FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[emma17]

I see both sides of UMU being the #1ish seed nearly every season.
I agree with others in that I don't think home field is much of a competitive advantage. Thus, I don't attribute Mt.'s playoff success to home field advantage.
However, I do think home field, whenever possible, should be granted as a reward for the regular season. We all know it's not Mt.'s fault that their regular season schedule is as soft as it is. Yet, I don't think that justifies denying the reward of home field to a team that has played a clearly more difficult schedule and prevailed. I understand the committee will look at the previous season when deciding how to seed unbeaten teams. But in my opinion that should happen when all else is equal, or relatively equal. If UWW, St. Thomas, UMU and UMHB all finish undefeated, all will not be equal- not even close.
IMO the issue here isn't that the home team gets a competitive advantage, rather, the home town loses a game they could host. The community loses out on an opportunity and that gets overlooked.

[wally_wabash]

I understand the committee will look at the previous season when deciding how to seed unbeaten teams. But in my opinion that should happen when all else is equal, or relatively equal. If UWW, St. Thomas, UMU and UMHB all finish undefeated, all will not be equal- not even close.

I think this is inarguable, qualitatively.  However it will be interesting to see the data specific to the selection/seeding criteria on this (SOS, RRO results, etc.) to see how much quantitative separation there is amongst the top handful of teams.   If expected results hold for the next five weeks, I think Whitewater is a clear #1.  I think the intrigue is at that second overall position- does UMHB have enough meat on their résumé to clearly pass Mount Union's 10-0?  Does the Linfield result plus the H-SU result put them clearly ahead?  Not sure.  If ETBU manages to stay ranked and UMHB finishes with a 3-0 vs. RROs, then I think it does and that would put Mount Union, very justifiably, on the road for the semifinal round.  I've glossed St. Thomas, but I don't think there's enough rankable opponents in the MIAC*  to get them back into the host-all-the-way-through position they were in last year- at least not with UMHB's profile and UWW"s profile out there.  Last year was unique in that UWW and UWO had both lost games, UMHB lost, Wesley had lost.  Kind of opened up that second overall spot to either St. Thomas or Linfield.   

*which is not the same as saying that the MIAC isn't good...just saying there are only so many West region spots available to rank teams and the MIAC is kind of taking themselves out of a third rankable team

[jamtod]

bleedpurple:   great post!   I agree 100%.

Other than field playing surface, I honestly believe that there is no "home field" advantage at the D3 level.   Until the stadium attendance gets large enough to affect the ability to communicate I don't believe it has an impact on the game.   Playing in front of 100,000 screaming people in your typical Big Ten stadium is an issue for the road team.   Playing in front of your average D3 playoff crowd doesn't count.   And I don't buy the lame excuses of travel, locker rooms, etc either.

What there can be however is a "home weather" advantage.   Playing in Wisconsin or Minnesota sub-zero temps is a serious disadvantage for a team not used to such temperatures say from Virginia, Delaware, Texas, etc.   Same as playing in Belton TX with 30+ mph winds is a serious disadvantage for a passing team from the northeast that rarely sees that kind of weather, hence why in my opinion that MHB has historically be a run heavy team.   It's not very wise to build your offense like Franklin's when you're likely to play in gale force winds late in the season.   And yes, I realize most of the United States can experience wind and cold weather conditions, but until you live and practice regularly in extreme wind or cold can you truly get comfortable with it.  Especially when the average D3 roster is mainly made up of kids from the same geographical region.

Weather is where I see playing at home can make a difference, but even that is lessened greatly in D3 when the vast majority of the schools are located in or around the Great Lakes.   It's not like we have a ton of schools in southern California or from SEC country that have to travel is the north in December to play.   

So, for the few occasions that Mount played in nice 30 temps in the semi-finals at home when it might be been 5 below in Whitewater or crazy windy in Belton then yes, Mount had an advantage playing at home.  And anyone nationally pissing and moaning about any home game before the Semi-Finals should just shut up.   Mount hasn't failed to win their region since the 1994 season.   And as long as the NCAA factors in past performance into the seeding of like ranked teams, how else is Mount going to be seeded in their region other than #1?   

