FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Pat Coleman]

Differences in polling philosophies aside, what grinds my gears here is that you won't give any credit to a team that beats North Central.  It's like you think North Central is playing against tackling dummies and if they lose you treat it like they had a bad practice or something.  That other team has good players and good coaches and they are trying their damnedest to cause fumbles, intercept passes, score touchdowns of their own, and ultimately win a football game.  They aren't necessarily there to follow the script that NCC wrote during their morning walkthrough.  It wouldn't kill you guys to give somebody else some credit once in a while.  Hell,  you're still using injury as an excuse for a game in 2009!  It's ok to acknowledge that somebody else was better, even if it was just one day.

I'm just detecting a pattern here and I'm not liking it. That's what I'm getting at. You guys can chase away everyone on the NCAC board (just like the Wooster guys have done in previous years on the NCAC MBB board, I am aware), but you are not exporting the always-fightingness.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Differences in polling philosophies aside, what grinds my gears here is that you won't give any credit to a team that beats North Central.  It's like you think North Central is playing against tackling dummies and if they lose you treat it like they had a bad practice or something.  That other team has good players and good coaches and they are trying their damnedest to cause fumbles, intercept passes, score touchdowns of their own, and ultimately win a football game.  They aren't necessarily there to follow the script that NCC wrote during their morning walkthrough.  It wouldn't kill you guys to give somebody else some credit once in a while.  Hell,  you're still using injury as an excuse for a game in 2009!  It's ok to acknowledge that somebody else was better, even if it was just one day.

I'm just detecting a pattern here and I'm not liking it. That's what I'm getting at. You guys can chase away everyone on the NCAC board (just like the Wooster guys have done in previous years on the NCAC MBB board, I am aware), but you are not exporting the always-fightingness.

Thanks, Pat, but not necessary.  CCIW Always Fights!!

(Especially amongst ourselves, but woe unto the 'outlander' who picks on one of us! )

[wally_wabash]

Since 2009, the league is 74-22 in non league games (including playoffs) which is awesome.  There's certainly nothing that I or anybody else can say to dispute that.  However, 65% of those wins have been accumulated against teams that play in the MIAA, NathCon, and UMAC.  All conferences that, without spoiling subscription content, are ranked very, very low by the experts at this site.  The CCIW's gaudy record has been built on a steady diet of decidedly lesser competition.

Instead of parceling out selected bits of information that buttress your argument, which is the way that politicians, opinion journalists, and other people of questionable moral fiber make their cases, give us all the information, please. Let's see a full breakdown of the CCIW's non-conference record on a league-by-league basis since 2009.

	win	loss
HCAC	1	1
IIAC	7	6
MIAA	26	3
MIAC	2	1
MWC	4	2
NathCon	16	3
NCAC	1	1
non-D3	2	0
OAC	1	1
SCIAC	1	1
UAA	3	1
UMAC	6	0
WIAC	4	3

The point is that I don't believe that the perception matches the reality.  The best teams in the CCIW are not just losing to Whitewater and Mount Union.  They are dropping games to good teams from "lesser" leagues (Albion, La Crosse, Redlands, Wabash, Monmouth...just since the start of 2011)

Last time I checked, UW-LaCrosse was a member of the WIAC. Has anyone in here ever called the WIAC a "lesser league"? C'mon, CCIW fans, let's see those hands. 'fess up. Which one of you called the WIAC a "lesser league"?

The WIAC is certainly not a lesser league, but LaCrosse was not thought to be a contender and did not receive a single top 25 vote prior to that game.  I think the UW-L result fits in with my point about eroding benefit of the doubt capital. 

In any case....

Differences in polling philosophies aside, what grinds my gears here is that you won't give any credit to a team that beats North Central.  It's like you think North Central is playing against tackling dummies and if they lose you treat it like they had a bad practice or something.  That other team has good players and good coaches and they are trying their damnedest to cause fumbles, intercept passes, score touchdowns of their own, and ultimately win a football game.  They aren't necessarily there to follow the script that NCC wrote during their morning walkthrough.  It wouldn't kill you guys to give somebody else some credit once in a while.  Hell,  you're still using injury as an excuse for a game in 2009!  It's ok to acknowledge that somebody else was better, even if it was just one day.

I'm just detecting a pattern here and I'm not liking it. That's what I'm getting at. You guys can chase away everyone on the NCAC board (just like the Wooster guys have done in previous years on the NCAC MBB board, I am aware), but you are not exporting the always-fightingness.

