FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[DBQ1965]

Just booked the flight to Chicago for Sept 26.  Going to fly out and back on Saturday, but it will still be fun.  Looking forward to a good game and a new school on the schedule.  Will be in touch as the game gets closer to find out about tailgating and such before the game.  We land at 830 so we should be at the school by 10.  Hoping to meet some new D3 posters.

With the new NCC coach's premier year, this game has all kinds of story lines.  Just to see two top tier teams in action will be great for any D3 fan.  I hope to be there ... and hope it is an afternoon game so I can get back home before the wee hours of the morning.  Maybe we need a D3 tailgate there.

[Pat Coleman]

  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.

PLU was a Pool B team (second year it was even eligible for the postseason) and it was the first year of this system. I think it's fair to say the committee didn't have any idea what it was doing.

[emma17]

And One and Gregory,
Your topic of conversation regarding the difficulty of scheduling and the consequences of scheduling up is what led to the topic of the Pool C selection process.  That problem is mostly resolved if the committee regularly starts selecting multi loss teams with a track record of competing with the best competition over 1 loss teams with a poor track record against the best competition.     

[AndOne]

And One and Gregory,
Your topic of conversation regarding the difficulty of scheduling and the consequences of scheduling up is what led to the topic of the Pool C selection process.  That problem is mostly resolved if the committee regularly starts selecting multi loss teams with a track record of competing with the best competition over 1 loss teams with a poor track record against the best competition.

Very true, but, unfortunately, I sense the chances of that happening in my lifetime are slim and none. 

With specific regard to the NCC/Wesley game, which drew the majority of the commentary, I doubt the loser is going to get any consideration from the committee for their willingness to take on a highly ranked competitor.

[wally_wabash]

And One and Gregory,
Your topic of conversation regarding the difficulty of scheduling and the consequences of scheduling up is what led to the topic of the Pool C selection process.  That problem is mostly resolved if the committee regularly starts selecting multi loss teams with a track record of competing with the best competition over 1 loss teams with a poor track record against the best competition.

Very true, but, unfortunately, I sense the chances of that happening in my lifetime are slim and none. 

With specific regard to the NCC/Wesley game, which drew the majority of the commentary, I doubt the loser is going to get any consideration from the committee for their willingness to take on a highly ranked competitor.

While "willingness to take on a highly ranked competitor" is not a criteria, both of these teams should benefit in the selection/seeding criteria from competing against a team likely to post a strong W/L record (which helps SOS) and from competing against a team likely to be regionally ranked.  I'm not sure how much more credit ought to be due to these teams for playing this game, aside from emma's suggestion that we basically just give these teams a free pass to the tournament should they not win their conference championship- which is, quite frankly, absurd. 

[emma17]

In the event NCC were to finish 8-2, with one competitive loss to the conference champion and the other competitive loss to Wesley, I'd hardly call their selection into Pool C a "free pass".

[wally_wabash]

In the event NCC were to finish 8-2, with one competitive loss to the conference champion and the other competitive loss to Wesley, I'd hardly call their selection into Pool C a "free pass".

But you're ignoring the rest of the division.  You have to see how that profile stacks up against, first, the rest of the north region, and second, the top at-large profiles from the other regions.  It's easy to say that 8-2 North Central "deserves" to be a playoff team, but those slots are limited.  There are a few teams that "deserve" it every year that don't get to play in week 12. 

[USee]

In the event NCC were to finish 8-2, with one competitive loss to the conference champion and the other competitive loss to Wesley, I'd hardly call their selection into Pool C a "free pass".

And under the "Emma" rules, they get in. But under the current guidelines its unlikely they get in. That's why scheduling these games isn't a good idea, despite the fanfare.

[USee]

To be clear, I think the principles Emma lays out for modification of Pool C are within reason but those specific changes aren't really plausible for the national tournament. It's impractical for a national committee to avoid their own geographic and information biases and use some measure of subjectivity (with transparency) to decide on a more competitive field. I could see, however, giving more subjectivity to the Regional Committee to rank their best teams. That seems more reasonable and possible.

[Pat Coleman]

In the event NCC were to finish 8-2, with one competitive loss to the conference champion and the other competitive loss to Wesley, I'd hardly call their selection into Pool C a "free pass".

And under the "Emma" rules, they get in. But under the current guidelines its unlikely they get in. That's why scheduling these games isn't a good idea, despite the fanfare.

I don't believe this to be the case, for what it's worth.

[wally_wabash]

In the event NCC were to finish 8-2, with one competitive loss to the conference champion and the other competitive loss to Wesley, I'd hardly call their selection into Pool C a "free pass".

And under the "Emma" rules, they get in. But under the current guidelines its unlikely they get in. That's why scheduling these games isn't a good idea, despite the fanfare.

See I would disagree with the blanket statement that it is unlikely that they would get in.  It might be unlikely once we have a complete picture of the region (how did the OAC runner up do?  how did the NCAC runner up do?).  It might be that North Central is the first team in line from the region which I think would make it extremely likely that they would be invited. 

I understand the sentiment- the best piece of advice I would give to any team hunting for an at-large bid is to not lose twice, regardless of who is on your schedule.  But two-loss teams do make it.  It just all kind of depends on how you line up in your region. 

Recent examples:
2014- St. Thomas gets in at 8-2 as the only West at-large team, which means they were first in line.  Now I'm not sure if they were the last team in or maybe the second to last team in, I don't think they get in if they aren't first in line from the region. 
2013- SJF receives an at-large spot after a brutal week 11 in the East allows the Cardinals to jump all the way up to probably #3 in the east and the first team in line from that region. 

What's really interesting, especially in the SJF case, is that SJF had basically the same profile in 2014 as they did in 2013.  The biggest difference, in all honesty, is that the rest of the region performed better and they got stuck behind a pair of single loss teams in the regional rankings (Del Val and, probably, Framingham).  In our mock selection, SJF was one of the first three out last year.  It looks like they probably didn't make it to the table last year as Framingham never got out of the way.  Same team with virtually the same profile...one year they get in, one year they don't.  The rest of the picture regionally really matters. 

[USee]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not. The point is a 2 loss team, if they are in, get the last spot and your destiny is NOT in your own hands. Scheduling a game that increases the chances of being in that position is senseless under the current system when you can beat Benedictine by 30 and get in for sure as a 1 loss.

[Gregory Sager]

I could definitely see a long-term CCIW/IIAC matchup series coming out of this.

[ncc_fan]

I could definitely see a long-term CCIW/IIAC matchup series coming out of this.

I would love to see a CCIW/IIAC series, but to make it work the IIAC will need a tenth member after Wash U joins the CCIW as a football affiliate in 2018.  Perhaps they could let St. Norbert tag along as in the MIAA/CCIW series.   

[wally_wabash]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

The point is a 2 loss team, if they are in, get the last spot and your destiny is NOT in your own hands. Scheduling a game that increases the chances of being in that position is senseless under the current system when you can beat Benedictine by 30 and get in for sure as a 1 loss.

You lose control of your destiny the moment you lose your conference's bid.  One loss or two, you're now at the mercy of the committee(s) and the results of every other relevant team in your region.  I do agree that scheduling a game like this that puts that potential second loss in play is generally bad strategy in the current climate.  The thing is that for as much as we've discussed this across several different places in these forums, I haven't read a good solution or thought of one myself.