FB: New Jersey Athletic Conference

[XREDDRAGON77]

I smell a Cortland win! Rowan is good...but it took too many key breaks their way to squeeze out that win.  Like as if it was simply meant to be.  Holding that brings back a screen back from the 15, roughing the punter, and a 4th down td pass all within the final 5 minutes. 

I don't see too many points in this game.  I could see it coming down to a FG due to a turnover or a key special teams play.

[rams1102]

I smell a Cortland win! Rowan is good...but it took too many key breaks their way to squeeze out that win.  Like as if it was simply meant to be.  Holding that brings back a screen back from the 15, roughing the punter, and a 4th down td pass all within the final 5 minutes.  

I don't see too many points in this game.  I could see it coming down to a FG due to a turnover or a key special teams play.

Agreed, but a Montclair "W".

[MSU Pride]

Wow, what else could anone ask for!!! Unfortunatley I will not be in attendance but man I can feel it this is going to come down to the wire...I am sure Coach G and company have not slept yet putting together a game plan, the leadership of the cupper classman reminds me of 2003 with Mat Champion, Scot Wiznewski and Ray Meyer...This is a special bunch and come sat all the hard work, dedication, long hours of training in the offseason will pay off against one hell of a Cortland team. This is going to be a defensive war!!!!!!!!!! MSU 13-Cortland 7

"Keep Pounding"

Sam Mills

[clandfan]

Quick Keys:

Mlontclair must establish the run.  Cortland will give up passing yds but they don't break and they have a nose for the ball ... 15 picks.  Montclair has to run to keep Cortland honest.

Cortland must get pressure on Fisher. If they do, I think they can force Fisher into mistakes and we have an opportunistic secondary.

Montclair must stop Cortland run game.  Cortland pass game is very efficient but they have not shown a deep threat.  If we can't run and have to rely on our young receivers to make a play....could be tough.

Wish it was Sat. already.

[MSU Pride]

I may just say F@#$ it and take the ride....Last time I was up there was my senior year in 05...


"Keep Pouding"

Sam Mills

[RedDragonFan]

I may just say F@#$ it and take the ride....Last time I was up there was my senior year in 05...


"Keep Pouding"

Sam Mills

Would be a great week to do just that.  If CState and MSU both bring their "A" games, this should be an exciting battle to watch, certainly the game of the season in the NJAC.  Was hoping both teams would come in undefeated but still a huge game.  I agree that it will be a close game and no doubt about it, I'd take the points Rams.

So far the long range forecast is calling for a chilly but sunny day in Cortland but as with anyone who's spent any time in Cortland knows, forecasts are almost never accurate.  Wondering if a crappy day rain wise would give an advantage to either squad or would it even matter?

Cstate by 3.

[rams1102]

Pick-Em's  For  Week  #9  Are  Posted  On  The  Pick-Em  Board.

[FranElia]

Here's the NJAC tiebreaker rule:

Champion/NCAA Automatic Bid Determination

a.       The team with the best conference record in regular season play will be declared the conference champion and will receive the league's automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament.

b.       If two teams finish the season tied for first place with identical conference records, co-champions will be declared and the tiebreaker procedure listed in (A4c) will only be used to determine the conference's automatic qualification to the NCAA Tournament. 

c.        In case of a tie for first place, the tiebreaker will be determined as follows:

     i.         Two teams tied:  The winner in head-to-head competition

     ii.        Three teams tied*:

          1.       Winner in head-to-head competition – team with best record against other two combined is declared champion

          2.       Results versus next highest ranked conference team (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th,  8th, 9th, 10th) until tie is broken

          3.       Opponents' opponents' winning percentage in all of Division III

          4.       Opponents' opponents' winning percentage in-region

          5.       Rose Bowl Rule

          6.       Coin toss (if 3 teams, odd team out wins)

[Frank Rossi]

