FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Mr. Ypsi]

Wheaton hosted THREE conference championships today (all in football/futbol):

NCC 28, Wheaton 6
(men) NPU 3, Wheaton 2 (OT)
(women) IWU 0, Wheaton 0 (IWU wins shootout, 3-1)

Who'd a thunk the Thunder would go 0 for 3?!

(In fairness, I still consider Wheaton to be among the favorites to go all the way in both men's and women's soccer [especially women's].)

[Gregory Sager]

Wheaton hosted THREE conference championships today (all in football/futbol):

NCC 28, Wheaton 6
(men) NPU 3, Wheaton 2 (OT)
(women) IWU 0, Wheaton 0 (IWU wins shootout, 3-1)

... and that line score in bold, folks, is why Robert Goulet can spew as much trash talk about NPU football as he likes and I won't care a bit. Ain't nothin' gonna wipe the smile off my face this weekend!

[CardinalAlum]

I just pulled up the Regional Rankings (RR) from last week and noted that of the teams in the lower half of the North Region, BW, CWR, and Wabash all lost.  I would think that this week's RR will include:  FC, IBC, MTU, NCC, ONU, Trine, Wash. U., WC, WITT (in alphabetical order), and one other team that I just can't figure out at this hour.  Looks like the field is starting to firm up.

There is no way IBC/BU is in the regional rankings.  I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong but I would be shocked!

[Titan Q]

I don't think there is any way NCC has home games till Salem. Even if they get their own #1 seed they will have to play the other regional finalists on the road (either UWW or UMU).  

I'm curious what your thinking is there.  Here are the regional rankings...

http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/03/ncaas-second-regional-rankings/

As far as Mount Union goes, Wheaton and NCC were both ranked ahead of Mount last week.  With NCC's win over Wheaton, the Cardinals should now move into the regional #1 spot, and stay ahead of Mount Union, right?  So if on the same side of the bracket, Mount Union would be coming to Naperville if both teams are still alive.  Or are you thinking Mount is somehow going to leap frog NCC in the regional rankings before selection day?

As far as UW-Whitewater goes, we have no way to know how the selection committee views NCC vs UWW right now since they are in different regions.  But we at least know that UWW isn't even ranked #1 in the West...St. Thomas is.  Now, a #2 in one region can certainly be considered a higher seed than a #1 in another...is that what you see? (Seems like a better debate right now would be, "Would NCC have to travel to St. Thomas?")

Based on the criteria used, it looks to me like North Central has a great chance to be able to host all the way to the Stagg bowl.  Interested in your take on where you think I'm off.

[Titan Q]

I never like when SID's get excited and use words like "clobber" in an article title...

http://northcentralcardinals.com/news/2010/11/6/MTEN_1106105634.aspx

Cardinals Clobber Wheaton


Just seems to be something a little unprofessional about that.  I actually saw "Beat Down" used a couple years ago in a basketball headline!   

[CardinalAlum]

I don't think there is any way NCC has home games till Salem. Even if they get their own #1 seed they will have to play the other regional finalists on the road (either UWW or UMU).  

I'm curious what your thinking is there.  Here are the regional rankings...

http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/03/ncaas-second-regional-rankings/

As far as Mount Union goes, Wheaton and NCC were both ranked ahead of Mount last week.  With NCC's win over Wheaton, the Cardinals should now move into the regional #1 spot, and stay ahead of Mount Union, right?  So if on the same side of the bracket, Mount Union would be coming to Naperville if both teams are still alive.  Or are you thinking Mount is somehow going to leap frog NCC in the regional rankings?

As far as UW-Whitewater goes, we have no way to know how the selection committee views NCC vs UWW right now since they are in different regions.  But we at least know that UWW isn't even ranked #1 in the West...St. Thomas is.  So why do you think NCC would have to travel to Whitewater?  (Seems like a better debate right now would be, "Would NCC have to travel to St. Thomas?")

Based on the criteria used, it looks to me like North Central has a great chance to be able to host all the way to the Stagg bowl.  Interested in your take.

I was wondering that as well.  It really looks like MTU would head East as the #1 seed.  I don't think they would pass NCC in the rankings this week, with the win over the #1 ranked Thunder.  I'm wondering if our last game against North Park would harm the SOS enough to change something.  Then again, North Park did beat a playoff bound team!   

[CardinalAlum]

I never like when SID's get excited and use words like "clobber" in an article title...

http://northcentralcardinals.com/news/2010/11/6/MTEN_1106105634.aspx

Cardinals Clobber Wheaton


Just seems to be something a little unprofessional about that.  I actually saw "Beat Down" used a couple years ago in a basketball headline!   