If someone nationally wanted to talk about an unfair Mount advantage, they should look at the geographical regions and the 500 mile travel goal.   The most consistent advantage Mount has gotten over the last 10-ish years is being paired with the East Region, not playing at home.   Though that has been eliminated the last few years with the top 2 regional seeds being more national.

The studies of home field advantage I have seen indicate that subtle, unconscious differences in the refereeing make up most of the advantage. Take it or leave it, but that's what the data has suggested. I can find the articles if somebody is interested in digging further. I may be oversimplifying it.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I understand the committee will look at the previous season when deciding how to seed unbeaten teams. But in my opinion that should happen when all else is equal, or relatively equal. If UWW, St. Thomas, UMU and UMHB all finish undefeated, all will not be equal- not even close.

I think this is inarguable, qualitatively.  However it will be interesting to see the data specific to the selection/seeding criteria on this (SOS, RRO results, etc.) to see how much quantitative separation there is amongst the top handful of teams.  If expected results hold for the next five weeks, I think Whitewater is a clear #1.  I think the intrigue is at that second overall position- does UMHB have enough meat on their résumé to clearly pass Mount Union's 10-0?  Does the Linfield result plus the H-SU result put them clearly ahead?  Not sure.  If ETBU manages to stay ranked and UMHB finishes with a 3-0 vs. RROs, then I think it does and that would put Mount Union, very justifiably, on the road for the semifinal round.  I've glossed St. Thomas, but I don't think there's enough rankable opponents in the MIAC*  to get them back into the host-all-the-way-through position they were in last year- at least not with UMHB's profile and UWW"s profile out there.  Last year was unique in that UWW and UWO had both lost games, UMHB lost, Wesley had lost.  Kind of opened up that second overall spot to either St. Thomas or Linfield.   

*which is not the same as saying that the MIAC isn't good...just saying there are only so many West region spots available to rank teams and the MIAC is kind of taking themselves out of a third rankable team

I'd agree that UWW winning all of the three previous games is an extraordinary feat, but don't forget that the win over Morningside (the #2 team in NAIA) might as well have been a bye week in terms of SOS, and that the best UWW can finish (in the eyes of the primary criteria) is 9-0, not 10-0.  I have no idea how much effect that may have come selection (seeding) time.

[Sherburne]

bleedpurple:   great post!   I agree 100%.

jamtoTommie

The studies of home field advantage I have seen indicate that subtle, unconscious differences in the refereeing make up most of the advantage. Take it or leave it, but that's what the data has suggested. I can find the articles if somebody is interested in digging further. I may be oversimplifying it.

jamtoTommie,

Studies of home field advantage you have seen "...indicate that subtle, unconscious differences in the refereeing make up most of the advantage." Probably more than me would you to "...find the articles...". Do the articles cite 'homer' referees as the source of home field advantage? I believe that the OAC selects 'neutral' officials for conference games. NCAA entities may do likewise for post-season games. "unconscious differences" wouldn't seem to suggest homers. I wonder how the articles attribute 'subtle, unconscious differences' contribute to home field advantage?

Sherb

[jamtod]

The studies of home field advantage I have seen indicate that subtle, unconscious differences in the refereeing make up most of the advantage. Take it or leave it, but that's what the data has suggested. I can find the articles if somebody is interested in digging further. I may be oversimplifying it.

jamtoTommie,

Studies of home field advantage you have seen "...indicate that subtle, unconscious differences in the refereeing make up most of the advantage." Probably more than me would you to "...find the articles...". Do the articles cite 'homer' referees as the source of home field advantage? I believe that the OAC selects 'neutral' officials for conference games. NCAA entities may do likewise for post-season games. "unconscious differences" wouldn't seem to suggest homers. I wonder how the articles attribute 'subtle, unconscious differences' contribute to home field advantage?

Sherb

The studies don't attribute it to "homer" referees. Even "neutral" officials are impacted.
The "subtle, unconscious" wording was my own, and was definitely imperfect. Involuntary is a better descriptor.

