FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Next Man Up]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

[Next Man Up]

Check this out...

https://twitter.com/FrankRossi/status/1467576475402579971?s=20

It wouldn't soothe anyone's hurt feelings but it does provide some rational.  Clearly the NCAA thinks that Mount is the better team based upon their metrics.  We will see on Saturday.

I was just about to share this. Basically, the whole "once ranked, always ranked" thing rears its ugly head again, and the no-contest against Carnegie Mellon comes back to bite.

I am not happy.

But you of course realize that the Carnegie Mellon Covid outbreak was NCC's fault, and they must be penalized!

[bleedpurple]

Check this out...

https://twitter.com/FrankRossi/status/1467576475402579971?s=20

It wouldn't soothe anyone's hurt feelings but it does provide some rational.  Clearly the NCAA thinks that Mount is the better team based upon their metrics.  We will see on Saturday.

I was just about to share this. Basically, the whole "once ranked, always ranked" thing rears its ugly head again, and the no-contest against Carnegie Mellon comes back to bite.

I am not happy.

But you of course realize that the Carnegie Mellon Covid outbreak was NCC's fault, and they must be penalized!

For the record, I think the NCAA's decision is horrible. Absolutely horrible.  But, I don't think they are wrong in treating the Carnegie Mellon match-up as a no contest.  North Central didn't beat them. They got a free pass into the second round.  It is definitely a bummer that it may have cost them home field in the semi's (again- in a horrible decision).  But the principle of a game that was never played being a no contest is a good one.

But beyond all that: So this process happens after every round with every team and no one outside the NCAA knew it?

[SpartanHouse]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

Isn't the 7 page tweet transparency? Feel like we all know why Mount is hosting now. What else would you like to hear from them?


A tournament without black and white seeding is stupid. How does that even exist? If I'm the NCAA, I would want seeded rankings for the sheer fact of not having this embarrassing situation they are in in which they look like incompetent clowns.

[USee]

The other massive implication in all this is the advantage/disadvantage it creates when the NCAA builds a bracket. Island teams are getting hosed due to money but may also get hosed due to the SOS of their opponents that then go into their calculation after they play for the next round? So if NCC had to play Central, Wheaton and UWW to get the semis their SOS would be higher than Mt and they would have "earned" the right to host?

[crufootball]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

Isn't the 7 page tweet transparency? Feel like we all know why Mount is hosting now. What else would you like to hear from them?


A tournament without black and white seeding is stupid. How does that even exist? If I'm the NCAA, I would want seeded rankings for the sheer fact of not having this embarrassing situation they are in in which they look like incompetent clowns.

I love the stuff that Frank and all other D3 guru's do but I want to hear from the NCAA. I want them to live up to the criteria that we all apparently had wrong and explain all the things we think we know like previous year tie breakers and once ranked always ranked.

[New Tradition]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

Isn't the 7 page tweet transparency? Feel like we all know why Mount is hosting now. What else would you like to hear from them?


A tournament without black and white seeding is stupid. How does that even exist? If I'm the NCAA, I would want seeded rankings for the sheer fact of not having this embarrassing situation they are in in which they look like incompetent clowns.

I love the stuff that Frank and all other D3 guru's do but I want to hear from the NCAA. I want them to live up to the criteria that we all apparently had wrong and explain all the things we think we know like previous year tie breakers and once ranked always ranked.

Agreed. The NCAA's lack of transparency really makes me appreciate Frank, Pat & Co. even more because without them, we'd be in the dark forever.

[kiko]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

Isn't the 7 page tweet transparency? Feel like we all know why Mount is hosting now. What else would you like to hear from them?


A tournament without black and white seeding is stupid. How does that even exist? If I'm the NCAA, I would want seeded rankings for the sheer fact of not having this embarrassing situation they are in in which they look like incompetent clowns.

It's not transparency from the NCAA if it does not come on the record directly from the NCAA.

My attitude toward all of this is:

<eyeroll> <shrug> Okay, we'll take on anyone anywhere.  See you in Alliance.

[WashedUpCard]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

Isn't the 7 page tweet transparency? Feel like we all know why Mount is hosting now. What else would you like to hear from them?


A tournament without black and white seeding is stupid. How does that even exist? If I'm the NCAA, I would want seeded rankings for the sheer fact of not having this embarrassing situation they are in in which they look like incompetent clowns.

I love the stuff that Frank and all other D3 guru's do but I want to hear from the NCAA. I want them to live up to the criteria that we all apparently had wrong and explain all the things we think we know like previous year tie breakers and once ranked always ranked.

