FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[matblake]

Thanks for the heads up jaybird!

[79jaybird]

MatBlake- I know you're excited to look at repeating. 

[emma17]

As for the strength of the WIAC v the MIAC, I think you are splitting hairs. The top 3-4 conferences in D3 are all really good in my view. The WIAC has had 5 different teams in the post season the past 5 years. The MIAC has had 3. The CCIW has had 4. If you broaden the span out since 2000 the WIAC has had 6 of 8 teams in the playoffs, the MIAC  has had 4 of 9 and Wheaton 7 of 8.  That's the sign of a good conference to me. If multiple teams get to the playoffs over a cycle.

I agree the conferences are very close, however, I feel that 2-5 of the MIAC is probably better than 2-5 of any other conference.  I think 1-3 of the WIAC is likely the best.  I thought the CCIW was the best overall conference a couple years back. 
Perhaps a better measure of conference strength might be to look at conference performance in the playoffs, as well as performance against successful playoff teams in the regular season.     

Emma,

I have an affinity for your passive-aggressive style.

2-5 does not a strong conference make. There are 8+ teams in these conferences. While one of the primary criteria is how well they do in the playoffs, I think an additional consideration (for me at least) is how good the entire league is. A good measure of that is how many teams have made the playoffs. A secondary measure is how those teams did in the playoffs. Over recent history, the conferences I think are the best have had multiple teams go to the playoffs and more than one team go deep in the playoffs. I haven't yet done the analysis but off the top of my head I know MIAC has had 4 teams in the playoffs since 2000, 3 teams in the quarters and 3 teams in the semi's and 3 title game appearances for 2 teams with 2 titles. The OAC has had 5 teams in the playoffs with 3 in the quarters and 1 in the semis. The WIAC has had 6 teams in the tournament with 2 getting to the quarters and 1 to the semi's or better. The CCIW has had 7 in the playoffs with 3 in the quarters and 2 in the semis. The NCAC has had 3 in the playoffs with 2 in the quarters.

It's good data. May be more relevant to only look at the last 5 years or so since the NCAA opened up the tourney and allowed teams not in the West or North to play folks other than UMU or UWW.

I'm glad you have the affinity Usee as it allows me to safely release more often.
I'll have to aggressively disagree with you that 2-5 (which is really the top 6 teams) doesn't make a strong conference.  I would think any conference would love to have 6 out 8+ schools considered high quality.
I understand and agree to a point w your idea of counting the number of schools to make the playoffs from a league, however, I would be careful on some of the Pool C selections (you know my opinion). I'm not suggesting all Pool C's aren't quality, only that there should be more subjectivity to that measure.
Now, if you want to count the number of different conference champions from a league, that's certainly worthy. I think the CCIW does well in this measure.
I confess that my biggest complaint with the OAC is the ridiculous run of championships by Mt.
Anyway, I hope I didn't unnecessarily stir somebody's pot by engaging in this conversation on a message board.

[USee]

I believe most, if not all, of the multiple teams I mentioned came by way of Pool A. Certainly in the CCIW every one of the 7 of 8 who have made the playoffs were at one time Pool A. But I think you will find the typical pool C team is a former league champ who lost a game along the way.

[USee]

As for the strength of the WIAC v the MIAC, I think you are splitting hairs. The top 3-4 conferences in D3 are all really good in my view. The WIAC has had 5 different teams in the post season the past 5 years. The MIAC has had 3. The CCIW has had 4. If you broaden the span out since 2000 the WIAC has had 6 of 8 teams in the playoffs, the MIAC  has had 4 of 9 and Wheaton 7 of 8.  That's the sign of a good conference to me. If multiple teams get to the playoffs over a cycle.

I agree the conferences are very close, however, I feel that 2-5 of the MIAC is probably better than 2-5 of any other conference.  I think 1-3 of the WIAC is likely the best.  I thought the CCIW was the best overall conference a couple years back. 
Perhaps a better measure of conference strength might be to look at conference performance in the playoffs, as well as performance against successful playoff teams in the regular season.     

