FB: American Southwest Conference

[UMHB03]

Do you invent nonsensical conspiracy theories to suck every ounce of joy out of every part of your life, or is it limited only to small college football?  I hope you get some help because this isn't healthy.

It's not a nonsensical conspiracy theory when it is in line with the NCAA's stated goals and priorities,

What are their stated goals and priorities?  Source that from somewhere other than your own rantings and we'll get back to it.

You said yourself that the NCAA has been open with the fact that their top priority in creating the bracket is saving money.

[wally_wabash]

Do you invent nonsensical conspiracy theories to suck every ounce of joy out of every part of your life, or is it limited only to small college football?  I hope you get some help because this isn't healthy.

It's not a nonsensical conspiracy theory when it is in line with the NCAA's stated goals and priorities,

What are their stated goals and priorities?  Source that from somewhere other than your own rantings and we'll get back to it.

You said yourself that the NCAA has been open with the fact that their top priority in creating the bracket is saving money.

No, that's not what I've said.  If the NCAA's top priority here was to spend as little as possible, they wouldn't sponsor a tournament.  They sure as hell wouldn't sponsor five rounds of a tournament.  We have the best football tournament in college sports, and you can't stop griping about it.  Here is the language from the handbook about pairings and site selection:

● Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained. Teams should be paired and eligible sites should be selected according to geographic proximity (within 500 miles).
● Teams from the same conference may play each other in order to maintain geographic proximity.

In 2016 and 2017, the selection committee ignored this provision and broke the 500-mile rule, primarily as a favor to the ASC teams.  The 2018 committee was not given the same latitude.  This was addressed in a couple of different places by the chairman. 

There is not enough money in the D3 football championship budget to ignore geographic proximity, especially for teams that are isolated.  Sorry.  This provision impacts your school more than it does others.  Again, sorry.  But they aren't out to get you. 

[trickytroy32]

My prediction: UMHB 49 Berry 0

[UMHB03]

Do you invent nonsensical conspiracy theories to suck every ounce of joy out of every part of your life, or is it limited only to small college football?  I hope you get some help because this isn't healthy.

It's not a nonsensical conspiracy theory when it is in line with the NCAA's stated goals and priorities,

What are their stated goals and priorities?  Source that from somewhere other than your own rantings and we'll get back to it.

You said yourself that the NCAA has been open with the fact that their top priority in creating the bracket is saving money.

No, that's not what I've said.  If the NCAA's top priority here was to spend as little as possible, they wouldn't sponsor a tournament.  They sure as hell wouldn't sponsor five rounds of a tournament.  We have the best football tournament in college sports, and you can't stop griping about it.  Here is the language from the handbook about pairings and site selection:

● Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained. Teams should be paired and eligible sites should be selected according to geographic proximity (within 500 miles).
● Teams from the same conference may play each other in order to maintain geographic proximity.

In 2016 and 2017, the selection committee ignored this provision and broke the 500-mile rule, primarily as a favor to the ASC teams.  The 2018 committee was not given the same latitude.  This was addressed in a couple of different places by the chairman. 

There is not enough money in the D3 football championship budget to ignore geographic proximity, especially for teams that are isolated.  Sorry.  This provision impacts your school more than it does others.  Again, sorry.  But they aren't out to get you.

This explanation would account for HSU in the first round. If that was unavoidable due to the finances related to proximity, so be it. What it doesn't explain is Saint John's rather than Bethel in the third round. If the NCAA is forced to give us a bum deal in the first round, shouldn't fairess dictate that they even things out by making the later rounds a bit easier? The fact that they didn't, proving that fairness is not even a consideration when it comes to the pesky, expensive island teams (simply obstacles to be eliminated as soon as possible for the sake of finances), shows that D3 can't possibly be considered the best tournament in college football. Tournaments that are designed to reward regular season success through it's seeding, for the purposes of authentically crowning the best team in the sport according to fair and equitable standards, are much better.

[wally_wabash]

This explanation would account for HSU in the first round. If that was unavoidable due to the finances related to proximity, so be it. What it doesn't explain is Saint John's rather than Bethel in the third round. If the NCAA is forced to give us a bum deal in the first round, shouldn't fairess dictate that they even things out by making the later rounds a bit easier? The fact that they didn't, proving that fairness is not even a consideration when it comes to the pesky, expensive island teams (simply obstacles to be eliminated as soon as possible for the sake of finances), shows that D3 can't possibly be considered the best tournament in college football. Tournaments that are designed to reward regular season success through it's seeding, for the purposes of authentically crowning the best team in the sport according to fair and equitable standards, are much better.