That is brutal!  Maybe we now know who NCC.2008 is!   

[ncc58]

I was wondering that as well.  It really looks like MTU would head East as the #1 seed.  I don't think they would pass NCC in the rankings this week, with the win over the #1 ranked Thunder.  I'm wondering if our last game against North Park would harm the SOS enough to change something.  Then again, North Park did beat a playoff bound team!   

Mount Union plays Muskingum, who likely will finish 3-7. NCC plays North Park, who likely will finish 2-8. NCC may finish with a higher SOS, but I expect Mount Union to be seeded #2 overall. The road goes to Salem goes through UWW and UMU.

[usee]

Q,

I agree with your assessment of the criteria. The difference w basketball is that teams don't play a similar number of non conf games or as many total games to make the sos, etc a fair assessment. In basketball the sos seems to be pretty accurate but in fb the OAC plays 9 conf games and 1 non conf. Their sos simply can't go far away from .500. So the cciw , who plays 3 non conf games can collectively build a stronger sos than most in yrs when they go 22-2.

At some point common sense should kick in and tell you that UWW plays a schedule that is tougher than wheaton and NCC.

If the committee makes the defending champion and undefeated Warhawks travel to NCC (or anywhere) before Salem, then this system is more of a joke than the BCS. I believe their discretion will prevail.

[Titan Q]

Q,

I agree with your assessment of the criteria. The difference w basketball is that teams don't play a similar number of non conf games or as many total games to make the sos, etc a fair assessment. In basketball the sos seems to be pretty accurate but in fb the OAC plays 9 conf games and 1 non conf. Their sos simply can't go far away from .500. So the cciw , who plays 3 non conf games can collectively build a stronger sos than most in yrs when they go 22-2.

At some point common sense should kick in and tell you that UWW plays a schedule that is tougher than wheaton and NCC.

If the committee makes the defending champion and undefeated Warhawks travel to NCC (or anywhere) before Salem, then this system is more of a joke than the BCS. I believe their discretion will prevail.

Disclaimer - I am much more familiar with the philosophy, history, and overall workings of the basketball Championship Committee but...

I don't think the committees from any D3 sport consider what happened the previous season(s).  In other words, I'm quite certain there is no consideration at all for the fact that UWW is the defending national champion, or that Mount Union has been the best program in the nation over the course of the last 15+ years.

The only thing that matters is the official criteria laid out in the 2010 Championships Handbook...

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf

•   Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.

•   Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
-   Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
-   Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.
See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.

•   In-region head-to-head competition.

•   In-region results versus common regional opponents.

•   In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.


UWW and Mount Union have been able to host so many times because of their seeding, which is based strictly on how they grade out relative to the criteria for that season...not because of their history.  This season, North Central is going to come out very strong in the criteria.  (Which we know because they were regionally ranked ahead of Mount Union last week.)

"Common sense" is not in the criteria.  In basketball we always feel that hurts the CCIW...in football it has a chance to help.  


(As far as the criteria goes, NCC's win over Wheaton is enormous...in criteria world, it might be the most significant result of the season between NCC, UWW, Mount Union, and St. Thomas.)

[Stagg Again!!]

I just pulled up the Regional Rankings (RR) from last week and noted that of the teams in the lower half of the North Region, BW, CWR, and Wabash all lost.  I would think that this week's RR will include:  FC, IBC, MTU, NCC, ONU, Trine, Wash. U., WC, WITT (in alphabetical order), and one other team that I just can't figure out at this hour.  Looks like the field is starting to firm up.

There is no way IBC/BU is in the regional rankings.  I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong but I would be shocked!

Yes, I double checked the last two year's RR before I actually wrote the letters "IBC".  Looks like the NCAA drops the NATHC champion into the tenth slot in their third and final RR (Concordia in 2009 and Aurora in 2008).  I assume that they will do the same this year.  Remember, the NCAA uses the RR as their indicator of who is getting consideration for a playoff slot.  Since the NATCH champion receives an AQ bid, they will certainly get consideration. 

[TCrawf5825]

Well I have just read the last 3 pages and decided to just write my own analysis of the game instead of replying to all of them..

You couldn't ask for a better first quarter for North Central.  Not only did they take the crowd right out of the game (I had a nice spot in the Wheaton stands and it was awfully quiet) , they also FINISHED their two long drives with Touchdowns.  They dominated the time of possession, running 22 offensive plays to Wheatons 9.   Giving credit where credit is due, Wheaton made some good adjustments as they always tend to and came out a different team in the second half.  