Emma,

I have an affinity for your passive-aggressive style.

2-5 does not a strong conference make. There are 8+ teams in these conferences. While one of the primary criteria is how well they do in the playoffs, I think an additional consideration (for me at least) is how good the entire league is. A good measure of that is how many teams have made the playoffs. A secondary measure is how those teams did in the playoffs. Over recent history, the conferences I think are the best have had multiple teams go to the playoffs and more than one team go deep in the playoffs. I haven't yet done the analysis but off the top of my head I know MIAC has had 4 teams in the playoffs since 2000, 3 teams in the quarters and 3 teams in the semi's and 3 title game appearances for 2 teams with 2 titles. The OAC has had 5 teams in the playoffs with 3 in the quarters and 1 in the semis. The WIAC has had 6 teams in the tournament with 2 getting to the quarters and 1 to the semi's or better. The CCIW has had 7 in the playoffs with 3 in the quarters and 2 in the semis. The NCAC has had 3 in the playoffs with 2 in the quarters.

It's good data. May be more relevant to only look at the last 5 years or so since the NCAA opened up the tourney and allowed teams not in the West or North to play folks other than UMU or UWW.

I'm glad you have the affinity Usee as it allows me to safely release more often.
I'll have to aggressively disagree with you that 2-5 (which is really the top 6 teams) doesn't make a strong conference.  I would think any conference would love to have 6 out 8+ schools considered high quality.
I understand and agree to a point w your idea of counting the number of schools to make the playoffs from a league, however, I would be careful on some of the Pool C selections (you know my opinion). I'm not suggesting all Pool C's aren't quality, only that there should be more subjectivity to that measure.
Now, if you want to count the number of different conference champions from a league, that's certainly worthy. I think the CCIW does well in this measure.
I confess that my biggest complaint with the OAC is the ridiculous run of championships by Mt.
Anyway, I hope I didn't unnecessarily stir somebody's pot by engaging in this conversation on a message board.

I am interested in the math that gets you from 2-5 to 6 teams? While I agree that teams would love to have 5 (or 6 depending how you count 2-5) out of 8+ schools considered high quality, the comparative measure of a conference has to be objectively the top through the bottom no? So if that's 8,9, or 10 teams they have to be part of the equation I think. It's also a lot easier to measure the CCIW when they play 3 non conference games league wide than the OAC who plays 1. Part of the reason the WIAC stacks up well is because their #1 team wins national titles and the in conference games are mostly competitive from top to bottom. So when a 3-7 UWRF only loses to UWW by 3 we all think "man that WIAC is tough". But you look at the OAC and Mt Union hasn't really had more than 1 competitive game during the regular season in a decade. So you wonder how the OAC stacks up. That leads you to other data like the fact that the OAC has sent 7 of its 10 teams to the playoffs since 2000.

The whole conference debate doesn't hinge on just one criteria. To me its a puzzle and different data gives you different pieces.

[Gregory Sager]

I am interested in the math that gets you from 2-5 to 6 teams? While I agree that teams would love to have 5 (or 6 depending how you count 2-5) out of 8+ schools considered high quality, the comparative measure of a conference has to be objectively the top through the bottom no? So if that's 8,9, or 10 teams they have to be part of the equation I think.

Exactly. I've made this argument in other rooms and for other sports, but the principle is universal: Every team counts. You have to measure a league from top to bottom when you assess it. The teams at the south end of your league's standings are just as much a part of the circuit as are the big dogs, and they can't simply be discounted when you're making league-to-league comparisons. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

(And I can say that with a sigh of relief, knowing that I am an alumnus of what is no longer the CCIW's weakest link on the gridiron.)

[WarhawkDad]

As for the strength of the WIAC v the MIAC, I think you are splitting hairs. The top 3-4 conferences in D3 are all really good in my view. The WIAC has had 5 different teams in the post season the past 5 years. The MIAC has had 3. The CCIW has had 4. If you broaden the span out since 2000 the WIAC has had 6 of 8 teams in the playoffs, the MIAC  has had 4 of 9 and Wheaton 7 of 8.  That's the sign of a good conference to me. If multiple teams get to the playoffs over a cycle.

