FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[bleedpurple]

The potential negative consequences for NCC (and for UWW as well) are what I had in mind when I talked about the teams' desire to alter what exists.  And also what I was getting at when I mentioned the courage to try such a switch.

It's true. There is risk for both sides. But sometimes risk pays off. Last year notwithstanding, are the Whitewater and NCC programs more focused on getting a #1 seed (Or even "Top 2" in UW-W's case) or making the playoffs?  Without a doubt, the loser of the game has to take care of business and win their conference. But the winner could be positioning themselves for a prime seed in the playoffs.

And if I could go so low as to mention the actual mission of an athletic program, would not the experience of the student-athletes on both NCC and UW-W be significantly greater on September 10th if the switch occurred? The players on the southern teams may benefit from a more competitive game as well.

I'm not suggesting any of this provides a strong enough argument to offset the risk Wally outlines.  It's just frustrating because of all the great games that never were because of that risk.

[USee]

The potential negative consequences for NCC (and for UWW as well) are what I had in mind when I talked about the teams' desire to alter what exists.  And also what I was getting at when I mentioned the courage to try such a switch.

It's true. There is risk for both sides. But sometimes risk pays off. Last year notwithstanding, are the Whitewater and NCC programs more focused on getting a #1 seed (Or even "Top 2" in UW-W's case) or making the playoffs?  Without a doubt, the loser of the game has to take care of business and win their conference. But the winner could be positioning themselves for a prime seed in the playoffs.

And if I could go so low as to mention the actual mission of an athletic program, would not the experience of the student-athletes on both NCC and UW-W be significantly greater on September 10th if the switch occurred? The players on the southern teams may benefit from a more competitive game as well.

I'm not suggesting any of this provides a strong enough argument to offset the risk Wally outlines.  It's just frustrating because of all the great games that never were because of that risk.

Great arguments but the system actually penalizes teams for these games vs rewards them. Until that changes it won't make any sense for teams to schedule like this. NCC suffered a pretty harsh penalty last year for scheduling Wesley (and/or for giving up the ghost @Platteville). I would love to see a WIAC/CCIW challenge but that just isn't going to happen with the current system.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The potential negative consequences for NCC (and for UWW as well) are what I had in mind when I talked about the teams' desire to alter what exists.  And also what I was getting at when I mentioned the courage to try such a switch.

It's true. There is risk for both sides. But sometimes risk pays off. Last year notwithstanding, are the Whitewater and NCC programs more focused on getting a #1 seed (Or even "Top 2" in UW-W's case) or making the playoffs?  Without a doubt, the loser of the game has to take care of business and win their conference. But the winner could be positioning themselves for a prime seed in the playoffs.

And if I could go so low as to mention the actual mission of an athletic program, would not the experience of the student-athletes on both NCC and UW-W be significantly greater on September 10th if the switch occurred? The players on the southern teams may benefit from a more competitive game as well.

I'm not suggesting any of this provides a strong enough argument to offset the risk Wally outlines.  It's just frustrating because of all the great games that never were because of that risk.

Great arguments but the system actually penalizes teams for these games vs rewards them. Until that changes it won't make any sense for teams to schedule like this. NCC suffered a pretty harsh penalty last year for scheduling Wesley (and/or for giving up the ghost @Platteville). I would love to see a WIAC/CCIW challenge but that just isn't going to happen with the current system.

Totally agree with both of you.  While I certainly don't advocate returning to the 'smoke-filled' room of yesteryear for selections, I wish someone could come up with a fair way to recognize that sometimes even a 7-3 team is CLEARLY a more deserving tourney participant than a 9-1 team.  I would NEVER deny an undefeated team, despite the fact that often they have imploded just as badly as most suspected they would - if they've never been beaten, who knows for sure how good they might be?  But a team with a loss is fair game for doubts.  We've dealt with this for many years, so I have little hope that anyone can come up with a  fair and transparent route for a 7-3 team to beat out a 9-1 team, but do a little thought-experiment:  theoretically, a team could go 10-0 and be the 11th worst team in the country (every team they played was in the bottom 10).  Likewise (ignoring possible upsets), a team could be 0-10 and the 11th best team.  Neither is ever likely to happen, of course, but it is certainly possible, in fact likely, that an 8-2 team could be among the top ten teams in the country, or a 7-3 team to be among the top 15. 

