FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it, but yes.

[jamtod]

I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it, but yes.

Ahh. I missed the rhetorical device you were using there. I'm just a dumb banker, not a smart journalist so you'll have to forgive me.

[Pat Coleman]

I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it, but yes.

Ahh. I missed the rhetorical device you were using there. I'm just a dumb banker, not a smart journalist so you'll have to forgive me.

Sorry -- I do like to make people think they are clever when they get the reference I make without trying to beat them over the head with it.

[edward de vere]

Brockport is a heckuva team with a  heckuva coach - but if I'm going to seed a 10-0 E8 team over a 9-0 WIAC team, well, that same E8 team better have gone 15-0 the previous year.

Totally see what you're saying, but if you're considering 10-0 Brockport's 2017 performance, then you have to consider 9-0 UW-Whitewater's 2017 performance, because the committee will definitely do so.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.   

The only way I would consider Brockport's 2017 performance in the scenario I cite is if Brockport were defending national champion.  Otherwise, there is simply no comparison between a WIAC schedule and an E8 schedule.  (As we are reminded twice-a-year or more by those highly esteemed conference rankers at D3.com.)

[Pat Coleman]

Brockport is a heckuva team with a  heckuva coach - but if I'm going to seed a 10-0 E8 team over a 9-0 WIAC team, well, that same E8 team better have gone 15-0 the previous year.

Totally see what you're saying, but if you're considering 10-0 Brockport's 2017 performance, then you have to consider 9-0 UW-Whitewater's 2017 performance, because the committee will definitely do so.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.   

The only way I would consider Brockport's 2017 performance in the scenario I cite is if Brockport were defending national champion.  Otherwise, there is simply no comparison between a WIAC schedule and an E8 schedule.  (As we are reminded twice-a-year or more by those highly esteemed conference rankers at D3.com.)

I understand that, but D3football.com (there is no D3.com) doesn't make the playoff seedings, and the folks who do, consider the things that I referenced above.

[edward de vere]

Which is why I said "I" would choose Whitewater.  I never have any idea what the committee will do.  (That's Wally's department. . . .)

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

Mr. Mom,

No Games this week for the OAC Pick Ems?

[wally_wabash]

Which is why I said "I" would choose Whitewater.  I never have any idea what the committee will do.  (That's Wally's department. . . .)

To be fair, I have no idea what the committee is going to do either.  Every year there's a set of regional rankings or a team that gets selected that doesn't make sense to me.  But that's why there's a committee and they vote on these things- so that they are (hopefully) capturing something like an average of all of the different angles and viewpoints on these teams.  I've tried to evolve my thinking about at-large selection to more of a groupthink kind of thing, but in the end my analyses are still just one individual's read on the criteria. 

What's kind of ironic is that Whitewater may well be the reason why Whitewater doesn't get a top seed this year.  You'll remember that the committee buggered up UWW's playoff seeding in 2010 which led to the creation of the previous year's results provision for seeding undefeated teams.  And if UWW finishes undefeated this year and they don't get one of the four top seeds, that'll be why.  There would be no other reason for it, if we're being honest.  But that's the rule, right?  Mount Union had to go on the road in the semis last year because they didn't get all the way to Salem the year before.  UWW messed around and lost a few games last year, and they'll have to earn their home field privileges back with a deep run in this year's tournament.  Or get some help with some other teams losing a game in the next month. 

[emma17]

I completely agree with you Wally. I for one simply want the committee to be consistent year in and year out. In this case, UWW likely shouldn't receive a top seed based on last year. St. T and others have the advantage based on 2017 performance.

UWW can always earn it back for 2019.

[wally_wabash]

I completely agree with you Wally. I for one simply want the committee to be consistent year in and year out. In this case, UWW likely shouldn't receive a top seed based on last year. St. T and others have the advantage based on 2017 performance.

UWW can always earn it back for 2019.

Even though the previous year's championship provision works strongly against them, I wouldn't totally dismiss UWW as a top seed yet.  There may be strong enough differences in the primary criteria to warrant UWW being the top ranked team in the West region ahead of the MIAC winner.  Last year UWW had an enormous SOS advantage on St. Thomas and (less so, but still substantial) St. John's.  There are some common opponent results to look at also (although I do think it would be unfair to leverage margins of defeat too heavily in those cases).  And we don't yet know what the RRO situation will look like.  I think we'll know whatever we need to know on this wen the first regional rankings come out. 