I agree the conferences are very close, however, I feel that 2-5 of the MIAC is probably better than 2-5 of any other conference.  I think 1-3 of the WIAC is likely the best.  I thought the CCIW was the best overall conference a couple years back. 
Perhaps a better measure of conference strength might be to look at conference performance in the playoffs, as well as performance against successful playoff teams in the regular season.     

Emma,

I have an affinity for your passive-aggressive style.

2-5 does not a strong conference make. There are 8+ teams in these conferences. While one of the primary criteria is how well they do in the playoffs, I think an additional consideration (for me at least) is how good the entire league is. A good measure of that is how many teams have made the playoffs. A secondary measure is how those teams did in the playoffs. Over recent history, the conferences I think are the best have had multiple teams go to the playoffs and more than one team go deep in the playoffs. I haven't yet done the analysis but off the top of my head I know MIAC has had 4 teams in the playoffs since 2000, 3 teams in the quarters and 3 teams in the semi's and 3 title game appearances for 2 teams with 2 titles. The OAC has had 5 teams in the playoffs with 3 in the quarters and 1 in the semis. The WIAC has had 6 teams in the tournament with 2 getting to the quarters and 1 to the semi's or better. The CCIW has had 7 in the playoffs with 3 in the quarters and 2 in the semis. The NCAC has had 3 in the playoffs with 2 in the quarters.

It's good data. May be more relevant to only look at the last 5 years or so since the NCAA opened up the tourney and allowed teams not in the West or North to play folks other than UMU or UWW.

I'm glad you have the affinity Usee as it allows me to safely release more often.
I'll have to aggressively disagree with you that 2-5 (which is really the top 6 teams) doesn't make a strong conference.  I would think any conference would love to have 6 out 8+ schools considered high quality.
I understand and agree to a point w your idea of counting the number of schools to make the playoffs from a league, however, I would be careful on some of the Pool C selections (you know my opinion). I'm not suggesting all Pool C's aren't quality, only that there should be more subjectivity to that measure.
Now, if you want to count the number of different conference champions from a league, that's certainly worthy. I think the CCIW does well in this measure.
I confess that my biggest complaint with the OAC is the ridiculous run of championships by Mt.
Anyway, I hope I didn't unnecessarily stir somebody's pot by engaging in this conversation on a message board.

For those of us watching the pot, I actually have enjoyed the discussion between you and USee and have learned from it.   Keep it up....there is a major difference between stirring the pot to have a spirited discussion/dialogue versus stirring the pot to be malicious.   

For the record, it is often the spirited discussions resulting from a little stirring of the pot that keeps many coming back to D3boards.

WarhawkDad

[izzy stradlin]

I am interested in the math that gets you from 2-5 to 6 teams? While I agree that teams would love to have 5 (or 6 depending how you count 2-5) out of 8+ schools considered high quality, the comparative measure of a conference has to be objectively the top through the bottom no? So if that's 8,9, or 10 teams they have to be part of the equation I think.

Exactly. I've made this argument in other rooms and for other sports, but the principle is universal: Every team counts. You have to measure a league from top to bottom when you assess it. The teams at the south end of your league's standings are just as much a part of the circuit as are the big dogs, and they can't simply be discounted when you're making league-to-league comparisons. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

(And I can say that with a sigh of relief, knowing that I am an alumnus of what is no longer the CCIW's weakest link on the gridiron.)

Completely agree and would add that every team counts equally.  That's why I'll say that the rankings below compiled from Kickoff by bashbrother are actually more reflective of where the editors see the conferences going into the season. 

Boy I need this season to start soon.