Agreed. The NCAA's lack of transparency really makes me appreciate Frank, Pat & Co. even more because without them, we'd be in the dark forever.

This must be frustrating for them, though.  They have repeatedly and patiently explained the playoff "rules" to the masses only to have the NCAA throw them a curveball in the semi's.  I don't think we will ever get a formal explanation from the NCAA as this issue will be forgotten by most people in two weeks (or less).  The old news cycle two step.   

The NCC football team will be fine (I think).  Based upon social media they are taking this in stride.  I really feel for the parents, friends and alumni.  It will be tough for people to potentially make 2 trips to Ohio in less than a week.  It is also unfortunate for the college... this was a great opportunity to showcase the campus and City of Naperville to a national audience.

[wally_wabash]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

Isn't the 7 page tweet transparency? Feel like we all know why Mount is hosting now. What else would you like to hear from them?


A tournament without black and white seeding is stupid. How does that even exist? If I'm the NCAA, I would want seeded rankings for the sheer fact of not having this embarrassing situation they are in in which they look like incompetent clowns.

I love the stuff that Frank and all other D3 guru's do but I want to hear from the NCAA. I want them to live up to the criteria that we all apparently had wrong and explain all the things we think we know like previous year tie breakers and once ranked always ranked.

Agreed. The NCAA's lack of transparency really makes me appreciate Frank, Pat & Co. even more because without them, we'd be in the dark forever.

This must be frustrating for them, though.  They have repeatedly and patiently explained the playoff "rules" to the masses only to have the NCAA throw them a curveball in the semi's. I don't think we will ever get a formal explanation from the NCAA as this issue will be forgotten by most people in two weeks (or less).  The old news cycle two step.   

The NCC football team will be fine (I think).  Based upon social media they are taking this in stride.  I really feel for the parents, friends and alumni.  It will be tough for people to potentially make 2 trips to Ohio in less than a week.  It is also unfortunate for the college... this was a great opportunity to showcase the campus and City of Naperville to a national audience.

Some version of "why does Mount Union always get to host every game in playoffs" comes up multiple times, in multiple places every year.  My answer has always been some version of "because they earned it by going  undefeated and advancing farther than everybody else in the tournament- if teams want to not have to play a quarterfinal or semifinal game in Alliance, then you have to beat them in a tournament and take that privilege away."  North Central did that.  They did the thing that for the last ten years we've understood to be the key to earning home field advantage.  And then this. 

I've got nothing here.  The understanding for 10 years has been to the victor go the the spoils.  North Central were the victors and, today at least, no spoils.  This isn't how this was supposed to work.  I hope we'll understand how we got here. 

[SpartanHouse]

In almost all aspects of society lately one of the watchwords we seem to currently be hearing on a very consistent basis is "transparency." Not feeling the need to explain an unfathomable decision gives evidence to the fact the NCAA has no interest in being transparent. It wouldn't be surprising to learn they've never even heard of the concept.
The NCAA leadership needs some new blood.

Isn't the 7 page tweet transparency? Feel like we all know why Mount is hosting now. What else would you like to hear from them?


A tournament without black and white seeding is stupid. How does that even exist? If I'm the NCAA, I would want seeded rankings for the sheer fact of not having this embarrassing situation they are in in which they look like incompetent clowns.

It's not transparency from the NCAA if it does not come on the record directly from the NCAA.

My attitude toward all of this is:

<eyeroll> <shrug> Okay, we'll take on anyone anywhere.  See you in Alliance.

Good point. I agree w that.

[archgemini24]

Some version of "why does Mount Union always get to host every game in playoffs" comes up multiple times, in multiple places every year.  My answer has always been some version of "because they earned it by going  undefeated and advancing farther than everybody else in the tournament- if teams want to not have to play a quarterfinal or semifinal game in Alliance, then you have to beat them in a tournament and take that privilege away."  North Central did that.  They did the thing that for the last ten years we've understood to be the key to earning home field advantage.  And then this. 

I've got nothing here.  The understanding for 10 years has been to the victor go the the spoils.  North Central were the victors and, today at least, no spoils.  This isn't how this was supposed to work.  I hope we'll understand how we got here.

From the Twitter feed that Frank Rossi posted with the NCAA's rationale, I think our understanding of tiebraker is still accurate and applicable, but the NCAA did not think the teams were in anything near a tie (UMU is 13-0 vs. D3 with 6 RRO wins and NCC is 12-0 vs. D3 with 5 RRO wins and a NC) at this point. Do not get me wrong: I disagree with said rationale and do not think one game (and a likely blowout, at that) should make a difference. If they have implemented tiebreakers and other... messages of the numbers before to make things make intuitive sense, would it have been appropriate to do so here, even if their formula and numbers say Mount should host?

