FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[bleedpurple]

So maybe CCIWers can help me sort this out, given your familiarity with the teams involved.  I'm a bit mystified at both North Central and Wheaton being ahead of IWU in the Top 25 poll.  IWU has the head to head over Wheaton and the favorable common opponent result over NC.  Why in the world is IWU behind both of them in the poll?

I expected Wheaton's win over NCC to push up IWU in the polls and deservedly so. I didn't expect the leapfrog.

Aside from the additional weight that Wheaton's recent performances would carry, I suspect that if the Titans had scored four more points against UW-Lax, they would be above both of their conference brethren.  I'm sure that loss factored into the relative pecking order of the three CCIW teams even with the A > B > C results on the field.

You are probably right.  But, that means a first game of the season IWU loss is responsible for a week 5 leapfrog of Wheaton over IWU.  And it's hard to argue IWU's loss was worse than the beatdown that NC just took in their most recent game. Looking at the season as a whole AND the most recent results, I see nothing NC has done to justify being ranked above IWU and I see a two very significant results that would be reason for IWU to be ranked ahead of both NC and Wheaton.

I believe voters in polls put too much weight on their preconceived notions of teams. I believe that's at the heart of the issue here.

[USee]

So maybe CCIWers can help me sort this out, given your familiarity with the teams involved.  I'm a bit mystified at both North Central and Wheaton being ahead of IWU in the Top 25 poll.  IWU has the head to head over Wheaton and the favorable common opponent result over NC.  Why in the world is IWU behind both of them in the poll?

I expected Wheaton's win over NCC to push up IWU in the polls and deservedly so. I didn't expect the leapfrog.

Aside from the additional weight that Wheaton's recent performances would carry, I suspect that if the Titans had scored four more points against UW-Lax, they would be above both of their conference brethren.  I'm sure that loss factored into the relative pecking order of the three CCIW teams even with the A > B > C results on the field.

You are probably right.  But, that means a first game of the season IWU loss is responsible for a week 5 leapfrog of Wheaton over IWU.  And it's hard to argue IWU's loss was worse than the beatdown that NC just took in their most recent game. Looking at the season as a whole AND the most recent results, I see nothing NC has done to justify being ranked above IWU and I see a two very significant results that would be reason for IWU to be ranked ahead of both NC and Wheaton.

I believe voters in polls put too much weight on their preconceived notions of teams. I believe that's at the heart of the issue here.

The problem is you can't isolate teams and then compare the results you like with the ones you don't like. All of these teams (throw in JCU) have losses to top 25 teams and 3 of them have wins over top 25 teams. Ranking them tightly together, in almost any order, makes the most sense, which is what Pat did on his poll per the podcast.

[wally_wabash]

To clarify, of Wheaton's two ejections last night, Kyle Fox was ejected for a flagrant foul, not for targeting. He will not miss any additional time. I thought it was a horrendous call by the officials because all he did was knock down an NCC WR running a pick play. The ball was not in the air and the hit was completely legal. It was a bad call.

Speaking of Fox's ejection, I also thought the call was trash.  I'm not sure what the officials saw, but as a LB coach, I would always teach my LBs to annihilate any WRs trying to cross the field at linebacker depth.  I'm not sure if the officials thought that Fox went low, but on the replay, the hit looked like it happened at the hip. 

2-10-3 defines a flagrant personal foul as "illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury."  I can't find a video archive to review this, but my recollection watching it live was that the hit Fox put on Kaminsky was excessive given that the ball never left the offensive backfield (Rutter was sacked on the play).  I think it was textbook unnecessary roughness (read: illegal physical contact) and the kind of player safety endangerment (extreme and deliberate) that they're trying to get out of the game.  I don't disagree with you all that there was a time, not even that long ago, where this play was fine.  But you can't "annihilate any WRs" just because they're crossing in the second level anymore.  Maybe the game is soft, I don't know.  I think the foul was a good call though.  The disqualification had to happen by rule, and maybe that's the part here that could use reexamining. 

[Kovo]

So maybe CCIWers can help me sort this out, given your familiarity with the teams involved.  I'm a bit mystified at both North Central and Wheaton being ahead of IWU in the Top 25 poll.  IWU has the head to head over Wheaton and the favorable common opponent result over NC.  Why in the world is IWU behind both of them in the poll?

I expected Wheaton's win over NCC to push up IWU in the polls and deservedly so. I didn't expect the leapfrog.

Aside from the additional weight that Wheaton's recent performances would carry, I suspect that if the Titans had scored four more points against UW-Lax, they would be above both of their conference brethren.  I'm sure that loss factored into the relative pecking order of the three CCIW teams even with the A > B > C results on the field.

