FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[jaybird44]

While I sympathize to a point emma's position on wanting more credible Pool C teams in the playoffs, there are two reasons why I think that kind of analysis to determine those teams will not materialize.

First, I believe that current teams should not be penalized or helped by records of past teams.  Current teams don't have a chance to play those past teams, so I think it is unfair to hold a current Pool C hopeful to a standard that it can't compete against.  It would be different if this was the NFL, where teams can hold on to players for far longer than college teams, and comparisons are more readily available between NFL teams.  Too much ebb-and-flow change from year to year and from team to team in college football to fairly compare the past years of programs along with the current seasons.

I agree that strength-of-schedule is a dubious statistic to base a Pool C decision upon, especially for teams in large conferences that may only have one non-conference game to use toward enhancing its SOS.  Therefore, other stats are probably (hopefully) used by the selection committee to help separate the wheat from the chaff.

Second, it takes the committee the course of a weekend just to compare current teams and their records and stats.  I don't think those members want to spend additional time coursing over the past records of Pool C hopefuls, when comparing current and past teams is nearly impossible to do fairly.  It would be similar to conducting a snipe hunt with someone, and telling that person to find a split atom, or Ariana Grande's 10 favorite donuts.  The committee, I'm guessing, would not want to participate in a significantly more exhaustive review, when the end result would produce just as much controversy (or more) than what it does now.

[Gregory Sager]

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

You're about seven hours too late, my friend. You snooze, you lose.

[ExTartanPlayer]

That's the kind of team we want in Pool C- not the Widener type teams. 

Curious that you mention "Widener type teams" - because Widener was blown out by Linfield in the quarterfinals, after winning two playoff games.  One would think that a quarterfinal appearance is a fine line to have on the resume in this exercise where past performance works in a team's favor for present-day Pool C selection - but then, the King Poobah himself has decided that there's an arbitrary line of "top dogs" that the performance must come against - which conveniently allows dismissal of playoff wins you don't want to count while including 30-point losses as "very competitive" losses that are somehow evidence a team does belong in the playoffs.

-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? 

There's no doubt that North Central has compiled a sterling four-year run.  I won't quibble with that.

I do take a small issue with the 2014 description, though, because it smacks of a singular point of view in giving them the benefit of the doubt - "They only lost to UWSP by one touchdown, and UWSP only lost to these other three good teams, so hey, cut the kids a break!"

That's the kind of slack you're only willing to cut the teams that you've already decided get the golden pass, but the same kind of thing can be said for a lot of Pool C teams.  Here, watch:

"Thomas More: 8-2.  Lost to national semifinalist Wesley in a very competitive road game and conference champion W & J, both teams ranked in the Top 15 to start this season - does that mean anything?"

emma, pretty good teams (usually) only lose to other pretty good teams.  That's why they're the good teams.  "They only lost to..." arguments don't really hold up beyond "They only lost to Whitewater and Mount Union" because any team in Pool C probably "only lost to" teams that are 7-3, 8-2, 9-1.

-So, why does NCC deserve merit credit for Pool C?  I honestly think it's incredible that I even have to explain it.

I honestly think it's incredible that you're so stubborn in describing a 30-point loss in which North Central was never within one score as "very competitive."

I played in a handful of games, unfortunately, where my side managed to put up a decent amount of yardage, or move the ball, but we were bitten by turnovers, or a big pick-six, or a bad call...you know what?  That **** happens.  It's part of the game.  You don't get to throw out those things.  I don't get to say that 37-point loss to Wesley was "very competitive" because we ran for a bunch of yards, but they just got the big plays.

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). 

Interesting that you bring up the last four years of Muhl/Del Val.  Their records are actually quite good (Muhl: 7-3, 8-3, 8-3, 9-2 for a four-year record of 32-11, DelVal: 9-2, 7-4, 8-3, 11-1 for a four-year record of 35-10) as is Widener's last four years (12-1, 11-1, 6-4, 11-1 for a four-year record of 40-7).  Take note, please, that Widener's four-year record is equal to North Central's.  I know it didn't have any games against WIAC teams, so it must be taken with a grain of salt, but these aren't exactly losing teams in question here.