I was curious about how the D3 conferences predicted strength stacked up (Top to Bottom) vs. the other conferences using the '15 Kickoff Rankings.... Here they are.  (Somewhat interesting)   (Rank -  Conf. - Avg. Team Ranking)

1   WIAC   48.13
2   MIAC   67.67
3   E8        69.56
4   CCIW   81.38
5   IIAC        83.75
6   OAC        90.90
7   NJAC        95.00
8   ODAC     96.13
9   SCAC     99.25
10   CC        100.90
11   NWC    102.13
12   ASC        105.75
13   LL        107.63
14   MAC        111.40
15   SAA        112.33
16   PAC        123.73
17   USAC    123.75
18   MIAA        127.57
19   NESCAC 133.10
20   SCIAC   133.50
21   NCAC    135.10
22   HCAC   149.11
23   MWC   152.67
24   MASCAC  166.44
25   NACC   179.57
26   NEFC   180.25
27   ECFC   213.38
28   UMAC   220.30
29   IND         243.00

Still time to sign up for Kickoff and find out how some these surprising rankings came about.   

I'll say it again, if you have any interest in D3fb, Kickoff is well worth the money. 

[emma17]

I also agree that all teams in a conference matter and should be looked at in some degree for overall conference strength.  My point in looking at the top 6 flows from my similar thinking w Pool C  selections- how many schools could realistically play competively with most of the top teams in the country. It's not practical to think the last team in the CCIW or MIAC will compete well with a Linfield, St Thomas, UMHB, Wartburg, etc.  However, I think it is practical to consider  how the first 6 in a conference would compete with those same teams. I'm not suggesting #6 in the WIAC would beat a Linfield, but they shouldn't get smoked. Case in point is UWL vs UMHB a year or two ago. 
Usee- The way I wrote 2-5 equaling 6 makes no sense at all- sorry about that. My intent was to exclude the top team of each conference and compare the next 5, thus the top 6.
In the WIAC, we'd look at the teams below UWW. I assume in the current CCIW we look at those below Wheaton.
I think any conference with 6 teams capable of competing respectfully with the best teams in the country would be very happy with that.

[Gregory Sager]

I also agree that all teams in a conference matter and should be looked at in some degree for overall conference strength.

This was a pretty lukewarm endorsement of what USee and Izzy and I were saying ("some degree") ... and then you basically ignored it altogether:

My point in looking at the top 6 flows from my similar thinking w Pool C  selections- how many schools could realistically play competively with most of the top teams in the country. It's not practical to think the last team in the CCIW or MIAC will compete well with a Linfield, St Thomas, UMHB, Wartburg, etc.  However, I think it is practical to consider  how the first 6 in a conference would compete with those same teams. I'm not suggesting #6 in the WIAC would beat a Linfield, but they shouldn't get smoked. Case in point is UWL vs UMHB a year or two ago. 
Usee- The way I wrote 2-5 equaling 6 makes no sense at all- sorry about that. My intent was to exclude the top team of each conference and compare the next 5, thus the top 6.
In the WIAC, we'd look at the teams below UWW. I assume in the current CCIW we look at those below Wheaton.
I think any conference with 6 teams capable of competing respectfully with the best teams in the country would be very happy with that.

Again, you're just mixing and matching a bunch of numbers in the top half or top two-thirds of each league for comparative purposes. Top six teams in League A versus top six teams in League B, based upon which set of six could compete with the top teams in the country? Drop the champions and the sixth-place teams and go 2 thru 5 in League A versus 2 thru 5 in League B? You're simply arguing variations on the same theme, e17.

As for this sentence:

It's not practical to think the last team in the CCIW or MIAC will compete well with a Linfield, St Thomas, UMHB, Wartburg, etc.

... you're missing the point. It's not about comparing the cellar-dweller of one league to the top team in another. It's about like-to-like. How does St. Olaf compare to UWEC? How does Carleton compare to Millikin? How does Lewis & Clark compare to Carthage? And so on.

