FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[emma17]

As to why I think NCC deserves "Pool C credit" for their game vs. Linfield.
Was NCC competitive vs Linfield?  Is there any reason for the committee to think, based on the performance below, that NCC would not be a competitive team vs any competition in the playoffs?

Results from 1st Half of Game:
NCC:
Kukuc- 115 yards rushing. 
200 yards total offense. 
2 Fumbles, 1 Int.
Had first scoring opportunity and missed 37 yd field goal in 1st quarter.
NCC fumbled at Linfield 3 yd line in 2nd qrtr. after a 73 yard drive.

Linfield:
140 yds total offense.
Nice 80 Yd drive to score TD in early 2nd qrtr. 
73 Yd Int return for a TD (thus, NCC was at the Linfield 30)
44 yd field goal after a NCC fumble. 

After one half of play, I can't imagine a single knowledgeable and fair minded person would suggest that NCC isn't competitive with Linfield. 

2nd Half:
NCC throws interception on 2nd possession.  Linfield follows w TD on 64 yd drive.
NCC throws interception on 3rd possession.   Linfield follows w TD on 53 yd drive. 
Kucuc scores on 32 yd run with 2:32 left in third.  75 yd drive.
Kucuc scores on 15 yd run with 14:54 left in fourth.  51 yd drive.
NCC intercepted next two possessions.

Final #'s
Total Yds:
NCC: 416
Linfield: 331
(I understand Linfield may have got more conservative in mid-late 4th, but NCC was already winning yardage, proving they can move the ball)
NCC Rushing:  181 yds on 37 carries.
Linfield Rushing: 26 yards on 27 carries. 
NCC obviously was a significantly better rushing team.

Kucuc:
25 carries for 192 yards and a 7.7 avg yds carry.  (I remember an NCC fan last year saying something not so nice about UWP giving up so many yds per carry last year to NCC).

Stanek: 
19-39 for 235 w 5 interceptions. 

I'm not suggesting Linfield didn't deserve to win.  I'm suggesting quite simply, that the committee can subjectively look at this game and reach a reasonable conclusion that NCC was not over-matched by an elite team.  And as such, NCC should be given credit as capable of raising the level of competition in the playoffs.   

[kiko]

Couple of clarifying points, then I am moving off this topic.  We're going in circles, and we're going to keep going in circles.

Aww. Say it isn't so!



I'd rather read your debate over scheduling philosophies than a back-and-forth about an NCC vs. Linfield game that took place three years ago.

Can I be the guy who is sitting stage left?

[USee]

As to why I think NCC deserves "Pool C credit" for their game vs. Linfield.
Was NCC competitive vs Linfield?  Is there any reason for the committee to think, based on the performance below, that NCC would not be a competitive team vs any competition in the playoffs?

Results from 1st Half of Game:
NCC:
Kukuc- 115 yards rushing. 
200 yards total offense. 
2 Fumbles, 1 Int.
Had first scoring opportunity and missed 37 yd field goal in 1st quarter.
NCC fumbled at Linfield 3 yd line in 2nd qrtr. after a 73 yard drive.

Linfield:
140 yds total offense.
Nice 80 Yd drive to score TD in early 2nd qrtr. 
73 Yd Int return for a TD (thus, NCC was at the Linfield 30)
44 yd field goal after a NCC fumble. 

After one half of play, I can't imagine a single knowledgeable and fair minded person would suggest that NCC isn't competitive with Linfield. 

2nd Half:
NCC throws interception on 2nd possession.  Linfield follows w TD on 64 yd drive.
NCC throws interception on 3rd possession.   Linfield follows w TD on 53 yd drive. 
Kucuc scores on 32 yd run with 2:32 left in third.  75 yd drive.
Kucuc scores on 15 yd run with 14:54 left in fourth.  51 yd drive.
NCC intercepted next two possessions.

