FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[SpartanHouse]

" U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter."

This was in another thread. Chicago can't win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

[hazzben]

“ U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter.”

This was in another thread. Chicago can’t win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

That is a crazy stat ... wow.

[CardinalAlum]

" U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter."

This was in another thread. Chicago can't win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

That is a crazy stat ... wow.

That seems to be an absolutely brutal way to break a tie.

[hazzben]

" U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter."

This was in another thread. Chicago can't win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

That is a crazy stat ... wow.

That seems to be an absolutely brutal way to break a tie.

It's a fascinating nuance. Rather than just margin of victory, where a weird blowout skews things or you encourage teams to run up the score. It's just a strange wrinkle given that in a total blowout, they still 'lost' a quarter of Tie Breaker Metric.

[WW]

" U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter."

This was in another thread. Chicago can't win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

How's this for crazy... Chicago leads the first three quarters, LF ties to force OT, Chicago wins in OT. Does the OT count as a quarter?

[Gregory Sager]

" U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter."

This was in another thread. Chicago can't win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

That is a crazy stat ... wow.

That seems to be an absolutely brutal way to break a tie.

It's a fascinating nuance. Rather than just margin of victory, where a weird blowout skews things or you encourage teams to run up the score. It's just a strange wrinkle given that in a total blowout, they still 'lost' a quarter of Tie Breaker Metric.

The quarters tiebreaker still encourages a team to run up the score, just as other tiebreakers do. If you're in a close battle for a playoff spot at the end of the year, and you know that the quarters tiebreaker might end up being a factor in whether or not you make the playoffs, are you really going to dip into your bench in the fourth quarter once the win itself is secure and thereby risk losing the fourth quarter?

[WW]

" U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter."

This was in another thread. Chicago can't win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

That is a crazy stat ... wow.

That seems to be an absolutely brutal way to break a tie.

It's a fascinating nuance. Rather than just margin of victory, where a weird blowout skews things or you encourage teams to run up the score. It's just a strange wrinkle given that in a total blowout, they still 'lost' a quarter of Tie Breaker Metric.

The quarters tiebreaker still encourages a team to run up the score, just as other tiebreakers do. If you're in a close battle for a playoff spot at the end of the year, and you know that the quarters tiebreaker might end up being a factor in whether or not you make the playoffs, are you really going to dip into your bench in the fourth quarter once the win itself is secure and thereby risk losing the fourth quarter?

You're implying an interpretation of the tiebreaker that is different than mine. Is it "quarters won"? Or "quarters after which your team led"? Interpretation I've seen that presumes a LF championship is presuming "quarters led after" as the criteria.

[CardinalAlum]

" U Chicago, although winning 78-3 against Grinnell, was tied 3-3 at the end of the first quarter."

This was in another thread. Chicago can't win the conference title and only way in is an at large bid.

Unless something crazy happens this weekend.

That is a crazy stat ... wow.

That seems to be an absolutely brutal way to break a tie.

It's a fascinating nuance. Rather than just margin of victory, where a weird blowout skews things or you encourage teams to run up the score. It's just a strange wrinkle given that in a total blowout, they still 'lost' a quarter of Tie Breaker Metric.

The quarters tiebreaker still encourages a team to run up the score, just as other tiebreakers do. If you're in a close battle for a playoff spot at the end of the year, and you know that the quarters tiebreaker might end up being a factor in whether or not you make the playoffs, are you really going to dip into your bench in the fourth quarter once the win itself is secure and thereby risk losing the fourth quarter?

You're implying an interpretation of the tiebreaker that is different than mine. Is it "quarters won"? Or "quarters after which your team led"? Interpretation I've seen that presumes a LF championship is presuming "quarters led after" as the criteria.

WW, I assumed how you are as well.

[wally_wabash]

FWIW I don't at all read or interpret that tiebreak as every quarter starts at 0-0 for tiebreaking purposes.  A team that leads after the first quarter 7-0 and at halftime 7-3 has led after two quarters. 

[blue_jays]

FWIW I don't at all read or interpret that tiebreak as every quarter starts at 0-0 for tiebreaking purposes.  A team that leads after the first quarter 7-0 and at halftime 7-3 has led after two quarters.

Correct, they lead at the end of the first and end of the second, so counts as two quarters led.

UChicago does have a chance to win the MWC still. They have to lead at the end of all 4 quarters against Lake Forest. Or if Monmouth loses to Ripon.

[New Tradition]

Here we go!

https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2021/first-regional-ranking

Region 5           
   Aurora   6-2   6-2
   Central   8-0   8-0
   Chicago   7-1   7-1
   Coe   6-2   6-2
   Lake Forest   8-0   8-0
   Lakeland   7-1   7-1
   North Central (Ill.)   8-0   8-0
   Wheaton (Ill.)   7-1   7-1

[WW]

Here we go!

https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2021/first-regional-ranking

Region 5           
   Aurora   6-2   6-2
   Central   8-0   8-0
   Chicago   7-1   7-1
   Coe   6-2   6-2
   Lake Forest   8-0   8-0
   Lakeland   7-1   7-1
   North Central (Ill.)   8-0   8-0
   Wheaton (Ill.)   7-1   7-1

Would not have guessed Coe

[WW]

FWIW I don't at all read or interpret that tiebreak as every quarter starts at 0-0 for tiebreaking purposes.  A team that leads after the first quarter 7-0 and at halftime 7-3 has led after two quarters.

Correct, they lead at the end of the first and end of the second, so counts as two quarters led.

UChicago does have a chance to win the MWC still. They have to lead at the end of all 4 quarters against Lake Forest. Or if Monmouth loses to Ripon.

How? Chicago halved the first quarter with Grinnell. Winning all four vs LF leaves them a half-quarter short. A Ripon upset of Monmouth changes things, but isn't likely to occur.

[kiko]

Number of teams regionally ranked:

Region 1 - 8 of 42*
Region 2 - 8 of 41
Region 3 - 7 of 34
Region 4 - 7 of 35
Region 5 - 8 of 38
Region 6 - 8 of 40

* - total excludes the ten NESCAC teams given their policy on not competing in the football playoff process.

Clearly we are likely to see a couple of losses among Region 5 regionally ranked teams.  But given the initial list of ranked teams, I don't see Wash U both (1) losing a game and (2) entering the rankings without either an upset win or close loss this coming weekend.

[USee]

FWIW I don't at all read or interpret that tiebreak as every quarter starts at 0-0 for tiebreaking purposes.  A team that leads after the first quarter 7-0 and at halftime 7-3 has led after two quarters.

Correct, they lead at the end of the first and end of the second, so counts as two quarters led.

UChicago does have a chance to win the MWC still. They have to lead at the end of all 4 quarters against Lake Forest. Or if Monmouth loses to Ripon.

How? Chicago halved the first quarter with Grinnell. Winning all four vs LF leaves them a half-quarter short. A Ripon upset of Monmouth changes things, but isn't likely to occur.

By my calculations through last weekend Lake Forest has led 31 of 32 quarters and Chicago has led 27 of 32 quarters. Their games against Beloit and Lawrence this weekend presumably will add 4/4 to each total. That means if Chicago leads LF in the finale all 4 quarters they will end up 35 quarters led for the season and LF will end up with 35. That means coin flip is the best Chicago can do.

Let me know if someone sees it different.