FB: Empire 8

[JQV]

Well, hopefully this year it's finishing incredibly strong with 1 loss, instead of 2 losses!

By the way, I meant to post this a long time ago, but your signature cracks me up.

First Steve Tasker's kid is deciding between IC and Notre Dame and he picks old man boobs Charlie Weis.  Then, Clausen chooses Notre Dame over IC.  We really are on a bad stretch when competing with the Hamburglar for recruits.

[JQV]

• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams.
Opponents are considered ranked only if they are ranked at the time of the ranking or playoff selection process.
• Quality of wins index–only contests versus regional competition (see Quality of Wins on the left-hand rail for most recent calculation)


If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.

all year long we have debated about the polls and how teams should be ranked higher or lower.  All year long constant posters said rankings mean nothing......... well, after reading this it sounds like they mean a whole lot.

Those are Regional Rankings, not the D3Football/AFCA Top 25.

Also, let's be honest, they don't officially matter but they matter.

[maninyellowhat]

Well, hopefully this year it's finishing incredibly strong with 1 loss, instead of 2 losses!

By the way, I meant to post this a long time ago, but your signature cracks me up.

First Steve Tasker's kid is deciding between IC and Notre Dame and he picks old man boobs Charlie Weis.  Then, Clausen chooses Notre Dame over IC.  We really are on a bad stretch when competing with the Hamburglar for recruits.

Tasker's in Kansas not playing on the almighty legendary Jayhawk football squad.

[realistic]

WOW - night shift on a roll last night.

As for the Port.  They have to schedule E8 teams to get enough teams for the year.  5 top 25 teams (Including Cortland and Wesley) is a tough task indeed.  They'd have to win 4 of those 5 each year to even get in the playoffs...that's a tough tough task.  

This year it even got easier when they scheduled Morrisville!  Cortland, Ithaca, and Fisher are all teams they've been playing for a while now, and don't see them coming off the schedule!  While Wesley is in-conference.

A tough road to hoe, but I can imagine it will make the team better in the long run, as it did before.  

As for who you want to lose...I don't know...It's hard to imagine 3 teams in one conference, from the East getting into the playoffs...although I agree it would be horrible (if they were indeed all 9-1 -- I don't think they will be though) if one got left out somehow.

Port - you guys easily have one of the toughest, if not THE toughest schedule in the East.  It doesn't help right now...but I think in the long run, it is a good thing for the program.

Im seriously not trying to be a wiseass here but this is kind of a funny story.....

So theres this sports radio station in boston WEEI 850 thats actually one of the biggest in the country.  Anyway, they have the little sportsflash and they talk about Springfields win against SJF and how Derry, NH native chris sharpe had 7 touchdowns and all that....well anyway, Gerrry Callahan reads off the score and starts talking about how Sharpe had 7 touchdowns against "St. Joan Fisher" and then he goes on to say how he never even heard of St. Joan Fisher and how his mom could have had 3 touchdowns against them and what not....

anyway, not that funny but its always great to hear d3football talk on the radio in the morning.

Normally it doesn't get to me when regional or national media butcher D-III sports because they are so low profile, but gameday got to me this weekend.  1st they did a pick 'em for the Mount Union / Capital game and really had no clue, other than knowing Mount Union is good....then Corso was spouting off about Bowden being the "All-time winningest coach at any level of college football."  Normally I let those go because they are refering to D1A, but when you specify "any level"  come on.

Anyway, It would have been a much different game if on turf...I can almost guarantee it.  Nevertheless it wasn't and Ithaca won.

Portgrad, I am a big fan of yours, but come on...

There were at least three plays where Sharpe either collided with the fullback on the dive handoff/fake dive handoff or there just wasn't anyone there to take/fake taking a handoff when he spun. I don't remember that happening three times total with previous Springfield QB's.

Sharpe was not good at all at one of the most important aspects of the Springfield offense: the fake handoff on a pass play. Every time it happened it was obvious it was a pass. When Cahill was playing for SC, nobody, but nobody, would have had any idea when it was a pass play.

The moral of the story is that Sharpe was JUST PLAIN UNIMPRESSIVE against IC on Saterday. Also:

Springfield's only three second-half possessions ate up 20:34, gaining 152 yards on 46 plays but produced no points.

That ain't just slop working against them. And even if it was. you're telling me you want to win the East region in November without playing on slop??