This is one of the articles I found. I make no claims about the referenced studies' methodology or truthiness.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/

[wally_wabash]

I understand the committee will look at the previous season when deciding how to seed unbeaten teams. But in my opinion that should happen when all else is equal, or relatively equal. If UWW, St. Thomas, UMU and UMHB all finish undefeated, all will not be equal- not even close.

I think this is inarguable, qualitatively.  However it will be interesting to see the data specific to the selection/seeding criteria on this (SOS, RRO results, etc.) to see how much quantitative separation there is amongst the top handful of teams.  If expected results hold for the next five weeks, I think Whitewater is a clear #1.  I think the intrigue is at that second overall position- does UMHB have enough meat on their résumé to clearly pass Mount Union's 10-0?  Does the Linfield result plus the H-SU result put them clearly ahead?  Not sure.  If ETBU manages to stay ranked and UMHB finishes with a 3-0 vs. RROs, then I think it does and that would put Mount Union, very justifiably, on the road for the semifinal round.  I've glossed St. Thomas, but I don't think there's enough rankable opponents in the MIAC*  to get them back into the host-all-the-way-through position they were in last year- at least not with UMHB's profile and UWW"s profile out there.  Last year was unique in that UWW and UWO had both lost games, UMHB lost, Wesley had lost.  Kind of opened up that second overall spot to either St. Thomas or Linfield.   

*which is not the same as saying that the MIAC isn't good...just saying there are only so many West region spots available to rank teams and the MIAC is kind of taking themselves out of a third rankable team

I'd agree that UWW winning all of the three previous games is an extraordinary feat, but don't forget that the win over Morningside (the #2 team in NAIA) might as well have been a bye week in terms of SOS, and that the best UWW can finish (in the eyes of the primary criteria) is 9-0, not 10-0.  I have no idea how much effect that may have come selection (seeding) time.

The primary criteria is based on win percentage, so 9-0 vs. 10-0 shouldn't make a huge difference.  And I think it's a mistake by the committee to ignore significant data in the secondary criteria.  Per this conversation about the top 3-4 seeded teams, I don't know how you would reasonably separate them without dipping into the secondary criteria. 

It's also completely possible that the committee could punt on this and simply say here are a handful of 10-0 teams, Mount Union went the furthest last year, ergo Mount Union is the top overall seed.  I think that's a mistake, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility, particularly considering the time crunch the committee is under to select, seed (officially unofficial), and bracket the field.  It's also possible that they don't have to decide who would host semifinals for another couple of weeks after selection Sunday.  If they were undecided on who of UWW, STT, UMHB, and UMU should host semifinals, they could say nothing at the bracket release and stew on it for a couple of weeks, either to make a more thoughtful, informed choice, or to hope that the tournament results takes care of those hard choices for them. 

[Desertraider]

I can see the home "ref" analogy potentially being an issue in a close game (the NCC game from a few years ago, or JCU 2 years ago) but Mounts playoff scores are typically very lopsided:

2015 Home Playoff scores:
11/21   vs. St. Lawrence   W, 55-23   BX P
11/28   vs. Albright   W, 66-7   BX RC P
12/5   vs. Wesley   W, 56-35   BX RC P P
12/12   vs. UW-Whitewater   W, 36-6   BX RC P

Not sure a holding call here or there would have helped out.  The problem is - scores like this are more typical in a Mount playoff game than the 41-40 NCC game or the 62-59 Wesley game.

[Dr. Acula]

To me when you're talking about a Mount or UWW I just don't think home field matters 99% of the time.  Those programs would win regardless.  Maybe once a decade they win a close playoff game at home that they lose on the road, but the bottom line is that they've just been better than everyone else.  Consistently.  For years.  It is what it is.  The same two teams don't end up in Salem over and over by luck.   

[Desertraider]

To me when you're talking about a Mount or UWW I just don't think home field matters 99% of the time.  Those programs would win regardless.  Maybe once a decade they win a close playoff game at home that they lose on the road, but the bottom line is that they've just been better than everyone else.  Consistently.  For years.  It is what it is.  The same two teams don't end up in Salem over and over by luck.

