow your mind here - every team that loses in the first round worked hard to get there.  Not just the ones from Texas. 

I don't think anybody thinks that the Texas sub-bracket is fair, including the people that put the bracket together.  But that's what they can do given the constraints (budget and geography, specifically).  They made it better two years ago and they should be commended for that, not derided.

I'm sure every team, even the Belhavens of the world, work hard. What I was referring to is the teams that actually earn it on the field by going undefeated and achieving a high ranking. By discrimination, I mean the fact that teams like Mount Union always get a cake walk for the first 2-3 rounds, leaving them fresh for the later rounds and lessening the chances of a premature exit if they have an off game, while teams like UMHB are lucky to get one "easy" game, leaving them far less margin for error. All this because of where they are located. Due to the financial constraints caused by geography, that's somewhat understandable after the first round, but there's no ethically sound reasoning for pitting two top 10 teams against each other in the first game. As I said, the committee did the right thing the past two years. I don't commend people for meeting the bare minimum of fairness and equitability, but I'm not deriding them for that either. The criticism was mainly directed in retrospect at the decisions made prior to 2016. Hopefully the committee continues to do the right thing this year.

I'll go back to something i've said about people arguing for "the best"teams to get in and leave lesser conference champs at home. Polls are opinions. while i think the D3 football poll is great, it is still just the opinions of a group of voters. the top 10 is subjective and the committee rightly shouldn't concern itself with watching out for the ranked. They have criteria they have to use and the ethical thing to do is use them. Do i like UMHB and HSU meeting early, no, but as coach fred has said in more than one interview you eventually have to beat them all.

[UMHB03]

I'm sure every team, even the Belhavens of the world, work hard. What I was referring to is the teams that actually earn it on the field by going undefeated and achieving a high ranking. By discrimination, I mean the fact that teams like Mount Union always get a cake walk for the first 2-3 rounds, leaving them fresh for the later rounds and lessening the chances of a premature exit if they have an off game, while teams like UMHB are lucky to get one "easy" game, leaving them far less margin for error. All this because of where they are located. Due to the financial constraints caused by geography, that's somewhat understandable after the first round, but there's no ethically sound reasoning for pitting two top 10 teams against each other in the first game. As I said, the committee did the right thing the past two years. I don't commend people for meeting the bare minimum of fairness and equitability, but I'm not deriding them for that either. The criticism was mainly directed in retrospect at the decisions made prior to 2016. Hopefully the committee continues to do the right thing this year.

Ethically sound?  It's football, not Enron.  Have some perspective.

Have some context. Ethics and moral lessons are taught through sports all the time. Fairness and equitable treatment are two of them that the NCAA needs to continue to exhibit.

[D O.C.]

coach fred has said in more than one interview you eventually have to beat them all

And some twice?

[bleedpurple]

I understand the frustration regarding the Texas Island.  But it is what it is. I don't see it as all that unfair, however. Serious question. When is the last time Hardin Simmons beat a top 25 team?  I know people consistently vote for them as a Top 25 team. I know they beat TLU. They are what? Top 50? And I see they beat up on teams that aren't very good.  I guess I am wondering what Hardin Simmons has accomplished to be indignant about a first round match-up with UMHB?

[Pat Coleman]

UMHB03, I believe that the D3 budget for its activities for all sports in 3.18% of the NCAA budget. (I will appreciate corrections.)

That money comes from March Madness and not CFP.

3.18% of a colossal sum of money. We're not talking about $10,000 first class flights here.

Costs a lot more to charter a plane than $10,000. (And then to fly teams in other sports, because D-III is about balance, and wouldn't do something just for football.)

[DFWCrufan]

It is what the situation is, the committee tries hard to figure it out to the best of their ability and what is available, I'll accept that. I look forward to every playoff season and I am also interested to see who else makes it. Take CMS - 3 decades..and they finally take a title, that is freaking awesome for them. So while we on the big T island may have reservations, that is what being on an island does it creates limitations. Its a game none the less whether your facing a known team you have faced before or a strange one, it is game 1, that is it.
As for UMU getting a pass...naaahhhh we cannot deny they are a freaking good and solid program, one day UMU will fall, just like one day the Cru will fall and pass on the big dog seat to perhaps HSU or even a Southwestern or (god forbid) ETBU, but until then, its game 1-4, play whoever it is, enjoy the games and see everyone in Shenandoah! (Of course we would like to see the Cru in stagg...in Texas)

[DFWCrufan]

Oh and on a good note. the kicking Cru game has stiffened up....report was John Mowery spent some time with the kicking Cru and it seems to have improved greatly (or bigly in some circles) His mechanic is still weird, but he is hitting his mark so if it works...