I also like the fun little tidbits that you nudge in as excuses for the teams you want to support.  "Post Wara" - so, what, when Widener or DelVal or Muhlenberg graduates a star player, do they get to list "Post Anthony Davis" on their record for that season to give themselves a little cushion?  "Gee, selection committee, I know we struggled a bit last year but we were replacing a really good player, so come playoff time make sure to give us a boost because it's hard to do that and we only went 8-2 last year because we graduated that good guy!"

I wonder if the Patriots will be able to petition the NFL for a little boost when Brady retires because it's "Post Brady."

Or if the Packers will be able to say that they "lost to the Vikings by 1 and the Bears by 3" so they really should be in the playoffs.

[wally_wabash]

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 think you do need to list them.  Everybody should know, without any uncertainty, exactly who the gatekeepers to Pool C are.  And then I think you'd need to have a good explanation for where you've drawn the cut line. 

-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.

Right- the score doesn't matter.  Honestly.  But if you're going to give North Central a complete pass for that game, how come Widener doesn't get the same mulligan?  You're making all of this up as you go and bending the rules to reach the outcome that you like best.

-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?

Stevens Point- 4th place team.  You don't get a lot of bonus points for losing to a 4th place team, no matter how good you believe that league to be.  That's not a good result and no amount of spin can make it so. 

-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.

I don't think anybody is arguing that North Central wasn't a good candidate.  The debate is that they weren't the only good candidates and we ran out of chairs before North Central got picked.  When assessing candidates for 2014 tournament selection, I don't -and shouldn't- care what Muhlenberg or Delaware Valley or North Central did in 2012.  That's nonsense.

-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). 

Oshkosh was a weird case.  They probably would have qualified if they stayed inside the division and didn't color outside the lines.  Gotta play your games inside the division.

[Augie6]

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. 

Sorry E17, still don't see any reason that UWO or NCC should get special consideration for Pool C selection.

I'll handle UWO first, because that's an easy one.  Why limit them to a one year view? Because it's the only year they have made the playoffs, EVER!!!  I don't see how anyone could argue to give a team special consideration to be selected to the playoffs for a team that has only been to the playoffs one time!!!!  Explain to me how this is tainted.  Yes, there are some good teams in the WIAC, but I think you are giving them way too much credit (although I think you have to because you use several of their teams to back up your argument about NCC).  Since 2009, the only teams from the WIAC to qualify for the playoffs other than UWW are UWO in 2012 and UWP in 2013.  In your post above, you point to NCC losing to UWSP by only 1 TD as if it's a badge of honor.  UWSP hasn't been to the playoffs since 2008, where they lost in the first round!  I am looking at the numbers, I'm just not doing it through red-tinted glasses.   

For NCC over the last 4 seasons, I see a team that has done some very good things and and had one great season, where they almost reached the Stagg Bowl.  In the other 3 seasons, I see teams that have had multiple losses, with none of those being against Mt. U or UWW.  I had to laugh a little bit about your description of last season, "Lost to UWSP by 1 TD.  BTW, UWSP finished 7-3- losing only to UWP, UWO and UWW- hmm"  As Wally pointed out, NCC lost to the fourth place team from the WIAC, a conference who, besides UWW, really hasn't had that much playoff success over the past several seasons, other than UWO's 1 year run.  "Lost game to Wheaton by 3 points.  Wheaton is #7 in country right now- does that mean anything?"    No it doesn't.  Was Wheaton the #7 team in the country last year when NCC lost to them?  Augie lost to Wheaton by 7 last season, after holding a lead in the second half and gave up the winning score by turning the ball over by muffing a punt inside their own 10 yard line.  By your logic, that must mean Augie was one of the better teams in the country last season, right?  I certainly don't see a "tainted" view in the opinions that others have posted with different opinions on the subject.  Since Augie hasn't been to the playoffs in many years, I don't believe I have any bias for or against any teams in this argument.  Believe me, when playoff time comes around, I am hoping for as many CCIW teams in the field as possible.  Has NCC been a great representative of the CCIW in the playoffs over the past several seasons?  Absolutely, they have.  Has the CCIW been able to get multiple Pool C selections over the past several seasons, as well?  You bet they have with 4 selections over the past 6 seasons.  I just don't see NCC getting the raw end of the deal by not being selected last year.  But either way, I would hope you can see, based on the results of this discussion on the board, that your recommendation to change how the Pool C selections are made would be virtually impossible to implement based on the subjectivity involved.   