It's attrocious -- and I'm not shooting the messenger, Fran.  I've been a critic of a lot of tiebreaker rules, including the Liberty League's (since it seems to reward teams that schedule opponents from lesser conferences).  However, let me show you why this tiebreaker is bad:

NJAC Football allows teams to schedule only one out-of-conference opponent.  So, let's say the following are the records of the out-of-conference opponents of each of the three tied teams --

Montclair's Opponent: 9-1
Cortland's Opponent: 1-9
Rowan's Opponent: 2-8

Since the tiebreaker is the Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage, Montclair does not receive direct credit for having played a 9-1 opponent.  The teams that benefit more relatively are Cortland and Rowan for Montclair's scheduling of such an opponent.  Why?  Because Montclair will be given credit for the 1-9 and the 2-8 more often in the computation than for its own 9-1 opponent.  Similarly, Cortland would be given credit for Montclair's 9-1 and Rowan's 2-8 opponents more often than its own 1-9.  And so forth.

If Montclair's opponent, Cortland's opponent and Rowan's opponent have played all 5-5 teams, there is no advantage in this part of the computation (I'll do the longhand for this another time for someone who wants to see it).  So, Montclair would be clearly PENALIZED for playing a tougher opponent in these circumstances.

There is a reason why the NCAA made the Opponents' Winning Percentage 2/3 of the computation.  Also, the NCAA does not compute OOWP for ALL D3 opponents -- they calculate OOWP for just in-region competition.  Thus, we won't really be able to easily determine the landscape should a three-way tie develop.  This tiebreaker is an attempt to hide the NJAC's conundrum of just one OOC game per team and how to navigate a tiebreaker around it.  I would prefer to see the Rose Bowl Rule moved up in this situation, even though I hate that rule for playoff purposes.

[EDIT:  It also does not account for whether or not the teams actually won or lost the OOC game -- shouldn't overall W/L records come before some half-baked attempt to determine SoS?!]

[theoriginalupstate]

Top 25 Fan Poll is out...

http://www.uwwfootball.blogspot.com/

Montclair checks in at 15 while Rowan and Cortland are in the receiving votes category...

[clandfan]

It's attrocious -- and I'm not shooting the messenger, Fran.  I've been a critic of a lot of tiebreaker rules, including the Liberty League's (since it seems to reward teams that schedule opponents from lesser conferences).  However, let me show you why this tiebreaker is bad:

NJAC Football allows teams to schedule only one out-of-conference opponent.  So, let's say the following are the records of the out-of-conference opponents of each of the three tied teams --

Montclair's Opponent: 9-1
Cortland's Opponent: 1-9
Rowan's Opponent: 2-8

Since the tiebreaker is the Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage, Montclair does not receive direct credit for having played a 9-1 opponent.  The teams that benefit more relatively are Cortland and Rowan for Montclair's scheduling of such an opponent.  Why?  Because Montclair will be given credit for the 1-9 and the 2-8 more often in the computation than for its own 9-1 opponent.  Similarly, Cortland would be given credit for Montclair's 9-1 and Rowan's 2-8 opponents more often than its own 1-9.  And so forth.

If Montclair's opponent, Cortland's opponent and Rowan's opponent have played all 5-5 teams, there is no advantage in this part of the computation (I'll do the longhand for this another time for someone who wants to see it).  So, Montclair would be clearly PENALIZED for playing a tougher opponent in these circumstances.

There is a reason why the NCAA made the Opponents' Winning Percentage 2/3 of the computation.  Also, the NCAA does not compute OOWP for ALL D3 opponents -- they calculate OOWP for just in-region competition.  Thus, we won't really be able to easily determine the landscape should a three-way tie develop.  This tiebreaker is an attempt to hide the NJAC's conundrum of just one OOC game per team and how to navigate a tiebreaker around it.  I would prefer to see the Rose Bowl Rule moved up in this situation, even though I hate that rule for playoff purposes.