I have no solution to the situation I've outlined above, but shouldn't we wish to find a way that a 'top 15' team could make the tourney rather than a team who will lose 63-0?

[Gregory Sager]

Scheduling can be a tough sell, and particularly for a high-quality team.  If a school gets behind the curve (and this can happen for any number of reasons), the difficulty increases substantially.  Other teams' schedules begin to fill up, and many teams just will not want to take a beating in an early game.  Then again, other very good teams may not want to take a chance of losing a game when the margin for making the playoffs is so razor thin.  Taking all the variables--open dates, quality of opponent, perhaps home and home requirements, etc.--into account, it's entirely possible that a team can get stuck. 
     As one example, one I am aware of close up, several years ago Wabash was struggling to find an opening-week opponent.  So much so, that they were searching for a game no matter where they would have to travel.  Fortunately, some team dropped Hanover, and Wabash was able to make the connection for a home/home series.  Otherwise, and this is no kidding, the LGs faced the dismal possibility of having a nine-game schedule for at least a year.  More than one team was up front, saying we are just not ready to face you. 
     Summary:  it takes two to tango.

Absolutely true. And North Central's not the only CCIW team that's forced to go the NAIA route next year in terms of scheduling. North Park is going to have to play an NAIA team, too. The Vikings will open the season by hosting Anderson in a night game on September 3, and the following week they'll play host to Midland University. Formerly Midland Lutheran College, it's a school located in Fremont, Nebraska that's a member of the Great Plains Athletic Conference that longtime Midland rival Nebraska Wesleyan has just ditched in favor of the IIAC and full-time D3 status.

Anderson's a traditionally poor HCAC program that went 2-8 last season, and Midland went 1-10 in 2015, so at first blush it's not an intimidating non-con slate for NPU next season.

[kiko]

The potential negative consequences for NCC (and for UWW as well) are what I had in mind when I talked about the teams' desire to alter what exists.  And also what I was getting at when I mentioned the courage to try such a switch.

It's true. There is risk for both sides. But sometimes risk pays off. Last year notwithstanding, are the Whitewater and NCC programs more focused on getting a #1 seed (Or even "Top 2" in UW-W's case) or making the playoffs?  Without a doubt, the loser of the game has to take care of business and win their conference. But the winner could be positioning themselves for a prime seed in the playoffs.

And if I could go so low as to mention the actual mission of an athletic program, would not the experience of the student-athletes on both NCC and UW-W be significantly greater on September 10th if the switch occurred? The players on the southern teams may benefit from a more competitive game as well.

I'm not suggesting any of this provides a strong enough argument to offset the risk Wally outlines.  It's just frustrating because of all the great games that never were because of that risk.

Great arguments but the system actually penalizes teams for these games vs rewards them. Until that changes it won't make any sense for teams to schedule like this. NCC suffered a pretty harsh penalty last year for scheduling Wesley (and/or for giving up the ghost @Platteville). I would love to see a WIAC/CCIW challenge but that just isn't going to happen with the current system.

Wesley wasn't the primary Pool C problem last year -- Platteville was.

[kiko]

The potential negative consequences for NCC (and for UWW as well) are what I had in mind when I talked about the teams' desire to alter what exists.  And also what I was getting at when I mentioned the courage to try such a switch.

It's true. There is risk for both sides. But sometimes risk pays off. Last year notwithstanding, are the Whitewater and NCC programs more focused on getting a #1 seed (Or even "Top 2" in UW-W's case) or making the playoffs?  Without a doubt, the loser of the game has to take care of business and win their conference. But the winner could be positioning themselves for a prime seed in the playoffs.

And if I could go so low as to mention the actual mission of an athletic program, would not the experience of the student-athletes on both NCC and UW-W be significantly greater on September 10th if the switch occurred? The players on the southern teams may benefit from a more competitive game as well.

I'm not suggesting any of this provides a strong enough argument to offset the risk Wally outlines.  It's just frustrating because of all the great games that never were because of that risk.

