FB: Empire 8

[boobyhasgameyo]

Ultimately both E8 teams lost in games that weren't close in the elite 8 in 2011.  But again, I already stated we are a conference that lacks the truly elite team.  But if you aren't one of the top 4 teams in the country - good luck making it through the E8 untouched year in and year out. I think you'd be arrogant and foolish to think otherwise.

I don't dispute this. But this is also proof of why an E8 champion hasn't gotten a 1 seed since we moved away from regional brackets and why simply being an E8 champion, undefeated or not, most likely will not get you a 1 seed on its own. To be a 1 seed you have to be elite. One of the expected top 4 teams in D3. The top 1.5% of schools in D3. How can you expect to be considered that 1 seed if you can't and haven't beaten the teams that are the competitors for the 1 seed? You simply cannot. Which brings the discussion full circle. When SJF or whoever gets a 1 seed coming from the East it will most likely be because they have proven they can beat an elite team. Not just that they are the top team in a region primarily designed to balance the number of teams throughout the country.

When do I think SJF will get a 1 seed? I think it will happen during a two year run where they win the E8, advance to the final four by beating one of the elite 6 or 7 teams, and then run the table the next year. If it doesn't happen at that point, then I will fully get behind the East region griping. Until you get an undefeated champion with an elite win the current or previous year, all you have is belief and no proof that the teams can win at the level required to be considered a top 4 team in the country.

I pretty much agree with all of that...which makes me question what exactly I was trying to argue in the first place.  Something about Fisher's perceived inconsistencies I think! 

This is why I'm not a lawyer.

[jknezek]

Ultimately both E8 teams lost in games that weren't close in the elite 8 in 2011.  But again, I already stated we are a conference that lacks the truly elite team.  But if you aren't one of the top 4 teams in the country - good luck making it through the E8 untouched year in and year out. I think you'd be arrogant and foolish to think otherwise.

I don't dispute this. But this is also proof of why an E8 champion hasn't gotten a 1 seed since we moved away from regional brackets and why simply being an E8 champion, undefeated or not, most likely will not get you a 1 seed on its own. To be a 1 seed you have to be elite. One of the expected top 4 teams in D3. The top 1.5% of schools in D3. How can you expect to be considered that 1 seed if you can't and haven't beaten the teams that are the competitors for the 1 seed? You simply cannot. Which brings the discussion full circle. When SJF or whoever gets a 1 seed coming from the East it will most likely be because they have proven they can beat an elite team. Not just that they are the top team in a region primarily designed to balance the number of teams throughout the country.

When do I think SJF will get a 1 seed? I think it will happen during a two year run where they win the E8, advance to the final four by beating one of the elite 6 or 7 teams, and then run the table the next year. If it doesn't happen at that point, then I will fully get behind the East region griping. Until you get an undefeated champion with an elite win the current or previous year, all you have is belief and no proof that the teams can win at the level required to be considered a top 4 team in the country.

I pretty much agree with all of that...which makes me question what exactly I was trying to argue in the first place.  Something about Fisher's perceived inconsistencies I think! 

This is why I'm not a lawyer.

When I first read your last response late last night I couldn't figure out what we were talking about anymore either. This morning I wrote a response that I think simply restated what I had already written. I suppose I was trying to summarize something, but I'm pretty sure I made the whole thing a waste of everyone's time.

Oh well. I will continue to root for a disruptive presence among the elite. I'm even partial to it coming from the East since we all probably agree the lack of a true elite doesn't mean the region is weak, it just means it's lacking the ultimate competitor. Sometimes it is nice to see perceptions shaken up...

[fisheralum91]

I said it when Pat ranked the E8 as the 2nd best league that he was spot on- and I took some heat for it.
Getting thru this league unscathed is really really difficult.
I like Fisher's odds of doing that this year and that would be my reasoning for them getting the nod for  a numero uno.

[Bombers798891]

I don't dispute this. But this is also proof of why an E8 champion hasn't gotten a 1 seed since we moved away from regional brackets and why simply being an E8 champion, undefeated or not, most likely will not get you a 1 seed on its own. To be a 1 seed you have to be elite. One of the expected top 4 teams in D3. The top 1.5% of schools in D3. How can you expect to be considered that 1 seed if you can't and haven't beaten the teams that are the competitors for the 1 seed? You simply cannot. Which brings the discussion full circle. When SJF or whoever gets a 1 seed coming from the East it will most likely be because they have proven they can beat an elite team.