[EDIT:  It also does not account for whether or not the teams actually won or lost the OOC game -- shouldn't overall W/L records come before some half-baked attempt to determine SoS?!]

Frank...I am surprised that you are using hypotheticals...Perhaps a more realistic discussion would be if we looked at the actual OOC competition:

Montclair played a 3-5 Westfield St. (probably end up 4-6)
Rowan played a 5-2 Lycoming (could end up 8-2)
Cortland will play a 5-2 Ithaca. ( will likely end up  7-3 or 6-4)

May not be important but I know how you like to deal with the facts at hand.

[Frank Rossi]

It's attrocious -- and I'm not shooting the messenger, Fran.  I've been a critic of a lot of tiebreaker rules, including the Liberty League's (since it seems to reward teams that schedule opponents from lesser conferences).  However, let me show you why this tiebreaker is bad:

NJAC Football allows teams to schedule only one out-of-conference opponent.  So, let's say the following are the records of the out-of-conference opponents of each of the three tied teams --

Montclair's Opponent: 9-1
Cortland's Opponent: 1-9
Rowan's Opponent: 2-8

Since the tiebreaker is the Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage, Montclair does not receive direct credit for having played a 9-1 opponent.  The teams that benefit more relatively are Cortland and Rowan for Montclair's scheduling of such an opponent.  Why?  Because Montclair will be given credit for the 1-9 and the 2-8 more often in the computation than for its own 9-1 opponent.  Similarly, Cortland would be given credit for Montclair's 9-1 and Rowan's 2-8 opponents more often than its own 1-9.  And so forth.

If Montclair's opponent, Cortland's opponent and Rowan's opponent have played all 5-5 teams, there is no advantage in this part of the computation (I'll do the longhand for this another time for someone who wants to see it).  So, Montclair would be clearly PENALIZED for playing a tougher opponent in these circumstances.

There is a reason why the NCAA made the Opponents' Winning Percentage 2/3 of the computation.  Also, the NCAA does not compute OOWP for ALL D3 opponents -- they calculate OOWP for just in-region competition.  Thus, we won't really be able to easily determine the landscape should a three-way tie develop.  This tiebreaker is an attempt to hide the NJAC's conundrum of just one OOC game per team and how to navigate a tiebreaker around it.  I would prefer to see the Rose Bowl Rule moved up in this situation, even though I hate that rule for playoff purposes.

[EDIT:  It also does not account for whether or not the teams actually won or lost the OOC game -- shouldn't overall W/L records come before some half-baked attempt to determine SoS?!]

Frank...I am surprised that you are using hypotheticals...Perhaps a more realistic discussion would be if we looked at the actual OOC competition:

Montclair played a 3-5 Westfield St. (probably end up 4-6)
Rowan played a 5-2 Lycoming (could end up 8-2)
Cortland will play a 5-2 Ithaca. ( will likely end up  7-3 or 6-4)

May not be important but I know how you like to deal with the facts at hand.

How about this for a real kicker... Cortland may win the Pool A bid by losing the Ithaca game, not by winning it based on how OOWP is computed.  And thus, a win in Cortaca would actually have the chance of eliminating Cortland from playoff contention.

[clandfan]

It's attrocious -- and I'm not shooting the messenger, Fran.  I've been a critic of a lot of tiebreaker rules, including the Liberty League's (since it seems to reward teams that schedule opponents from lesser conferences).  However, let me show you why this tiebreaker is bad:

NJAC Football allows teams to schedule only one out-of-conference opponent.  So, let's say the following are the records of the out-of-conference opponents of each of the three tied teams --

Montclair's Opponent: 9-1
Cortland's Opponent: 1-9
Rowan's Opponent: 2-8

Since the tiebreaker is the Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage, Montclair does not receive direct credit for having played a 9-1 opponent.  The teams that benefit more relatively are Cortland and Rowan for Montclair's scheduling of such an opponent.  Why?  Because Montclair will be given credit for the 1-9 and the 2-8 more often in the computation than for its own 9-1 opponent.  Similarly, Cortland would be given credit for Montclair's 9-1 and Rowan's 2-8 opponents more often than its own 1-9.  And so forth.