If it's not a conversation that people want to have in this forum, that's fine.  I'll drop it.  I think it's an interesting topic.  I'll go back and chime in on the sorry state of DePauw's grass.   

[AndOne]

Didn't mean to try to beat anybody into submission here.  I get wrapped in polling and how people think about polling.  Probably disproportionately so given how meaningless the poll is in the big picture of Division-III.  Here, it was put forth that North Central should have been moved up in the poll (they were moved up, even if the nominal ranking didn't change).  If somebody should be moved up, somebody else has to be moved down...I was just curious as to who and why. 

There is more here than just that.  Last postseason we heard an awful lot about how North Central and to a lesser extent IWU were going to roll their way through to regional finals basically because the league they play in is so rugged.  This I don't understand...leagues don't play other leagues.  Teams play other teams.  So why does the CCIW have this reputation as such an awesome league?  It's the non-league record.  I peeled back some layers on the CCIW's non-league record.  Since 2009, the league is 74-22 in non league games (including playoffs) which is awesome.  There's certainly nothing that I or anybody else can say to dispute that.  However, 65% of those wins have been accumulated against teams that play in the MIAA, NathCon, and UMAC.  All conferences that, without spoiling subscription content, are ranked very, very low by the experts at this site.  The CCIW's gaudy record has been built on a steady diet of decidedly lesser competition. The point is that I don't believe that the perception matches the reality.  The best teams in the CCIW are not just losing to Whitewater and Mount Union.  They are dropping games to good teams from "lesser" leagues (Albion, La Crosse, Redlands, Wabash, Monmouth...just since the start of 2011) and they are doing so at a rate that I believe severely erodes the benefit of the doubt capital that seems to exist with CCIW teams and many pollsters.  I think it's an interesting discussion and debate to have which is really what's fueling my posts here.

OK Wally, we get that you think the CCIW sucks. I mean how can it be anything other than crap with only 3 teams ranked in the top 19 in the country and 2 more of its 8 teams receiving votes?
You mean its not a valid poll just because 63% of the poll voters are graduates of CCIW schools? 

Now, before you contest my above assertion, refer to your original post in which you heap false praise on the conference (their 74-22 record vs non-conference opponents) but then undermine that "praise" with the notation that of course 65% of those wins have come against teams from conferences that are rated "very very low."

For the sake of argument, or for the sake of not continuing to argue the question ad nauseum, lets say the CCIW does indeed suck. 
What I'd like to know is what conference(s) do you consider among the nation's elite?
I mean lets vanquish that (false) perception that many of us are apparently under. Give us some reality please.
I'm interested in your opinion.
Thanks.

[robertgoulet]

Didn't mean to try to beat anybody into submission here.  I get wrapped in polling and how people think about polling.  Probably disproportionately so given how meaningless the poll is in the big picture of Division-III.  Here, it was put forth that North Central should have been moved up in the poll (they were moved up, even if the nominal ranking didn't change).  If somebody should be moved up, somebody else has to be moved down...I was just curious as to who and why. 

There is more here than just that.  Last postseason we heard an awful lot about how North Central and to a lesser extent IWU were going to roll their way through to regional finals basically because the league they play in is so rugged.  This I don't understand...leagues don't play other leagues.  Teams play other teams.  So why does the CCIW have this reputation as such an awesome league?  It's the non-league record.  I peeled back some layers on the CCIW's non-league record.  Since 2009, the league is 74-22 in non league games (including playoffs) which is awesome.  There's certainly nothing that I or anybody else can say to dispute that.  However, 65% of those wins have been accumulated against teams that play in the MIAA, NathCon, and UMAC.  All conferences that, without spoiling subscription content, are ranked very, very low by the experts at this site.  The CCIW's gaudy record has been built on a steady diet of decidedly lesser competition. The point is that I don't believe that the perception matches the reality.  The best teams in the CCIW are not just losing to Whitewater and Mount Union.  They are dropping games to good teams from "lesser" leagues (Albion, La Crosse, Redlands, Wabash, Monmouth...just since the start of 2011) and they are doing so at a rate that I believe severely erodes the benefit of the doubt capital that seems to exist with CCIW teams and many pollsters.  I think it's an interesting discussion and debate to have which is really what's fueling my posts here.

OK Wally, we get that you think the CCIW sucks. I mean how can it be anything other than crap with only 3 teams ranked in the top 19 in the country and 2 more of its 8 teams receiving votes?
You mean its not a valid poll just because 63% of the poll voters are graduates of CCIW schools? 

