FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[usee]

I have a slightly different take on this. I believe (probably falsely) they are positioning UMU for a move East by putting them #1 North. There can't be many arguments about moving them in as a #1 east w a win over RR ONU. They would then leave NCC #1 north. And there is still now way UWW doesn't end up #1 west. This whole RR is becoming too political and "subjectice".  I actually wish it worked the way Q describes the bball selections. This is becoming comical.

[usee]

If my theory is right then the north bracket shapes up like this:

Ncc v benedictine
Wheaton v st norbs?
ONU v franklin
Witt v Trine

Ncc faces witt trine winner and other 2 winners match up.

If they keep it as is then its:

MUC v franklin
Ncc v benny
Wheaton V Trine
ONU v Witt

That would be a great bracket.

[MasterJedi]

I really can't see why anyone is surprised by this move. UMU was always going to be the number 1 ranked team whether in the regional rankings or by the NCAA when they create the brackets. They just artificially kept UMU down and NCC up to not seem biased or anything. The question is I believe where NCC or St Thomas is a number one seed, which I personally feel is a tossup.

[Titan Q]

I have a slightly different take on this. I believe (probably falsely) they are positioning UMU for a move East by putting them #1 North. There can't be many arguments about moving them in as a #1 east w a win over RR ONU. They would then leave NCC #1 north. And there is still now way UWW doesn't end up #1 west. This whole RR is becoming too political and "subjectice".  I actually wish it worked the way Q describes the bball selections. This is becoming comical.

I understand the subjective part.  As Pat pointed out, with only 10 games, the football committee can't lean on the "criteria" as strictly as they do in basketball.  After thinking about that more this week I definitely understand where you guys were coming from on the "subjective" piece.

But be consistent.  It seems obvious to me in looking at last week's North ranking and then this week's, the North committee changed their mind about something, or evaluated past data differently -- because based solely on what happened from the last ranking to this one, you can't do the leapfrog.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Yeah, consistency would be nice!

It is perfectly justifiable to rank UMU #1.  What cannot possibly be justified is moving them to #1 in the week that #2 decisively beat #1, AND picked up TWO wins over regionally-ranked teams in a single week!

Since I already take blood pressure medicine, to further protect my health I hereby pledge not to bother reading RRs #1 and #2!  (Knowing myself, I also guarantee that I will break this pledge next year! )

[usee]

The three C's that don't mix with the NCAA are

Criteria
Common sense
Consistency

Keep in mind the OAC commisioner is co chair (I believe) of the north region committee, which puts him on the national committee. In previous it was IWU coach Norm Eash. Say what you want about Norm but he represents the CCIW well.

Just as there is no rationale for jumpin NCC this week there is less reason to keep UWW #2 in the west.

[HScoach]

The three C's that don't mix with the NCAA are

Criteria
Common sense
Consistency

Keep in mind the OAC commisioner is co chair (I believe) of the north region committee, which puts him on the national committee. In previous it was IWU coach Norm Eash. Say what you want about Norm but he represents the CCIW well.

Just as there is no rationale for jumpin NCC this week there is less reason to keep UWW #2 in the west.

I wish the same could be said about Gleason and the OAC 

He alone was a big reason I wasn't surprised with last week's regional ranking of Mount #3.

[cardinalpride]

However, IWU DID enter the north rankings (#8), so NCC picks up TWO wins over regionally-ranked teams in a single week!

This makes the Mount Union leapfrog of North Central even more confusing.  Not only did NCC beat the previous regional #1 (Wheaton), but by IWU moving into the rankings, NCC also picked up that win over a regionally ranked team since last week.

It's almost as if the North committee got cold feet or something about not having Mount #1.  Or just decided they had it wrong last week.

My suggestion that North Central could host Mount Union (if the brackets created that match up) was based on the assumption that there was almost no way they could have Mount leapfrog NCC since NCC beat the previous regional #1.  Now, obviously, they've set Mount Union up to host all the way through.

