FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

I guess it depends on your definition of athlete, which you alluded to as "different kind of athlete". Peltz isn't a pitcher, doesn't have a stronger arm than Conway, but he was far more accurate and productive as a quarterback.

Peltz had a genuine running game behind him (and including him), and he had more seasoned and reliable receivers than Conway had. Remember, the only truly experienced WR that T.D. Conway had this year was his brother (Terrance Wright and Alvin Cash were returnees, but both played very sparingly in 2013) -- and Dakota Conway missed four games (Wash U, Wheaton, North Central, and Elmhurst) due to a broken hand. Dropped passes and wrongly-run routes were a chronic problem for NPU this season, and I made copious references in this room to that problem.

And Peltz was 30% of the Thunder's 10 game running production despite playing only 5 games. Conway rushed for -23 yards. No running game? Take off and run a little.

He did take off and run a little -- more than you think he did. He rushed for 144 yards this season and had four gains of ten yards or more, including a 35-yarder against Augustana. What you're forgetting is that sack yardage is counted as a rushing loss rather than as a passing loss, and T.D. had to endure a large number of sacks this season (particularly early in the year) as he played behind a young line.

I referred to Conway's talent because he has the best Quarteback arm among all the CCIW qb's. When he is accurate, he is as good as I have seen. But he laid a couple eggs this year, running game or no. I don't fault him for that. He was the man among boys. But he could have won 2 more games for the Park by your account (Alma and Elmhurst) where he didn't really play well.

I never said that, and I don't think that that's true. He did play poorly against Alma and Elmhurst, but nobody can lay those losses at his door exclusively. The Scots and the Bluejays both beat NPU decisively in every phase of the game, including their offenses against NPU's defense.

Look, I have no problem with TDC being 1st team. I think JP11 was more productive but he didn't have the full set of games. Next year we will see who does what as they are both back and we can compare notes then.

They system is indeed broken when the coaches are telling us JP11 isn't among the top 4 QB's in the conference. I wouldn't suggest adding voters. The coaches can do it just fine. But right now there is no tie breaking vote and each coach gets a "gimme' as a 2nd teamer which is easy to fix. I just think allowing coaches to add their token player and we end up with 15 2nd teamers is pretty lame.

I don't think that Peltz's exclusion is symptomatic of a broken system. I think that it's an indication that the coaches simply blew one. It happens. If we really put the All-CCIW team under a microscope to this degree each year, I'd bet that we could find at least one example every season for which a consensus of the fans who post here think that the coaches got it wrong.

[Gregory Sager]

I think your use of the word "someday" with regard to NCC making the playoff field, could have used some modifiers. It isn't like it hasn't happened before, and recently at that. You can look it up. 
Perhaps something like "again someday soon." 

I am pretty sure HSCoach meant it as such:

The AQ could very well be the reason your team makes the field someday. (As in the ONLY reason.)

Exactly what I was trying to say, but obviously not so well.

The supposed strength of teams and conferences are very hard to gauge with so little national cross over games in the regular season.  And things change in time.  It wasn't too long ago the WIAC champ was considered a one-and-done team, but now that conference is home to the King.  Without AQ's it may keep a conference from stepping forward.

Beyond that, it's a question of fairness and equity. As is the case across the board in NCAA sports -- not just in D3, but in D1 and D2 as well -- the principle is that every member institution and conference that pays its NCAA dues is entitled to equal access to championships. That's why March Madness always features schools such as Mercer, Cal Poly, Wofford, and Stephen F. Austin every year. And people like that, because it's fun to cheer for an underdog. I can understand why that same sentiment doesn't seem to apply here, at least for CardinalAlum and other disgruntled NCC fans, because the D3 football tourney field is much smaller and there's far fewer at-large berths available.

You'll never see an NCAA tournament in any of the three divisions in which the field consists of the best 32 teams in the nation, or the best 61 teams in the nation, or the best 64 teams in the nation, or whatever size the tournament field happens to be for that sport and that division. That's life. As long as all of the teams that have a legitimate shot at winning the national championship are represented, the system works. And I guess that that's the question here: Do people really think that NCC had a legitimate shot at winning the national championship this season if the Cardinals had been awarded a playoff berth?