Now, before you contest my above assertion, refer to your original post in which you heap false praise on the conference (their 74-22 record vs non-conference opponents) but then undermine that "praise" with the notation that of course 65% of those wins have come against teams from conferences that are rated "very very low."

For the sake of argument, or for the sake of not continuing to argue the question ad nauseum, lets say the CCIW does indeed suck. 
What I'd like to know is what conference(s) do you consider among the nation's elite?
I mean lets vanquish that (false) perception that many of us are apparently under. Give us some reality please.
I'm interested in your opinion.
Thanks.

It really grinds my gears when Wally doesn't give the teams we beat any credit

[NCF]

Differences in polling philosophies aside, what grinds my gears here is that you won't give any credit to a team that beats North Central.  It's like you think North Central is playing against tackling dummies and if they lose you treat it like they had a bad practice or something.  That other team has good players and good coaches and they are trying their damnedest to cause fumbles, intercept passes, score touchdowns of their own, and ultimately win a football game.  They aren't necessarily there to follow the script that NCC wrote during their morning walkthrough.  It wouldn't kill you guys to give somebody else some credit once in a while.  Hell,  you're still using injury as an excuse for a game in 2009!  It's ok to acknowledge that somebody else was better, even if it was just one day.

I'm just detecting a pattern here and I'm not liking it. That's what I'm getting at. You guys can chase away everyone on the NCAC board (just like the Wooster guys have done in previous years on the NCAC MBB board, I am aware), but you are not exporting the always-fightingness.

Which is why I've tended not to respond to Wabash poster's in general and WW in particular. Ever since Wabash beath North Central last season, you've come onto these boards with a chip on your shoulder, looking for a fight, like kids on a playground. Some of your comments are nasty, berating , offensive and you try to shove your point of view down everyone's throat and woe to us peons who can't see the light. I'm not playing your game.

You know, I'd be all for this ho-hum, nice guy, "everyone has their reasons" schtick if at some point you actually got into a conversation or argument with some gusto. The past several times you've posted--and not just on this board--Wally's made some good, sound points that would make for lively discussion should you actually disagree.

Alright, honestly, it's not enough that he doesn't agree, but now he has to argue also? Not everyone is going to agree with Wabash fans and not everyone is going to argue with gusto either. Just because the Wabash fans have beaten the NCAC board into submission doesn't mean the CCIW is going to roll over for you guys either.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. Just not going to be rude or bash someone who doesn't share my point of view.

quote author=wally_wabash link=topic=4077.msg1439858#msg1439858 date=1347378630]

Unfortunately for NCC and the CCIW in general, last year was the perfect chance to see how the best in your conference stood up to a beatable Mt.

I guess it wasn't.  Womp womp.
[/quote]
I think you have more of an issue with North Central than the CCIW in general. This post surely doesn't invite "lively discusssion" now does it?  You want to beatdown anyone who dares disagree with the Wabash point of view. I'm not going there. I joined the boards for enjoyment, not constant argument. What I didn't expect was to meet some very nice people along the way. 

[NCF]

^ still haven't mastered the ability to post Sageristically.LOL

[wally_wabash]

OK Wally, we get that you think the CCIW sucks.

Yeah, that's not what I said and that's not what I think...and I think you know that. 

What I'd like to know is what conference(s) do you consider among the nation's elite?
I mean lets vanquish that (false) perception that many of us are apparently under. Give us some reality please.
I'm interested in your opinion.
Thanks.

See, it's not a question of which league is good and which league isn't.  The thing I'm trying to examine is why the polls so often value reputation over results with a specific focus on the teams in this league where, in my opinion, the reputation isn't quite fully supported by their on-field results. 

[matblake]

See, it's not a question of which league is good and which league isn't.  The thing I'm trying to examine is why the polls so often value reputation over results with a specific focus on the teams in this league where, in my opinion, the reputation isn't quite fully supported by their on-field results.

This is the source of debate in many'a poll.  We certainly see it in the scale of DI football/basketball.  Heck, we even see it in High School.  How many end of the year polls come out that rank a high school team still near the top of the class when they got knocked out in the first round just because they have lots of DI recruits.  People go by reputation sometimes.  It's a hard thing to break.  I think back to when North Central was starting to improve.  This was back in the Big 4 Little 4 Days (CCIW used to be a much more top heavy conference ie the lower programs were really bad) and North Central had been poor performers but were now winning or being competitive in games.  There was constant debate (some sane, some not so sane  )in here whether North Central was considered to be one of the better teams in the conference.  It took probably 5 "better than in the past" years (2000-2005) for North Central to really be considered a top team.  All that to say, the reason polls are interesting is because they are a composite of a bunch of peoples opinions and that sometimes are influenced by reputation.