Here is what was written in the blogs earlier about RR wins:

Author comment by nccscots · November 10, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Put aside whether having an undefeated Mount Union ranked third in its region is, in a larger sense, correct. In its first two regional rankings, the NCAA ranked Wheaton first, North Central second, and Mount Union third. North Central goes on the road (granted, not a particularly long trip), dominates number one-ranked Wheaton, and gets jumped by Mount Union in the regional rankings. What explains that? It can't be strength of schedule: North Central's is 25th, Mount Union's is 51st. It can't be record: both are undefeated, and North Central has one more regional win. I'm not arguing North Central is better than, or should be the one seed in a play-off bracket (assuming North Central beats North Park) including, Mount Union. But it can't really be the case that a team is ranked second for two consecutive weeks, beats the number one-ranked team handily, and . . . is still second, can it?

Author comment by Pat Coleman · November 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm
I am not quibbling with the bulk of your comment, scots: I just want to point out that 'one more regional win' isn't really a factor. It runs more along 'number of regional losses' than number of regional wins or regional win pct.

[Pat Coleman]

Author comment by Pat Coleman · November 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm
I am not quibbling with the bulk of your comment, scots: I just want to point out that 'one more regional win' isn't really a factor. It runs more along 'number of regional losses' than number of regional wins or regional win pct.[/color]

I am not talking about games against regionally ranked opponents here, just for the record.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat, I have no quibble with UMU #1 in the north (I would have had them there all along).  But can you discern any conceivable reason why the committee would move UMU from #3 to #1 in a week when #2 NCC decisively beat #1 Wheaton (AT Wheaton) AND went from 0 to 2 wins over regionally-ranked opponents (while UMU went from 1 to 2)?

I find it totally inexplicable, even by NCAA illogic standards.

[Son of Tailgater]

Pat, I have no quibble with UMU #1 in the north (I would have had them there all along).  But can you discern any conceivable reason why the committee would move UMU from #3 to #1 in a week when #2 NCC decisively beat #1 Wheaton (AT Wheaton) AND went from 0 to 2 wins over regionally-ranked opponents (while UMU went from 1 to 2)?

I find it totally inexplicable, even by NCAA illogic standards.

There has been a lot of discussions/ complaints about this and I believe it is our position to discuss/ make the committee aware that NO ONE has yet to agree with the new rankings. I don't even see how you could argue against this and I agree that this makes no logical sense. Should MU have been ranked #1 after week one and stayed there the entire year....probably... but it didn't happen until week 9 which makes the least amount of sense. Should St. Thomas be ranked over UWW? Not in my opinion but the only thing that I can conclude is that they have 10 wins and UWW has 9.....will this switch next week?

Regional rankings aside I am really looking forward to letting the players and coaches sort this out on the field. That's why we play the games 

[Son of Tailgater]

I also wanted to post today to thank all of our Veterans on Veteran's Day for all that they have sacrificed and continue to do for our country to allow us to have our freedom. Whether you a poster of the Red/Black, Green/White, Blue/Orange, Red/White, Navy Blue/White, Blue/Gold, Navy/Gold or Royal Blue/ White thank you for your service to our country.

[devildog29]

Happy Veterans Day to all my fellow brothers-in-arms.  A nice article on the front page of ESPN.com with D3 football relevance.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5789296

[cardinaldad]

I also wanted to post today to thank all of our Veterans on Veteran's Day for all that they have sacrificed and continue to do for our country to allow us to have our freedom. Whether you a poster of the Red/Black, Green/White, Blue/Orange, Red/White, Navy Blue/White, Blue/Gold, Navy/Gold or Royal Blue/ White thank you for your service to our country.

Well said SoT. God bless and thanks to all of you!

[Tailgater]

I also wanted to post today to thank all of our Veterans on Veteran's Day for all that they have sacrificed and continue to do for our country to allow us to have our freedom. Whether you a poster of the Red/Black, Green/White, Blue/Orange, Red/White, Navy Blue/White, Blue/Gold, Navy/Gold or Royal Blue/ White thank you for your service to our country.

Great post SoT. You make your dad proud to see the maturity in your awareness of those who make and have made sacrifices for our freedom. Freedom that allows us to have post Boards like this to discuss D3 football. I've worn my purple ribbon pin all week to recognize wounded warriors. For those who wish to honor those who have sacrificed physically for our freedom "The Wounded Warrior Project" is a worthy organization to support.