FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[lmitzel]

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.

Oh yeah, forgot that John Carroll was still in the second to last batch. The numbers add up, but I'm still not happy about it.

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).

I'm not up in arms about this and don't really consider it NCC getting "punished." I just see it as an unfortunate side effect of a no-contest (which was the right call given Carnegie Mellon withdrew. How can a team that withdrew from a tournament forfeit?)

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.

This is what I heard from folks in the know after the NCC basketball doubleheader on Saturday right after the news broke. Now, I don't know how similar the whole "submitting to be a host site" thing is between football and basketball. I'd assume Mount put in for everything though (you know, in the event of an upset or something weird happening).

I'm at the point Monday morning where I'm still mad about it, but have more or less accepted it. I understand the decision making even though I find it opaque (in that the whole "we rerank every week" thing came out of nowhere) and I disagree vehemently with their use of the numbers, but what's done is done.

Let's go beat Mount again.

[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?

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.

I agree, and think we were all shocked to find out Mount was hosting! So I have said it in plain English: North Central should be hosting. I DMed you with why I think this happened (the expanded version of what I originally posted), but I (all of us?) would rather have heard the rationale leading to the Cardinals hosting than the Raiders. At this point, we have had almost two years to deal with how COVID works and spreads, so not making the game because of it (especially knowing what we do now about how much that game matters) should have been a forfeit, or whatever gets a Win assigned to North Central.

I apologize any of my post came across as a knock on the Cardinals. They ALSO did everything the NCAA asked them to do, as well as did what we all have asked other teams to do when establishing what we understand as the tiebreakers - win/make the Stagg Bowl and go undefeated the following year.

Like K&J's Dad said, Mount Union probably put in a token request to host, because every team is going to go through that motion. I highly doubt they were expecting to hear a "yes."

All that said: the Cardinals have been there before and won. They can do it again, and probably will: my (unfortunate to me) prediction is 35-21 Cardinals.

[robertgoulet]

I'm at the point Monday morning where I'm still mad about it, but have more or less accepted it. I understand the decision making even though I find it opaque (in that the whole "we rerank every week" thing came out of nowhere) and I disagree vehemently with their use of the numbers, but what's done is done.

Let's go beat Mount again.

I'd guaranty that we (fans, parents, etc) are more far more upset about this than the players are.

[crufootball]

I'm at the point Monday morning where I'm still mad about it, but have more or less accepted it. I understand the decision making even though I find it opaque (in that the whole "we rerank every week" thing came out of nowhere) and I disagree vehemently with their use of the numbers, but what's done is done.

Let's go beat Mount again.

I'd guaranty that we (fans, parents, etc) are more far more upset about this than the players are.

I don't know, Coach Throne seemed a tad bit upset when his team wasn't getting respected by the D3 poll which most of realize doesn't matter, this was a legit slap in the face that impacted his team.

[WRMUalum13]

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.

I agree, and think we were all shocked to find out Mount was hosting! So I have said it in plain English: North Central should be hosting. I DMed you with why I think this happened (the expanded version of what I originally posted), but I (all of us?) would rather have heard the rationale leading to the Cardinals hosting than the Raiders. At this point, we have had almost two years to deal with how COVID works and spreads, so not making the game because of it (especially knowing what we do now about how much that game matters) should have been a forfeit, or whatever gets a Win assigned to North Central.

I apologize any of my post came across as a knock on the Cardinals. They ALSO did everything the NCAA asked them to do, as well as did what we all have asked other teams to do when establishing what we understand as the tiebreakers - win/make the Stagg Bowl and go undefeated the following year.

Like K&J's Dad said, Mount Union probably put in a token request to host, because every team is going to go through that motion. I highly doubt they were expecting to hear a "yes."

All that said: the Cardinals have been there before and won. They can do it again, and probably will: my (unfortunate to me) prediction is 35-21 Cardinals.

To CMUs defense I believe they had near 100% vaccination rate, not sure there's much else they could have reasonably done to avoid Covid.

[CardinalAlum]

I'm at the point Monday morning where I'm still mad about it, but have more or less accepted it. I understand the decision making even though I find it opaque (in that the whole "we rerank every week" thing came out of nowhere) and I disagree vehemently with their use of the numbers, but what's done is done.

Let's go beat Mount again.

I'd guaranty that we (fans, parents, etc) are more far more upset about this than the players are.

I don't know, Coach Throne seemed a tad bit upset when his team wasn't getting respected by the D3 poll which most of realize doesn't matter, this was a legit slap in the face that impacted his team.

Freudian slip?    Time to move on.  24 hours plus of bitching about the ridiculous decision is probably more than enough.  Let's go Cards!

[crufootball]

I'm at the point Monday morning where I'm still mad about it, but have more or less accepted it. I understand the decision making even though I find it opaque (in that the whole "we rerank every week" thing came out of nowhere) and I disagree vehemently with their use of the numbers, but what's done is done.