Sooo...the UMHB regional bracket shouldn't have a legitimate #2 seed because Hardin-Simmons and UMHB are within 500 miles of each other and nobody else? 

If you want national tournaments with true national seeding, there's basically only one of those in college sports.  Division I men's basketball.  End of list.  So you're all the way out of luck here, bud.  Sorry. 

[UMHB03]

This explanation would account for HSU in the first round. If that was unavoidable due to the finances related to proximity, so be it. What it doesn't explain is Saint John's rather than Bethel in the third round. If the NCAA is forced to give us a bum deal in the first round, shouldn't fairess dictate that they even things out by making the later rounds a bit easier? The fact that they didn't, proving that fairness is not even a consideration when it comes to the pesky, expensive island teams (simply obstacles to be eliminated as soon as possible for the sake of finances), shows that D3 can't possibly be considered the best tournament in college football. Tournaments that are designed to reward regular season success through it's seeding, for the purposes of authentically crowning the best team in the sport according to fair and equitable standards, are much better.

Sooo...the UMHB regional bracket shouldn't have a legitimate #2 seed because Hardin-Simmons and UMHB are within 500 miles of each other and nobody else? 

If you want national tournaments with true national seeding, there's basically only one of those in college sports.  Division I men's basketball.  End of list.  So you're all the way out of luck here, bud.  Sorry.

The UMHB regional bracket would've still had a legitimate #2 seed. We played them in the first round. If we make it to the third round, we then have to play a SECOND legitimate #2 seed. Who else was forced to do that?

[crufootball]

Just to add a little gas on this fire, I have to point out that the always difficult path for Mount Union this year didn't even feature a team ranked #2 by the RACs.

[wally_wabash]

This explanation would account for HSU in the first round. If that was unavoidable due to the finances related to proximity, so be it. What it doesn't explain is Saint John's rather than Bethel in the third round. If the NCAA is forced to give us a bum deal in the first round, shouldn't fairess dictate that they even things out by making the later rounds a bit easier? The fact that they didn't, proving that fairness is not even a consideration when it comes to the pesky, expensive island teams (simply obstacles to be eliminated as soon as possible for the sake of finances), shows that D3 can't possibly be considered the best tournament in college football. Tournaments that are designed to reward regular season success through it's seeding, for the purposes of authentically crowning the best team in the sport according to fair and equitable standards, are much better.

Sooo...the UMHB regional bracket shouldn't have a legitimate #2 seed because Hardin-Simmons and UMHB are within 500 miles of each other and nobody else? 

If you want national tournaments with true national seeding, there's basically only one of those in college sports.  Division I men's basketball.  End of list.  So you're all the way out of luck here, bud.  Sorry.

The UMHB regional bracket would've still had a legitimate #2 seed. We played them in the first round. If we make it to the third round, we then have to play a SECOND legitimate #2 seed. Who else was forced to do that?

Based on what was HSU a #2 seed?  They weren't #2 in the region.  Who did they beat?  What did they do to warrant a #2 seed? 

They were 3 here- at the very best.  Most likely 4 behind Whitworth. 

[wally_wabash]

Just to add a little gas on this fire, I have to point out that the always difficult path for Mount Union this year didn't even feature a team ranked #2 by the RACs.

Yep.  That was a miss.  They should have swapped the JCU pairing with either the Hopkins or Frostburg pairing.  It's a mini-shift for balance, but it would have been a touch better for sure. 

[crufootball]

Just to add a little gas on this fire, I have to point out that the always difficult path for Mount Union this year didn't even feature a team ranked #2 by the RACs.

Yep.  That was a miss.  They should have swapped the JCU pairing with either the Hopkins or Frostburg pairing.  It's a mini-shift for balance, but it would have been a touch better for sure.

Can you think of a reasoning of why they went in this direction? I truly don't think they intentionally give Mount an easy path to the Stagg Bowl but that seems like a check box item to ensure "balance" in the brackets.

[jamtod]

Just to add a little gas on this fire, I have to point out that the always difficult path for Mount Union this year didn't even feature a team ranked #2 by the RACs.