Final #'s
Total Yds:
NCC: 416
Linfield: 331
(I understand Linfield may have got more conservative in mid-late 4th, but NCC was already winning yardage, proving they can move the ball)
NCC Rushing:  181 yds on 37 carries.
Linfield Rushing: 26 yards on 27 carries. 
NCC obviously was a significantly better rushing team.

Kucuc:
25 carries for 192 yards and a 7.7 avg yds carry.  (I remember an NCC fan last year saying something not so nice about UWP giving up so many yds per carry last year to NCC).

Stanek: 
19-39 for 235 w 5 interceptions. 

I'm not suggesting Linfield didn't deserve to win.  I'm suggesting quite simply, that the committee can subjectively look at this game and reach a reasonable conclusion that NCC was not over-matched by an elite team.  And as such, NCC should be given credit as capable of raising the level of competition in the playoffs.

Emma,

I think you and I are pretty knowledgeable fans (for the most part) and we can't agree on this game. What in the world makes you think committee members will agree? NCC was down 17-0 at half. And all the "ifs" in the world don't change that fact. And they came out in the 2nd half, when they needed to, their season on the line, etc, and went down 30-0. That's not competitve

[emma17]

Wally
No, it isn't about individuals, it's about programs.  It's all about programs. 

Yes, I view things through a UWW lens.  I can't un-see what' I've seen and I've seen a whole lot of the best teams play UWW.  Should I pretend I haven't?  Does it bother you that I feel confident in having an opinion of what makes a team/program good based on all of the teams I've seen UWW play over the years?

I love your list of teams that should receive credit as Pool C potentials.

To clarify, the record matters for Pool C, but neither it nor SOS are the most important.  For instance, if 2015 NCC is 6-3, they likely don't get in over a 9-1 Muhl.  However, NCC at 8-2, with close losses to 10-0 Wesley and 10-0 Wheaton, does get in over 9-1 Muhl that lost to 10-0 Johns Hopkins.  I can even see NCC at 6-3 getting in if the other loss was to UWP, and UWP finished 10-0 or 9-1.  I'm more than happy to leave this decision in the hands of the committee.  All I ask is that they explain it.  Don't you agree that a 6-3 NCC with losses to undefeated Wesley, Wheaton and UWP would be a better candidate to raise the Pool C competition than a 9-1 Muhl?
I think this really is the question.   

Yes, this looks a lot like a "good ol boy's network". However, entrance into the good ol boy network was earned, it wasn't given.  All D3 teams, every last one of them, has exactly the same opportunity to get into the good ol boys network.  Win conference and do well in the playoffs.  Once a team/program builds a resume, like all (most) the teams in your list have, then they too will have Pool C credit.       

[emma17]

Emma,

I think you and I are pretty knowledgeable fans (for the most part) and we can't agree on this game. What in the world makes you think committee members will agree? NCC was down 17-0 at half. And all the "ifs" in the world don't change that fact. And they came out in the 2nd half, when they needed to, their season on the line, etc, and went down 30-0. That's not competitve
[/quote]

I get it Usee.  You are more about the score in determining whether a team was competitive.  You may be right in terms of how something like that should be viewed.

I'll approach this in another way.
We've all heard players or coaches talk about teams they're glad they don't have to play again. 

Do you think the Linfield players and coaches viewed their game w NCC as not competitive?  Do you think they view that 30-0 score the same as they do their win over Widener last year?  The score was 21-7 late in 2nd and 28-7 until the 4th. 

I think a comparison of these two games is accurate.  NCC at 30-0 or Widener at 28-7 through the 3rd quarter both look about the same score wise. 
This is where my UWW lens's may fail me, but I can't imagine, simply cannot imagine a single Linfield player or coach saying that Widener was as competitive as NCC, or even that NCC wasn't competitive.  The details matter. 

[USee]

I agree  with that. I definitely think NCC was better than the score indicated, which is your point, and  I also think Wesley is better than the Mt union score indicates and Texas Lutheran was better than 16-72 and probably not as good as 20-27. Where do you draw the line?