From my perspective, what Whitewater and North Central should be positioning themselves for are two different things.  The Warhawks get to go into the D3 VIP room -- the walls are a delightful shade of purple and there is only one other card-carrying member of that club.  North Central is one of several schools probably three tiers -- two if we are being generous -- below that.  The Thornebirds have been past the quarterfinal round just once -- as strong as the Cardinals' body of work has been in recent years, I don't consider a team with that resume to be one that can go in with an eye toward a #1 seed.  (Though I would be quite happy to see them get one.)

[Gregory Sager]

The Thornebirds

[wally_wabash]

Totally agree with both of you.  While I certainly don't advocate returning to the 'smoke-filled' room of yesteryear for selections, I wish someone could come up with a fair way to recognize that sometimes even a 7-3 team is CLEARLY a more deserving tourney participant than a 9-1 team.  I would NEVER deny an undefeated team, despite the fact that often they have imploded just as badly as most suspected they would - if they've never been beaten, who knows for sure how good they might be?  But a team with a loss is fair game for doubts.  We've dealt with this for many years, so I have little hope that anyone can come up with a  fair and transparent route for a 7-3 team to beat out a 9-1 team, but do a little thought-experiment:  theoretically, a team could go 10-0 and be the 11th worst team in the country (every team they played was in the bottom 10).  Likewise (ignoring possible upsets), a team could be 0-10 and the 11th best team.  Neither is ever likely to happen, of course, but it is certainly possible, in fact likely, that an 8-2 team could be among the top ten teams in the country, or a 7-3 team to be among the top 15.  

The thing is that being in the top 10 or top 15 isn't the same thing as qualifying for the tournament.  Maybe that's part of the issue here, but for now the tournament and the top whatever exist in non-intersecting planes. 

Wesley wasn't the primary Pool C problem last year -- Platteville was.

Either/or, although the Platteville game was obviously one that by all means should have been won by North Central.  But in the end, I think if they would have won either of those games, they would have been ranked ahead of ONU, first at-large in the region, and ultimately would have been invited.  But you just can't lose three games and get way back in the at-large line. 

[sigma one]

Just a thought-experiment here.  If I am the AD and head FB coach at NCC and the AD and head FB coach at UWW, I don't think I want to play this hypothetical game.  It leaves too little room for error for the loser.  Even if we say that a non-DIII game loss "doesn't count," it's still a loss on the record and there's something psychological, I would speculate, to the tournament committee, when they see a record like 7-3, or perhaps even 8-2, depending upon the quality of the losses and the success of other conference and regional teams.
     Supposing NCC loses to Robert Morris-Chicago, then they might have to win the CCIW to be certain they get in.  If they lose to Wheaton, and no one else, then OK the odds are probably still favorable--again, depending on the rest of the regional results.    If they lose to Wheaton and someone else, then forget about a bid.  This may be true in any case, even if they defeat RM-C.  RM-C beat UW Oshkosh last year in a close game.  We know Oskosh was very good.  They also beat Marian, Indianapolis, a perennial NAIA power.  Yes, ok, they also lost four games themselves, but they appear capable of beating a superior DIII team. 
     Supposing UWW loses to NCC in this hypothetical match up, then they face the prospect of probably having to win the WIAC.  And they have to face two potent teams in Oshkosh and Platteville.  Losing to either (not to say both--however unlikely we want to think that is), then they have two DIII loses.  Again, depending upon what the other WIAC schools do, and other schools in the region, there's a substantial risk.
     As fans we can argue that we want to see these kinds of games, two potential top 10 teams squaring off in an early out-of-conference early-season game.  We don't want our team to be risk free or risk averse.  Completely understandable.  And if our team wins, then they really do set themselves up to make a good run at a conference title or at least at a tournament bid, having demonstrated that they can beat among the best 
     As AD and head coach, I certainly want to test my team.  But looking forward to the conference battles, particularly in conferences like the CCIW and WIAC, I will want to think long and hard about how much pressure a potential OOC loss puts on my team.  Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, Oshkosh, Platteville are still out there; not to mention another team that might creep in with a special year.
     So why take that risk?
     If I had a nickle to bet, I'd put it on the schedules remaining as we now see them.  But as a DIII fan I hope I'm wrong.   

