FB: American Southwest Conference

[justafan12]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

I don't really understand many aspects of the selection process, but I do know SOS plays a part.
Given that, I offer the following for what it's worth:
     TEAM       POSITION         SOS
    UMU              45               0.535
   UMHB            163              0.481

Mount Union - deserves a top seed. Mary Hardin-Baylor -

I can see rewarding UMU for being in a stronger conference but can you penalize UMHB based on their conference foes?  UMHB could have scheduled stronger than a 1-9 Simpson but their other 9 games are set. 

[HSUCowboy2015]

I personally think the 24 and 35 point wins over RRO for UMU carried more weight than the 6 point win UMHB had over their RRO. I feel like this years committee leaned more on SOS and RRO wins than in the past. So when UMU won both of those categories over UMHB they got the #1 seed. Again I think NC and UMHB were probably the last two fighting for a 1 seed and NC had the tie breaker from the 2019 playoffs.

[CardsFan1988]

I personally think the 24 and 35 point wins over RRO for UMU carried more weight than the 6 point win UMHB had over their RRO. I feel like this years committee leaned more on SOS and RRO wins than in the past. So when UMU won both of those categories over UMHB they got the #1 seed. Again I think NC and UMHB were probably the last two fighting for a 1 seed and NC had the tie breaker from the 2019 playoffs.

I think the idea that NCC only got a one seed from the tiebreaker significantly undersells their resume. Their SOS was. 521 (. 040 better than UMHB) and they went 3-0 against RRO. Those wins included arguably the best D3 win of the year (by 13 @ Wheaton) and a 64-7 win over an Aurora team that played #1 overall seed St. John's to a 39-33 loss the week before. With all due respect to the historical success of the Cru and no criticism of this year's squad which looks formidable, UMHBs resume is not remotely close to the other number 1s. I think they are properly seeded, and all that said, certainly a team I'm glad we wouldn't have to see before mid-December!

[UMHB03]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

I don't really understand many aspects of the selection process, but I do know SOS plays a part.
Given that, I offer the following for what it's worth:
     TEAM       POSITION         SOS
    UMU              45               0.535
   UMHB            163              0.481

Mount Union - deserves a top seed. Mary Hardin-Baylor -

We played a lot of teams tougher than Ohio Northern, and struggled with only HSU, who is at least as tough as anyone MU played. Mount Union is an excellent team, but UMHB is more deserving of a top 4 seed based on the results on the field (as opposed to subjective SOS).

[AO]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

I don't really understand many aspects of the selection process, but I do know SOS plays a part.
Given that, I offer the following for what it's worth:
     TEAM       POSITION         SOS
    UMU              45               0.535
   UMHB            163              0.481

Mount Union - deserves a top seed. Mary Hardin-Baylor -

We played a lot of teams tougher than Ohio Northern, and struggled with only HSU, who is at least as tough as anyone MU played. Mount Union is an excellent team, but UMHB is more deserving of a top 4 seed based on the results on the field (as opposed to subjective SOS).

I may not like the NCAA SoS which ignores margin of victory, but it is definitely objective and not subjective.  I think the Crusaders are going to have a great time flying to Oregon or Minnesota.  Minnesota in November is amazing.

[SW1]

SOS is subjective. Who can say a victory over one school is harder than another? Do you really know if Uwash could beat a Belhaven if they dont play? You think eastern teams beating easier opponents just because they are RR in the east is as tough as say the WIAC ? These aren't apples to apples at all. And to expect schools to convince other schools to spend the money to fly in for a game when the NCAA won't even pony up for it is nuts. Take the region part out of the equation and get a national rankings from coaches and D3 media that watch and know which schools should be ranked. Noone should have to embarrass another school by scoring a hundred because if not you look weak to a regional committee.

[umhb2001]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

I don't really understand many aspects of the selection process, but I do know SOS plays a part.
Given that, I offer the following for what it's worth:
     TEAM       POSITION         SOS
    UMU              45               0.535
   UMHB            163              0.481

Mount Union - deserves a top seed. Mary Hardin-Baylor -

We played a lot of teams tougher than Ohio Northern, and struggled with only HSU, who is at least as tough as anyone MU played. Mount Union is an excellent team, but UMHB is more deserving of a top 4 seed based on the results on the field (as opposed to subjective SOS).

I may not like the NCAA SoS which ignores margin of victory, but it is definitely objective and not subjective.  I think the Crusaders are going to have a great time flying to Oregon or Minnesota.  Minnesota in November is amazing.

UMHB won't fly to Oregon. They'll host Linfield.

[D3fanboy]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

I don't really understand many aspects of the selection process, but I do know SOS plays a part.
Given that, I offer the following for what it's worth:
     TEAM       POSITION         SOS
    UMU              45               0.535
   UMHB            163              0.481

Mount Union - deserves a top seed. Mary Hardin-Baylor -

We played a lot of teams tougher than Ohio Northern, and struggled with only HSU, who is at least as tough as anyone MU played. Mount Union is an excellent team, but UMHB is more deserving of a top 4 seed based on the results on the field (as opposed to subjective SOS).

there is no metric or eye test that would place UMHB's schedule above Mount's, or anywhere close to it.  I get that it sucks for you, but that's what happens when you have a garbage OOC and play in a very, very top heavy conference.  Mount's going to be in a similar boat next year with Defiance as the lone OOC.  Raiders fans need a great OAC OOC record next year or we're looking at UMHB levels of SOS

[Etchglow]

Snip....

there is no metric or eye test that would place UMHB's schedule above Mount's, or anywhere close to it.  I get that it sucks for you, but that's what happens when you have a garbage OOC and play in a very, very top heavy conference.  Mount's going to be in a similar boat next year with Defiance as the lone OOC.  Raiders fans need a great OAC OOC record next year or we're looking at UMHB levels of SOS

No metric or eye test?  So, whatever the AFCA voters and D3Football voters saw all season to rank UMHB ahead of Mount don't count?  Or how about the ONLY game that UMHB struggled in was a 6 point game against a regionally ranked 9-1 (8-1 D3/Conference schedule) in a #2 vs #7 matchup.  Mount?  A 7 point game against the powerhouse 4-6 (3-6 conference) Ohio Northern team. 