[ncc58]

Emma---

Consider:

1. You said its execution, not talent that sets the purples apart. Perhaps those that can execute properly most often are able to do so because they are also the most talented. To be the best overall, you need both physical and mental toughness. Its that mental toughness which enables an athlete to execute at the highest level with a minimum number of mistakes.

2. Some teams have even more than talent and execution going for them. 

Emma, suddenly a UWW guy is being humble.  Usually, UWW supporters are talking about how much talent they have, how deep they are. Maybe it's practicing against that deep talent that improves their execution.  Or practicing deep into December every year. 

WHAT UWW guy?

Sorry for not including the entire quote. Emma17 is a UWW guy, even though he attends many CCIW games and is very knowledgable about the CCIW.

[NCF]

See, it's not a question of which league is good and which league isn't.  The thing I'm trying to examine is why the polls so often value reputation over results with a specific focus on the teams in this league where, in my opinion, the reputation isn't quite fully supported by their on-field results.

This is the source of debate in many'a poll.  We certainly see it in the scale of DI football/basketball.  Heck, we even see it in High School.  How many end of the year polls come out that rank a high school team still near the top of the class when they got knocked out in the first round just because they have lots of DI recruits.  People go by reputation sometimes.  It's a hard thing to break.  I think back to when North Central was starting to improve.  This was back in the Big 4 Little 4 Days (CCIW used to be a much more top heavy conference ie the lower programs were really bad) and North Central had been poor performers but were now winning or being competitive in games.  There was constant debate (some sane, some not so sane  )in here whether North Central was considered to be one of the better teams in the conference.  It took probably 5 "better than in the past" years (2000-2005) for North Central to really be considered a top team.  All that to say, the reason polls are interesting is because they are a composite of a bunch of peoples opinions and that sometimes are influenced by reputation.

So  if it took NC about five years of winning for some pollsters to consider them to be a top team, then the better rankings came from North Central becoming a better team, not that they were members of the CCIW. I honestly don't think that NC, Wheaton, and IWU get ranked (or get a free pass)based on the fact that they are in the CCIW.

[wally_wabash]

See, it's not a question of which league is good and which league isn't.  The thing I'm trying to examine is why the polls so often value reputation over results with a specific focus on the teams in this league where, in my opinion, the reputation isn't quite fully supported by their on-field results.

This is the source of debate in many'a poll.  We certainly see it in the scale of DI football/basketball.  Heck, we even see it in High School.  How many end of the year polls come out that rank a high school team still near the top of the class when they got knocked out in the first round just because they have lots of DI recruits.  People go by reputation sometimes.  It's a hard thing to break.  I think back to when North Central was starting to improve.  This was back in the Big 4 Little 4 Days (CCIW used to be a much more top heavy conference ie the lower programs were really bad) and North Central had been poor performers but were now winning or being competitive in games.  There was constant debate (some sane, some not so sane  )in here whether North Central was considered to be one of the better teams in the conference.  It took probably 5 "better than in the past" years (2000-2005) for North Central to really be considered a top team.  All that to say, the reason polls are interesting is because they are a composite of a bunch of peoples opinions and that sometimes are influenced by reputation.

So  if it took NC about five years of winning for some pollsters to consider them to be a top team, then the better rankings came from North Central becoming a better team, not that they were members of the CCIW. I honestly don't think that NC, Wheaton, and IWU get ranked (or get a free pass)based on the fact that they are in the CCIW.

I think UW-L and Albion would disagree.  And if those teams were able to remain ranked ahead of teams that they lost to were beaten by and it's NOT because of the reputation of the CCIW, then what is it? 

[Pat Coleman]

See, it's not a question of which league is good and which league isn't.  The thing I'm trying to examine is why the polls so often value reputation over results with a specific focus on the teams in this league where, in my opinion, the reputation isn't quite fully supported by their on-field results.

