FB: Presidents' Athletic Conference

[CNU85]

IMO opinion no team in the nation faced as tough of a 3 week schedule and came out on top, better than GCC. 

I'd encourage a look at UW-Whitewater.

And this week UWW plays their 5th consecutive week against a ranked opponent (UWO was ranked when they played them).

And they are 4-0! Brutal!

[mikefln]

IMO opinion no team in the nation faced as tough of a 3 week schedule and came out on top, better than GCC. 

I'd encourage a look at UW-Whitewater.

Ok you got me there. 

[The Mole]

Great discussion but the polls don't matter. Win your league and you are in, too few at-large Pool C bids to fight for...
Aren't the regional rankings coming out soon? That is what is gonna matter most....

[mikefln]

Great discussion but the polls don't matter. Win your league and you are in, too few at-large Pool C bids to fight for...
Aren't the regional rankings coming out soon? That is what is gonna matter most....

IMO a PAC team getting a Pole C bid is 1 out of 100.  Those days are few and far between with the limited number available now. I think the PAC is a stronger conference then it gets credit for.  I think people view it as a middle of the road conference and 10 years ago I would have agreed.  I think with CWRU and CMU being added back then started to strengthen the conference.  Now with GCC taking many steps forward, and Westminster strengthen their program I would say the PAC is in the top 1/3 of the best D3 football conferences.  But they still have not shaken that middle of the road image. 

The only way a PAC team gets into the playoffs is win this conference.  Especially with no out of conference games to view if by some miricle they were looked at for Pool C bid.

[The Mole]

GCC will probably have to lose twice to not get in, hard to see that happening. By winning a first round game they can legitimize the conference. They are in a geographical area that they could play a number of teams (Susquehanna, Mt Union, NCC, Hopkins, Liberty Champ, RMC/ODAC, Del Val). All about getting a favorable draw, ask Muhlenberg.
Pat talked about it some on the podcast, but what that staff has done is pretty incredible. Not the easiest place to recruit,

[ExTartanPlayer]

Couple of things:

1. Yes, UWW (and a few of the other Divisional Giants) have played tougher schedules than GCC to date, but no question the Wolverines have done an outstanding job plowing through a schedule that included 4 true "quality" opponents in the first 5 games.  This ties in with...

2.

Great discussion but the polls don't matter. Win your league and you are in, too few at-large Pool C bids to fight for...
Aren't the regional rankings coming out soon? That is what is gonna matter most....

IMO a PAC team getting a Pole C bid is 1 out of 100.  Those days are few and far between with the limited number available now. I think the PAC is a stronger conference then it gets credit for.  I think people view it as a middle of the road conference and 10 years ago I would have agreed.  I think with CWRU and CMU being added back then started to strengthen the conference.  Now with GCC taking many steps forward, and Westminster strengthen their program I would say the PAC is in the top 1/3 of the best D3 football conferences.  But they still have not shaken that middle of the road image. 

The only way a PAC team gets into the playoffs is win this conference.  Especially with no out of conference games to view if by some miricle they were looked at for Pool C bid.

I also believe the PAC is stronger than it gets credit for, and would rank it somewhere in the top 10, probably around 8 (despite Wally Wabash, er Greg Thomas, ranking them 12th in his conference rankings this year - admittedly hard when they have zero out-of-conference play, it's entirely based on "last year" results + this year's eyeball test).  And yet, with no OOC play, I think it's drawing a dead hand to hope for a Pool C bid.  This actually is okay with me - I'm on record as being a fan of the AQ system and arguing that everyone can get in by winning their conference, so the Pool C arguments are always second to "well, win your conference next time" in my book. 

I do believe there are 5 real "quality" teams in the conference right now, teams that are good enough to give the other "fringe of the top 25" type teams a scrap or win, with GCC sitting atop the heap of those and probably a legitimate top-20 team or better.  I do want to stress that they might be much better than that, possibly as good as top-10ish though the playoffs will be the only place to prove that.  Which brings me to my next point...

GCC will probably have to lose twice to not get in, hard to see that happening. By winning a first round game they can legitimize the conference. They are in a geographical area that they could play a number of teams (Susquehanna, Mt Union, NCC, Hopkins, Liberty Champ, RMC/ODAC, Del Val). All about getting a favorable draw, ask Muhlenberg.
Pat talked about it some on the podcast, but what that staff has done is pretty incredible. Not the easiest place to recruit,

IMO this has already happened.  Carnegie Mellon demolished the NCAC champ last year and played the eventual national champions to a 14-7 score at the end of the third quarter.  I think I checked this last year but if memory serves me right, CMU was literally the only team to lead North Central at any point in a game last year.

note: I decided to re-check and it turns out, I was wrong: Augustana led 3-0 (in a game that ended North Central 63, Augustana 3).  CMU was the only team to lead by a margin of 7!