[jknezek]

I see this both ways. Speaking from experience, I abhorred W&L's OOC last season. Averett, Sewanee and Newport News Apprentice is an awful slate. All at home. Now Sewanee is traditional, nothing to do about that, Averett was a back half home and home, and NNA was a one off apparently, but it still was terrible competition.

However, W&L was coming off two fall off seasons, including a 2014 where they went 2-8. Not much was expected of the Generals and starting off with 3 winnable games completely reset the team from a dismal 2014 to an undefeated regular season in 2015. The first W&L perfect regular season in well more than my lifetime. So while those games were truly poor, they set up the team to be a success going forward.

This year W&L opens on the road at Johns Hopkins, at Sewanee, and home for a rising Claremont Mudd Scripps team. While W&L brings back a lot, the difference in OOC competition could easily send what I think will be an even better W&L team to a much more difficult season. I'm looking forward to these games, which I can honestly say I wasn't last year, but I am concerned at the toll playing JHU and CMS could take on a relatively small but experienced squad.

Obviously W&L is not in the same position as the DIII heavy weights above, but as I think about these two OOC slates, I wonder which tactic sets a team up for success better. Perhaps it is situational? W&L needed to get momentum last year after a pair of tough seasons, and this year maybe the experience of playing better teams will help them continue to step up their game?

If you take that tactic, teams like UWW and NCC rarely need the momentum boost W&L benefited from, so perhaps weighting the experience earned by playing challenging games is more important.

[bleedpurple]

The potential negative consequences for NCC (and for UWW as well) are what I had in mind when I talked about the teams' desire to alter what exists.  And also what I was getting at when I mentioned the courage to try such a switch.

It's true. There is risk for both sides. But sometimes risk pays off. Last year notwithstanding, are the Whitewater and NCC programs more focused on getting a #1 seed (Or even "Top 2" in UW-W's case) or making the playoffs?  Without a doubt, the loser of the game has to take care of business and win their conference. But the winner could be positioning themselves for a prime seed in the playoffs.

And if I could go so low as to mention the actual mission of an athletic program, would not the experience of the student-athletes on both NCC and UW-W be significantly greater on September 10th if the switch occurred? The players on the southern teams may benefit from a more competitive game as well.

I'm not suggesting any of this provides a strong enough argument to offset the risk Wally outlines.  It's just frustrating because of all the great games that never were because of that risk.

Great arguments but the system actually penalizes teams for these games vs rewards them. Until that changes it won't make any sense for teams to schedule like this. NCC suffered a pretty harsh penalty last year for scheduling Wesley (and/or for giving up the ghost @Platteville). I would love to see a WIAC/CCIW challenge but that just isn't going to happen with the current system.

A WIAC/CCIW challenge would be awesome and cost effective. Thinking about it, not only does the current system deprive us of great games, it probably costs schools a ton of money as they travel farther to play a less risky game. But with every complaint I make, I feel the need to add the qualifier that I haven't been able to develop the perfect system. But I'm not convinced Whitewater would be opposed to the switch. Playing NCC the week before their bye would give the UW-W staff a lot more data to make adjustments before a tough stretch of Morningside, platteville, and Oshkosh. But as a poster noted, it takes two to tango. Or in this case four.

[shepherd]

The potential negative consequences for NCC (and for UWW as well) are what I had in mind when I talked about the teams' desire to alter what exists.  And also what I was getting at when I mentioned the courage to try such a switch.

It's true. There is risk for both sides. But sometimes risk pays off. Last year notwithstanding, are the Whitewater and NCC programs more focused on getting a #1 seed (Or even "Top 2" in UW-W's case) or making the playoffs?  Without a doubt, the loser of the game has to take care of business and win their conference. But the winner could be positioning themselves for a prime seed in the playoffs.

And if I could go so low as to mention the actual mission of an athletic program, would not the experience of the student-athletes on both NCC and UW-W be significantly greater on September 10th if the switch occurred? The players on the southern teams may benefit from a more competitive game as well.