Asking that question is like the aged philosophy professor asking "what proof is there that the chair you're sitting on is really there?"
Define "legitimate." Where do you draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate? Wherever it is, one thing is for certain and that is NCC had at least as "legitimate" of a chance as teams like Macalester, Benedictine, Hampden-Sydney, and Christopher Newport have.
That is as undeniable as the fact that if the chair wasn't there, my arse would have been on the floor. 

The term "legitimate" is subjective. We all know that. Like the All-CCIW question, I'll leave it up to the consensus of this room. We all saw NCC play, right? How many of us think that this Cards team would have had a realistic shot at winning the Stagg Bowl if it had gotten a Pool C berth?

Yes, with respect to overall ability NCC would have at least as good a chance at winning the Big Doorstop in Salem as do Macalester, Benedictine, Hampden-Sydney, and Christopher Newport. In the case of at least a couple of those teams, I'd say that NCC would have had a much better chance. But that's not really germane to the issue, because only the most self-deluded fans of those teams would ever say that they have legit shots at the title. Rather, we're talking about that small, select group of teams -- most of which wear purple -- that can realistically aspire to hoisting the Walnut & Bronze on the last day of the D3 football season.

[USee]

I think NCC had as good a chance as any team at making it at least to one of the Purple Altars this year.  They are better offensively and about the same defensively as 2008 Wheaton that made the semis.

[USee]

Greg,

I agree the CCIW selections were fine save the omission of JP.  I didn't mean to attach that miss to the broken system proclamation.  The presence of 4 QBs on the 2 AC teams is why the system is broken.  That just doesn't exude credibility.

[Gregory Sager]

I think NCC had as good a chance as any team at making it at least to one of the Purple Altars this year.  They are better offensively and about the same defensively as 2008 Wheaton that made the semis.

But that's not really the issue, is it? The issue is whether or not North Central could win the national championship this season. If it could, then we've got a problem -- because the selection process failed to include a team that's good enough to win the whole shooting match, thereby rendering the premise that the playoffs reveal the best team in the nation to be false.

Being good enough to be one of the sacrificial lambs of Purple One or Purple Two is not the same thing as that at all (although I would argue that NCC was a legitimate national-championship contender last year, based upon how it performed at Mount Union).

Greg,

I agree the CCIW selections were fine save the omission of JP.  I didn't mean to attach that miss to the broken system proclamation.  The presence of 4 QBs on the 2 AC teams is why the system is broken.  That just doesn't exude credibility.

I think that the three QBs on the second team was more of an awkward aberration than anything else. I honestly don't recall anything even remotely like that ever happening on an All-CCIW team before, and I doubt that it will ever happen again.

[kiko]

On the question of North Central *someday* making the tournament solely because they received the AQ, I present to you the 2012 season:

Overall record: 9-3 - Conference: 6-1
All times Eastern   (* Conference; • In-region)
9/1    vs. UW-La Crosse •    L, 21-17    BX RC
9/8    vs. Redlands •    W, 42-16    BX RC RC P
9/15    at UW-Stout •    W, 37-10    BX RC
9/29    vs. Elmhurst * •    W, 44-10    BX RC
10/6    at Millikin * •    W, 42-22    BX RC RC
10/13    at North Park * •    W, 58-17    BX RC
10/20    at Carthage * •    W, 42-10    BX RC RC
10/27    vs. Illinois Wesleyan * •    W, 52-0    BX RC
11/3    vs. Wheaton (Ill.) * •    L, 35-21    BX RC
11/10    at Augustana * •    W, 37-6    BX RC
11/17    at Cal Lutheran    W, 41-21    BX RC
11/24    at Linfield    L, 30-14    BX RC

[AndOne]

I think NCC had as good a chance as any team at making it at least to one of the Purple Altars this year.  They are better offensively and about the same defensively as 2008 Wheaton that made the semis.