[Gregory Sager]

-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.

Right- the score doesn't matter.  Honestly.  But if you're going to give North Central a complete pass for that game, how come Widener doesn't get the same mulligan?  You're making all of this up as you go and bending the rules to reach the outcome that you like best.

I suspect that wildcat11 is going to be very happy that you guys have resumed talking about that game.

-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). 

Oshkosh was a weird case.  They probably would have qualified if they stayed inside the division and didn't color outside the lines.  Gotta play your games inside the division.

According to the D3 football championship manual, the primary criterion for won-lost percentage is for D3 games only. Won-lost percentage versus non-D3 opponents is a secondary criterion. There is no overall won-lost percentage criterion, either primary or secondary, as far as the Pool C selection process is concerned. The committee, in other words, does not lump D3 opponents and non-D3 opponents together when considering the report card of a team like UW-Oshkosh. In the eyes of the committee, when considering the primary criteria last season during the Pool C selection process, the Titans went .857 (6-1). In other words, the Titans slotted in between the 9-1 teams and the 8-2 teams that were also up for Pool C consideration.

I don't know if the Titans made it far enough into the discussion for secondary criteria to be brought up, but, if they did, UWO went .000 (0-3) in that regard. The secondary criteria would've also ameliorated that triple-zero winning percentage somewhat, because non-D3 strength of schedule is also a secondary criterion. UWO's losses when the Titans "colored outside the lines" were to Robert Morris-Chicago (8-3, finished the season ranked 20th in NAIA); Marian (IN) (8-3, lost the NAIA national championship game, finished the season ranked 2nd in NAIA); and South Dakota State (a D1 team that went 9-5).

In other words, as far as the committee was concerned, UWO did not go 6-4 last season. The Titans went 6-1. And if the committee had to look at the secondary criteria when assessing UWO, then the Titans went 0-3.

(Incidentally, UWO will only be playing one non-D3 game this season, as the Titans will travel south to take on Robert Morris-Chicago -- which plays in Arlington Heights, 30 miles northwest of the Loop campus.)

Second, it takes the committee the course of a weekend just to compare current teams and their records and stats.  I don't think those members want to spend additional time coursing over the past records of Pool C hopefuls, when comparing current and past teams is nearly impossible to do fairly.  It would be similar to conducting a snipe hunt with someone, and telling that person to find a split atom, or Ariana Grande's 10 favorite donuts.

[Pat Coleman]

 ... scratching plan for clickbait series on Ariana Grande's 10 favorite donuts.

[Gregory Sager]

Happy to do my part, Pat.

[kiko]

Gregory, do you have that equine-related gif handy?

[wally_wabash]

According to the D3 football championship manual, the primary criterion for won-lost percentage is for D3 games only. Won-lost percentage versus non-D3 opponents is a secondary criterion. There is no overall won-lost percentage criterion, either primary or secondary, as far as the Pool C selection process is concerned. The committee, in other words, does not lump D3 opponents and non-D3 opponents together when considering the report card of a team like UW-Oshkosh. In the eyes of the committee, when considering the primary criteria last season during the Pool C selection process, the Titans went .857 (6-1). In other words, the Titans slotted in between the 9-1 teams and the 8-2 teams that were also up for Pool C consideration.

