Pool B

[ExTartanPlayer]

The Illinois College scenario is probably a moot point.  According to a post on the MWC board, their tie-break is # of quarters with the lead.  Since St. N has been edging opponents, while IC has been destroying them, I'd assume IC would win such a tie-break (though I haven't checked the box scores to see for sure).

I agree.  Still an interesting hypothetical to walk through, but I figured the tiebreak would likely favor IC for the reason you mentioned (quarters with the lead, score differential, something like that).  I am a fan of "quarters with the lead" as opposed to score differential because that way garbage-time TD's don't matter and coaches don't feel any need to run up the score "just in case" of a tie.

[wally_wabash]

  This wouldn't be the first time an unbeaten team missed the playoffs.  

This is false.  In the AQ era and certainly since the field expanded to 32 teams (and probably even in the 28 team era) an undefeated team has NOT been left out.  I don't think Illinois College would be the first, but I could definitely see an argument for them getting caught behind some other West region teams in the regional rankings (which would probably lead to them being left out).  But not behind a 2-loss team.  That's not going to happen.

Which is why I didn't limit it to the AQ era.  As ExTartan noted, this shouldn't be a everybody gets a trophy tournament.  Send the best teams with the pool C.  Leave pool A as the sole avenue for the poor teams to go dancing.

I think any conversation about the playoffs and the selection process probably needs to start with 1999 and go forward from there...at least as long as we want to use precedent to support a point about how a tournament in the present day might be constructed.  Prior to 1999 the whole system was just too different to be germane to today's process. 

Send the best teams?  How do you decide who the best teams are for Pool C (that's substantially different from how we do it now)?  How do you decide who the "poor" teams are?  That's walking a really, really thin line of conference elitist snobbery there.  Why can't a team from the MWC be good? 

[AO]

  This wouldn't be the first time an unbeaten team missed the playoffs.  

This is false.  In the AQ era and certainly since the field expanded to 32 teams (and probably even in the 28 team era) an undefeated team has NOT been left out.  I don't think Illinois College would be the first, but I could definitely see an argument for them getting caught behind some other West region teams in the regional rankings (which would probably lead to them being left out).  But not behind a 2-loss team.  That's not going to happen.

Which is why I didn't limit it to the AQ era.  As ExTartan noted, this shouldn't be a everybody gets a trophy tournament.  Send the best teams with the pool C.  Leave pool A as the sole avenue for the poor teams to go dancing.

I think any conversation about the playoffs and the selection process probably needs to start with 1999 and go forward from there...at least as long as we want to use precedent to support a point about how a tournament in the present day might be constructed.  Prior to 1999 the whole system was just too different to be germane to today's process. 

Send the best teams?  How do you decide who the best teams are for Pool C (that's substantially different from how we do it now)?  How do you decide who the "poor" teams are?  That's walking a really, really thin line of conference elitist snobbery there.  Why can't a team from the MWC be good?

I don't think you have to add criteria to the current selection process, just give less weight to win pct. when comparing teams with no common opponents.

[ExTartanPlayer]

  This wouldn't be the first time an unbeaten team missed the playoffs.  

This is false.  In the AQ era and certainly since the field expanded to 32 teams (and probably even in the 28 team era) an undefeated team has NOT been left out.  I don't think Illinois College would be the first, but I could definitely see an argument for them getting caught behind some other West region teams in the regional rankings (which would probably lead to them being left out).  But not behind a 2-loss team.  That's not going to happen.

Which is why I didn't limit it to the AQ era.  As ExTartan noted, this shouldn't be a everybody gets a trophy tournament.  Send the best teams with the pool C.  Leave pool A as the sole avenue for the poor teams to go dancing.

I think any conversation about the playoffs and the selection process probably needs to start with 1999 and go forward from there...at least as long as we want to use precedent to support a point about how a tournament in the present day might be constructed.  Prior to 1999 the whole system was just too different to be germane to today's process. 

Send the best teams?  How do you decide who the best teams are for Pool C (that's substantially different from how we do it now)?  How do you decide who the "poor" teams are?  That's walking a really, really thin line of conference elitist snobbery there.  Why can't a team from the MWC be good?