But that's not really the issue, is it? The issue is whether or not North Central could win the national championship this season. If it could, then we've got a problem -- because the selection process failed to include a team that's good enough to win the whole shooting match, thereby rendering the premise that the playoffs reveal the best team in the nation to be false.

Being good enough to be one of the sacrificial lambs of Purple One or Purple Two is not the same thing as that at all (although I would argue that NCC was a legitimate national-championship contender last year, based upon how it performed at Mount Union).

Greg,

Under your approach, someone could build a statistical model showing any team in the playoffs had some degree of chance to win the championship. However, we all know that's not realistic.
It seems like the model you are talking about is focused on the very few teams that have the best chance of winning and, other than those few teams, it doesn't really matter what teams are in the playoffs because only the top 3 or 4 have a real chance to win. If that's the case, why don't we just dispense with the formalities of the preliminary rounds and follow the D1 system of just taking the top four teams and have them go 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, with the winners playing for the championship? After all, they were the only ones who really COULD win going in. Save everyone else the time and trouble. 

[79jaybird]

Best of luck to Wheaton in the NCAA Tournament.  I wish the Thunder much success and hope they can dive deep into the playoffs this year.

[ncc_fan]

On the question of North Central *someday* making the tournament solely because they received the AQ, I present to you the 2012 season:

Overall record: 9-3 - Conference: 6-1
All times Eastern   (* Conference; • In-region)
9/1    vs. UW-La Crosse •    L, 21-17    BX RC
9/8    vs. Redlands •    W, 42-16    BX RC RC P
9/15    at UW-Stout •    W, 37-10    BX RC
9/29    vs. Elmhurst * •    W, 44-10    BX RC
10/6    at Millikin * •    W, 42-22    BX RC RC
10/13    at North Park * •    W, 58-17    BX RC
10/20    at Carthage * •    W, 42-10    BX RC RC
10/27    vs. Illinois Wesleyan * •    W, 52-0    BX RC
11/3    vs. Wheaton (Ill.) * •    L, 35-21    BX RC
11/10    at Augustana * •    W, 37-6    BX RC
11/17    at Cal Lutheran    W, 41-21    BX RC
11/24    at Linfield    L, 30-14    BX RC

Don't forget the 2006, 2007, and 2009 seasons:

• 2006:  8-2 at end of regular season; CCIW co-champion with Augie & Wheaton.  NCC wins AQ, 9-1 Wheaton picked in Pool C, Augie stays home.
• 2007:  8-2 at end of regular season; CCIW co-champion with IWU.  NCC wins AQ, IWU stays home.
• 2009:  8-2 at end of regular season; CCIW co-champion with IWU.  IWU wins AQ, NCC stays home.

[letsplay2]

I think your use of the word "someday" with regard to NCC making the playoff field, could have used some modifiers. It isn't like it hasn't happened before, and recently at that. You can look it up. 
Perhaps something like "again someday soon." 

I am pretty sure HSCoach meant it as such:

The AQ could very well be the reason your team makes the field someday. (As in the ONLY reason.)

Exactly what I was trying to say, but obviously not so well.

The supposed strength of teams and conferences are very hard to gauge with so little national cross over games in the regular season.  And things change in time.  It wasn't too long ago the WIAC champ was considered a one-and-done team, but now that conference is home to the King.  Without AQ's it may keep a conference from stepping forward.

Beyond that, it's a question of fairness and equity. As is the case across the board in NCAA sports -- not just in D3, but in D1 and D2 as well -- the principle is that every member institution and conference that pays its NCAA dues is entitled to equal access to championships. That's why March Madness always features schools such as Mercer, Cal Poly, Wofford, and Stephen F. Austin every year. And people like that, because it's fun to cheer for an underdog. I can understand why that same sentiment doesn't seem to apply here, at least for CardinalAlum and other disgruntled NCC fans, because the D3 football tourney field is much smaller and there's far fewer at-large berths available.