Here's my question though. Why does an unbeaten Linfield merit 1 seed talk, but not Fisher? Here are their postseason wins in the last four years.

2010: 8-1 Cal Lutheran
2011: 8-1 Cal Lutheran
2012: 7-2 Pacific Lutheran, 9-2 North Central
2013: 8-1 Pacific Lutheran, 9-2 Hampden-Sydney

Don't get me wrong, I understand how the geographical limitations set up these first round games. And those teams are really good too. But no-one on their current roster has beaten Hardin-Baylor, Mount, Whitewater, or Wesley either. If a 10-0 Fisher can't get a #1 because they haven't beaten any of those four teams, why should a 9-0 Linfield automatically be ahead of them?

I'm not saying you couldn't put Linfield ahead based on playing a tougher schedule. But if the standard for Fisher is "Can't expect a #1 until you beat one of the big 4" shouldn't that also hold true for Linfield?

[fisheralum91]

Well played indeed

[jknezek]

Here's my question though. Why does an unbeaten Linfield merit 1 seed talk, but not Fisher? Here are their postseason wins in the last four years.

2010: 8-1 Cal Lutheran
2011: 8-1 Cal Lutheran
2012: 7-2 Pacific Lutheran, 9-2 North Central
2013: 8-1 Pacific Lutheran, 9-2 Hampden-Sydney

Don't get me wrong, I understand how the geographical limitations set up these first round games. And those teams are really good too. But no-one on their current roster has beaten Hardin-Baylor, Mount, Whitewater, or Wesley either. If a 10-0 Fisher can't get a #1 because they haven't beaten any of those four teams, why should a 9-0 Linfield automatically be ahead of them?

I'm not saying you couldn't put Linfield ahead based on playing a tougher schedule. But if the standard for Fisher is "Can't expect a #1 until you beat one of the big 4" shouldn't that also hold true for Linfield?

Fair question. I will point out if you dig back a little farther, but still no where near as far back as SJF's final four, you find Linfield beat both UMHB and St. Thomas in 2009 before narrowly losing to Whitewater. And while I hate to do this because it is an incredibly weak argument I'd also point out that Linfield's 11 pt loss to National Champ UWW last year is better (bleh to the A vs B, B vs C, C vs D logic. I feel dirty bringing it up. sorry.) than SJF's 22 point loss to Final Four loser UMHB.

But I think it's a pretty fair question. I think Linfild's resume is better, but probably not a whole lot better the last couple years. Not enough to make it automatic. Unfortunately that still leaves UMU, UWW, UMHB, Wesley, and the MIAC champion. I think NCC is probably about Linfield's level. Not an automatic above SJF to me but maybe a bit of a hill to climb.

[fisheralum91]

Im enjoying the banter- and I should probably post this on the LL page- but where does Hobart fit into the playoff equation if they too go undefeated?

[jknezek]

Im enjoying the banter- and I should probably post this on the LL page- but where does Hobart fit into the playoff equation if they too go undefeated?

If they are in the same region as a hypothetically undefeated SJF, I'd say one slot below them. They will not have the regular season resume to be seeded above an undefeated E8 champion. Plus they are a known commodity right now nationally. A few years of the same thing happening makes them easy to slot. See Johns Hopkins for another good recent example (ignoring their 2009 playoff run). SJF is much more interesting because they seem to do the unexpected. Lose regular season games they are expected to win and then win games in the playoffs they are seeded to lose. Much more fun to speculate about SJF.

[fisheralum91]

Indeed it it

[fisheralum91]

Fisher has a pep band?

http://www.sjfc.edu/news/detail.dot?id=e6f1da32-4ad6-4eda-8b1c-0111bec85f9d

[ITH radio]

Im enjoying the banter- and I should probably post this on the LL page- but where does Hobart fit into the playoff equation if they too go undefeated?