[WRMUalum13]

I completely agree with you Wally. I for one simply want the committee to be consistent year in and year out. In this case, UWW likely shouldn't receive a top seed based on last year. St. T and others have the advantage based on 2017 performance.

UWW can always earn it back for 2019.

Even though the previous year's championship provision works strongly against them, I wouldn't totally dismiss UWW as a top seed yet.  There may be strong enough differences in the primary criteria to warrant UWW being the top ranked team in the West region ahead of the MIAC winner.  Last year UWW had an enormous SOS advantage on St. Thomas and (less so, but still substantial) St. John's.  There are some common opponent results to look at also (although I do think it would be unfair to leverage margins of defeat too heavily in those cases).  And we don't yet know what the RRO situation will look like.  I think we'll know whatever we need to know on this wen the first regional rankings come out.

1) When did the OAC boards join the West Region, I've seen more posts about the MIAC and WIAC on the last two pages then anything Ohio related
2) If I'm not mistaken UWW still has 5 games to play in the toughest conference in d3... might be a little too early to discuss playoff seeding. Just because UWW looks good doesn't mean they are automatically back as a "purple power"

[wally_wabash]

I completely agree with you Wally. I for one simply want the committee to be consistent year in and year out. In this case, UWW likely shouldn't receive a top seed based on last year. St. T and others have the advantage based on 2017 performance.

UWW can always earn it back for 2019.

Even though the previous year's championship provision works strongly against them, I wouldn't totally dismiss UWW as a top seed yet.  There may be strong enough differences in the primary criteria to warrant UWW being the top ranked team in the West region ahead of the MIAC winner.  Last year UWW had an enormous SOS advantage on St. Thomas and (less so, but still substantial) St. John's.  There are some common opponent results to look at also (although I do think it would be unfair to leverage margins of defeat too heavily in those cases).  And we don't yet know what the RRO situation will look like.  I think we'll know whatever we need to know on this wen the first regional rankings come out.

1) When did the OAC boards join the West Region, I've seen more posts about the MIAC and WIAC on the last two pages then anything Ohio related
2) If I'm not mistaken UWW still has 5 games to play in the toughest conference in d3... might be a little too early to discuss playoff seeding. Just because UWW looks good doesn't mean they are automatically back as a "purple power"

Erroneous!  It's never too early to talk about playoff seeding. 

[WRMUalum13]

I completely agree with you Wally. I for one simply want the committee to be consistent year in and year out. In this case, UWW likely shouldn't receive a top seed based on last year. St. T and others have the advantage based on 2017 performance.

UWW can always earn it back for 2019.

Even though the previous year's championship provision works strongly against them, I wouldn't totally dismiss UWW as a top seed yet.  There may be strong enough differences in the primary criteria to warrant UWW being the top ranked team in the West region ahead of the MIAC winner.  Last year UWW had an enormous SOS advantage on St. Thomas and (less so, but still substantial) St. John's.  There are some common opponent results to look at also (although I do think it would be unfair to leverage margins of defeat too heavily in those cases).  And we don't yet know what the RRO situation will look like.  I think we'll know whatever we need to know on this wen the first regional rankings come out.

1) When did the OAC boards join the West Region, I've seen more posts about the MIAC and WIAC on the last two pages then anything Ohio related
2) If I'm not mistaken UWW still has 5 games to play in the toughest conference in d3... might be a little too early to discuss playoff seeding. Just because UWW looks good doesn't mean they are automatically back as a "purple power"

Erroneous!  It's never too early to talk about playoff seeding.

LOL you're not wrong...

[purple]

   I have a coaching question for HSCoach, or anyone. It seems to me Fulford throws an inordinate amount of time off his back foot or falling away from the throw. It seemed particularly obvious in the John Carroll game. I assume the QB coach Appelby and LK see this. So what gives? Is this good, bad , or just ugly. I worry that in big time games against good teams (read Nat. semis) this could cost us. Am I hallucinating? Why haven't the coachs corrected this?

[skunks_sidekick]

My Buddy Purple!

You can lead a horse to water...

Our QB is one talented individual.  I have observed his tendency to throw off his back foot when under pressure this year more than previously.  I ask you this...is that a product of less than stellar O-line, less than stellar run game (see O-line comment), or he's developed some bad habits?  I think (hope?) we are picking at nits, and this will all be good, but I don't think we will know until we get into round #2 or #3 (maybe #4) in the playoffs. 

He is getting the proper coaching and technique.  There is an aspect (way more good than bad) that DFulford does what DFulford does.  I am really good with that.  Knowing the young man as I do (which is from a very far distance), I am good with riding with our QB.