This is the source of debate in many'a poll.  We certainly see it in the scale of DI football/basketball.  Heck, we even see it in High School.  How many end of the year polls come out that rank a high school team still near the top of the class when they got knocked out in the first round just because they have lots of DI recruits.  People go by reputation sometimes.  It's a hard thing to break.  I think back to when North Central was starting to improve.  This was back in the Big 4 Little 4 Days (CCIW used to be a much more top heavy conference ie the lower programs were really bad) and North Central had been poor performers but were now winning or being competitive in games.  There was constant debate (some sane, some not so sane  )in here whether North Central was considered to be one of the better teams in the conference.  It took probably 5 "better than in the past" years (2000-2005) for North Central to really be considered a top team.  All that to say, the reason polls are interesting is because they are a composite of a bunch of peoples opinions and that sometimes are influenced by reputation.

So  if it took NC about five years of winning for some pollsters to consider them to be a top team, then the better rankings came from North Central becoming a better team, not that they were members of the CCIW. I honestly don't think that NC, Wheaton, and IWU get ranked (or get a free pass)based on the fact that they are in the CCIW.

I think UW-L and Albion would disagree.  And if those teams were able to remain ranked ahead of teams that they lost to were beaten by and it's NOT because of the reputation of the CCIW, then what is it?

I would say it's by the reputation of the individual teams, not the league in which they reside.

Not to keep hearkening back to the Kickoff rankings but we did not rank the CCIW as high as we customarily would because of the playoff losses last season. Keith will re-rank them in a couple weeks in ATN (at least, he usually does once teams get into conference play) and although he and I have not specifically discussed it, there's at least a chance the CCIW slides another spot.

[matblake]

See, it's not a question of which league is good and which league isn't.  The thing I'm trying to examine is why the polls so often value reputation over results with a specific focus on the teams in this league where, in my opinion, the reputation isn't quite fully supported by their on-field results.

This is the source of debate in many'a poll.  We certainly see it in the scale of DI football/basketball.  Heck, we even see it in High School.  How many end of the year polls come out that rank a high school team still near the top of the class when they got knocked out in the first round just because they have lots of DI recruits.  People go by reputation sometimes.  It's a hard thing to break.  I think back to when North Central was starting to improve.  This was back in the Big 4 Little 4 Days (CCIW used to be a much more top heavy conference ie the lower programs were really bad) and North Central had been poor performers but were now winning or being competitive in games.  There was constant debate (some sane, some not so sane  )in here whether North Central was considered to be one of the better teams in the conference.  It took probably 5 "better than in the past" years (2000-2005) for North Central to really be considered a top team.  All that to say, the reason polls are interesting is because they are a composite of a bunch of peoples opinions and that sometimes are influenced by reputation.

So  if it took NC about five years of winning for some pollsters to consider them to be a top team, then the better rankings came from North Central becoming a better team, not that they were members of the CCIW. I honestly don't think that NC, Wheaton, and IWU get ranked (or get a free pass)based on the fact that they are in the CCIW.

I think UW-L and Albion would disagree.  And if those teams were able to remain ranked ahead of teams that they lost to were beaten by and it's NOT because of the reputation of the CCIW, then what is it?

I would say it's by the reputation of the individual teams, not the league in which they reside.

Not to keep hearkening back to the Kickoff rankings but we did not rank the CCIW as high as we customarily would because of the playoff losses last season. Keith will re-rank them in a couple weeks in ATN (at least, he usually does once teams get into conference play) and although he and I have not specifically discussed it, there's at least a chance the CCIW slides another spot.

Based on recent history, I would have a hard time arguing against that. 

Just to clarify a small point, the debates on North Central during their upswing took place on this board.  Sorry if I insinuated that debate took part as part of the Top 25 Poll.

[emma17]

The Purple Powers thing is strange to me.  Having seen so much of UWW and Mt- IMO the one thing that sets them apart from the other top teams in the country is execution more than anything else- and not talent. 

Everytime I watch UWW and MTU online or on TV (in the title game), I leave thinking there is an enormous talent gap between them and the rest of Division III.  In my opinion the two powers have more "scholarship-caliber" kids across the board (offense, defense, special teams) than other teams. 

Don't get me wrong, they both execute extremely well, but I think UW-Whitewater and Mount Union get off the bus with the best players week after week (including the playoffs).

In recent years it has seemed like NCC is really closing the talent gap with the big two...but I don't think the Cards have ever pulled even.  Certainly heading in the right direction though.

I guess some of this comes down to how we individually define talent. From a purely physical perspective I just don't buy into the idea that UWW gets off the bus w more talent - at least not week after week. Look at Wesley- that team always has super physical talent. UWW has beaten them by wide margins in the playoffs - why?

IMO most of Mt's teams were more physically talented than UWW's. Like Warhawd Dad said, there is a lot to it.