FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[jknezek]

Kiko,
I'd actually go the other way on your point about the power conferences.  I believe UWO from the WIAC has proven itself quite capable of beating UWW.

Seriously? They are 1-9 against UWW in the last 10 years and the one win came in a year where UWW lost to a team that went 6-4. Those losses include 25+ point losses multiple times. Sure not the last 3 years, but quite often.

JCU did the same with Mt. 

Something like 1-15 in the D3.com era.  Including a 32 point loss just a few years ago. Great proof there.
Institutionalizing reputation is a bad idea. See the pre-AQ era.

[AndOne]

I don't have access to my desktop right now but I'd love to see a list of the Pool C teams over the past 4 years or so.

This is easy enough:
2011 - Illinois Wesleyan, St. John Fisher, Illinois College, Centre, McMurry, Redlands
2012 - Louisiana College, Heidelberg, Elmhurst, Bridgewater State, Rowan, Pacific Lutheran, Bethel
2013 - Pacific Lutheran, John Carroll, St. John Fisher, UW-Platteville, Illinois Wesleyan
2014 - John Carroll, Wabash, Muhlenberg, Centre, St. Thomas, Delaware Valley

If the assertion is that the committee is leaving out teams that could reasonably win the tournament, then I would disagree.  We can quibble about whether or not UW-P or NCC is better than Muhlenberg in 2014, but neither of those teams were going to win the tournament or beat either of the eventual finalists along the way.  Wasn't happening.

Wally-

In the last ten years 19 of the 20 slots in the national championship game have been filled by Whitewater and Mt. Union. The only exception was title game loser St. Thomas in 2012. Accordingly, under your "neither of those teams were going to win the tournament" corollary, why quibble at all? Just dispense with the preliminaries, and send UWW and UMU to Salem the weekend after the regular season concludes because it really doesn't matter who else is chosen to participate. All the first 4 rounds of the playoffs do is give the weather in Salem a chance to get colder. 

[kiko]

Kiko,
I'd actually go the other way on your point about the power conferences.  I believe UWO from the WIAC has proven itself quite Some may think I'm pushing for more WIAC schools or some may feel I'm creating to great an obstacle for other schools on the brink to break through.
I just don't see it that way.  I think the way to breakthrough is to:
#1- Win your conference.
#2- Perform well vs top teams when you play them.

At some point, all the big dogs of today had to do that.

So here's the issue I would have with that.  (Deep breath as I again argue against the team to which I am loyal...)

North Central had two opportunities last year against top 10/20 programs.  To your point, both were close games, but they lost both of them.  Why should the selection criteria be tilted toward the Cardinals' reputation and give them a THIRD shot rather than give this to someone else?  Yes, maybe that team gets beat 45-7 -- but we won't know that's the case until we create the opportunity and play the game.

I believe we are a lot less likely to see 9 Stagg Bowl meetings between UWW and Mt if Pool C was filled differently.

I couldn't disagree with this more.  There is a massive chasm between Whitewater/Mount and teams with resumes that are flawed enough that they land in the big pot of Pool C hopefuls.  North Central wasn't going to beat one of those teams last year.  I'd argue that nobody who was left out of the tournament last year, or realistically at just about any point in the past decade was going to beat one of those two teams, full stop.  We're talking about giving Pool C teams access to maybe the first 2-3 rounds of the tournament, and not really anything deeper than that.

[USee]

  I'd argue that nobody who was left out of the tournament last year, or realistically at just about any point in the past decade was going to beat one of those two teams, full stop.  We're talking about giving Pool C teams access to maybe the first 2-3 rounds of the tournament, and not really anything deeper than that.

It's outside the past decade but I believe PLU won the title in 1999 as a 7 seed and a Pool C.

[jknezek]

  I'd argue that nobody who was left out of the tournament last year, or realistically at just about any point in the past decade was going to beat one of those two teams, full stop.  We're talking about giving Pool C teams access to maybe the first 2-3 rounds of the tournament, and not really anything deeper than that.

It's outside the past decade but I believe PLU won the title in 1999 as a 7 seed and a Pool C.

Mary Hardin Baylor was the national runner up as a C in 2004. They played every playoff game on the road, so they weren't a high seed, but part of that could have been a function of a Texas sub bracket with HSU and Trinity also making the field. Linfield came out of Pool B to win it all. They played at home throughout, so they were an undefeated high seed.

[USee]

In 2012 they lost 30-14 to Linfield- in a game that was much, much closer than the score appears.

I agree with your overall point, which is to show NCC has been strong on a national level for awhile but, for the sake of clarifying, the 2012 game at Linfield wasn't any closer than 30-14. NCC had no chance in the Catdome. They turned it over 7 times, it was 17-0 at half, 30-0 in the 3rd and it wasn't really close.