IC played their best game of the season, by far, last Saterday. That is why they won. Whether or not they can reproduce it for Alfred and Cortland remains to be seen, but nothing should be taken away from IC for the 28th... Sharpe sucked, Springfield sucked, and IC took advantage. I remember Tecmo turning to me multiple times after the half saying "it's tough for SC to come back from any of this..." doggone it he was right.

Yes I watched the game online, I suppose you are right... Can't I try to be Anti-IC for once!

An excerpt from the Ithacan and SC Coach DeLong:

DeLong denied that the muddy field conditions hurt his team's offense. The unit moved the ball , but just couldn't get it in the end zone. "I think they stopped us, what, four times inside the 20? And we came out with nothing. You've got to finish drives."


Alfred was close, Union was down a couple of guys (Angiletta I think) ...and SJF  was missing some starters....Sharpe is an amazing athlete...but IC forced the ball into the fulllback's hands more than the Pride wanted....


So Everybody has to take care of their business.....

Bob - nice, way to keep the level head.  We all get riled up and you go find the perfect FACTUAL illustration for the point.  Well done.

[JQV]

Well, hopefully this year it's finishing incredibly strong with 1 loss, instead of 2 losses!

By the way, I meant to post this a long time ago, but your signature cracks me up.

First Steve Tasker's kid is deciding between IC and Notre Dame and he picks old man boobs Charlie Weis.  Then, Clausen chooses Notre Dame over IC.  We really are on a bad stretch when competing with the Hamburglar for recruits.

Tasker's in Kansas not playing on the almighty legendary Jayhawk football squad.

Maybe he was afraid KU's Head Coach would eat him...

[Frank Rossi]

• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams.
Opponents are considered ranked only if they are ranked at the time of the ranking or playoff selection process.
• Quality of wins index–only contests versus regional competition (see Quality of Wins on the left-hand rail for most recent calculation)


If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.

all year long we have debated about the polls and how teams should be ranked higher or lower.  All year long constant posters said rankings mean nothing......... well, after reading this it sounds like they mean a whole lot.

Those are Regional Rankings, not the D3Football/AFCA Top 25.

Also, let's be honest, they don't officially matter but they matter.

"Ranked" pretty much is a weird way here of saying "teams that are already selected to be in the NCAA Playoffs."  They'll pick the "gimme" teams and the Pool A and Pool B teams...When they compare teams that are left, they'll look at the teams already placed (or "ranked") and see how the "tied" teams' performance was against such teams (if any matchups existed).

I will also say that the QoW index is probably at the top (if not just below the top) of the criteria.  The NCAA Committee has a belief that this index really takes into account the other criteria in some sort of macro view.  Yet, the problem is that if you have a Husson on your schedule that finished 6-3, that win gives you either 14 or 15 points.  Having a Brockport on your schedule that finishes 0-5 in region gives you 8 or 9 points.  Could Husson really beat Brockport?  I get weary when QoW means too much because it's a simplistic equation.  Yet, the E8 chose to use it.  The LL has chosen a worse type of tiebreaker that does almost the same thing.  

Just my two cents.

[fan of d3]

Did anyone else catch that Husson beat 1AA La Salle last weekend?  Looks to me like they are also vying for an E8 spot while scheduling games with about half of the conference.

[maxpower]

Did anyone else catch that Husson beat 1AA La Salle last weekend?  Looks to me like they are also vying for an E8 spot while scheduling games with about half of the conference.

Bangor is quite a long way away... Alfred, Fisher and IC are all 500 miles away, and Hartwick and Utica are damn close. I thought I remembered Pat saying something about over 500 miles the NCAA has to pony up for air travel, which it is reluctant to do. This may be only for the playoffs, but you're still guaranteeing two or three 10-hour bus trips each year.

[TecmoYellowHat]

Just a reminder, and hoping it will keep Pat from pulling his hair out telling people to check the FAQ, here are the criteria for determining at-large bids.  Remember, QOWI and head to head competition ARE NOT the only criteria.

25. How are the at-large bids determined?

These are the selection (and seeding) criteria for 2006:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
• In-region head-to-head competition
• In-region results against common regional opponents
• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams.
Opponents are considered ranked only if they are ranked at the time of the ranking or playoff selection process.
• Quality of wins index–only contests versus regional competition (see Quality of Wins on the left-hand rail for most recent calculation)
• Conference postseason contest(s) is included.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Out-of region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III won-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non-Division III opponents.
• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common out-of region opponents.
• Overall Division III strength of schedule (quoted from championships handbook, but presumably this means "quality of wins")

Good post.  +k

Also, you gotta figure that, despite these stated criteria, human error comes into play.  I think you finish strong you get in.