Let's go beat Mount again.

I'd guaranty that we (fans, parents, etc) are more far more upset about this than the players are.

I don't know, Coach Throne seemed a tad bit upset when his team wasn't getting respected by the D3 poll which most of realize doesn't matter, this was a legit slap in the face that impacted his team.

Freudian slip?    Time to move on.  24 hours plus of bitching about the ridiculous decision is probably more than enough.  Let's go Cards!

Haha not really even after all these years I have to check myself on Fredenburg, having the surname of Jones has left me without the attention to detail on last names.

I am sure Coach Thorne will have his team plenty ready, your guys don't need good luck but I will wish it to you guys anyway.

[markerickson]

Saturday's Wall St Journal featured a half-page article on Central's record-breaking QB, Blaine Hawkins, a starter since he was a freshman.  Although Central lost to undefeated UWW, will/should Hawkins receive some Heisman votes?

D3 RB Joe Dudek finished 9th in 1985.

I think all four semifinal teams are undefeated. 

[archgemini24]

To CMUs defense I believe they had near 100% vaccination rate, not sure there's much else they could have reasonably done to avoid Covid.

Then I feel bad for them (we can all agree that COVID can stick it where the sun doesn't shine), and still believe that however the no-contest was resolved should not have upturned the apple-cart the way it did.

[Gregory Sager]

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).

Because it wouldn't be right, that's why. It would go against the protocol that the NCAA and its member leagues have used throughout the pandemic. As Lucas said, when a team is unable to play a game due to a COVID outbreak and gives sufficient advance notice, that game goes down as a no-contest.

Think back to last spring, when Wheaton, which finished the "regular" season with the best record in CCIW women's basketball, suffered a COVID positive or positives prior to the CCIW tournament and had to formally withdraw from participating in the tourney after the matchups had already been announced by 30 N. Brainard. Were the Sonic Atmospheric Disturbance saddled with a forfeit loss to eighth-seed Carthage? No. The tournament was re-seeded, with second-place Millikin as the new top seed and last-place North Central invited to fill in for Wheaton by participating as the eighth seed instead of suffering the indignity of being the only CCIW women's basketball team not to qualify for the eight-team tourney. Or, to use a more recent example, Knox had to bow out of a men's basketball game against North Park a couple of weeks ago due to a COVID positive or positives. Knox head coach Ben Davis and NPU head coach Tom Slyder were unable to find a makeup date that their teams had in common, so the game was canceled rather than postponed. Was NPU awarded a forfeit win? No -- and the notice from Knox that the Prairie Fire couldn't play came a whole lot closer to game time than did Carnegie Mellon's notice to North Central.

You can't penalize a team for having a player or players who contracted a disease ... and, since for every winner there must be a loser, CMU would've had to absorb the forfeit loss for its 2021 record. That would've been even more unfair than North Central having to travel to Alliance, since at least NCC gets to earn its win or loss on the field next Saturday. I thoroughly agree that North Central is the victim of an opaque NCAA, and that the Cardinals should be hosting next week's football game in light of the fact that the D3 football committee is allowed to use prior seasons in its considerations. But you can't award the hosting rights to NCC based upon a forfeit win that it did not deserve and which runs counter to established policy.

[WUPHF]

The worst part for me is the fact the North Central players were at no greater risk of getting a disease in a game that they would be going about their everyday lives. 

A disease that has a 99.999999% survival rate for otherwise healthy individuals in the 18-30 age category.

[Gregory Sager]

True ... and it's even more bizarre when you consider the inherent unhealthiness of the game of football itself.

When you consider the risk of broken bones, mangled joints, torn muscles, concussions, severe cuts, etc., that every player takes when he steps onto the field, the infinitesimal chance that he will contract a disease from close and prolonged proximity to a specific but random opponent, a disease that almost certainly wouldn't permanently harm him, seems even more absurd.

[kiko]

The worst part for me is the fact the North Central players were at no greater risk of getting a disease in a game that they would be going about their everyday lives. 

A disease that has a 99.999999% survival rate for otherwise healthy individuals in the 18-30 age category.

I did not realize that the game officials and other event staff are all in the 18-30 year old age range.

[Gregory Sager]

How much exposure to players do they get, though?

[SpartanHouse]

The worst part for me is the fact the North Central players were at no greater risk of getting a disease in a game that they would be going about their everyday lives. 

A disease that has a 99.999999% survival rate for otherwise healthy individuals in the 18-30 age category.

I did not realize that the game officials and other event staff are all in the 18-30 year old age range.

Oh please. The game is played outside in which Covid doesn't do Anything and the refs can mask and stay away from the kids if they'd like.

Plus, it's only close contact if you're exposed for 15min within 6ft. At least that's what we're told.