Agreed.  Fans of the best conferences will never buy this angle, but I hate the "Well, we know that this team is better because we just do" attitude that comes from them.  I am a firm believer in carrying forward some level of past knowledge based on playoff performances, but not so much that we make ourselves totally blind to the possibility that a team from a lesser conference can be pretty good.  There's a meeting point in the middle.

Pool C's are a nice life preserver to let a few really, really good runners-up into the tournament.  No one should be able to "count" on a Pool C to save it from a conference loss (and I don't care how good that conference is) because the field is just too competitive - if you want to have a shot to win the national title, you better count on winning your damn conference first.

I know that my perception of this is colored by my own experience; I played for a 10-0 team that did get in through Pool B (which is admittedly a different angle than the UST vs. Illinois College hypothetical) but some may have viewed our team as less-than-deserving because our schedule was very blah (OWP was approximately .400 if memory serves correctly, we'd only beaten two teams that finished better than .500, and we had needed overtime to beat WashU for the UAA title).  I'm quite certain that any fan holding AO's viewpoint would have argued that we did not deserve a berth, even with an undefeated record, because it was just "obvious" from the regional rankings and SOS that such a team did not belong. 

By the way, we won our first-round playoff game (against a relatively "soft" Pool A, sure, but still...we did win).

[wally_wabash]

  This wouldn't be the first time an unbeaten team missed the playoffs.  

This is false.  In the AQ era and certainly since the field expanded to 32 teams (and probably even in the 28 team era) an undefeated team has NOT been left out.  I don't think Illinois College would be the first, but I could definitely see an argument for them getting caught behind some other West region teams in the regional rankings (which would probably lead to them being left out).  But not behind a 2-loss team.  That's not going to happen.

Which is why I didn't limit it to the AQ era.  As ExTartan noted, this shouldn't be a everybody gets a trophy tournament.  Send the best teams with the pool C.  Leave pool A as the sole avenue for the poor teams to go dancing.

I think any conversation about the playoffs and the selection process probably needs to start with 1999 and go forward from there...at least as long as we want to use precedent to support a point about how a tournament in the present day might be constructed.  Prior to 1999 the whole system was just too different to be germane to today's process. 

Send the best teams?  How do you decide who the best teams are for Pool C (that's substantially different from how we do it now)?  How do you decide who the "poor" teams are?  That's walking a really, really thin line of conference elitist snobbery there.  Why can't a team from the MWC be good?

I don't think you have to add criteria to the current selection process, just give less weight to win pct. when comparing teams with no common opponents.

As you noted, there has been some evidence that the committee will look favorably upon a strong SOS and maybe a regionally ranked win or two to offset an extra loss.  I think it's a really big leap and really big ask to think that an SOS difference (which probably won't wind up being as big as people might think) and a win over a regionally ranked team is going to be enough to offset zero losses vs. two losses.   

[smedindy]

Win your league or don't complain.

I've defended some of the weaker "A" teams before, because this snobbery isn't what D-3 is about. We've got probably the best football playoff system in the NCAA because everyone has a chance (unless they decide to forfeit that chance for some reason...) and the discussion of "B" and "C" teams are what make it rich. But please, if you don't win your league (and aren't in the same league as Mt. Union - since the WIAC is now a triple-headed beast) you really shouldn't pipe up too much. You left the decision in the hands of others.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Win your league or don't complain.

I've defended some of the weaker "A" teams before, because this snobbery isn't what D-3 is about. We've got probably the best football playoff system in the NCAA because everyone has a chance (unless they decide to forfeit that chance for some reason...) and the discussion of "B" and "C" teams are what make it rich. But please, if you don't win your league (and aren't in the same league as Mt. Union - since the WIAC is now a triple-headed beast) you really shouldn't pipe up too much. You left the decision in the hands of others.

Bingo.  I don't even like arguments about Pool C because Team X is 8-2 because they played a hard OOC game while Team Y is 9-1 with an easier OOC schedule.  Both had a chance to get in through Pool A without the OOC games meaning a thing.  Any team that lost not one but two conference games would really have no place to complain, IMO.