I do agree that a Grove City playoff win would further legitimize the conference - it's always good to be able to boast more than one team with playoff wins in recent memory - but IMO the conference already should be looked at with some respect from that performance.  With a different draw, CMU may have been a quarterfinalist last year, though I do think once you get into the playoffs "matchups" matter a lot and CMU was unusually well-suited to play North Central tougher than some other teams (I think there's a not-totally-ridiculous argument that CMU had a top-5 defense in D3 last season with an offense that was more of a "good enough" unit that could be opportunistic on turnovers etc).

Also, while we can talk all we want about how Grove City needs to stay focused and avoid letdowns...c'mon.  The gap betweenn the top 5 and the rest of the conference is pretty large, probably bigger than the gap from #1 to #5.  My big worry for Grove City is not that they'll actually stub their toe in any of the games yet to play, but whether they will be able to dial it back up to the level they've had to play for the last month after 5 weeks of...sorry folks...mediocre competition.

For what it's worth, while I am very glad to see Thiel scoring some wins (I have a soft spot for bottom dwellers, too, and it's not so long since power Grove City was in the doldrums)...one reason that it's hard for the league to push itself into that top-8 picture nationally is that while it boasts five "quality" teams, there's a huge drop to the rest.  I think you could argue that teams #1-5 in the conference all should rank in the top 50-ish teams nationally.  I also think it's hard to argue anyone else belongs in the top half of the division.  So five top-50 teams and six bottom-100 teams does kind of average out to ~12th overall, maybe, among the conferences.

Anyways, this last post is the sort of thing I'd never have said when I was playing, so prove me wrong folks.  Somebody go after Grove City this next month and show me that the bottom of the league has more bite than I'm giving credit for

[Pat Coleman]

Carnegie Mellon did indeed destroy the 9-1 champ of what is currently the 19th ranked conference.

Carnegie Mellon did indeed trail North Central close on the scoreboard, but they were not really a threat to win that game. They got one-third of their offense on one broken (IIRC) play in the first quarter and after that, had 10 drives, for a total of 30 yards.

Just feel like those accomplishments from last year needed the context.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Pat, always the charmer.

Carnegie Mellon did indeed destroy the 9-1 champ of what is currently the 19th ranked conference.

Carnegie Mellon did indeed trail North Central close on the scoreboard, but they were not really a threat to win that game. They got one-third of their offense on one broken (IIRC) play in the first quarter and after that, had 10 drives, for a total of 30 yards.

Just feel like those accomplishments from last year needed the context.

1. Did not suggest that destroying the 9-1 champ of the 19th-ranked conference is anything less than what should be expected of a 10-0 champ of a conference that aspires to be in the top 10.  But a 45-14 win over the champ of the 19th ranked conference sure looks better than a 33-28 loss to the 9-1 champ of the 21st ranked conference.  You know your stuff, maybe you can remind me which team had that first-round result last year?  It's one of those UW schools...oh, gee, that's right, it was the champion of the 1st ranked conference!  See I can pull out fun facts, too.  I just thought that the #1 ranked conference's accomplishments also needed some context.

(OK Pat, calm down, the PAC isn't better than the WIAC, cool your jets, have a drink...the point is that the PAC champ boatraced somebody in the first round last year, from a conference whose message board used to be full of activity complaining that they were required to play non-league games against dreck teams like Case Western and Carnegie Mellon)

2. Never said Carnegie Mellon was a threat to win the NCC game.  Suspect North Central played it close to the vest knowing that CMU's offense was unlikely to put up big points.  Yes, it's true that Carnegie Mellon's touchdown came on a sort-of "broken" play (their DB went for a big hit on WR, who sort of "bounced" off the tackle and spun out into what was suddenly a wide open field to go the distance). 

But as long as we're talking, here's a complete list of teams that were within 7 points of North Central in the second half of game last year:

- Wheaton (into the fourth quarter, and a game North Central did actually have to sweat out)
- Mary Hardin Baylor (for 2 minutes, en route to losing 49-14, never had the ball with a chance to tie the game at any point in the second half)
- Mount Union (for 2 minutes in the fourth quarter, never had the ball with a chance to tie the game at any point in the second half)

I know "had the ball with a chance to tie the game" is kind of an arbitrary definition, but Wheaton was the only team besides CMU to possess the ball after halftime with a chance to tie the game.  UMHB did not.  Mount Union did not.  By this measure, they were "not really a threat to win" the game against North Central, either.  Am I saying that CMU was better than those teams?  No, don't be ridiculous.  I am saying that CMU gave the national champs as tough a game as anyone except for Wheaton (their tooth-and-nail conference rival) and Mount Union (who is Mount Union), probably more than what folks would have expected of the PAC champ.

[Pat Coleman]

Yeah, unfortunately, since those were the last two non-conference games for the PAC, we do maybe dig into them a little more.

Hopefully the PAC beats someone higher up the pecking order this year.