You'll never see an NCAA tournament in any of the three divisions in which the field consists of the best 32 teams in the nation, or the best 61 teams in the nation, or the best 64 teams in the nation, or whatever size the tournament field happens to be for that sport and that division. That's life. As long as all of the teams that have a legitimate shot at winning the national championship are represented, the system works. And I guess that that's the question here: Do people really think that NCC had a legitimate shot at winning the national championship this season if the Cardinals had been awarded a playoff berth?

Asking that question is like the aged philosophy professor asking "what proof is there that the chair you're sitting on is really there?"
Define "legitimate." Where do you draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate? Wherever it is, one thing is for certain and that is NCC had at least as "legitimate" of a chance as teams like Macalester, Benedictine, Hampden-Sydney, and Christopher Newport have.
That is as undeniable as the fact that if the chair wasn't there, my arse would have been on the floor. 

The term "legitimate" is subjective. We all know that. Like the All-CCIW question, I'll leave it up to the consensus of this room. We all saw NCC play, right? How many of us think that this Cards team would have had a realistic shot at winning the Stagg Bowl if it had gotten a Pool C berth?

Yes, with respect to overall ability NCC would have at least as good a chance at winning the Big Doorstop in Salem as do Macalester, Benedictine, Hampden-Sydney, and Christopher Newport. In the case of at least a couple of those teams, I'd say that NCC would have had a much better chance. But that's not really germane to the issue, because only the most self-deluded fans of those teams would ever say that they have legit shots at the title. Rather, we're talking about that small, select group of teams -- most of which wear purple -- that can realistically aspire to hoisting the Walnut & Bronze on the last day of the D3 football season.

Greg, I think this year's North Central team had just as much a shot (or more) at winning the national championship as the 2010 Illinois Wesleyan baseball team did   

There will never be a perfect playoff selection process and every single year a handful of very deserving teams will be left out in favor of less deserving teams.  I've been a part of that as well as now observing it.  But why would we want it any other way?  That's part of what makes reading these boards so entertaining! 

[USee]

Greg,

I agree the CCIW selections were fine save the omission of JP.  I didn't mean to attach that miss to the broken system proclamation.  The presence of 4 QBs on the 2 AC teams is why the system is broken.  That just doesn't exude credibility.

I think that the three QBs on the second team was more of an awkward aberration than anything else. I honestly don't recall anything even remotely like that ever happening on an All-CCIW team before, and I doubt that it will ever happen again.

Greg,

I agree that the QB situation is unique and won't likely happen anytime soon but the problem is still, and has been, prevalent. For every year I can remember there have been at least 15 players on the 2nd team all conference list and many years where there are as many as 17 players. 2 Qb's on the 2nd team is a regular occurrence. We even had a few years with 2 first team AC Kickers AND a punter. First team votes have been a little better but the number has been 12-14 players virtually every year. Some of that is a product of multiple formations (2 Rb's vs 1, 3 WR v 2, etc) but there have only every been 5 OL on the field for as long as I can remember yet we have had years with 6 OL as AC players. I think that is the part of the system that seems broken to me.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I agree that the QB situation is unique and won't likely happen anytime soon but the problem is still, and has been, prevalent. For every year I can remember there have been at least 15 players on the 2nd team all conference list and many years where there are as many as 17 players. 2 Qb's on the 2nd team is a regular occurrence. We even had a few years with 2 first team AC Kickers AND a punter. First team votes have been a little better but the number has been 12-14 players virtually every year. Some of that is a product of multiple formations (2 Rb's vs 1, 3 WR v 2, etc) but there have only every been 5 OL on the field for as long as I can remember yet we have had years with 6 OL as AC players. I think that is the part of the system that seems broken to me.

1. Re: a position like the OL with 5 guys, supposing that two or three guys get the same number of votes for the last position, is it really that crucial to you that the tie be broken so there are exactly 11 players on the first-team offense, exactly 11 players on the second-team offense, and no more?

2. Assuming that it is that important to you (because you wouldn't be posting otherwise) - what's the solution for breaking that tie?  Coaches submit their votes, we find out that Players A, B, C, D, and E are the consensus first-team OL's while players F, G, H are clear second-team choices (i.e. have the next-most votes) and for the last two OL slots, players I, J, K, and L have all received the same number of votes for the last two second-team slots.  Break the tie.  Go.  Let's hear it.