[wally_wabash]

Wally
No, it isn't about individuals, it's about programs.  It's all about programs. 

Yes, I view things through a UWW lens.  I can't un-see what' I've seen and I've seen a whole lot of the best teams play UWW.  Should I pretend I haven't?  Does it bother you that I feel confident in having an opinion of what makes a team/program good based on all of the teams I've seen UWW play over the years?

My point is that what is good to you is different than what is good to every other player, coach, fan, AD of any place that doesn't win 110 games in 8 years.  That standard, while insanely impressive, is completely unreasonable- for everybody else.

I love your list of teams that should receive credit as Pool C potentials.

To clarify, the record matters for Pool C, but neither it nor SOS are the most important.  For instance, if 2015 NCC is 6-3, they likely don't get in over a 9-1 Muhl.  However, NCC at 8-2, with close losses to 10-0 Wesley and 10-0 Wheaton, does get in over 9-1 Muhl that lost to 10-0 Johns Hopkins.  I can even see NCC at 6-3 getting in if the other loss was to UWP, and UWP finished 10-0 or 9-1.  I'm more than happy to leave this decision in the hands of the committee.  All I ask is that they explain it.  Don't you agree that a 6-3 NCC with losses to undefeated Wesley, Wheaton and UWP would be a better candidate to raise the Pool C competition than a 9-1 Muhl?
I think this really is the question.   

I thought you would.  But here's the problem with that list- it's completely self sustaining and, for all practical purposes closed off to anybody located in certain regions.  We have 5 Pool C bids available.  From that list, there are duplicate teams from over five conferences: WIAC, NWC, OAC, CCIW, MIAC.  Of the teams on the list, it's generally safe to assume that one will with the league, the other will be runner up- so you're basically giving two bids to these conferences and ignoring what anybody else anywhere has done.  We can't do that. 

The other piece here is that you'll notice that this list is very North/West heavy.  Why?  Because access to this list goes through UWW and UMU - North and West region teams.  Teams in the South and East just don't have the same opportunity to play these "prove-it" games that you want because of the way brackets are structured.  Could they sign up for a non-league game in September?  Sure, but why would a team in eastern PA or Maryland or Alabama sign up for a game in Alliance or Whitewater?  It's expensive and unnecessary.  So then they have to rely on probably winning 2+ games in any given tournament just to get a chance to play a game against a team that you don't think is some degree of trash.  Everybody's opportunity isn't the same. 

So do I think that 6-3 NCC is better than the 9-1 Muhlenberg?  I honestly don't know, but my sense is that no, they probably aren't better.  I don't think I could say with certainty that 2014's 8-2 NCC was better than 2014's 9-1 Muhlenberg.  Maybe.  Both teams lost to the one top 10 team they played.  North Central lost a game to an average opponent and Muhlenberg didn't.  When I had the choice, I picked North Central, but can I also see the logic for picking Muhlenberg.  Either choice makes sense within the criteria.  What I don't think is fair to say is that North Central ought to be the pick because they played a close game with Mount Union that one time with a different group of players.  That's not ok and that's exactly what you're prescribing here.   

[emma17]

I agree  with that. I definitely think NCC was better than the score indicated, which is your point, and  I also think Wesley is better than the Mt union score indicates and Texas Lutheran was better than 16-72 and probably not as good as 20-27. Where do you draw the line?

I acknowledge the line is difficult, but we all know there isn't a perfect system for doing this.  Again, IF (I know this isn't the case now) the Pool C goal was to find the 5 most likely competitive teams (combining current year performance with reason to believe the prospective team can compete with the best of the best), then I think the committee could figure it out.  If it were me, NCC and Wesley are definitely on the Plus Side for Pool C.  TLU would not be.  And yes, I totally get the TLU ended up playing MHB tough in the weird playoff game.  The problem is, if we all want each regular season game to count (and I think we do), then TLU absolutely blew their chances in the regular season.  Harsh?  maybe.  But how is it a different philosophy than they have in the BSC?  Every game matters. When you (TLU) have a chance to show the world that you can compete with the best, you (TLU) simply cannot lose 72-13.  Wesley gets the benefit of the doubt. 