You are probably right.  But, that means a first game of the season IWU loss is responsible for a week 5 leapfrog of Wheaton over IWU.  And it's hard to argue IWU's loss was worse than the beatdown that NC just took in their most recent game. Looking at the season as a whole AND the most recent results, I see nothing NC has done to justify being ranked above IWU and I see a two very significant results that would be reason for IWU to be ranked ahead of both NC and Wheaton.

I believe voters in polls put too much weight on their preconceived notions of teams. I believe that's at the heart of the issue here.

I agree that preconceived notions and perceptions are built into the process. NCC looked terrible Saturday. Based on that game one would have to say IWU is a far better team. But, while the 2nd Thorne era has produced a 1-4 record against the Crusaders it has gone 3-0 against IWU which is part of NCC's current 8 year run (13 of 14 for that matter). Is that a factor? Maybe. But as a red and white loyalist I don't think much about the game as we have had such great recent success. This year could be different but until that happens I can see why the voters like tha Cards just a bit better.

[79jaybird]

Meanwhile,  while the rest of the world passes Elmhurst up and we continue to tailspin into oblivion,  a very compelling game at Carthage.
I didn't expect Elmhurst to win, and figured they would struggle vs. the Carthage defense,  but where's the heart?  Where's the pride for the jersey/school?   IMO, seems like there is no spunk from the Jays. 

I hope Elmhurst can find some pride and resurgence this week and give the Bears a decent fight.

[USee]

To clarify, of Wheaton's two ejections last night, Kyle Fox was ejected for a flagrant foul, not for targeting. He will not miss any additional time. I thought it was a horrendous call by the officials because all he did was knock down an NCC WR running a pick play. The ball was not in the air and the hit was completely legal. It was a bad call.

Speaking of Fox's ejection, I also thought the call was trash.  I'm not sure what the officials saw, but as a LB coach, I would always teach my LBs to annihilate any WRs trying to cross the field at linebacker depth.  I'm not sure if the officials thought that Fox went low, but on the replay, the hit looked like it happened at the hip. 

2-10-3 defines a flagrant personal foul as "illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury."  I can't find a video archive to review this, but my recollection watching it live was that the hit Fox put on Kaminsky was excessive given that the ball never left the offensive backfield (Rutter was sacked on the play).  I think it was textbook unnecessary roughness (read: illegal physical contact) and the kind of player safety endangerment (extreme and deliberate) that they're trying to get out of the game.  I don't disagree with you all that there was a time, not even that long ago, where this play was fine.  But you can't "annihilate any WRs" just because they're crossing in the second level anymore.  Maybe the game is soft, I don't know.  I think the foul was a good call though.  The disqualification had to happen by rule, and maybe that's the part here that could use reexamining.

First of all, I am in agreement with the general principle to make the game safer and eliminate unnecessary violent contact. My question with rule 2-10-3 that defines a flagrant personal foul as "illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury." is this: What was "illegal" about Fox's hit? If you take the word "illegal" out of the definition then you have a different story.

If the ruling on Fox  is indeed the right application of the rule, then all the blindside blocks on punt returns (which happen many times in every game) are all flagrant fouls and there should be multiple ejections in about every game on Saturdays. There is no such thing as "textbook unnecessary roughness" without the word illegal. At that point is becomes completely subjective. "Illegal" should have parameters and I struggle to see what was illegal about Fox's contact.  I saw 2 blindside blocks Saturday (one by each team) on special teams that were  more violent than Fox's hit on Kamienski. Those hits are either all unnecessary or all penalties if we want to talk about textbooks.

[wally_wabash]

What wasn't legal about the hit is a good question.  It wasn't targeting the head-neck area which is what usually gets a player disqualified.  But I don't think it has to necessarily be contact with the helmet or to the head-neck area for a foul to have been committed.  I'm looking for rulebook definitions here- I think an official could consider Kaminsky a defenseless player (a player obviously out of the play) in that situation.   And if the contact was deemed flagrant, which is a subjective call, then you get the disqualification. 

[USee]

What wasn't legal about the hit is a good question.  It wasn't targeting the head-neck area which is what usually gets a player disqualified.  But I don't think it has to necessarily be contact with the helmet or to the head-neck area for a foul to have been committed.  I'm looking for rulebook definitions here- I think an official could consider Kaminsky a defenseless player (a player obviously out of the play) in that situation.   And if the contact was deemed flagrant, which is a subjective call, then you get the disqualification.

Again, for consistency, if that is the ruling (and I am not suggesting it is or isn't) then there should be multiple ejections in each game from special teams plays. The return scheme of peeling off rushers to form a wall for a return results in blind side hits that are much worse than the Kamienski  play. You can't call the Fox play illegal and then see players on punt returns get "annihilated" with no flag. I saw 2 of those on Saturday that were much worse than the Fox hit.