Yep.  That was a miss.  They should have swapped the JCU pairing with either the Hopkins or Frostburg pairing.  It's a mini-shift for balance, but it would have been a touch better for sure.

For clarity, which 4 teams would you consider the #2 seeds? Given that the brackets/regions aren't technically seeded (say we always have a #1 but not necessarily a 2, 3, 4, 5, etc) I'm not sure this is the line of reasoning you want to venture down.

[crufootball]

Just to add a little gas on this fire, I have to point out that the always difficult path for Mount Union this year didn't even feature a team ranked #2 by the RACs.

Yep.  That was a miss.  They should have swapped the JCU pairing with either the Hopkins or Frostburg pairing.  It's a mini-shift for balance, but it would have been a touch better for sure.

For clarity, which 4 teams would you consider the #2 seeds? Given that the brackets/regions aren't technically seeded (say we always have a #1 but not necessarily a 2, 3, 4, 5, etc) I'm not sure this is the line of reasoning you want to venture down.

Good point, this is an area that truly will make your head hurt, trying to wrap your mind around a bracket which has to be seeded in order to make sense but then you aren't given seeds.

[wally_wabash]

Just to add a little gas on this fire, I have to point out that the always difficult path for Mount Union this year didn't even feature a team ranked #2 by the RACs.

Yep.  That was a miss.  They should have swapped the JCU pairing with either the Hopkins or Frostburg pairing.  It's a mini-shift for balance, but it would have been a touch better for sure.

For clarity, which 4 teams would you consider the #2 seeds? Given that the brackets/regions aren't technically seeded (say we always have a #1 but not necessarily a 2, 3, 4, 5, etc) I'm not sure this is the line of reasoning you want to venture down.

So, a number of years ago (3 or 4 maybe?) we were told that the committee picks out the top 8 seeds (1s and 2s) and then builds four team pods around those 8, then pairs up the pods in ways that make geographic sense.  That line of thinking gave us good, fun interregional brackets (as best we can do anyway- sorry, Texas).  This year, the chairman definitely made it sound like the top 8 seeds in this tournament were the top 2 from each region (a lot of what Coach Catanzaro told us post-release was that they returned this tournament to a more regional affair, less creative but more in line with the D-III philosphy...it gets weird trying to hold a national tournament on a regional basis, but here we are)- but that doesn't quite hold because Frostburg and Hopkins wound up in the same quadrant and we wound up with John Carroll being a surrogate 2-seed in Mount Union's quadrant.  Like I said, they could have swapped JCU/RMC with either the Frostburg pair or the Hopkins pair and that would have been all good for balance and for travel.  Mount Union's 2018 quadrant is going to look way more unbalanced than it is because JCU got upset, but that's the fun part of single elimination tournaments, right? 

Anyway, to answer the question: the 2 seeds in this tournament are most probably:
St. John's (100% certain)
North Central (100% certain)
John Carroll (95% certain)
Frostburg (100% certain)

[Kelly Boggs]

If you really look at this as a money saving issue, then it would seem the powers-that-be at the NCAA would want UMHB to make the Stagg Bowl. If The CRU is playing for the title on December 14, it will mean only one flight in the final. 

There is no perfect anything in this world. I think I understand the issues with the D3 playoffs and while I don't necessarily like some of it, it is what it is. Every year someone's going to be unhappy. That said, I will take the D3 playoffs over the FBS system every time.

We're into the second round, come on and let's put this bracket debate to rest.

Go CRU!

[umhb2001]

Of the teams remaining, who are statistically the best at each position?

Passing:

David Tammaro     Johns Hopkins     3330 yards
Broc Rutter            North Central     3275 yards

Receiving:

Jalon Hibbs            Centre                1148 Yards

Rushing:

Markeith Miller        UMHB                1401 yards

Interceptions per Game

Jefferson Fritz         UMHB                 8 Ints  .7 per game  135 Return yards

Tackles for Loss

Frankie Feaster       Muhlenberg         20.5        1.9 per game

Field Goal Percentage

Anthony Avila         UMHB               .909 FG Percentage

Kickoff Returns

Brayden Corona       Whitworth         316 Return Yards    26.3 Avg

Punt Returns

KJ Miller              UMHB             593 Return Yards
Aaron Sims          UMHB             424 Return Yards

Lots of good stuff here. Should be great for stat tracking this Saturday.