Really?? Cause I had a guy SWEAR to me (and at me) that Mount "gets all the calls - they always do and that's why they win". Granted he was wearing his sons Otterbein jersey. I laughed and said "you're right, that's why its 50-0 at halftime".

[ADL70]

Local Fox Sports channel here in Texas played the Mount-Berg replay this week.

[badgerwarhawk]

To me when you're talking about a Mount or UWW I just don't think home field matters 99% of the time.  Those programs would win regardless.  Maybe once a decade they win a close playoff game at home that they lose on the road, but the bottom line is that they've just been better than everyone else.  Consistently.  For years.  It is what it is.  The same two teams don't end up in Salem over and over by luck.   

Prior to the loss to Mount Union last year we hadn't lost a tournament game on the road.  We've had wins over Linfield, Mary-Harden Baylor (2), Wesley, St Johns, Willamette, Wheaton, Oshkosh and North Central. 

[Desertraider]

To me when you're talking about a Mount or UWW I just don't think home field matters 99% of the time.  Those programs would win regardless.  Maybe once a decade they win a close playoff game at home that they lose on the road, but the bottom line is that they've just been better than everyone else.  Consistently.  For years.  It is what it is.  The same two teams don't end up in Salem over and over by luck.   

Prior to the loss to Mount Union last year we hadn't lost a tournament game on the road.  We've had wins over Linfield, Mary-Harden Baylor (2), Wesley, St Johns, Willamette, Wheaton, Oshkosh and North Central.

True. But UWW was banged up last year at Mount and had an inexperienced QB (I am remembering a UWW fan and I talking at halftime). I am not saying that's why Mount won. But it also wasn't because of home field - not with Mount and Whitewater. Whitewater crushed Mount a couple years before because they were simply better. Mount crushed UWW last year for the same reason. Period.

[badgerwarhawk]

To me when you're talking about a Mount or UWW I just don't think home field matters 99% of the time.  Those programs would win regardless.  Maybe once a decade they win a close playoff game at home that they lose on the road, but the bottom line is that they've just been better than everyone else.  Consistently.  For years.  It is what it is.  The same two teams don't end up in Salem over and over by luck.   

Prior to the loss to Mount Union last year we hadn't lost a tournament game on the road.  We've had wins over Linfield, Mary-Harden Baylor (2), Wesley, St Johns, Willamette, Wheaton, Oshkosh and North Central.

True. But UWW was banged up last year at Mount and had an inexperienced QB (I am remembering a UWW fan and I talking at halftime). I am not saying that's why Mount won. But it also wasn't because of home field - not with Mount and Whitewater. Whitewater crushed Mount a couple years before because they were simply better. Mount crushed UWW last year for the same reason. Period.

I didn't mean to imply that home field had anything to do with the loss.  Probably should have made that clear.  Only meant to say that we'd been successful in the playoffs on the road. 

[jamtod]

To me when you're talking about a Mount or UWW I just don't think home field matters 99% of the time.  Those programs would win regardless.  Maybe once a decade they win a close playoff game at home that they lose on the road, but the bottom line is that they've just been better than everyone else.  Consistently.  For years.  It is what it is.  The same two teams don't end up in Salem over and over by luck.   

Prior to the loss to Mount Union last year we hadn't lost a tournament game on the road.  We've had wins over Linfield, Mary-Harden Baylor (2), Wesley, St Johns, Willamette, Wheaton, Oshkosh and North Central.

True. But UWW was banged up last year at Mount and had an inexperienced QB (I am remembering a UWW fan and I talking at halftime). I am not saying that's why Mount won. But it also wasn't because of home field - not with Mount and Whitewater. Whitewater crushed Mount a couple years before because they were simply better. Mount crushed UWW last year for the same reason. Period.

I didn't mean to imply that home field had anything to do with the loss.  Probably should have made that clear.  Only meant to say that we'd been successful in the playoffs on the road.

I can also add in that my input on home field advantage and referee impacts is not in any way intended to diminish what Mount or UW-W has done. I am absolutely of the belief that they need to be beaten by somebody other than each other before a real case can be made that they shouldn't play at home through the playoffs.