[USee]

Emma,

I think what you are driving at is giving the selection process for Pool C more subjective latitude. It's really hard to get a perfect system but I see your proposal as a good discussion. I would love it if there were competent people on the committee and they were given the flexibility to pick the very best at large teams. The problem with that is subjectivity is entirely subjective! In other words, it's hard to find competent people. The most qualified folks for a process like this are probably the D3team as they have more relevant data than almost everybody. I like the discussion and I hope we can get more art to go with the science of the selection process.

[USee]

As it relates to NCC playing Wesley, I have a lot of thoughts. I am most happy about it because it will bring up the SOS of the entire conference and so that helps my team. The current system, however, simply does not reward teams for scheduling up. We can all argue it should, but it doesn't. The data doesn't support it. Neither does the data support the notion that playing a Wesley helps your team go deeper in the playoffs, or helps your team win its conference, or furthers your program in any tangible way other than brand in other geographic areas where they don't know who you are. In fact, if you play in a tough conference to win the AQ, playing a top 10 team early in the season and losing is more often a death blow than a help.

As a case study we have a great example in our midst. Wheaton and North Central. These two teams are 5-5 against each other the last 10 years. NCC has made the playoffs 8 of those ten years. 7 times as the AQ and once as a pool C. They missed out the other 2 years despite 8-2 records as they lost early in the season to ONU in 2009 and UWSP in 2014. And if Wheaton knew the tiebreaker formula in 2012, NCC would have stayed home that year after an early season loss to UWL.

Wheaton, on the other hand, has made the playoffs 4 times in those 10 years. 3 of which were a pool C and last year was their only AQ in 10 years. In the Pool C years (06,08,10), they won all of their non conference games and lost to NCC during the season. In fact, in 2008 they lost to NCC and Elmhurst but still got in and made the semis.

Wheaton and NCC have very different philosophies in scheduling. Wheaton usually schedules 1 team with winning record and 2 teams with losing records. They clearly believe the CCIW is good enough to get them to the playoffs and be successful. NCC likes to schedule tougher teams. It has cost them a playoff spot 2 times (09, 14)and almost a 3rd (2012). 

As far as going deeper in the playoffs, NCC has faced non conference teams with a combined winning record 4 times in 8 playoff appearances. in 3 of those years they lost in the 2nd round and last year they didn't make the playoffs. In 2010, NCC's non conference opponents were 4-26 and they went on to the quarterfinals at home v UWW, losing 10-20. In 2013 they lost to Mt Union by a point in the semis, their non conference opponents were 12-18 (all of them were WIAC schools).

Wheaton, in 2008, didn't play a non conference team with a winning record, were the last team into the playoff field and won every road game to get to the semi's. Last year they played Coe (5-5), Kalamazoo (2-8) and UWEC (1-9) and many said they had no quality wins and had their suspicions yet they beat NCC and took JCU down the final minute.

I just think there is no upside in the current system, for CCIW teams, to adding another top 10 team to your schedule. The system more often penalizes than benefits. If your team is good enough, you will win the conference and the CCIW champion has usually fared well in the playoffs. I don't think the extra burden of a tough non conference game provides any real benefit. I like it, but the system doesn't reward it.

[emma17]

jknezek,
You and I obviously disagree on what a competitive team looks like.  I made the point that we look at recent (3-4 years) history of competitiveness against the best of the best. 2011:  UWW 20 - UWO 17.  2012:  UWW 13 - UWO 28 (and UWO goes four rounds deep into playoffs).  2013: UWW 17 - UWO 14.  2014: UWW: 24 - UWO 7 (in a very hard fought game). Comparatively, Widener (I know they weren't a Pool C, but I use them to illustrate the futility some higher ranked/better record teams have against the better teams) lost to Mt in 2012 72-17.  In 2013 Widener lost to Del Val 50-28.  In 2014 Widener lost to Linfield 45-7.  In nearly every chance Muhl gets to beat a playoff team (not a good playoff team), they lose.  Del Val is the same.  If I'm deciding between any of the above teams and UWO or NCC to fill a Pool C slot, with the sole intention of increasing the competitiveness of the playoffs, it's a no-brainer decision.

General comment regarding better quality of teams in Pool C:  Selecting stronger teams for Pool C doesn't guarantee an upset of UWW or Mt, but it sure as heck makes the road tougher.  Additionally, I'm a firm believer that as long as an inferior team can keep the game close into the 4th, they have a chance.  Pool C needs teams that can keep the game close. 

Kiko, you raise a good point about NCC failing in two attempts, and as such, why should they get another chance over a Widener, Del Val, Muhl, Centre, etc?  Because the records are screaming the reality.  I don't think Pool C should be used as an opportunity to be nice.  If any of the just named teams had just shown once, just once, that they could compete with the best of the best, I'd fight for them.  But they haven't.  They are Pool A teams. 