I'm not suggesting any of this provides a strong enough argument to offset the risk Wally outlines.  It's just frustrating because of all the great games that never were because of that risk.

Great arguments but the system actually penalizes teams for these games vs rewards them. Until that changes it won't make any sense for teams to schedule like this. NCC suffered a pretty harsh penalty last year for scheduling Wesley (and/or for giving up the ghost @Platteville). I would love to see a WIAC/CCIW challenge but that just isn't going to happen with the current system.

A WIAC/CCIW challenge would be awesome and cost effective. Thinking about it, not only does the current system deprive us of great games, it probably costs schools a ton of money as they travel farther to play a less risky game. But with every complaint I make, I feel the need to add the qualifier that I haven't been able to develop the perfect system. But I'm not convinced Whitewater would be opposed to the switch. Playing NCC the week before their bye would give the UW-W staff a lot more data to make adjustments before a tough stretch of Morningside, platteville, and Oshkosh. But as a poster noted, it takes two to tango. Or in this case four.

IMHO:
Scheduling is getting to be a huge (too much) a part of a teams success.  I have never been a fan of the teams scheduling their own games.  Maybe they should try giving it to the conference people for a few years on a trial bases. Also find a way to reward teams that schedule tough games while putting up a good showing in a loss.  I just think it stinks that the teams that have success have trouble scheduling games.

[shepherd]

Another thought on the scheduling problems of successful teams.  Maybe the NCAA can make a rule on how many times a team can reject another teams offer.  I suggest once or twice given the offer once a year.  Then the team must schedule them for a game in the upcoming season or future seasons as soon as they have an open slot.

[jknezek]

Another thought on the scheduling problems of successful teams.  Maybe the NCAA can make a rule on how many times a team can reject another teams offer.  I suggest once or twice given the offer once a year.  Then the team must schedule them for a game in the upcoming season or future seasons as soon as they have an open slot.

This has 0 chance of going anywhere. Teams have a right to schedule like for like, not just whoever comes stalking your door repeatedly.  To be honest, 10 team conferences are the answer to scheduling in a  10 game regular season. That hurts tradition as conferences would have to split and reform, and no one is joining the WIAC without being a WI state school, but if you are dreaming up pie in the sky scenarios that work that is the answer.

[Gregory Sager]

IMHO:
Scheduling is getting to be a huge (too much) a part of a teams success.  I have never been a fan of the teams scheduling their own games.  Maybe they should try giving it to the conference people for a few years on a trial bases. Also find a way to reward teams that schedule tough games while putting up a good showing in a loss.  I just think it stinks that the teams that have success have trouble scheduling games.

CCIW coaches schedule their own non-conference games/meets/matches in every other sport. Can you imagine the hue and cry among CCIW football coaches if they were the only ones to be deprived of that right?

Another thought on the scheduling problems of successful teams.  Maybe the NCAA can make a rule on how many times a team can reject another teams offer.  I suggest once or twice given the offer once a year.  Then the team must schedule them for a game in the upcoming season or future seasons as soon as they have an open slot.

That will never happen. The NCAA would never encroach upon an individual member's prerogatives like that. It completely goes against the grain of what the NCAA is all about. The NCAA can try to shepherd schools into adopting a specific mode of scheduling (e.g., requiring that basketball programs schedule at least half of their games against D3 teams in order to qualify for the D3 tournament), but it has never stood in the way of schools that have wanted to follow their own path in terms of making schedules (Maranatha Baptist is a classic example).

As jknezek said, teams have a right to schedule like for like. I can't imagine the NCAA ever becoming the sort of dictatorial force that could impose itself on its members that way. The member schools simply wouldn't allow it. He's also right that this is a problem that is going to be significantly lessened down the road. Heck, it's been lessened by one-third now, as the CCIW's member programs are down to two non-conference games now with the addition of Carroll. In a couple more years there will only be one non-conference game to schedule, as Wash U will join as a football-only associate member in 2018, and this problem will basically cease to exist. Then we'll have to deal with an opposite set of problems, namely, the increased paucity of SOS data in determining Pool C berths.