FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[usee]

You're right, "subjective process" was a bad description but there is no question there is some subjectivity to it.

The national chair, joy solomen, when asked last week about UWW and MT union not being ranked #l in their region was quoted as saying something to the effect of "these things will work themselves out". UwW was not #1 in their region in the first RR. Wwhy did they move to #2 last week? Did the criteria change? Again, I don't know where its written that the committee has to use the criteria to bracket the field. I realize they use it as a guideline along w geography and travel. Therin lies the gray area. I stand by my belief there is no way UWW travels until Salem.

[skunks_sidekick]

The regional rankings system is such a joke it's laughable.  Other than getting general ideas of where a team fits (strength-wise) in it's region, it means absolutely nothing. 

Things to consider.....

Before yesterday's games, NCC and Mount's opponents were both an exact 26-38.

Mount only plays one OOC game, so they can either be"punished", or "rewarded" based on their conference opponents record in any given year.

Even after yesterday's games, and assuming both teams winning their games next Saturday, their opponents records will be almost a mirror image of each other.

Why in the world would you think that NCC would be rated ahead of Mount, or better yet UWW?

If all three teams win, expect NCC's road to Salem to run through Mount Union, and/or UWW.

There is absolutely NO reason to expect anything else.

[Titan Q]

You're right, "subjective process" was a bad description but there is no question there is some subjectivity to it.

The national chair, joy solomen, when asked last week about UWW and MT union not being ranked #l in their region was quoted as saying something to the effect of "these things will work themselves out". UwW was not #1 in their region in the first RR. Wwhy did they move to #2 last week? Did the criteria change? Again, I don't know where its written that the committee has to use the criteria to bracket the field. I realize they use it as a guideline along w geography and travel. Therin lies the gray area. I stand by my belief there is no way UWW travels until Salem.

I guess I read her quote as, "As more games are played, and more data gathered in the primary criteria categories, the regional ranking decisions become more clear."

Whitewater was West Region #2 in the 1st regional rankings (behind St. Thomas) released October 27...and still #2 in the 2nd regional rankings released November 3 (behind St. Thomas).  Wasn't sure what you meant by the UWW ranking reference?

[Goal Line Stand]

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.

Exactly.  The committee reserves the right to use discretion when setting up the final brackets, regional rankings only play a large role leading up to Selection Sunday. Then it just becomes one of several criteria used.   Other factors are now considered, namely travel expenses for the NCAA, etc. Correct me if I am wrong but the NCAA doesn't even publish a final regional rankings at end of season for that very reason, I believe. Don't know anything about how they decide basketball, but as you have pointed our numerous times, Usee, it is necessary for the selection committee to compare apples and oranges here to a certain degree and they massage the final brackets as best they can to accommodate that. Regional rankings are not the, "be all, end all," that Q is making them out to be.  If UWW finishes the season undefeated, in what is considered the toughest conference in the country by many, and remain undefeated throughout the play-offs, they will not see a bus until the middle of December, IMHO. That goes for the Raiders as well.

[Goal Line Stand]

The regional rankings system is such a joke it's laughable.  Other than getting general ideas of where a team fits (strength-wise) in it's region, it means absolutely nothing. 

Things to consider.....

Before yesterday's games, NCC and Mount's opponents were both an exact 26-38.

Mount only plays one OOC game, so they can either be"punished", or "rewarded" based on their conference opponents record in any given year.

Even after yesterday's games, and assuming both teams winning their games next Saturday, their opponents records will be almost a mirror image of each other.

Why in the world would you think that NCC would be rated ahead of Mount, or better yet UWW?

If all three teams win, expect NCC's road to Salem to run through Mount Union, and/or UWW.

There is absolutely NO reason to expect anything else.

Bingo, that is why it becomes just one of several tools used in deciding the final play-off brackets. 

[Tailgater]

Blah Blah Blah.....all this yakking, what if's and pondering over who, what, where, when, why during the NCC/Wheaton game has given me a splitting headache after reading the last four or five pages. Suffice it to say....Congratulations to NCC for their big win and soon to be crowned CCIW conference title along with the AQ. Congratulations to Wheaton who with a victory in the final week will be 9-1, receive a pool C selection and will also represent the CCIW in the playoffs. Two fine and deserving programs to represent the CCIW in post season play. What a great thing for our conference to be able to have sent 2 teams to the playoffs in many of the past several years. Yes they both have to play the games first next week, but.......

So if Wheaton should happen to face NCC in the playoffs would the Brass Bell again be up for grabs?  

[Titan Q]

Regional rankings are not the, "be all, end all," that Q is making them out to be.  

I'm pretty sure I did not say that the regional rankings are the "be all, end all" of the bracketing process.  I made it clear that geography/travel is a big part of the process.

My point was that there is quite a bit of objectivity to the process, and that the regional rankings are a factor.  They do not figure out the 32 teams in the field using the criteria, and then use a completely subjective process to create the bracket.