USee- I don't want to diminish this topic with our very different opinions of the NCC-Linfield game.  Two words:  Nick Kukuc. 

As for subjectivity.  This seems to be a hot button for many people.  It seems very few readers on these boards have any trust in the committee using subjectivity.  I'm not of that mindset.  Give me all the subjectivity you want, as long as there is transparency.  I'd love to hear committee members explain why Muhl would be a better team to enhance the playoff competition than a UWO or a NCC.  My gut is that the committee won't focus on "enhancing the playoff competition", rather, they will focus on the season record and one team "deserves" it more. 

Pool C to me should not be treated as a soccer trophy.  Give me the teams that have proven they can go head to head with the big dogs. All the rest should get in through Pool A.     

[ExTartanPlayer]

Additionally, I'm a firm believer that as long as an inferior team can keep the game close into the 4th, they have a chance.

By my reckoning, any team that can keep a game close into the 4th has a chance.

[kiko]

  I'd argue that nobody who was left out of the tournament last year, or realistically at just about any point in the past decade was going to beat one of those two teams, full stop.  We're talking about giving Pool C teams access to maybe the first 2-3 rounds of the tournament, and not really anything deeper than that.

It's outside the past decade but I believe PLU won the title in 1999 as a 7 seed and a Pool C.

Fair, but there was a reason I used the past decade -- it coincides with when Whitewater rose to Mount's level, and Emma was specifically referencing what would get us a different-hued team in Salem.

[AndOne]

Additionally, I'm a firm believer that as long as an inferior team can keep the game close into the 4th, they have a chance.

By my reckoning, any team that can keep a game close into the 4th has a chance.

While they almost assuredly wouldn't admit it, many coaches in various sports go into games both knowing they are a decided underdog and, that if they can somehow keep it close into the stretch, a long bomb, a lucky bounce, a miraculous shot, or some other form of good fortune, can result in allowing them to record an improbable victory. 

[wally_wabash]

There was an announcement today that Mount Union has locked up a home and home with Westminster in 2020/2021 which on first glance seems funny.  We're talking about games 5-6 years down the road.  A little more reflection though and I kind of think this is brilliant on Mount Union's part.  They have just the one non-league game to fill, but no doubt they have the same kind of resistance from a lot of the division to game agreements.  But they're working several years ahead here- it's probably a bit easier to find a team that will agree to a game several years down the line- as if it puts that program on a defined schedule.  Kind of a "we're playing Mount Union in four years, let's get ready" kind of mindset. 

All of which brings me around to North Central, Wesley, many of the WIACs (who's scheduling problems, I believe, have roots deeper than differences in competitive levels)...instead of scrambling after the 2014 season to fill one or two dates in 2015, I think these teams could avoid this annual headache by looking for dance partners further down the road and solidifying those agreements now.  Obviously it doesn't help for 2015 (now resolved) or 2016 or even 2017, but I do think planning way ahead, as Mount Union has done, is a way to stay in front of the scheduling problem. 

[AndOne]

As it relates to NCC playing Wesley, I have a lot of thoughts. I am most happy about it because it will bring up the SOS of the entire conference and so that helps my team. The current system, however, simply does not reward teams for scheduling up. We can all argue it should, but it doesn't. The data doesn't support it. Neither does the data support the notion that playing a Wesley helps your team go deeper in the playoffs, or helps your team win its conference, or furthers your program in any tangible way other than brand in other geographic areas where they don't know who you are. In fact, if you play in a tough conference to win the AQ, playing a top 10 team early in the season and losing is more often a death blow than a help.

As a case study we have a great example in our midst. Wheaton and North Central. These two teams are 5-5 against each other the last 10 years. NCC has made the playoffs 8 of those ten years. 7 times as the AQ and once as a pool C. They missed out the other 2 years despite 8-2 records as they lost early in the season to ONU in 2009 and UWSP in 2014. And if Wheaton knew the tiebreaker formula in 2012, NCC would have stayed home that year after an early season loss to UWL.

Wheaton, on the other hand, has made the playoffs 4 times in those 10 years. 3 of which were a pool C and last year was their only AQ in 10 years. In the Pool C years (06,08,10), they won all of their non conference games and lost to NCC during the season. In fact, in 2008 they lost to NCC and Elmhurst but still got in and made the semis.

Wheaton and NCC have very different philosophies in scheduling. Wheaton usually schedules 1 team with winning record and 2 teams with losing records. They clearly believe the CCIW is good enough to get them to the playoffs and be successful. NCC likes to schedule tougher teams. It has cost them a playoff spot 2 times (09, 14)and almost a 3rd (2012). 