The obvious counterargument to my point is 2004 when IC finished incredibly strong and was probably playing better than anyone in the East but didn't get an at large when no one from the E8 got a Pool C.

yeah, that's true, but didn't they only let 28 teams into the national tournament instead of the 32 teams they allow now?  I remember there was an article saying that this 32 team format will allow strong teams with 2 losses to make the tournament more often.

[theicdubbz]

+K, but only if this is true

yeah, that's true, but didn't they only let 28 teams into the national tournament instead of the 32 teams they allow now?  I remember there was an article saying that this 32 team format will allow strong teams with 2 losses to make the tournament more often.

[fisheralum91]

10 hour bus trips=disaster!

Lets hope not!

[JQV]

Just a reminder, and hoping it will keep Pat from pulling his hair out telling people to check the FAQ, here are the criteria for determining at-large bids.  Remember, QOWI and head to head competition ARE NOT the only criteria.

25. How are the at-large bids determined?

These are the selection (and seeding) criteria for 2006:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
• In-region head-to-head competition
• In-region results against common regional opponents
• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams.
Opponents are considered ranked only if they are ranked at the time of the ranking or playoff selection process.
• Quality of wins index–only contests versus regional competition (see Quality of Wins on the left-hand rail for most recent calculation)
• Conference postseason contest(s) is included.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Out-of region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III won-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non-Division III opponents.
• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common out-of region opponents.
• Overall Division III strength of schedule (quoted from championships handbook, but presumably this means "quality of wins")

Good post.  +k

Also, you gotta figure that, despite these stated criteria, human error comes into play.  I think you finish strong you get in.

The obvious counterargument to my point is 2004 when IC finished incredibly strong and was probably playing better than anyone in the East but didn't get an at large when no one from the E8 got a Pool C.

yeah, that's true, but didn't they only let 28 teams into the national tournament instead of the 32 teams they allow now?  I remember there was an article saying that this 32 team format will allow strong teams with 2 losses to make the tournament more often.

I'm not sure when the tournament expanded but it was recently.  That does sound right though.

[BobNapoleone]

BobNapoleone....I think your post confused me, are you saying that SC wins against those teams are almost flukes because those teams were missing people?

Hardly.....as we measure how teams played against Springfield there were variables in each game....personnel....field conditions....the moon...

I've watched Springfield for three years as they played the Bombers.....They are always a great team....and this year they obviously have jelled into something special.....


Great coaches take advantage of missing starters every game that is played.....
as an example...do I think Fisher would have been stronger if Lang played?? Obviously..

Is Union a different team now that Angiletta is back obviously....

Don't ever think what Springfield has accomplsihed this year is a fluke....or they will kick your A#%  !!!

[TecmoYellowHat]

Just a reminder, and hoping it will keep Pat from pulling his hair out telling people to check the FAQ, here are the criteria for determining at-large bids.  Remember, QOWI and head to head competition ARE NOT the only criteria.

25. How are the at-large bids determined?

These are the selection (and seeding) criteria for 2006:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
• In-region head-to-head competition
• In-region results against common regional opponents
• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams.
Opponents are considered ranked only if they are ranked at the time of the ranking or playoff selection process.
• Quality of wins index–only contests versus regional competition (see Quality of Wins on the left-hand rail for most recent calculation)
• Conference postseason contest(s) is included.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Out-of region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III won-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non-Division III opponents.
• Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common out-of region opponents.
• Overall Division III strength of schedule (quoted from championships handbook, but presumably this means "quality of wins")

Good post.  +k

Also, you gotta figure that, despite these stated criteria, human error comes into play.  I think you finish strong you get in.

The obvious counterargument to my point is 2004 when IC finished incredibly strong and was probably playing better than anyone in the East but didn't get an at large when no one from the E8 got a Pool C.

yeah, that's true, but didn't they only let 28 teams into the national tournament instead of the 32 teams they allow now?  I remember there was an article saying that this 32 team format will allow strong teams with 2 losses to make the tournament more often.

I'm not sure when the tournament expanded but it was recently.  That does sound right though.

I remember going to the Cortland game and I tried to start a "go saxons" chant.  I got a few smiles from the parents who knew why I was saying that and a couple fans who actually keep up with the team.  I was dissapointed when I turned on espn 2 and Ithaca didn't make the tournament.

[fan of d3]

Not to argue semantics but didnt Lang play against SC? I see your point.