I don't know if the Titans made it far enough into the discussion for secondary criteria to be brought up, but, if they did, UWO went .000 (0-3) in that regard. The secondary criteria would've also ameliorated that triple-zero winning percentage somewhat, because non-D3 strength of schedule is also a secondary criterion. UWO's losses when the Titans "colored outside the lines" were to Robert Morris-Chicago (8-3, finished the season ranked 20th in NAIA); Marian (IN) (8-3, lost the NAIA national championship game, finished the season ranked 2nd in NAIA); and South Dakota State (a D1 team that went 9-5).

In other words, as far as the committee was concerned, UWO did not go 6-4 last season. The Titans went 6-1. And if the committee had to look at the secondary criteria when assessing UWO, then the Titans went 0-3.

(Incidentally, UWO will only be playing one non-D3 game this season, as the Titans will travel south to take on Robert Morris-Chicago -- which plays in Arlington Heights, 30 miles northwest of the Loop campus.)

Like I said, Oshkosh was weird.  If they were viewed as a 6-1 team, which was my approach initially during the mock selection, they have a great profile, particularly if they land on the board with North Central as they would have had a common opponent advantage there (that pesky Stevens Point game again).  But it's hard to make these choices on primary data alone, so the secondary criteria do come into play...and whereas a lot of the language in the primary criteria uses the phrase "results vs....", the secondary criteria are specific to win percentage vs. non-division opponents.  So going 0-3 in non-division games, even if those games were against the NFC North, is problematic.  This was pointed out by mock selection chair Coleman, and persuaded me to reverse my thinking about Oshkosh.  Also part of that discussion was a pretty pointed comment by Pat that a 6-4 just isn't getting in through the Pool C door.  No. Matter. What.

I don't know how much the committee members pay attention to NAIA football.  I can't imagine they pay any more attention to it than I do- and I don't have teams to coach or entire athletic departments to direct.  But when I see those non-division results from Oshkosh, I really have no idea what to do with them.  Marian was an NAIA runner up.  Where's the D3 equivalent there?  Same deal with Robert Morris.  I just don't know what that results means.  But if I'm being generous and I say that Marian is like a top 10 D3 team and Robert Morris is like a top 25 D3 team, then Oshkosh has a D3 equivalent record of something like 6-3 (I'll grant a pass for the FCS game) with three loss to quality teams, but still three losses which wouldn't ever be good enough. 

Anyway, they were an oddball.  Definitely glad they are back playing D3 ball this September. 

[Gregory Sager]

Gregory, do you have that equine-related gif handy?

Well, I'm certainly ready to open the barn door the next time that anybody mentions that Linfield game.

Seems to me that there's still nuances of the Pool C discussion in general that are coming to light, so I'm not quite ready to load up the gif yet for the discussion as a whole. But I do sense that it's becoming increasingly repetitive.

[Gregory Sager]

According to the D3 football championship manual, the primary criterion for won-lost percentage is for D3 games only. Won-lost percentage versus non-D3 opponents is a secondary criterion. There is no overall won-lost percentage criterion, either primary or secondary, as far as the Pool C selection process is concerned. The committee, in other words, does not lump D3 opponents and non-D3 opponents together when considering the report card of a team like UW-Oshkosh. In the eyes of the committee, when considering the primary criteria last season during the Pool C selection process, the Titans went .857 (6-1). In other words, the Titans slotted in between the 9-1 teams and the 8-2 teams that were also up for Pool C consideration.

I don't know if the Titans made it far enough into the discussion for secondary criteria to be brought up, but, if they did, UWO went .000 (0-3) in that regard. The secondary criteria would've also ameliorated that triple-zero winning percentage somewhat, because non-D3 strength of schedule is also a secondary criterion. UWO's losses when the Titans "colored outside the lines" were to Robert Morris-Chicago (8-3, finished the season ranked 20th in NAIA); Marian (IN) (8-3, lost the NAIA national championship game, finished the season ranked 2nd in NAIA); and South Dakota State (a D1 team that went 9-5).