Transparency from the committee.  Explain why they come to their decision.   

[emma17]

Wally,
I really don't believe that "what is good to me is different than what is good to every other...". I think good is good.  I have no doubt that if you and I sat down together and watched UWO play UWW last year, you would have said "wow, UWO is pretty good".  You would have said the same about UWP.  Good is obvious.  I don't hold teams to a UWW standard, I simply see how they play against a team that is at the pinnacle. 

I want to better understand your concern about geographic challenges.   Can you give me some team names from the South and East that you feel would be negatively impacted by a selection process that considers recent program performance?
 
 

[wally_wabash]

Wally,
I really don't believe that "what is good to me is different than what is good to every other...". I think good is good.  I have no doubt that if you and I sat down together and watched UWO play UWW last year, you would have said "wow, UWO is pretty good".  You would have said the same about UWP.  Good is obvious.  I don't hold teams to a UWW standard, I simply see how they play against a team that is at the pinnacle. 

I want to better understand your concern about geographic challenges.   Can you give me some team names from the South and East that you feel would be negatively impacted by a selection process that considers recent program performance?

All of them?  I mean, if you're saying that you can't get special consideration for Pool C unless you have a proven track record of not being terrible against the very, very best teams, then most of the East and South region teams don't even get the opportunity to play a game against a team that you think matters, let alone play one of those games AND not get kneecapped (which I guess automatically relegates them to the trash bin).  If the entry point to at-large consideration are results in games against the best of the best, then the opportunities are absolutely not equal. 

I know UW-O is good.  I also know they lost four games last year and that means that they aren't good enough to qualify for the tournament.  Is River Falls awesome because they almost beat UWW?  Are we making that argument?  If tournament access boiled down to who played close games with Whitewater -which you're saying it does- then River Falls should be in, right?  We don't care how many games they lost or who they lost to- they proved to the world that they can hang with the Warhawks and that's the trump card, right? 

[emma17]

Wally,
I really don't believe that "what is good to me is different than what is good to every other...". I think good is good.  I have no doubt that if you and I sat down together and watched UWO play UWW last year, you would have said "wow, UWO is pretty good".  You would have said the same about UWP.  Good is obvious.  I don't hold teams to a UWW standard, I simply see how they play against a team that is at the pinnacle. 

I want to better understand your concern about geographic challenges.   Can you give me some team names from the South and East that you feel would be negatively impacted by a selection process that considers recent program performance?

All of them?  I mean, if you're saying that you can't get special consideration for Pool C unless you have a proven track record of not being terrible against the very, very best teams, then most of the East and South region teams don't even get the opportunity to play a game against a team that you think matters, let alone play one of those games AND not get kneecapped (which I guess automatically relegates them to the trash bin).  If the entry point to at-large consideration are results in games against the best of the best, then the opportunities are absolutely not equal. 

I know UW-O is good.  I also know they lost four games last year and that means that they aren't good enough to qualify for the tournament.  Is River Falls awesome because they almost beat UWW?  Are we making that argument?  If tournament access boiled down to who played close games with Whitewater -which you're saying it does- then River Falls should be in, right?  We don't care how many games they lost or who they lost to- they proved to the world that they can hang with the Warhawks and that's the trump card, right?

Wally, is my tone sarcastic?  Do I have a tendency to twist your points into nonsensical blabber?
Really, it's one thing for us to simply have different opinions on this subject.  But seem like a smart guy, I don't understand the tone you take. 

