FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Mr. Ypsi]

Can anyone on this site actually 'speak', or is it just video memes from now on?

And at the risk of Greg bringing out the GIF, I will agree with Emma about NCC/Linfield being a 'competitive' game - NOT that day, but competitive programs.  In 2012, NCC had 31 turnovers; 17 came in their three losses.  That leaves 1.75 pg in their wins.  I watched the game, and (trying to distinguish giveaways from takeaways - likely NEVER an official stat as it is too subjective) felt that 4 of the NCC turnovers were giveaways (e.g., fumbles with no defensive contact; interceptions which went right to a defender, etc.).  Given their yardage advantage, if NCC had not had a turnover meltdown I feel confident they would have won that game.  But I'm sure I'm in the minority about that game (and it WAS years ago ), feel free to ignore this post.

[USee]

Ypsi brings up a good point.  If NCC had not turned it over 7 times in one game they may have won.  If they didn't give up 30 points and score none in 2.5 quarters they may have won.  Heck if they had gained 500 yds instead of only 440 while holding Linfield to 240 instead of 340 they may have won.

I vote to ignore Ypsis post.  All in favor?

[emma17]

Can anyone on this site actually 'speak', or is it just video memes from now on?

And at the risk of Greg bringing out the GIF, I will agree with Emma about NCC/Linfield being a 'competitive' game - NOT that day, but competitive programs.  In 2012, NCC had 31 turnovers; 17 came in their three losses.  That leaves 1.75 pg in their wins.  I watched the game, and (trying to distinguish giveaways from takeaways - likely NEVER an official stat as it is too subjective) felt that 4 of the NCC turnovers were giveaways (e.g., fumbles with no defensive contact; interceptions which went right to a defender, etc.).  Given their yardage advantage, if NCC had not had a turnover meltdown I feel confident they would have won that game.  But I'm sure I'm in the minority about that game (and it WAS years ago ), feel free to ignore this post.

With nearly 15 minutes left in the game, NCC was down 16 points, despite all of their turnovers to that point.  16 points is 2 TD's and 2-2pt conversions, there isn't a single football coach worth a nickel in the world that wouldn't consider that a game. 

I remember last year USee made an issue about UWP giving up over 7 yards per carry to NCC, and how no team could be a top 25 if they allowed that average.  I recognize USee was talking about the total avg. as opposed to what I've brought up, which is Kucuc, on 25 carries, averaging almost 8 yards per carry. 

Linfield v NCC was a competitive game, but more importantly to the Pool C discussion, NCC again demonstrated they can compete physically and athletically with the best teams in the country.   

[emma17]

Ypsi brings up a good point.  If NCC had not turned it over 7 times in one game they may have won.  If they didn't give up 30 points and score none in 2.5 quarters they may have won.  Heck if they had gained 500 yds instead of only 440 while holding Linfield to 240 instead of 340 they may have won.

I vote to ignore Ypsis post.  All in favor?

Careful USee, or I'll cut and paste your posts regarding NCC and UWP.

[wildcat11]

I vote to ignore Ypsis post.  All in favor?

It's Friday night so yeah....I went back and watched all 7 NCC turnovers from that game.

1) Forrest Pick 6.  4th and 2 (NCC QB sees his man flash open (I don't think he saw Forrest), slot vacates because he feels Forrest, but it's too late as QB throws and our A-A LB takes it back for 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by7ltxzWTRk)
2) High Snap, QB can't handle it
3) Botched QB/RB exchange deep in Linfield territory
4) Pick on deep sideline comeback route, Linfield corner read it like a book
5) Pick on another deep sideline route, QB couldn't step into throw as he was hammered on the release, our corner made another good break
6) 4th and 10 late in the game, QB gets flushed and pressured, nobody was open, he throws into double coverage as a prayer, pick
7) Game was over at this point, QB pass gets tipped by corner, LB picks it

[emma17]

I vote to ignore Ypsis post.  All in favor?

It's Friday night so yeah....I went back and watched all 7 NCC turnovers from that game.

1) Forrest Pick 6.  4th and 2 (NCC QB sees his man flash open (I don't think he saw Forrest), slot vacates because he feels Forrest, but it's too late as QB throws and our A-A LB takes it back for 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by7ltxzWTRk)
2) High Snap, QB can't handle it
3) Botched QB/RB exchange deep in Linfield territory
4) Pick on deep sideline comeback route, Linfield corner read it like a book
5) Pick on another deep sideline route, QB couldn't step into throw as he was hammered on the release, our corner made another good break
6) 4th and 10 late in the game, QB gets flushed and pressured, nobody was open, he throws into double coverage as a prayer, pick
7) Game was over at this point, QB pass gets tipped by corner, LB picks it

Wildcat,
The question is, was NCC competitive with Linfield?  Or, was Linfield just 30-0 better than NCC?