[robertgoulet]

What wasn't legal about the hit is a good question.  It wasn't targeting the head-neck area which is what usually gets a player disqualified.  But I don't think it has to necessarily be contact with the helmet or to the head-neck area for a foul to have been committed.  I'm looking for rulebook definitions here- I think an official could consider Kaminsky a defenseless player (a player obviously out of the play) in that situation.   And if the contact was deemed flagrant, which is a subjective call, then you get the disqualification.

Again, for consistency, if that is the ruling (and I am not suggesting it is or isn't) then there should be multiple ejections in each game from special teams plays. The return scheme of peeling off rushers to form a wall for a return results in blind side hits that are much worse than the Kamienski  play. You can't call the Fox play illegal and then see players on punt returns get "annihilated" with no flag. I saw 2 of those on Saturday that were much worse than the Fox hit.

The difference is the blindsided blocks on special teams are just that, blocks. This wasn't a block. I'm on Wally's side on this one. I was watching the live-feed and they replayed it multiple times. When I saw it I had no question about the ejection.

[wally_wabash]

What wasn't legal about the hit is a good question.  It wasn't targeting the head-neck area which is what usually gets a player disqualified.  But I don't think it has to necessarily be contact with the helmet or to the head-neck area for a foul to have been committed.  I'm looking for rulebook definitions here- I think an official could consider Kaminsky a defenseless player (a player obviously out of the play) in that situation.   And if the contact was deemed flagrant, which is a subjective call, then you get the disqualification.

Again, for consistency, if that is the ruling (and I am not suggesting it is or isn't) then there should be multiple ejections in each game from special teams plays. The return scheme of peeling off rushers to form a wall for a return results in blind side hits that are much worse than the Kamienski  play. You can't call the Fox play illegal and then see players on punt returns get "annihilated" with no flag. I saw 2 of those on Saturday that were much worse than the Fox hit.

But are those players defenseless in the return scenario you describe?  The Fox play happened way off the ball in the middle of the field while Rutter was getting sacked.  Wiping a guy out who is obviously out of the play as Fox did is different than wiping guys out that are in pursuit of the returner. 

[HOPEful]

The problem is you can't isolate teams and then compare the results you like with the ones you don't like. All of these teams (throw in JCU) have losses to top 25 teams and 3 of them have wins over top 25 teams. Ranking them tightly together, in almost any order, makes the most sense, which is what Pat did on his poll per the podcast.

I feel like it's difficult when there's a head to head involved. The rest of the body of work can outrank the head-to-head.  Yes, Wheaton lost at IWU. But the manner in which they destroyed Millikin and then went to NC and won by 22 was VERY impressive. In my opinion, they are ranked appropriately. I don't really understand why IWU isn't right there with them, but instead, one spot below North Central. NC's 3 wins aren't exceptionally impressive, so the rating has to be based solely on perception, and not resume to date. IWU's win over Wheaton should more than make up for a respectable loss against La Crosse (although the manner in which UWWW handled them is concerning)...

To me it's difficult to throw JCU in the mix. The game against Mount Union was 16-10 and before JCU fumbled and Mount returned it for a TD. The 23-10 final score is not indicative of how close that game was. I have a hard time believing the 9 teams ahead of JCU currently would all put up better efforts against the Purple Raiders.

[USee]

What wasn't legal about the hit is a good question.  It wasn't targeting the head-neck area which is what usually gets a player disqualified.  But I don't think it has to necessarily be contact with the helmet or to the head-neck area for a foul to have been committed.  I'm looking for rulebook definitions here- I think an official could consider Kaminsky a defenseless player (a player obviously out of the play) in that situation.   And if the contact was deemed flagrant, which is a subjective call, then you get the disqualification.

Again, for consistency, if that is the ruling (and I am not suggesting it is or isn't) then there should be multiple ejections in each game from special teams plays. The return scheme of peeling off rushers to form a wall for a return results in blind side hits that are much worse than the Kamienski  play. You can't call the Fox play illegal and then see players on punt returns get "annihilated" with no flag. I saw 2 of those on Saturday that were much worse than the Fox hit.

But are those players defenseless in the return scenario you describe?  The Fox play happened way off the ball in the middle of the field while Rutter was getting sacked.  Wiping a guy out who is obviously out of the play as Fox did is different than wiping guys out that are in pursuit of the returner.

Kamienski was not out of the play, he was a primary receiver. To the contrary, taking him out was why Rutter was sacked. Kamienski came from the weak side and was dragging across into Rutters view. He was hit on the play side not far from where Rutter was sacked.  Rutter was looking for him specifically. They ran that play several times in the game and completed it. To answer your question on the PR, yes those players were running full speed looking at a return man when a blocker came from their blind side. If "defenseless" means you get hit by someone running full speed from somewhere you aren't looking, then both those situations qualify.