[emma17]

Ok Wally,
You said all teams from the South and East won't have equal access to Pool C. 
Let's look at a team from the south- Christopher Newport.   
Wally, your point is that CNP, as a team from the south, has not had the same opportunity to prove their Pool C worthiness as teams from the North and West. 
CNP made the playoffs as AQ in 2014, 2012, 2011 and 2010.  That's 4 appearances.  They lost in the first round to MHB and Mt badly.  They lost to Kean in the first round in what looks like a decent game at 34-10.  They beat Del Val in round 1 last year, then lost to Widener- and unfortunately Widener has not proven to be very competitive with top teams.  In the 2014 regular season, they also lost non-conf games to Salisbury and Hampden Sydney.   

Wally, it looks very much to me like CNP has had all kinds of opportunities to prove their Pool C worthiness. 
If I'm on the committee deciding between an 8-2, or perhaps even a 6-3 NCC and a 9-1 CNP- I will take NCC. 

A team from the East.  Is Montclair State ok?
They seem to do pretty well typically.  They made the second round of the playoffs in 2009 and 2010- unfortunately losing in blow-outs to Mt and then Wesley.  But that was too many years ago.  In 2011 they were 8-2- but lost to TCNJ and Kean- both games were good opportunities but they didn't prevail.  2014 they were 8-2, but lost to Rowan (a playoff team) 31-0. Ouch, that hurts their Pool C credits.

No Wally, Pool C access doesn't boil down to who played well against UWW.  You're just silly.

You see, I believe reasonable people can work through this stuff.  I believe equal opportunity exists for every single D3 team.  Win your conference.  Play well in playoffs.  Do it more than once.  Whether your from Alabama, Eastern PA or Maryland.  Win  Your  Conference.  Play  Well   Against  Better   Competition.   Then Pool C is more likely when you slip and don't win conference. 

[Augie6]

Ok Wally,
You said all teams from the South and East won't have equal access to Pool C. 
Let's look at a team from the south- Christopher Newport.   
Wally, your point is that CNP, as a team from the south, has not had the same opportunity to prove their Pool C worthiness as teams from the North and West. 
CNP made the playoffs as AQ in 2014, 2012, 2011 and 2010.  That's 4 appearances.  They lost in the first round to MHB and Mt badly.  They lost to Kean in the first round in what looks like a decent game at 34-10.  They beat Del Val in round 1 last year, then lost to Widener- and unfortunately Widener has not proven to be very competitive with top teams.  In the 2014 regular season, they also lost non-conf games to Salisbury and Hampden Sydney.   

Wally, it looks very much to me like CNP has had all kinds of opportunities to prove their Pool C worthiness. 
If I'm on the committee deciding between an 8-2, or perhaps even a 6-3 NCC and a 9-1 CNP- I will take NCC

A team from the East.  Is Montclair State ok?
They seem to do pretty well typically.  They made the second round of the playoffs in 2009 and 2010- unfortunately losing in blow-outs to Mt and then Wesley.  But that was too many years ago.  In 2011 they were 8-2- but lost to TCNJ and Kean- both games were good opportunities but they didn't prevail.  2014 they were 8-2, but lost to Rowan (a playoff team) 31-0. Ouch, that hurts their Pool C credits.

No Wally, Pool C access doesn't boil down to who played well against UWW.  You're just silly.

You see, I believe reasonable people can work through this stuff.  I believe equal opportunity exists for every single D3 team.  Win your conference.  Play well in playoffs.  Do it more than once.  Whether your from Alabama, Eastern PA or Maryland.  Win  Your  Conference.  Play  Well   Against  Better   Competition.   Then Pool C is more likely when you slip and don't win conference.

Of course you would take NCC in this scenario, because you are a supporter of the program.  But in reality, I don't believe this scenario will ever happen and it shouldn't.  As I've been reading this discussion, I have gone back over past playoff results to refresh my memory and to understand your perspective on this.  In the past 5 years, NCC has played UWW and Mt. Union once each in the playoffs.  The game against UWW was 5 years ago in 2010 and NCC lost 20-10 at home.  A pretty good game from NCC, but let's not forget that Trine was tied with UWW in the second round of the playoffs that year, entering the 4th quarter of the game, before losing by 14. Should Trine get similar consideration? We all remember the Mt Union game where NCC lost by a point on a late touchdown.  The other game you point to is the Linfield game in 2012 where NCC was down by 30 in the second half before losing by 16.  So based on these three results against teams that most would agree are some of the best teams in DIII, you believe that NCC should have an advantage when it comes to Pool C selections and that they should somehow earn their way into the playoffs with a 7-3 record vs some other Pool C candidates who may be 9-1 or 8-2?  Sorry, but I just don't see it. 