If Montclair's opponent, Cortland's opponent and Rowan's opponent have played all 5-5 teams, there is no advantage in this part of the computation (I'll do the longhand for this another time for someone who wants to see it).  So, Montclair would be clearly PENALIZED for playing a tougher opponent in these circumstances.

There is a reason why the NCAA made the Opponents' Winning Percentage 2/3 of the computation.  Also, the NCAA does not compute OOWP for ALL D3 opponents -- they calculate OOWP for just in-region competition.  Thus, we won't really be able to easily determine the landscape should a three-way tie develop.  This tiebreaker is an attempt to hide the NJAC's conundrum of just one OOC game per team and how to navigate a tiebreaker around it.  I would prefer to see the Rose Bowl Rule moved up in this situation, even though I hate that rule for playoff purposes.

[EDIT:  It also does not account for whether or not the teams actually won or lost the OOC game -- shouldn't overall W/L records come before some half-baked attempt to determine SoS?!]

Frank...I am surprised that you are using hypotheticals...Perhaps a more realistic discussion would be if we looked at the actual OOC competition:

Montclair played a 3-5 Westfield St. (probably end up 4-6)
Rowan played a 5-2 Lycoming (could end up 8-2)
Cortland will play a 5-2 Ithaca. ( will likely end up  7-3 or 6-4)

May not be important but I know how you like to deal with the facts at hand.

How about this for a real kicker... Cortland may win the Pool A bid by losing the Ithaca game, not by winning it based on how OOWP is computed.  And thus, a win in Cortaca would actually have the chance of eliminating Cortland from playoff contention.

How unfortunate would that be???  That really exposes the NJAC for a rediculous policy.  As usual Frank, you just made my day...lol.  Thanks  I really do appreciate your  input in the discussion.

[Frank Rossi]

Since I understand your doubt on my last point, let me explain.

OOWP means that it's the opponents of the opponents that matter.  Thus, it's not directly Kean that matters -- it's Kean's opponents records.  And it's not Morrisville that matters - it's Morrisville's opponents that matter.

However, when Montclair's OOWP is computed, Montclair's record is not supposed to be computed when we look at Kean's and Morrisville's numbers.  Likewise for Cortland and Rowan.    However, Cortland's and Rowan's numbers DO get applied to Montclair's OOWP.  And Montclair's and Rowan's for Cortland.  Etc.

Those numbers aren't applied once.  Rather, they are applied eight times since we do this for Kean's, Morrisville's, WestCon's, Montclair's, Rowan's, Cortland's, Brockport's, Buff St.'s, TCNJ's and Paterson's opponents (however, a team never plays itself).  So, let's say Cortland finishes 8-2 overall (8-1 NJAC), while Rowan and Montclair finish 9-1 (8-1 NJAC).  Rowan will get credit in the OOWP figures for Cortland's 8-2 and Montclair's 9-1 eight times.  Montclair will get credit for Cortland's 8-2 and Rowan's 9-1 eight times.  Cortland will get credit for Montclair's 9-1 and Rowan's 9-1 eight times.  See a problem?  The 8-2 team gets 8 more wins and 8 less losses credited to its OOWP figures.  Sure, Montclair and Rowan get an extra win in the OOWP from Ithaca.  But there is still a net change of +7 in favor of Cortland by LOSING to Ithaca.  Now tell me this is an appropriate tiebreaker.

[clandfan]

Would not Westfield States's opponents, Lycoming's opponents and Ithaca's opponents WP also fit into the mix.  Would not Cortland get the benefit of E8 strength via Ithaca and Rowan the benefit of MAC strength via Lycoming as opposed to Montclairs  NEFC via Westfield St.?