[USee]

The problem is you can't isolate teams and then compare the results you like with the ones you don't like. All of these teams (throw in JCU) have losses to top 25 teams and 3 of them have wins over top 25 teams. Ranking them tightly together, in almost any order, makes the most sense, which is what Pat did on his poll per the podcast.

I feel like it's difficult when there's a head to head involved. The rest of the body of work can outrank the head-to-head.  Yes, Wheaton lost at IWU. But the manner in which they destroyed Millikin and then went to NC and won by 22 was VERY impressive. In my opinion, they are ranked appropriately. I don't really understand why IWU isn't right there with them, but instead, one spot below North Central. NC's 3 wins aren't exceptionally impressive, so the rating has to be based solely on perception, and not resume to date. IWU's win over Wheaton should more than make up for a respectable loss against La Crosse (although the manner in which UWWW handled them is concerning)...

To me it's difficult to throw JCU in the mix. The game against Mount Union was 16-10 and before JCU fumbled and Mount returned it for a TD. The 23-10 final score is not indicative of how close that game was. I have a hard time believing the 9 teams ahead of JCU currently would all put up better efforts against the Purple Raiders.

UWW led UWLX 10-7 with 11:26 left. It was 17-7 with 5:26 left. I think UWLX played them closer than you want to admit. JCU didn't "fumble" on that last play, the Mt Union player took the ball out of the QB's hands. JCU had as much chance of scoring at the end of that game as UWLX had of beating UWW in the 4th quarter. I think it's very difficult to parse games this way and determine superiority. And there may not be 9 teams that can lose to Mt Union by 13, but I believe there definitely are 2-3. JCU hasn't beaten anyone ranked. Pat coined the phrase "It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat". Its' sexy to look at JCU and think they are for real. There reality for me is there are other teams with better results.

[Gregory Sager]

What wasn't legal about the hit is a good question.  It wasn't targeting the head-neck area which is what usually gets a player disqualified.  But I don't think it has to necessarily be contact with the helmet or to the head-neck area for a foul to have been committed.  I'm looking for rulebook definitions here- I think an official could consider Kaminsky a defenseless player (a player obviously out of the play) in that situation.   And if the contact was deemed flagrant, which is a subjective call, then you get the disqualification.

Again, for consistency, if that is the ruling (and I am not suggesting it is or isn't) then there should be multiple ejections in each game from special teams plays. The return scheme of peeling off rushers to form a wall for a return results in blind side hits that are much worse than the Kamienski  play. You can't call the Fox play illegal and then see players on punt returns get "annihilated" with no flag. I saw 2 of those on Saturday that were much worse than the Fox hit.

But are those players defenseless in the return scenario you describe?  The Fox play happened way off the ball in the middle of the field while Rutter was getting sacked.  Wiping a guy out who is obviously out of the play as Fox did is different than wiping guys out that are in pursuit of the returner.

Kamienski was not out of the play, he was a primary receiver. To the contrary, taking him out was why Rutter was sacked. Kamienski came from the weak side and was dragging across into Rutters view. He was hit on the play side not far from where Rutter was sacked.  Rutter was looking for him specifically. They ran that play several times in the game and completed it. To answer your question on the PR, yes those players were running full speed looking at a return man when a blocker came from their blind side. If "defenseless" means you get hit by someone running full speed from somewhere you aren't looking, then both those situations qualify.

You two had a more interesting argument last week. This one badly needs GIFs.

[HOPEful]

UWW led UWLX 10-7 with 11:26 left. It was 17-7 with 5:26 left. I think UWLX played them closer than you want to admit. JCU didn't "fumble" on that last play, the Mt Union player took the ball out of the QB's hands. JCU had as much chance of scoring at the end of that game as UWLX had of beating UWW in the 4th quarter. I think it's very difficult to parse games this way and determine superiority. And there may not be 9 teams that can lose to Mt Union by 13, but I believe there definitely are 2-3. JCU hasn't beaten anyone ranked. Pat coined the phrase "It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat". Its' sexy to look at JCU and think they are for real. There reality for me is there are other teams with better results.

I have no reason to take credit away from UW Lacrosse. My point was that of the three, the only one that seems to be ranked "incorrectly" is IWU. And JCU has played Mount close now three straight years, winning one of them. It was "sexy" to think they were for real 3 years ago.

I think it's unfair to judge D3 teams based solely on results. We KNOW Mary Hardin Baylor is REALLY good. Texas Lutheran hasn't played anyone other than MHB with a winning record and is the only team with a winning record that MHB has played. But it's not Mary Hardin Baylor's fault there are less good teams in Texas to play than in the Midwest. That's why there's no "right" way to rank the top 25. Does JCU's resume justify a top 5 ranking? No, not currently. Could someone make a reasonable argument for it? Sure.

Good thing we have a playoff to figure it all out on the field, right!?