FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[AO]

I'm trying to figure out why this is such a concern for you Rev. In the end, what does it mean? Maybe you ought to focus on something important.

Pretty sure you're being trolled there ...

Am I correct to assume that strength of schedule influences post-season scheduling? If MIAC teams maintain high rankings, doesn't that help UST on the strength of schedule front? If this is not the case, please explain.

Yes, you want Concordia and/or St. John's to win as many games as possible if you want to host instead of travel to Oshkosh.  You also want the teams that the MIAC played in Non-conference play to win, Stout, River Falls, St. Scholastica, Carthage, Dubuque, etc..

[Tom Thumb]

WOW! I wake up this morning and see where we are deciding who is in the playoffs after week 5 

The Cobbers will have an opportunity to chime in on the conversation this week. It will get very interesting pending the result of the Cobbers vs. UST; definitely the game of the week in the MIAC

Looking at the stats, Concordia doesn't pass the ball very much, and in fact yesterday, they only had 31 yards of passing against Gustavus.  The Tommies have given up a total of 191 rushing yards, and -27 over the past two games.  It will be a long day if Concordia cannot get their running game going.  But these are just stats and the game is played on the field.

Should be an interesting game. It's looking like Concordia will be without their starting QB, after he went down with an ankle injury in the third quarter against Gustavus. Concordia used a freshman QB the rest of the way. Not to knock him, but it's hard to win in the MIAC with a freshman starting at QB. If he's the guy the rest of the way, Concordia's run game might not be quite as effective.  I'm thinking UST will focus their attention on Chad Johnson, who is having a great year.

After getting out-coached last year, I'm hoping UST comes in a little better prepared. Especially against the hook and ladder...

[Mr.MIAC]

I'm trying to figure out why this is such a concern for you Rev. In the end, what does it mean? Maybe you ought to focus on something important.

Pretty sure you're being trolled there ...

Am I correct to assume that strength of schedule influences post-season scheduling? If MIAC teams maintain high rankings, doesn't that help UST on the strength of schedule front? If this is not the case, please explain.

Yes, you want Concordia and/or St. John's to win as many games as possible if you want to host instead of travel to Oshkosh.  You also want the teams that the MIAC played in Non-conference play to win, Stout, River Falls, St. Scholastica, Carthage, Dubuque, etc..

The link Pat posted explains that 25 conference champions get automatic bids. In addition, Pool B and Pool C get a total of seven more bids. Those teams receiving the seven bids are selected based on criteria listed in the link, under the at-large bids section. The link states that these criteria are used also for seeding, which I take to mean seeding for all 32 teams, not just those with at-large bids. Yesterday Pat explained that the criteria listed at the link are used also to determine the NCAA regional rankings, which are then used to establish seeding. In short, use of the criteria leads to a NCAA regional ranking; use of this ranking leads to seeding.

Some of these criteria are pretty straightforward:

1. Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents
2. Division III head-to-head competition
3. Results versus common Division III opponents

Others are less straightforward:

1. Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the regional rankings at the time of selection
2. Division III strength of schedule

How can the "Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the regional rankings at the time of selection" be a criterion for establishing the NCAA regional rankings? There would be no ranked teams until the NCAA regional rankings were released (sort of a chicken and egg scenario). Also, teams play most of their games in-conference. If strength of schedule is determined by the OWP and the OOWP, how does this capture the gross disparity in strength amongst different conferences?

Finally, the link states, "Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division III football committee." What criteria are these regional advisory committees using to develop their input? If the criteria are the same as those listed at the link, why do we need regional advisory committees? If the criteria are different, are they objective or subjective? If they're subjective, what role do the various rankings play in influencing the regional advisory committees?

[OzJohnnie]

Rev, you've been around here for years and have witness multiple UST playoff runs.  The playoff selection process cannot be a mystery to you, surely.  It's discussed in depth every year starting around week 8.  It like literally dominates this and every other board.  At least 43 million articles have been posted on d3football.com, and 87 trillion selection podcasts have discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of the DIII playoff selection and seeding process.

Next you'll be expressing surprise at that 500 mile round 1 guidelines.

[AO]

I'm trying to figure out why this is such a concern for you Rev. In the end, what does it mean? Maybe you ought to focus on something important.