As the Handbook says...

Pairings and Site Selection
Once automatic qualifiers are identified and the Pools B and C teams are selected, the following guidelines should be followed:

• Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained. Teams should be paired and eligible sites should be selected according to geographic proximity (within 500 miles).

• Teams may be seeded on a regional basis using the regional selection criteria. However, geographic proximity takes precedence over seeding.

• Teams from the same conference do not have to play one another in the first round, as long as geographic proximity is maintained.

• The highest-seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.


My point, simply, is that there are seeds...which are based off the regional rankings and the primary criteria.

Correct me if I am wrong but the NCAA doesn't even publish a final regional rankings at end of season for that very reason, I believe.

Last year for basketball they changed this...they actually released the final regional rankings:

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/03/01/final-2010-regional-rankings/

I'm not sure if they're doing this for football or not but I hope so - it creates much more transparency in the process.

If UWW finishes the season undefeated, in what is considered the toughest conference in the country by many, and remain undefeated throughout the play-offs, they will not see a bus until the middle of December, IMHO. That goes for the Raiders as well.

Per above, again, it depends on what the final regional rankings are.  If North Central remains a higher seed than Mount Union, and if both ended up in the same quadrant (and I'm just talking hypothetically as I know Mount is likely to go east), why wouldn't  NCC host a game vs Mount Union?

How the final regional rankings look is very important.  Will NCC stay ranked ahead of Mount Union?  Will St. Thomas remain ahead of Whitewater?  Some important stuff to keep an eye on. 

[AndOne]

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!    

Perhaps this will be a bit more palatable. Written by someone who has no connection to NCC.
Also, as far as the use of the word "clobber" I don't think it would be surprising to see the same word used by any SID caught up in the euphoria of an undefeated season and his team's high national ranking. I think words like kill, massacre, maul, and destroy would be more objectionable.

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/sports/2257147-417/cardinals-college-academic-team-touchdown.html

[Pat Coleman]

Q: With just 10 games a season, the football rankings are a lot more subjective than you're used to in basketball. For example, Mount Union *never* has the best strength of schedule among North Region unbeaten teams, but somehow the Purple Raiders always have gotten the top seed in the bracket. There's not enough empirical data to separate teams.

[Gregory Sager]

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!   

The only school whose SID should be using the verb "clobber" in an online story or press release is Concordia-Moorhead. It would be a shame to deprive the world of the opportunity to see the headline, Cobbers Clobber So-And-So.

[Stagg Again!!]

I just took a "drive" around the North Region to see if I could figure out which teams are still in the "mix" for the upcoming Regional Rankings.  Here is what I found:

MIAA -   Trine (9-0) AQ; no other team with two losses or less
NCAC -   Wittenberg (9-0); Wabash (7-2); Wooster (5-4) but (4-1) in conference and a game against Wittenberg 11/13 for shot at AQ
HCAC -   Franklin (8-1); Hanover (7-2) but (6-1) in conference and a game against Franklin on 11/13 for shot at AQ
CCIW -   NCC (9-0) AQ; WC (8-1); IWU (7-2)
NATHC - IBC (7-2) AQ; Aurora (7-2); Concordia (IL) (7-2)
OAC -    MUC (9-0) AQ; ONU (8-1); Baldwin-Wallace (7-2)

UAA -    UofC (7-2); Washington U. (7-2); CWR (7-2); UofC plays Wash U. on 11/13 for possible Pool B slot
UMAC -  Greenville (7-3); no other teams with two losses or less for possible Pool B slot

[formerd3db]

Stagg or Bust:

If Albion beats Trine next Saturday, both teams would have 5-1 league records and thus, Albion would win the MIAA AQ by virture of having beaten Trine.  That would leave Trine with a 9-1 record, so where, in your opinion would that leave them in regards to regional rankings?  Do you feel they wouldn't have a shot at one of the at-large bids over a team with 2 losses due to the SoS?   

[usee]

The chances of Trine losing to Albion are about as likely as UWW playing on the road in the playoffs.

That's said,trrine would be battling the many 1 loss teams for a pool C. I don't think it would ever get to a 2 loss team. See the pool C board under general football for that discussion. 

[formerd3db]

The chances of Trine losing to Albion are about as likely as UWW playing on the road in the playoffs.

That's said,trrine would be battling the many 1 loss teams for a pool C. I don't think it would ever get to a 2 loss team. See the pool C board under general football for that discussion. 

Usee:

You are probably right, however, strange things have happened at times in the MIAA race. Also, sorry to see that your Wheaton lost.  While NCC is good, I was kind of surprised at that outcome.

[FormerCard]

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.

I was not referring to the entire season, I was just analyzing yesterdays game.  I believe Crackel would have struggled more with the pressure than Stanek did.  I thought Spencer played a very good game yesterday.  Based on the entire season, Crackel (when healthy) is better prepared at this point to lead the Cardinals.