Yes, NCC gave Mt. Union everything it could handle in 2013 and could have easily won that game.  But, I don't believe that one game makes NCC deserving of any special consideration for Pool C selections, much like I don't think UWO is deserving of this same type of consideration based on the one year they made the playoffs in 2012.  The UWW game was 5 years ago and I don't believe your case around the Linfield game holds much water.  Unless I'm missing something else, I'm not sure what other games you would point to that would make the case for NCC getting special consideration.  I respect your opinion on this, but I (and most other posters it seems) disagree with it.  The back and forth on this board is why we'll never see this type of process in the selection committee.  Way too much subjectivity for it to make sense.  But it does make for interesting reading and discussion.

[emma17]

Thanks Augie6, I respect your position on this as well.  Before you reach a decision, however, I want to be sure I'm accurately stating my position as I read there is some confusion.
-Too much is being made of games vs. UWW or Mt.  That's not my position.  It's games vs any of the recognized best teams.  I shouldn't have to list them.
-I've clearly stated that the time frame for consideration is current year plus 3 prior, so for the sake of last year's selection, we'd consider 2011, 12, 13 and 14. 
-You can disagree with me about whether NCC was competitive with Linfield in 2012, as others do.  I think some of you are focusing too much on the score.  You all know better than that.  As it relates to this topic, the question is, was NCC a team that could compete with Linfield.  There is literally zero doubt that NCC could compete with Linfield.  Keep in mind, we are comparing this game to games where we see Mt, Wesley, Linfield simply blow teams out.  See the Linfield-Widener game stats and compare the play by play with NCC-Linfield.  You'll quickly see that NCC was in no shape, way or manner out of its league vs Linfield.  That's the kind of team we want in Pool C- not the Widener type teams. 
-Why should NCC receive Merit for it's 4 year performance? 
2011: 10-2.  Lost first game of year.  Swept tough conference.  Lost in 2nd round by 1 point in crazy game.
2012: 9-3.  Lost first game of year.  Lost to tough Wheaton.  Beat Cal Luth in round 1 and lost very competitively to Linfield.
2013: 13-1.  Lost to Mt by 1 in round 4 of playoffs.
2014: 8-2.  Lost to UWSP by 1 TD.  BTW, UWSP finished 7-3- losing only to UWP, UWO and UWW- hmm.  Lost game to Wheaton by 3 points.  Wheaton is #7 in country right now- does that mean anything? 
-So, why does NCC deserve merit credit for Pool C?  I honestly think it's incredible that I even have to explain it.  If the committee wants to field the toughest teams in Pool C, how in love of all that is right and good can you, or any other reasonable, non intoxicated person suggest that NCC isn't/wasn't an excellent candidate for Pool C last year- especially over a team like 9-1 Muhl or Del Val?  I won't list the last 4 years of Muhl or Del Val, but if you are going to disagree with me, take a look at the stats yourself and please tell me how their current and recent record suggests they would be a tougher out in the playoffs than NCC.
-UWO?  You limit your view of UWO to one year?  Why?  You're as tainted as Wally. 
2011: 7-3, 2012: 13-1, 2013 (post Wara): 8-2 (losing to UWW by 3 and UWP by 1), 2014: 6-4 (with ONLY 1 D3 loss). 
 
Come on man.  Disagree with me all you want, but look into some of the numbers and at least be armed. 
 

[wildcat11]

Are you guys still talking about the time Linfield kicked NCC's butt in the playoffs?