Pretty sure you're being trolled there ...

Am I correct to assume that strength of schedule influences post-season scheduling? If MIAC teams maintain high rankings, doesn't that help UST on the strength of schedule front? If this is not the case, please explain.

Yes, you want Concordia and/or St. John's to win as many games as possible if you want to host instead of travel to Oshkosh.  You also want the teams that the MIAC played in Non-conference play to win, Stout, River Falls, St. Scholastica, Carthage, Dubuque, etc..

The link Pat posted explains that 25 conference champions get automatic bids. In addition, Pool B and Pool C get a total of seven more bids. Those teams receiving the seven bids are selected based on criteria listed in the link, under the at-large bids section. The link states that these criteria are used also for seeding, which I take to mean seeding for all 32 teams, not just those with at-large bids. Yesterday Pat explained that the criteria listed at the link are used also to determine the NCAA regional rankings, which are then used to establish seeding. In short, use of the criteria leads to a NCAA regional ranking; use of this ranking leads to seeding.

Some of these criteria are pretty straightforward:

1. Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents
2. Division III head-to-head competition
3. Results versus common Division III opponents

Others are less straightforward:

1. Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the regional rankings at the time of selection
2. Division III strength of schedule

How can the "Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the regional rankings at the time of selection" be a criterion for establishing the NCAA regional rankings? There would be no ranked teams until the NCAA regional rankings were released (sort of a chicken and egg scenario). Also, teams play most of their games in-conference. If strength of schedule is determined by the OWP and the OOWP, how does this capture the gross disparity in strength amongst different conferences?

Finally, the link states, "Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division III football committee." What criteria are these regional advisory committees using to develop their input? If the criteria are the same as those listed at the link, why do we need regional advisory committees? If the criteria are different, are they objective or subjective? If they're subjective, what role do the various rankings play in influencing the regional advisory committees?

The national committee is the only one that matters.  They will take the regional advisory committee rankings and change them how they want to.  They can do the chicken and egg at the same time, considering how changes to the ranking would give additional regionally ranked results to teams.  Keep in mind the committee won't value a win over #10 the same as a win over #4.  The criteria is objective, how the committee members choose to value the criteria is more subjective. 

The SOS is absolutely flawed.  Teams in the NE have been able to exploit this by only playing non-conference games against other weak conferences.  In the West and North the weaker conferences do get out and play the better conferences so the WIAC, MIAC and CCIW teams will have better SOS.

So if you're looking to host as many games as possible in the playoffs, you typically want your conference runner-up to have just one loss to you and for the rest of the conference to win their non-conference games. 

[Mr.MIAC]

Rev, you've been around here for years and have witness multiple UST playoff runs.  The playoff selection process cannot be a mystery to you, surely.  It's discussed in depth every year starting around week 8.  It like literally dominates this and every other board.  At least 43 million articles have been posted on d3football.com, and 87 trillion selection podcasts have discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of the DIII playoff selection and seeding process.

Next you'll be expressing surprise at that 500 mile round 1 guidelines.

To be honest, I haven't paid really close attention to the details because during my time here UST has fared pretty well on making the playoffs/seeding. I'm now trying to make sense of the process and there seems to be some ambiguity. Would you agree? Any answers to my questions?

[Mr.MIAC]

I'm trying to figure out why this is such a concern for you Rev. In the end, what does it mean? Maybe you ought to focus on something important.

Pretty sure you're being trolled there ...

Am I correct to assume that strength of schedule influences post-season scheduling? If MIAC teams maintain high rankings, doesn't that help UST on the strength of schedule front? If this is not the case, please explain.

Yes, you want Concordia and/or St. John's to win as many games as possible if you want to host instead of travel to Oshkosh.  You also want the teams that the MIAC played in Non-conference play to win, Stout, River Falls, St. Scholastica, Carthage, Dubuque, etc..

The link Pat posted explains that 25 conference champions get automatic bids. In addition, Pool B and Pool C get a total of seven more bids. Those teams receiving the seven bids are selected based on criteria listed in the link, under the at-large bids section. The link states that these criteria are used also for seeding, which I take to mean seeding for all 32 teams, not just those with at-large bids. Yesterday Pat explained that the criteria listed at the link are used also to determine the NCAA regional rankings, which are then used to establish seeding. In short, use of the criteria leads to a NCAA regional ranking; use of this ranking leads to seeding.