On our 2012 selection show interview with the a Committee Chair alluded (if not admitted) that the 10-0 Hobart was effectively seeded as #2 in what was then the UST bracket. Pretty much same deal for the 9-0 team that landed in the UMHB bracket.

If SJF goes 10-0 I could see a #1 seed granted if there wasn't an undefeated Wesley,  MIAC or CCIW champion. If things pan out how they might and the fact the NCAA does use prior year's results in their "methodology", 1-3 is probably a version of UWW, UMU and UMHB pretty much guaranteeing a group 2 of 3 (or more) undefeated team(s) won't get the final fourth seed.

The Cards could still get a 1st seed in that scenario, but it could go any way given the NCAA isn't always that predictable. My guess is if they were 10-0 they'd be viewed as a potential 5 or six overall and be matched up against the 4th or 3rd overall.

Hobart at 10-0 would probably be a 7 or 8 overall and end up in the bracket with the 2nd or 1st seeded team. Best case scenario for Hobart is six overall if teams like Dickinson and Endicott (not to mention the LL) have good seasons and thus buoy their so-so SOS.

Fishers SOS will pretty much be in the .500 zone given the expansion of their conference, but they do have last year's run and could be bumped up if Otterbein does well in OAC play.

[Bombers798891]

Here's my question though. Why does an unbeaten Linfield merit 1 seed talk, but not Fisher? Here are their postseason wins in the last four years.

2010: 8-1 Cal Lutheran
2011: 8-1 Cal Lutheran
2012: 7-2 Pacific Lutheran, 9-2 North Central
2013: 8-1 Pacific Lutheran, 9-2 Hampden-Sydney

Don't get me wrong, I understand how the geographical limitations set up these first round games. And those teams are really good too. But no-one on their current roster has beaten Hardin-Baylor, Mount, Whitewater, or Wesley either. If a 10-0 Fisher can't get a #1 because they haven't beaten any of those four teams, why should a 9-0 Linfield automatically be ahead of them?

I'm not saying you couldn't put Linfield ahead based on playing a tougher schedule. But if the standard for Fisher is "Can't expect a #1 until you beat one of the big 4" shouldn't that also hold true for Linfield?

Fair question. I will point out if you dig back a little farther, but still no where near as far back as SJF's final four, you find Linfield beat both UMHB and St. Thomas in 2009 before narrowly losing to Whitewater. And while I hate to do this because it is an incredibly weak argument I'd also point out that Linfield's 11 pt loss to National Champ UWW last year is better (bleh to the A vs B, B vs C, C vs D logic. I feel dirty bringing it up. sorry.) than SJF's 22 point loss to Final Four loser UMHB.

Yeah, it probably looks like I arbitrarily cut it off to make my argument stronger, but in all honestly, even going back to 2010 is almost completely irrelevant considering roster turnover.

I don't think the score stuff is bad because it's "A vs B, B vs C," logic. It's bad because it can distort the truth of how close the game actually was. For example:

Mount beat MHB 48-35 in 2012
Cortland beat Endicott 49-35 in 2010

The scores say these games were nearly identical.

The reality is that the Red Dragons led 42-14 with less than 10 minutes remaining while Mary Hardin Baylor and Mount Union were tied with like, 12 seconds remaining.

[AUPepBand]

Fisher has a pep band?

http://www.sjfc.edu/news/detail.dot?id=e6f1da32-4ad6-4eda-8b1c-0111bec85f9d

"I believe it will add a great deal of excitement and tradition as we go forward and the pep band grows," said (Bob) Ward. "Gretchen has been wonderful in her role, as she has been instrumental in the band's early success."   

Glad to see this. Pep was disappointed in the faculty-initiated "pep band" that appeared in the Growney Stadium end zone of the SJF-AU football game in 2009. Now it appears Fisher will have the real deal. Pep is hoping they'll travel as well and perhaps take the hop (onto 390), skip (down 36) and jump (onto (I-86) to Alfred on Nov. 15.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

On Saxon Warriors!

[fisheralum91]

I thought you would enjoy.!!!

[AUPepBand]

Wow, both Alfred and Alfred State "Make the Big Time Where They Are" and appear in Triple Take this week.
There will be TWO D3 football games simultaneously taking place in Mayberry tomorrow less than a mile from each other.
That must be some kind of record!