[BashDad]

I believe a 30-0 winning team is always 30-0 better that the opponent they are beating 30-0.

Cray.

[emma17]

As evidenced by the recent posts from Gregory and Wally, the Pool C selection criteria is hardly a clear roadmap.

I believe the committee members need to "get deeper into the weeds" of potential Pool C teams.  They should consider performance in the current and most recent three years against quality teams.  If they don't have the time, I'll be glad to help.  And too dang bad, we're talking about college kids that have worked their tails off to be the best. 

Some/most/all don't like looking at prior years.  I do.  When Kickoff comes out, one of the first stats I look at for a team is.......
# of Returning Starters.  Do you?  Why do you care if a team has previous playoff experience?  Because the recent past especially informs a bit of the near future. 

Wally, provided a list of Pool C Teams from 2011 to present. Rather than have you all beat up on me when discussing NCC or UWO, I've run the teams through a subjective review.
2011:Illinois Wesleyan, St. John Fisher, Illinois College, Centre, McMurry, Redlands
IL College should not have been given a Pool C bid.  They lost badly to their conf champion in the regular season and performed poorly against the best competition in the previous years. 
A good case can be made for including the remainder of the teams. 

2012: Louisiana College, Heidelberg, Elmhurst, Bridgewater State, Rowan, Pacific Lutheran, Bethel
BW State should not have been given Pool C bid.  They were shut out by conf champ and showed little ability to beat the better teams in their conference and their non conf opponents in prior years.  Rowan is debatable but acceptable with explanation.

2013: Pacific Lutheran, John Carroll, St. John Fisher, UW-Platteville, Illinois Wesleyan
St. John Fisher and IWU are borderline.  Cases can be made against just as much for.  For all of SJF's success (3 rds deep twice), their victories have come against some of the least successful playoff teams.  Teams like Johns Hopkins, Del Val, Hobart.  As successful as these teams are at getting to the playoffs, and then beating each other/similar teams, they have little to no success against the best teams.  IWU had a bad reg season loss to NCC and performed poorly in prior years.  Not a lot to go on for a Pool C pick.

2014: John Carroll, Wabash, Muhlenberg, Centre, St. Thomas, Delaware Valley
Muhl could have been picked over.  They are similar to the other playoff regulars that can't get passed the better teams.  Prior years for Muhl showed little ability to beat the better team in its division and certainly not teams in the playoffs.
Centre was 10-0 and should have gone in through Pool B, leaving TLU to fight for a Pool C slot.  Because of their very bad loss to MHB, TLU would not have got in.  Del Val- should not have been given a Pool C spot.  Loss to conf champ and unimpressive performance against the better teams on regular season schedules in prior years should give the committee reason to believe Del Val will not raise the level of competition in the playoffs.






 

[emma17]

I believe a 30-0 winning team is always 30-0 better that the opponent they are beating 30-0.

Cray.

Better?  Maybe faster.
Do you play pool? 

[wildcat11]

emma17,

NCC was just as big (if not bigger at a number of spots) and athletic as Linfield...I can't dispute that.  However, when the score hit 30-0, I really felt Linfield took their foot off the gas.  You could feel it on the sideline and it was Linfield's mistake to assume that a talented and quick hitting NCC would roll over at that point.  That was a good NCC team but the 'Cats out executed NCC for the great majority of the game and methodically built that 30-0 lead.  That seems silly to say 30-0 was competitive but when NCC punched in those two quick TD's the game became really tense until the 'Cats sealed it on the 4th INT of the game.

[emma17]

emma17,

NCC was just as big (if not bigger at a number of spots) and athletic as Linfield...I can't dispute that.  However, when the score hit 30-0, I really felt Linfield took their foot off the gas.  You could feel it on the sideline and it was Linfield's mistake to assume that a talented and quick hitting NCC would roll over at that point.  That was a good NCC team but the 'Cats out executed NCC for the great majority of the game and methodically and slowly built that 30-0 lead.  That seems silly to say 30-0 was competitive but when NCC punched in those two quick TD's the game became really tense until the 'Cats sealed it on the 4th INT of the game.