[Gregory Sager]

I think NCC had as good a chance as any team at making it at least to one of the Purple Altars this year.  They are better offensively and about the same defensively as 2008 Wheaton that made the semis.

But that's not really the issue, is it? The issue is whether or not North Central could win the national championship this season. If it could, then we've got a problem -- because the selection process failed to include a team that's good enough to win the whole shooting match, thereby rendering the premise that the playoffs reveal the best team in the nation to be false.

Being good enough to be one of the sacrificial lambs of Purple One or Purple Two is not the same thing as that at all (although I would argue that NCC was a legitimate national-championship contender last year, based upon how it performed at Mount Union).

Greg,

Under your approach, someone could build a statistical model showing any team in the playoffs had some degree of chance to win the championship. However, we all know that's not realistic.

Yes, and I've been using the word "realistic" all along in this conversation. "Realistic," like "legitimate," is a subjective term, but I think that we can all agree on which teams have a realistic chance to win the national title and which teams don't.

It seems like the model you are talking about is focused on the very few teams that have the best chance of winning and, other than those few teams, it doesn't really matter what teams are in the playoffs because only the top 3 or 4 have a real chance to win.

No, that's not accurate. I think that it matters very much which teams are in the playoffs; hence, my response to CardinalAlum that the NCAA does the right thing for the sake of fairness and equity in all three divisions in giving every qualifying member conference an automatic berth in every applicable sport.

If that's the case, why don't we just dispense with the formalities of the preliminary rounds and follow the D1 system of just taking the top four teams and have them go 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, with the winners playing for the championship? After all, they were the only ones who really COULD win going in. Save everyone else the time and trouble. 

Again, it matters very much that every qualifying member conference gets an automatic bid. For a school such as Benedictine, just making it to the playoffs is the high point of the season, whereas other leagues such as our own have (or should have) higher expectations than that, even though we CCIWers seem to be perennially thwarted by the fact that none of our eight institutions have purple as a school color.

The Bennies have to know, even if they won't admit it out loud, that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Stagg Bowl -- or of even coming anywhere close to it, unless they buy tickets to the game like everybody else. But, hey, they were the team out of the three NACC tri-champions this season that won the automatic bid, and that: a) separates them from fellow tri-champs Wisconsin Lutheran and Lakeland and therefore gives them not only bragging rights but also a leg up on them in recruiting claims; b) gives the Bennies an extra week of practice and an extra game against a really good foe -- and D3 football fans who follow perennial playoff programs all swear up and down that the extra practices and the extra games in November are of great benefit in terms of giving returning players additional experience for next season -- and; c) recognizes and maintains the NACC's status as a D3 qualifying member conference in good standing for football.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, I think this year's North Central team had just as much a shot (or more) at winning the national championship as the 2010 Illinois Wesleyan baseball team did   

I know that you're kidding, but I'll say it, anyway: It's an apples-and-oranges comparison. In baseball, it's possible to ride two great arms and a sudden hot streak of hitting to the national championship. You can't do something like that in football, a sport that has a lot more players and a lot more moving parts in terms of specialization, aspects of play, and tactics than does baseball. A marginal team in terms of overall competence will have a lot less success in gaming the system and beating the odds in football than it does in baseball. That's why the two sports are fun for completely different reasons.

There will never be a perfect playoff selection process and every single year a handful of very deserving teams will be left out in favor of less deserving teams.  I've been a part of that as well as now observing it.  But why would we want it any other way?  That's part of what makes reading these boards so entertaining!

And here we get yet another subjective term: "Deserving." Define "deserving" in this context. Do I think that North Central is one of the 32 best teams in the nation? Absolutely, and none of the gurus or pollsters seem to be inclined to disagree. Would the playoffs be more entertaining if North Central was among the 32 teams in the field? I'd argue "yes," based upon relative competence. But "deserving"? We have to establish which criteria are used in defining that word in this context.

[grboob]

If Wheaton doesn't  Monkey Stomp the Bennies then the entire CCIW should be called into question.