Even though NCC did alot of good things offensively, you could tell how solid Wheatons Defense is. (Where did you get that safety #18 from?....he must be converted tight end)  Someone mentioned before that it was better that Stanek was playing QB today and they were ABSOLUTELY right.  Crackel would have been overwhelmed and throwing alot of balls away or taking sacks with the pressure that the Thunder put on today.   Stanek threw two great passes to Stursma for TDs,  he couldnt have put them in a better spot...just perfect passes.

I cant really comment on how much better the Wheaton offense would have been with Roberts, but I was very impressed with the pass coverage by the Cardinals today.  Mcleod had a great day with two picks.  I did notice that Wheaton went vertical twice in their first 6 plays.  Maybe they saw something they could exploit but NC was all over it.   Wenger had a solid game.   The offensive line of Wheaton did a good job of getting someone on Matt every play.   I wonder if North Central would be better bringing Wenger off the edge a little more on passing plays just to apply more pressure or up the middle on running downs to confuse the O LINE (knowing that they may have a backside guard or tackle getting to him on running plays)        All in all, the defense once again stepped up to the challenge limiting a good team to only two field goals.

One situation that has me bothered is the two illegal substitution penalties against North Central.  That is unexcusable and cannot happen.   This isnt the first time this has happened this year.  Actually, I cant remember a game where it hasnt happened at least once.  The offense needs to work at communicating better when substituting so we dont have these ridiculous penalties.  Imagine that happens on a 3rd and 1 at a crucial point in a playoff game...


That being said...the Cards are 9-0 and making all of us alumni proud.  Congratulations on keeping the bell and thanks for a great day of football!

't agree with all of this.  Stanek looked shacky all day.  The first two drives had maybe one or two passes.  Remember Stanek started the season and was replaced because he was not evading sacks nor hitting recievers.  There were alot of bad passes today when revievers were open.  Crackel gets rid of the ball rather than get sacked. Nd hits the long pass of which I saw none today.  Coach Thorne made the right call moving him into the starting lineup.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one and hope Crackel is healthy next week.

[usee]

Q- again, I agree with the assemssement of the criteria. I also know for a fact the committee has used discretion in the past. They follow the criteria very closely but they have discretion in the "gray areas". For example the criteria don't address how they seed teams once they are in the field, it governs who gets in. You won't know it but there is simply no way UWW is not a #1 seed and hosting until Salem. I may be wrong and this year the rfional rankings are following different lines than what we have seen before so who knows. But there is nothing dictating to the national committee how teams get bracketed after they are in. That is a subjective process.

[Stagg Again!!]

As for Crackel v. Stanek, both have had flashes of being very good QBs this year.  Crackel has played with much more consistency and has been a much better passer overall.  He not only seems to have a better grasp of the offense, real leadership presence, and the the mental clock which Stanek has yet to display, but he also knows when to throw the ball away (as opposed to taking the sacks that Stanek has taken).

TCraf5825, as you can see, my assessment of Stanek is very much in line with yours.  While I believe that Stanek may have a stronger arm than Crackel (tho' I am not entirely certain of this given some of the passes that I've seen Crackel throw) and certainly has more foot speed, Crackel is a better QB for NCC at this point.  Don't think you will see Crackel play against NPU if he is at all injured, and the same may be said if he has any residual effects and NCC gets IBC in round 1 of the playoffs.

[Titan Q]

For example the criteria don't address how they seed teams once they are in the field, it governs who gets in.

But there is nothing dictating to the national committee how teams get bracketed after they are in. That is a subjective process.

As far as I know, these statements are not accurate.  Even though 1) the brackets now cross between regions (a "North" team can play a "West" team in rounds 1-3), and 2) geography and rules governing travel play a huge role in making the bracket, "seedings" are still used in the bracket-making process.  (Note, I put "seedings" in quotes because they are never made public.)

The national committee uses the final regional rankings extensively to make the bracket...and the final regional rankings are based on the criteria (ie objective factors).  I believe its accurate to say that the national committee tries its best to make a bracket that takes "seeding" into account while complying with the travel rules.

Evaluating teams within the same region is easy (Wheaton vs Wabash, for example) - the national committee has the final regional rankings to determine the seeding.  Evaluating teams across regions (a North team vs a West team, for example) is much less exact, but the national committee still uses objective factors (the criteria) to determine who is the higher seed.  So when evaluating, say, Wheaton vs Wartburg, they're still going to try to figure out who should be the higher seed based on in-region winning %, wins over regionally ranked teams, etc, etc.  

I believe the bracketing process is much more objective than you think (while sure, there has to be some subjectivity to it).  Now again, I'm using my knowledge of the basketball bracketing process as my guide, so maybe there are some different things on the football side.  I am confident, however, that D3 football bracketing is not a "subjective process."