There are two .  I mean, we're all homers for our teams...

[crufootball]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

I don't really understand many aspects of the selection process, but I do know SOS plays a part.
Given that, I offer the following for what it's worth:
     TEAM       POSITION         SOS
    UMU              45               0.535
   UMHB            163              0.481

Mount Union - deserves a top seed. Mary Hardin-Baylor -

We played a lot of teams tougher than Ohio Northern, and struggled with only HSU, who is at least as tough as anyone MU played. Mount Union is an excellent team, but UMHB is more deserving of a top 4 seed based on the results on the field (as opposed to subjective SOS).

there is no metric or eye test that would place UMHB's schedule above Mount's, or anywhere close to it.  I get that it sucks for you, but that's what happens when you have a garbage OOC and play in a very, very top heavy conference.  Mount's going to be in a similar boat next year with Defiance as the lone OOC.  Raiders fans need a great OAC OOC record next year or we're looking at UMHB levels of SOS

I am not going to try and convince anyone that it would be easy to fairly determine the top 4 seeds, it isn't. With that said, is there a conference more top heavy than the OAC? Other teams may float close to the top but in the D3football.com era the Raiders have lost 2 conference games in 23 years. Don't get me wrong UMHB hasn't lost much more but both schools have as a very tight grip on the top of the conference. As for the OOC game, Simpson College has never been a world beater but in our defense this is the worst season they have had in over 20 years.

[AO]

Snip....

there is no metric or eye test that would place UMHB's schedule above Mount's, or anywhere close to it.  I get that it sucks for you, but that's what happens when you have a garbage OOC and play in a very, very top heavy conference.  Mount's going to be in a similar boat next year with Defiance as the lone OOC.  Raiders fans need a great OAC OOC record next year or we're looking at UMHB levels of SOS

No metric or eye test?  So, whatever the AFCA voters and D3Football voters saw all season to rank UMHB ahead of Mount don't count?

Nope, doesn't count. 

[Etchglow]

Snip....

there is no metric or eye test that would place UMHB's schedule above Mount's, or anywhere close to it.  I get that it sucks for you, but that's what happens when you have a garbage OOC and play in a very, very top heavy conference.  Mount's going to be in a similar boat next year with Defiance as the lone OOC.  Raiders fans need a great OAC OOC record next year or we're looking at UMHB levels of SOS

No metric or eye test?  So, whatever the AFCA voters and D3Football voters saw all season to rank UMHB ahead of Mount don't count?

Nope, doesn't count.

Methinks you missed the point (or I missed the sarcasm). If D3fanboy would have limited it to actual criteria I probably would have ignored him. But, he brought the eye test in which isn't an actual criteria and what I addressed in my post...

[UMHB03]

UMHB's conference opponents had a total of 40 wins (and that's with 2 games cancelled)

Mount Union's conference opponents had a total of 41 wins

Not exactly an overwhelming nod for the OAC as being a superior conference.... until you factor in pro-Northern bias.

So that means that the non-conference opponents were the tie-breaker rather than 2019 order of elimination and the eyeball test?

[AO]

Snip....

there is no metric or eye test that would place UMHB's schedule above Mount's, or anywhere close to it.  I get that it sucks for you, but that's what happens when you have a garbage OOC and play in a very, very top heavy conference.  Mount's going to be in a similar boat next year with Defiance as the lone OOC.  Raiders fans need a great OAC OOC record next year or we're looking at UMHB levels of SOS

No metric or eye test?  So, whatever the AFCA voters and D3Football voters saw all season to rank UMHB ahead of Mount don't count?

Nope, doesn't count.

Methinks you missed the point (or I missed the sarcasm). If D3fanboy would have limited it to actual criteria I probably would have ignored him. But, he brought the eye test in which isn't an actual criteria and what I addressed in my post...

That's fair.

[D3fanboy]

Snip....

there is no metric or eye test that would place UMHB's schedule above Mount's, or anywhere close to it.  I get that it sucks for you, but that's what happens when you have a garbage OOC and play in a very, very top heavy conference.  Mount's going to be in a similar boat next year with Defiance as the lone OOC.  Raiders fans need a great OAC OOC record next year or we're looking at UMHB levels of SOS

No metric or eye test?  So, whatever the AFCA voters and D3Football voters saw all season to rank UMHB ahead of Mount don't count?  Or how about the ONLY game that UMHB struggled in was a 6 point game against a regionally ranked 9-1 (8-1 D3/Conference schedule) in a #2 vs #7 matchup.  Mount?  A 7 point game against the powerhouse 4-6 (3-6 conference) Ohio Northern team. 

There are two .  I mean, we're all homers for our teams...

I guess reading comprehension might not be a thing in Texas.  But you seem to disregard that I was discussing UMHB's schedule vs Mount's schedule, not the meaningless D3 polls. Let's try this instead: the reason that UMHB is a two seed is, the stats say "y'all ain't played nobody"