In other words, as far as the committee was concerned, UWO did not go 6-4 last season. The Titans went 6-1. And if the committee had to look at the secondary criteria when assessing UWO, then the Titans went 0-3.

(Incidentally, UWO will only be playing one non-D3 game this season, as the Titans will travel south to take on Robert Morris-Chicago -- which plays in Arlington Heights, 30 miles northwest of the Loop campus.)

Like I said, Oshkosh was weird.  If they were viewed as a 6-1 team, which was my approach initially during the mock selection, they have a great profile, particularly if they land on the board with North Central as they would have had a common opponent advantage there (that pesky Stevens Point game again).  But it's hard to make these choices on primary data alone, so the secondary criteria do come into play...and whereas a lot of the language in the primary criteria uses the phrase "results vs....", the secondary criteria are specific to win percentage vs. non-division opponents.

Actually, that's not true with regard to the particular criterion in question. There's no "results vs. ..." wording in the primary criterion that addresses D3 wins and losses in general. The "results vs. ..." language is used for other primary criteria. The wording for both primary and secondary criteria are specific about their being based upon won-lost percentage. In fact, the wording is practically identical. I've cut and pasted from Section 2.4 (pages 20 and 21) of the manual:

PRIMARY CRITERIA
The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).

● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents;.
● Division III head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common Division III opponents;
● Results versus regionally ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included;
● Division III strength of schedule
   - Opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
   - Opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.
   - See Appendix D for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
● Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's won-lost percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end-of-season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval of the Championships Committee.

SECONDARY CRITERIA
If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All of the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and all other opponents, including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

● Non-Division III won-lost percentage;
● Results versus common non-Division III opponents;
● Non-Division III strength of schedule

So going 0-3 in non-division games, even if those games were against the NFC North, is problematic.  This was pointed out by mock selection chair Coleman, and persuaded me to reverse my thinking about Oshkosh.  Also part of that discussion was a pretty pointed comment by Pat that a 6-4 just isn't getting in through the Pool C door.  No. Matter. What.

Pat's much more familiar with the way that the football committee thinks than I am, so I don't have an argument with his perception, nor with the implication that the secondary criteria were used to eliminate the Titans. And I would say that the fact that the two NAIA teams in question each went a relatively modest 8-3 -- even though one of them ended up being the national runner-up -- does take away some of the justification behind UWO using the "we played great competition outside of D3" excuse. But the idea that the committee would refuse a priori to consider a 6-4 team for Pool C just doesn't sit right with me, because the rules are very specific about how D3 games and non-D3 games are to be compartmentalized when a team is considered.

I don't know how much the committee members pay attention to NAIA football.  I can't imagine they pay any more attention to it than I do- and I don't have teams to coach or entire athletic departments to direct.  But when I see those non-division results from Oshkosh, I really have no idea what to do with them.  Marian was an NAIA runner up.  Where's the D3 equivalent there?  Same deal with Robert Morris.  I just don't know what that results means.  But if I'm being generous and I say that Marian is like a top 10 D3 team and Robert Morris is like a top 25 D3 team, then Oshkosh has a D3 equivalent record of something like 6-3 (I'll grant a pass for the FCS game) with three loss to quality teams, but still three losses which wouldn't ever be good enough.

I think that that's a fair way to look at the 2014 Titans, although this falls into the "we'll probably never know" category. 

Anyway, they were an oddball.  Definitely glad they are back playing D3 ball this September.

I confess that one of the reasons why this subject interests me so much is because NPU will be facing UW-Oshkosh in Week Three this fall.

[wildcat11]

I suspect that wildcat11 is going to be very happy that you guys have resumed talking about that game.

[BashDad]

[Gregory Sager]