Some of these criteria are pretty straightforward:

1. Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents
2. Division III head-to-head competition
3. Results versus common Division III opponents

Others are less straightforward:

1. Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the regional rankings at the time of selection
2. Division III strength of schedule

How can the "Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the regional rankings at the time of selection" be a criterion for establishing the NCAA regional rankings? There would be no ranked teams until the NCAA regional rankings were released (sort of a chicken and egg scenario). Also, teams play most of their games in-conference. If strength of schedule is determined by the OWP and the OOWP, how does this capture the gross disparity in strength amongst different conferences?

Finally, the link states, "Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division III football committee." What criteria are these regional advisory committees using to develop their input? If the criteria are the same as those listed at the link, why do we need regional advisory committees? If the criteria are different, are they objective or subjective? If they're subjective, what role do the various rankings play in influencing the regional advisory committees?

The national committee is the only one that matters.  They will take the regional advisory committee rankings and change them how they want to.  They can do the chicken and egg at the same time, considering how changes to the ranking would give additional regionally ranked results to teams.  Keep in mind the committee won't value a win over #10 the same as a win over #4.  The criteria is objective, how the committee members choose to value the criteria is more subjective. 

The SOS is absolutely flawed.  Teams in the NE have been able to exploit this by only playing non-conference games against other weak conferences.  In the West and North the weaker conferences do get out and play the better conferences so the WIAC, MIAC and CCIW teams will have better SOS.

So if you're looking to host as many games as possible in the playoffs, you typically want your conference runner-up to have just one loss to you and for the rest of the conference to win their non-conference games.

Thanks. +K.

[57Johnnie]

Rev, you've been around here for years and have witness multiple UST playoff runs.  The playoff selection process cannot be a mystery to you, surely.  It's discussed in depth every year starting around week 8.  It like literally dominates this and every other board.  At least 43 million articles have been posted on d3football.com, and 87 trillion selection podcasts have discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of the DIII playoff selection and seeding process.

Next you'll be expressing surprise at that 500 mile round 1 guidelines.

Good grief, I hope not. That would take at least 12 pages. 

[jamtod]

New poll is out. St Thomas and St John's up 1 to 8 and 6, thanks to Wheaton dropping out of the top 10.

[jamtod]

Also, Concordia-Moorhead up 1 spot to #20

[Mr.MIAC]

Following up on AO's explanation, it sounds like the national committee has a lot of autonomy when it comes to rankings/selection/seeding. The DIII football committee includes no one from the MIAC. Is this a good thing?

Link: http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=3MFB

[sjusection105]

Following up on AO's explanation, it sounds like the national committee has a lot of autonomy when it comes to rankings/selection/seeding. The DIII football committee includes no one from the MIAC. Is this a good thing?

Link: http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=3MFB

The committee changes from year to year. The MIAC has had representation,I believe Carouso was a committee member at some point during the past 3 years. Steve Johnson from Bethel has also been a committee member in the past as well.

[sjujohnnie]

I often have fond memories of where St Thomas was prior to the arrival of Caruso. I can only imagine they'd be in that same boat if he hadn't arrived. With the success he has had, is there any likelihood that he moves on?

[Mr.MIAC]

I often have fond memories of where St Thomas was prior to the arrival of Caruso. I can only imagine they'd be in that same boat if he hadn't arrived. With the success he has had, is there any likelihood that he moves on?

Here we go again. I was starting to wonder when the Johnnies would trot out with calls for Caruso's departure. You're a little late this year.

[OzJohnnie]

I often have fond memories of where St Thomas was prior to the arrival of Caruso. I can only imagine they'd be in that same boat if he hadn't arrived. With the success he has had, is there any likelihood that he moves on?

Here we go again. I was starting to wonder when the Johnnies would trot out with calls for Caruso's departure. You're a little late this year.

I see that some already well-travelled conversations are off limits. That's good to know. Any chance you could publish some easy to follow guidelines on when things that have been discussed ad infinitum are worthy of an eye roll when when they aren't?