(Of course, some teams get in through Pool A with conference losses because nobody ran the table in their conference, but again, that's a different argument)

[AO]

Win your league or don't complain.

I agree, especially if you play in the MWC.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Win your league or don't complain.

I agree...

Right.

I'm also prepared to be salty if a 8-2 St. Thomas isn't in before IC with a better SOS and a win over regionally ranked Concordia.

Whoops!

[AO]

I retract my previous statement.  Everyone should complain at all times, even when they know there are better teams out there.  Might have to shut this board down if you can only complain when you're undefeated.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I retract my previous statement.  Everyone should complain at all times, even when they know there are better teams out there.  Might have to shut this board down if you can only complain when you're undefeated.

I just chuckle at your double standard.  Win your league or don't complain.  Unless you play in a tough league, in which case you should complain about teams from less-tough leagues that might get in ahead of you.

[AO]

I retract my previous statement.  Everyone should complain at all times, even when they know there are better teams out there.  Might have to shut this board down if you can only complain when you're undefeated.

I just chuckle at your double standard.  Win your league or don't complain.  Unless you play in a tough league, in which case you should complain about teams from less-tough leagues that might get in ahead of you.

what part of "I retract my statement" was confusing?  If IC doesn't get the pool A, they shouldn't complain by your logic, regardless of their record.  Their real beef should be with the conference schedule and tie-breaker.

[hazzben]

No dog in the fight, but it's always fun to watch a fight, and stir it up again once it looks to be dying down 

From the MWC board:

IC's remaining schedule:
at Beloit (1-4)
vs. Knox (1-4)
vs. Monmouth (2-2)
at Cornell (3-1)
at Carroll (2-3)

SNC's remaining schedule:
at Lawrence (0-5)
vs. Beloit (1-4)
vs. Grinnell (1-3)
at Lake Forest (4-1)

Pretty obvious that the Blueboys are now big LFC fans, while SNC will be cheering for the Rams & Scots. SNC has a small advantage insofar as it has one fewer chance to stumble, with its bye week still to come. If IC already has the quarters led (I believe you; I just haven't done the math myself), I can't see SNC passing them, especially with one less game to play.

SOS will take a pretty dramatic shift in the weeks to come.

Now please, fight over that data as though your first-borns depend upon it! I'll be enjoying from here. 

[wally_wabash]

For comparison...St. Thomas's remaining schedule:

Bethel 5-0
Hamline 2-3
Augsburg 3-2
C-M 4-1
St. Olaf 1-5

Total: 15-10 for St. Thomas...Compared to 9-14 for Illinois College.  So there's some shifting there, but we have to remember that we're in league play now and pretty much every result from here on out is a wash on the OWP.  But keep in mind...Hanover is probably going to win a few games and help IC's OWP as it goes along.  River Falls and Eau Claire though (combined 0-10)...who are they beating?  You might get 2-3 wins max out of those two vs. 7-8 more losses.  In an odd twist, those UW games are really dragging St. Thomas down here. 

But again, this is all gnashing way way out in the hypothetical.  Barring total armageddon beneath the league champions of places like the NWC, the WIAC, the OAC, and the CCIW, there just won't be enough spots to accommodate 2-loss teams in the Pool C. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

But again, this is all gnashing way way out in the hypothetical.  Barring total armageddon beneath the league champions of places like the NWC, the WIAC, the OAC, and the CCIW, there just won't be enough spots to accommodate 2-loss teams in the Pool C.

I agree, it's likely to be a moot point.  First, Illinois College is probably going to get the MWC's Pool A if the tiebreaker has been described accurately.

However, I do think at least one 2-loss team gets a Pool C bid (although I wouldn't feel comfortable if I was one of the 2-loss teams waiting to find out).  Virtually everyone in the East already has a loss and there are still plenty of matchups between good teams to go there; hard to figure that many runners-up in the East will come through with just one loss (unless Salisbury upsets SJF or someone in the Liberty League upsets Hobart).  There are lots of games left between the top contenders in the four conferences you mention and it's definitely possible that several of those conferences will have a 2-loss runnerup.  Looking around the landscape, even with fairly few C's available, I betcha at least one of the Pool C's will have two losses.