But the larger point is this: You're continuing to leave the bottom teams out of the conversation altogether, and they determine the overall strength of the league every bit as much in a regular-season analysis as do the teams upon which you keep focusing. Given your select-a-random-set-of-slots methodology, one would be equally justified in looking at, say, teams 5 thru 8 in League A versus teams 5 thru 8 in League B. Or teams 4 thru 7 in League A versus teams 4 thru 7 in League B, because, as we said before, the teams at the bottom are as equally representative of, and carry as much inherent value within their respective leagues as, the teams at the top. Rather than deal with the inaccuracies inherent in only examining partial lists of each league's teams, however, we're arguing that one should look at all available criteria -- including taking every single team in each discussed league into consideration -- when evaluating relative league strengths.

[emma17]

Gregory
I think we just differ on why we are even ranking.
I truly don't care how the worst team in conference A compares to the worst team in conference B.
The reason I don't care is because there isn't a single D3 player that enters the season with a goal to beat the worst teams. Every player on every team wants to be the best- as such, that's how I prefer to measure them.
Yes I agree 6 is a relatively random number and I'm open to suggestions on the right number. But I don't want to measure at all the records of the worst vs the worst and somehow give credit for that.

[USee]

In which case you are not actually comparing conferences for the purpose of ranking them, you are simply arbitrarily comparing teams you deem to be worthy. That's fun for you and not very interesting to most others

[Gregory Sager]

Gregory
I think we just differ on why we are even ranking.

No, we differ on what we're ranking. We're talking about ranking leagues. You're talking about ranking parts of leagues.

I truly don't care how the worst team in conference A compares to the worst team in conference B.

I don't, either, because unless there's a head-to-head or common opponents it's pretty hard to do.

The reason I don't care is because there isn't a single D3 player that enters the season with a goal to beat the worst teams.

I vehemently disagree. I think that every single D3 player enters the season with the goal of beating every team that his team faces. And that includes the teams at the bottom as well as the teams at the top.

Every player on every team wants to be the best- as such, that's how I prefer to measure them.

But not everybody can play for the best team. Your own methodology is to use teams that aren't the best as part of your analysis ... teams two thru five, or teams two thru six, or whatever. That's a completely arbitrary cutoff point, and it really has nothing to do with the "every player on every team wants to be the best" idea.

In which case you are not actually comparing conferences for the purpose of ranking them, you are simply arbitrarily comparing teams you deem to be worthy. That's fun for you and not very interesting to most others

This.

[emma17]

In which case you are not actually comparing conferences for the purpose of ranking them, you are simply arbitrarily comparing teams you deem to be worthy. That's fun for you and not very interesting to most others

Come on now, how do you know what is and what isn't interesting to most others?
I happen to think it's not interesting at all to know how Millikin would do vs St Olaf, at least from a conference ranking perspective.  I am, however, interested in how Millikin does vs. Bethel.  If Millikin plays well vs. Bethel, that tells me a whole lot more about the CCIW than if Millikin beats St. Olaf 24-21. 

Using only a large portion of a conference seems to be a stumbling block in this discussion, perhaps it's not necessary to limit to a certain number of teams.  I do think, however, we should be more concerned with how the worst in a conference plays vs the betters of other conferences. 

Gregory,
Let's not major in the minors.  Of course every D3 player wants to win every game they play.  Are you going to tell me that your North Park players are preparing themselves for the season with visions of beating Millikin?  Is that their war cry?  They aren't and it isn't.  And they certainly don't want their season to be measured based on their performance against Millikin.  They want to be measured by their performance against the best, which is exactly how I think a conference should be measured.   

[wally_wabash]

I happen to think it's not interesting at all to know how Millikin would do vs St Olaf, at least from a conference ranking perspective.  I am, however, interested in how Millikin does vs. Bethel.  If Millikin plays well vs. Bethel, that tells me a whole lot more about the CCIW than if Millikin beats St. Olaf 24-21. 

I think that scenario tells you about Millikin and Bethel in that one specific three-hour window in time and pretty much nothing of the CCIW and the MIAC holistically.  I get that that's the kind of data point that people use to paint whatever speculative picture of the conference vs. conference portrait they want, but that's also kind of the problem.  There's really never enough of that conference vs. conference picture exposed to us to be able to make a good judgment.