I appreciate the reply Wildcat. 
I know you're a man of great detail.  The drive summaries and stats don't really support a notion that NCC only started having offensive success when Linfield was up by 30.  NCC had the first scoring opportunity.  NCC was at the Linfield 3 yd line in the 2nd quarter.  Kucuc was tearing up the yardage throughout the entire game, not only when Linfield went up. 

Again, in no way am I discrediting Linfield, they were the better overall team (which includes coaching).  But for people to think that NCC was not competitive with Linfield, at all points of the game, seems to me a refusal to look at the game again. 

[Augie6]

2014: John Carroll, Wabash, Muhlenberg, Centre, St. Thomas, Delaware Valley
Muhl could have been picked over.  They are similar to the other playoff regulars that can't get passed the better teams.  Prior years for Muhl showed little ability to beat the better team in its division and certainly not teams in the playoffs.
Centre was 10-0 and should have gone in through Pool B, leaving TLU to fight for a Pool C slot.  Because of their very bad loss to MHB, TLU would not have got in.  Del Val- should not have been given a Pool C spot.  Loss to conf champ and unimpressive performance against the better teams on regular season schedules in prior years should give the committee reason to believe Del Val will not raise the level of competition in the playoffs.

E17 - So let's also look at 2014 NCC in relation to the other Pool C selections.   8-2 record.  They lost to the 4th place team from the WIAC, and also lost to conference champ, Wheaton, in a close game.  No wins against any team that finished in the top 25 of the D3football.com poll.  They also wrapped up their regular season with an uninspired effort against a mediocre Elmhurst team, having to score with a little over two minutes left in the game to win, despite being out gained by Elmhurst 507 yards to 375.  Despite Wheaton's undefeated record, they can hardly be described as a dominant CCIW champion, with several close games in the CCIW (Augie, NCC, IWU) and one playoff win vs Benedictine. So a close game against them, isn't all that impressive.  Based on these factors, it seems to me that the selections probably played out as they should have.  NCC may have been considered, but in the end, their record was not good enough to get in.  I'm not sure how you reconcile this.  It doesn't make sense to me that, because NCC had a great year in 2013, that would be the reason to put them into the playoffs ahead of the others.  That would be discounting their body of work that was displayed during the 2014 season, which was certainly solid, but nothing spectacular.  In this case, the recent past does not really support NCC's performance in 2014, as you suggest in your post.  Clearly, the 2014 version of the Cardinals was not as good of a team as the 2013 version was.  I'm also guessing that the players from the teams that were selected as Pool C teams last year, also had a "bunch of kids that worked their tails off to be the best players they could be".  So I don't really see where that has any bearing on this issue. 

[emma17]

Augie,
I'll reply to your post but I do reckon this subject has about run its course. 
We all recognize there will be huge mismatches in talent between AQ teams.  As such I think Pool C is the best way to counterbalance that reality. 

To your points.
I don't dock points for a win, regardless of who it's against.  The body of work is all that matters.  In NCC's case, they finished 8-2.  They lost by 3 points to Wheaton, a team that finished 8th in the final 2014 rankings.  They did exactly what a Pool C candidate should do, they played their conference champion very competitively.  You seem to feel it discredits NCC to refer to UWSP as the 4th place team.  No surprise, I don't feel the same.  UWSP is in the same conference with the best team in the country over the last decade.  You shouldn't expect them to have to win conference in order to be deemed playoff worthy.  I'm not suggesting they should be in the playoffs, but a 34-27 loss to them by NCC isn't as bad as you make it.  I still take that over the losses the other Pool C teams had.

I posted the teams I didn't think should make it.  I'd rather talk about your opinion on that as you don't seem too high on the CCIW teams.  Rather than tell me why NCC wouldn't have raised the bar, can you tell me why 2014 Muhl, Del Val and Centre did?     

[emma17]

Augie,
I did find this quote interesting from Linfield coach Smith- it was his 2013 season review.  I realize most coaches will say good things about the competition, but...

"We made no bones about 'daring greatly' this year. This team wanted it badly and more importantly they gladly paid the price to have the right to 'dare greatly.' This group worked and sacrificed as few Linfield teams ever have. From having played the elite-level teams in Division III over the past five years such as Whitewater, Mary Hardin-Baylor, St. Thomas, Wesley, UW-Oshkosh, and North Central, we knew what awaited us in Wisconsin."

[Gregory Sager]

I think it's time.



Thing is, if you complain about a topic, the unofficial d3boards.com rule is that you have to provide an alternative one. So here's mine: Would anyone like to: a) predict the rankings in the CCIW preseason coaches poll; and/or b) make their own predictions?