As far as going deeper in the playoffs, NCC has faced non conference teams with a combined winning record 4 times in 8 playoff appearances. in 3 of those years they lost in the 2nd round and last year they didn't make the playoffs. In 2010, NCC's non conference opponents were 4-26 and they went on to the quarterfinals at home v UWW, losing 10-20. In 2013 they lost to Mt Union by a point in the semis, their non conference opponents were 12-18 (all of them were WIAC schools).

Wheaton, in 2008, didn't play a non conference team with a winning record, were the last team into the playoff field and won every road game to get to the semi's. Last year they played Coe (5-5), Kalamazoo (2-8) and UWEC (1-9) and many said they had no quality wins and had their suspicions yet they beat NCC and took JCU down the final minute.

I just think there is no upside in the current system, for CCIW teams, to adding another top 10 team to your schedule. The system more often penalizes than benefits. If your team is good enough, you will win the conference and the CCIW champion has usually fared well in the playoffs. I don't think the extra burden of a tough non conference game provides any real benefit. I like it, but the system doesn't reward it.

This is exactly why I have long advocated scheduling "weaker" non conference foes. As much as possible, I think that to help assure inclusion in the playoffs, you want to schedule games you will almost assuredly win. Not necessarily 1-9 or 2-8 teams that your JV team could beat, but 5-5 or even 6-4 teams that will offer both a good chance for a W plus at least a little competition that may help prepare your team for a tougher upcoming conference schedule. This is especially important to teams that play in highly competitive conferences like the CCIW where there is always a good chance of losing a conference game. As USee said, from a fan standpoint, you want to see a competitive game, but what is the incentive to highly competitive scheduling when the likelihood is that a non-conference loss plus a conference loss may very well keep you, at 8-2, out of the playoffs because the selection committee looks primarily at your record as opposed to who you play. Lets say NCC or Wheaton, or any team for that matter, suffers a couple of one or two point losses to powerhouse teams. Despite coming within 2-4 points of an undefeated season, an 8-2 record may well keep them out of the playoffs. While thats utterly ridiculous, especially when anyone who knows a football from their posterior knows you're one of the top teams in the country, its the reality of the current system.

And not to commit the sin of dwelling on basketball on the football board, but the scheduling dilemma is even more pronounced in BB where CCIW teams currently have to schedule 11 non-con games without compiling a schedule that will put tournament participation in jeopardy when you add in the losses that can be fairly well expected during the highly competitive 14 game conference schedule.

[Gregory Sager]

And not to commit the sin of dwelling on basketball on the football board, but the scheduling dilemma is even more pronounced in BB where CCIW teams currently have to schedule 11 non-con games without compiling a schedule that will put tournament participation in jeopardy when you add in the losses that can be fairly well expected during the highly competitive 14 game conference schedule.

I think that the opposite is true. The scheduling dilemma is more pronounced in football, because the season is so much smaller in terms of games played that everything is magnified in football when compared to basketball. The issues surrounding Pool C concerns are the same, but the parameters are much narrower.

Let's start with the margin of error, "error" in this sense meaning non-conference games that you scheduled and your team subsequently lost. If you're good enough, you can absorb two or three non-conference losses in basketball and still make the tournament as a Pool C based upon regular-season record alone. Plus, in basketball the CCIW has a the postseason conference tournament that determines the automatic bid, a second-chance feature that football doesn't offer. And, since the D3 basketball tournament offers almost twice as many berths in its bracket than its football counterpart (and roughly three times as many Pool C berths), there's more "fudge" room available for really good basketball teams that slightly underachieve during the regular season (analogous to the 8-2 football team you mentioned).

In turn, non-conference scheduling is even less of a headache for soccer (CCIW play covers only a paltry seven out of 18 regular-season matches) and baseball (CCIW games constitute barely half -- 21 out of 40 -- of the regular-season slate) than it is for basketball. Plus, soccer and baseball have postseason CCIW tournaments as well. Soccer and baseball, like basketball, also have substantially larger pools of potential non-conference D3 competitors than does football, a sport which quite a few D3 schools do not offer. Also, the narrowly-focused scheduling calendar of football makes that sport even harder to schedule. If you're a baseball, soccer, or basketball coach, you've got seven days out of the week (well, six if you're a Wheaton coach) with which to work in terms of scheduling your non-conference games. Football? One day a week. How many times over the past two decades has a CCIW football team played on a day other than Saturday? That gives a football coach a really narrow window -- currently four Saturdays in which to schedule three non-conference games -- with which to work.

No doubt about it; I'd much rather have to assemble a non-conference schedule for a CCIW basketball or soccer or baseball team than for a CCIW football team.