FB: Northwest Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Blue, my guess is since the NWC teams are in Pool B (no auto bid for the conference winner), they would take the team that best met the playoff selection criteria. Since Linfield would have a better in region winning percentage (not the only thing looked at but part of the criteria - for instance, in-region head to head competition is also looked at) I would think the 'Cats would be selected over Willamette. Starting next year, the conference winner will get the auto bid (Pool A) regardless of their record.

Pat, out of curiousity, do you know if there has ever been an instance where a Pool B team was selected OVER their conference's winner?

I don't think so in football, but there's nothing to say it won't happen. The NCAA doesn't really care about conference tiebreakers when it comes to selecting at-large teams, which Pool B qualifies as.

[bluenote]

Pat...are you saying that they would most likely take the conference winner in the above scenerio I lined out (with both Willamette and Linfield winning out) OR the team with the best playoff criteria/win loss/stats .....or is that criteria of lower value in the eyes of the committee than being conference champ for pool B teams?

[Ralph Turner]

The only time that I can remember that happening was in the ACFC in 2002.  The ACFC was a 4-team conference (including NNA).  Frostburg won the conference, but Salisbury had a better Pool B record by the 2002 Handbook criteria.

That may not be applicable to the NWC, which is an official conference.  What was the story behind the Linfield episode in the 2001?   They were tri-champs.  Would they have earned a Pool A bid?

[Foss]

Thanks, Pat.

Ralph, 2001 was an interesting year. Whitworth, PLU, and Linfield all ended up with one conference loss. PLU beat Linfield who beat Whitworth who beat PLU. PLU and Linfield also had a loss to an NAIA team (PLU lost 31-27 on the road to Azusa Pacific, Linfield lost handily at Southern Oregon, 29-0. PLU also played Southern Oregon that year and beat them 48-38). The committee chose Whitworth and PLU.

[Pat Coleman]

Foss, I'm saying that in Pool B, being the conference champ has basically no weight at all by itself.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks, Pat.

Ralph, 2001 was an interesting year. Whitworth, PLU, and Linfield all ended up with one conference loss. PLU beat Linfield who beat Whitworth who beat PLU. PLU and Linfield also had a loss to an NAIA team (PLU lost 31-27 on the road to Azusa Pacific, Linfield lost handily at Southern Oregon, 29-0. PLU also played Southern Oregon that year and beat them 48-38). The committee chose Whitworth and PLU.

Pat is correct about the Pool B issues.

Foss, do you know the NWC tie-breaker criteria, if there were any in football, in 2001?

[Foss]

Pat, was that response for me or were you answering bluenote's question? (either way, it was good info). 

[Foss]

Ralph, sorry - no idea regarding the tie-breaker criteria now or back in '01. I've checked out the nwcsports.com website recently and didn't find anything but may have not looked hard enough.

[(509)Rat]

A few things about the Whitworth LC game...Whitworth continued to run the ball very well, of course this was expected but it was nice to see that they didn't overlook an inferior opponent.  Two things that really stood out to me, one being LC's ability to secure the football.  They had 1 turnover which is more than PLU fans can say about their game with the Pirates.  Granted that LC only attempted 17 passes, most of whch were very high percentage routes (screens, swing passes, hitches, etc.) they still didn't throw an interception against a very good secondary and a defense that brought plenty of pressure.  The second thing I noticed was how they really didn't give up.  There was still hottin' and hollerin' when their offense and defense made plays until the last drive in the 4th quarter.  Looks like they've got some decent athletes, now they just need support form the College.

[Sabretooth Tiger]

FYI, new D3 top 25 is posted.

Oxy up to 17
Linfield up to 19
Whitworth up to 23

and no one is home on the SCIAC board so I thought I'd drop by.

[Toivo70]

All this talk about playoff scenarios and teams winning out makes me laugh.....how can anyone assume that their team can win out in the NWC.  Willamette is too inconsistent to win out the rest of their games...PLU is playing good ball , but already has a conference loss.  Whitworth's D is fantastic and their offense can really run ithe ball, but needs consistency for 4 quarters and Linfield offense has been up and down for 4 quarters and their D is not consistent either.
Let's wait till week 8 to make assumptions..it's not that I don't like the whatif talk, but it's the fast forwarding for 4 weeks that makes me wonder???

[Pat Coleman]

Pat, was that response for me or were you answering bluenote's question? (either way, it was good info). 

Good -- it was basically repeating the info I'd just posted, of course.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph, sorry - no idea regarding the tie-breaker criteria now or back in '01. I've checked out the nwcsports.com website recently and didn't find anything but may have not looked hard enough.

Thanks for looking.

I haven't seen the tie-breaker outlined on the NWC website either.

[Pat Coleman]

There's no need for a tiebreaker for football in the NWC with no automatic bid.

[bluenote]

All this talk about playoff scenarios and teams winning out makes me laugh.....how can anyone assume that their team can win out in the NWC.  Willamette is too inconsistent to win out the rest of their games...PLU is playing good ball , but already has a conference loss.  Whitworth's D is fantastic and their offense can really run ithe ball, but needs consistency for 4 quarters and Linfield offense has been up and down for 4 quarters and their D is not consistent either.
Let's wait till week 8 to make assumptions..it's not that I don't like the whatif talk, but it's the fast forwarding for 4 weeks that makes me wonder???

Toivo70.....I'm glad you got a good laugh out of it.    I also like your run down of the teams. Sounds pretty right on to me at this point. We'll see how the next few weeks turn out.

Pat...thanks for the info. I thought that's what you meant in the first post but I wasn't sure.