[Bob.Gregg]

2022 W&J beat Hobart in a non-conference game. (after regular season)
2022 W&J beat John Carroll in a non-conference game.

2022 CMU beat Whitworth in a non-conference game.
2022 CMU beat RPI in a non-conference game.

2022 Grove City beat FDU-Florham in a non-conference game. (after regular season)

W&J, CWRU & CMU are all in same boat.  Need to win out, convincingly wouldn't hurt, hope for a little out-of-conference chaos, and force the committee to leave out a 9-1 team.

[Pat Coleman]

Yep, thanks Bob -- I was talking about postseason.

I generally don't include the bowl games for the usual reasons.

[mikefln]

Also, while we can talk all we want about how Grove City needs to stay focused and avoid letdowns...c'mon.  The gap betweenn the top 5 and the rest of the conference is pretty large, probably bigger than the gap from #1 to #5.  My big worry for Grove City is not that they'll actually stub their toe in any of the games yet to play, but whether they will be able to dial it back up to the level they've had to play for the last month after 5 weeks of...sorry folks...mediocre competition.

If this was the pro's I would agree with you.  But this is college, D3 college at that.  You don't know if a player finds out they impregnated their girl even at a place like GCC.  You don't know who got busted for underage drinking, DUI, failed a mid-term, didn't get accepted to law school, etc.  In GCC case, this is the first time these kids have been in the top position, you never know how they will act.  If this was W&J who has a history of being on top I would agree.

For what it's worth, while I am very glad to see Thiel scoring some wins (I have a soft spot for bottom dwellers, too, and it's not so long since power Grove City was in the doldrums)...one reason that it's hard for the league to push itself into that top-8 picture nationally is that while it boasts five "quality" teams, there's a huge drop to the rest.  I think you could argue that teams #1-5 in the conference all should rank in the top 50-ish teams nationally.  I also think it's hard to argue anyone else belongs in the top half of the division.  So five top-50 teams and six bottom-100 teams does kind of average out to ~12th overall, maybe, among the conferences.

I will agree the bottom of this conference is not that great.  Allegheny maybe the only one who at this point might make a case for being average this year, but they may prove to be just as bad as the rest of the bottom too.  There is certainly a big drop between Westminster (the 5th place) and Allegheny (6th place) then even more separation to the other 5 teams.

Anyways, this last post is the sort of thing I'd never have said when I was playing, so prove me wrong folks.  Somebody go after Grove City this next month and show me that the bottom of the league has more bite than I'm giving credit for

100% agree  with you here and good overall post that I agree with a lot of it.

[mikefln]

Yep, thanks Bob -- I was talking about postseason.

I generally don't include the bowl games for the usual reasons.

If I may ask, what are your usual reasons?  I know the reasons for FBS, but not for D3.

[Pat Coleman]

Yep, thanks Bob -- I was talking about postseason.

I generally don't include the bowl games for the usual reasons.

If I may ask, what are your usual reasons?  I know the reasons for FBS, but not for D3.

The results can be unreliable because not every team has the same motivation to be in the game. Some are still hanging their heads after a tough Week 11 loss, or not getting an at-large bid, and come out flat.

[mikefln]

1. Did not suggest that destroying the 9-1 champ of the 19th-ranked conference is anything less than what should be expected of a 10-0 champ of a conference that aspires to be in the top 10.  But a 45-14 win over the champ of the 19th ranked conference sure looks better than a 33-28 loss to the 9-1 champ of the 21st ranked conference.  You know your stuff, maybe you can remind me which team had that first-round result last year?  It's one of those UW schools...oh, gee, that's right, it was the champion of the 1st ranked conference!  See I can pull out fun facts, too.  I just thought that the #1 ranked conference's accomplishments also needed some context.

Thanks for the laugh that was funny.  I agree the PAC is no where close to WIAC, but it does seem like different rules are being applied.

W&J, CWRU & CMU are all in same boat.  Need to win out, convincingly wouldn't hurt, hope for a little out-of-conference chaos, and force the committee to leave out a 9-1 team.

I love your thinking but in my opinion Pool C is too hard to get.   WHEN JCU beats Mount (that's right, you heard it here first), you know MU is getting one of the Pool C leaving 4 bids left.  Wheaton will get one if they win out, leaving 3 spots. If they lose 1 more game, it will be 4 spots left with the CCIW runner up in the mix for that 4th opening.   With that said we need Wheaton to lose for the PAC to have a chance at a Pool C.

So, assuming Wheaton wins out, vying for those 3 spots will be the runner up of the WIAC, ARC, CC, E8, LL, MAC, MIAA, NACC, NCAC, & ODAC.  Out of those 10 conferences plus the PAC I am guessing six 9-1 runner ups. The PAC is viewed as better than some of those conferences and viewed not as good as others.  I know I would not bet money on a 9-1 PAC team getting a Pool C bid.