Would we have preferred if they said, "UMU played 13 games and thus had more of a risk to lose and be eliminated by playing an additional playoff game so the formula says they should be awarded the home game because we are not in a tie-break situation, anymore (effectively what they said), but our gut says not to make the undefeated champs travel even if they played less games, so NCC hosts (the add-on part they didn't say, but we hoped they would)."? Or is that stiffing Mount Union even though they played by all the rules (rules that we were just reminded we do not fully know).

Has this ever been a point of contention between two teams in the playoffs before to have a precedent?

[Pat Coleman]

Check this out...

https://twitter.com/FrankRossi/status/1467576475402579971?s=20

It wouldn't soothe anyone's hurt feelings but it does provide some rational.  Clearly the NCAA thinks that Mount is the better team based upon their metrics.  We will see on Saturday.

I was just about to share this. Basically, the whole "once ranked, always ranked" thing rears its ugly head again, and the no-contest against Carnegie Mellon comes back to bite.

I am not happy.

"Once ranked, always ranked" isn't actually a thing -- it's that at selection time, they use the final ranking and the Week 11 ranking for logistical reasons.

[Next Man Up]

Some version of "why does Mount Union always get to host every game in playoffs" comes up multiple times, in multiple places every year.  My answer has always been some version of "because they earned it by going  undefeated and advancing farther than everybody else in the tournament- if teams want to not have to play a quarterfinal or semifinal game in Alliance, then you have to beat them in a tournament and take that privilege away."  North Central did that.  They did the thing that for the last ten years we've understood to be the key to earning home field advantage.  And then this. 

I've got nothing here.  The understanding for 10 years has been to the victor go the the spoils.  North Central were the victors and, today at least, no spoils.  This isn't how this was supposed to work.  I hope we'll understand how we got here.

From the Twitter feed that Frank Rossi posted with the NCAA's rationale, I think our understanding of tiebraker is still accurate and applicable, but the NCAA did not think the teams were in anything near a tie (UMU is 13-0 vs. D3 with 6 RRO wins and NCC is 12-0 vs. D3 with 5 RRO wins and a NC) at this point. Do not get me wrong: I disagree with said rationale and do not think one game (and a likely blowout, at that) should make a difference. If they have implemented tiebreakers and other... messages of the numbers before to make things make intuitive sense, would it have been appropriate to do so here, even if their formula and numbers say Mount should host?

Would we have preferred if they said, "UMU played 13 games and thus had more of a risk to lose and be eliminated by playing an additional playoff game so the formula says they should be awarded the home game because we are not in a tie-break situation, anymore (effectively what they said), but our gut says not to make the undefeated champs travel even if they played less games, so NCC hosts (the add-on part they didn't say, but we hoped they would)."? Or is that stiffing Mount Union even though they played by all the rules (rules that we were just reminded we do not fully know).

Has this ever been a point of contention between two teams in the playoffs before to have a precedent?

NCC played less games only because some members of the team they were supposed to play got Covid. This certainly wasn't NCC's fault. They didn't give Carnegie Mellon Covid. But NCC has to be punished because the other team contracted Covid
Where is either the sense or fairness in that? We always hear the NCAA saying "it's all about the STUDENT-ATHLETES." But how is making the undefeated defending National Champion travel because one of their opponents got Covid and couldn't play, about the student-athletes? Seems like it's really about who the NCAA wants it to be about which in this case is anything but any student-athletes from Naperville.

And of course Mount played by all the rules. And NCC didn't?

If the sticking point is NCC playing one less game, which was evidently termed a "cancellation," due to the other team being unable to play, why not call it a forfeit rather than a cancellation, and award a W to the team that did not forfeit? (which I believe is the usual practice when a game is forfeited).

Lastly, I've read that Mount officials were stunned when they found out they were awarded the game. This doesn't relay the impression that they had been actively lobbying for the game because they believed they had irrefutable reasons why they deserved the game. Seems that right there the question of hosting should have been settled. Sorry, but this whole thing just doesn't make sense.

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

As an old Mount Union Alumni (Alumnus?), from what I've read/heard on Social Media, everyone thought that the Raiders would be traveling to Naperville this week. I am fairly confident that no one from Mount Union "Lobbied" to have the game played in Alliance.  At least no more that any other year when Mount Union applies to host playoff games.

Hoping for a good game, but I'm not confident enough in the Mount Union Pass defense or the overall decision making of Plunk.

NCC won't feel the mystique of Mount Union Stadium so I'm not sure the travel is going to hurt them.

Safe travels to all who are going to the game.