FB: Liberty League

[pumkinattack]

I really want RPI to get in: but, playing devil's advocate to many of those points (and believe me, Bart could be picked apart this year, so I have no delusion that this year's rendition of Bart is as good as the '04 - '07 teams, though I think there is a lot there) because that's what the committee will do:

Winning vs. all of those teams is expected, but MOV isn't necessarily an indicator and less relevant than who you played. 

Stat's become irrelevant because Bart was without their RB and TE (I don't think the RB loss was important and think it was more about Bart giving up on the run - look at the number of attempts, but the committee will look at this given Frank's conversation about qualitative approach given). 

The scoring is a function of quality of opponents.  RPI has averaged 21 pts vs. Union and Hobart (the last two games) including a score after starting on the 4 yard line, a fake punt keeping a drive alive and another 4 and 10 completion. 

I think RPI deserves in as much as Bart this year (I feel no remorse if Bart ends up as the only team in given my loyalties however), so don't take this the wrong way.  My point is there is nothing signature or definitively playoff about RPI's season.  Usually there is at least one or two playoff signifying moments for a team, but its hard to point to one here, particularly given that Union is going to have 4 or 5 losses this year and WPI just gave up 51 to Susquehanna. 

Here's an interesting debate.  I think Ithaca vs. RPI is a loser even with Ithaca losing to Cortland.  However, in my mind, RPI should get in over Montclair hands down if Ithaca wins Saturday by anything other than a last second win against Cortland.  I think the virtually closed loop for the NJAC this year leads to the conference being slightly overrated.  Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, RPI probably benefits more from a Ithaca loss given that inertia would probably maintain Montclair's position as long as they win. 

[redswarm81]

It's amazing what a ten-minute conversation can do regarding your perception of things...

I spoke with Dick Kaiser, the Division III Committee Chair, earlier this morning to schedule him to appear on "In the HuddLLe" this Sunday night at 7:50pm EST.  He accepted the invitation and will discuss the East Region's bracket and the discussion regarding the selection/seeding of Liberty League teams in the NCAA Playoffs that will occur Saturday night.

Mr. Kaiser was very forthcoming during our brief discussion, as we were joking about the task that lays ahead for the Committee -- no doubt, with 13 one-loss teams not leading in their conferences, the Committee's task is daunting with just six Pool C bids.  I learned a lot, and I thought I'd share some of the ideas he presented to me today:

- When I brought up Husson, his reaction was, "Well, they're a two-loss team."  He went on to discuss that the Committee cannot simply stop at Primary Criteria in general when deciding teams for the Football Championships because there are simply not enough games played to allow such a low number of statistics to control the selection.  Stated differently, Secondary Criteria are going to apply just as much and as quickly as Primary Criteria.  In a sport like basketball, in which 30+ games are generally played, the Primary Criteria/Secondary Criteria hierarchy can work.  However, in football, his belief is that they need to enter into a full discussion immediately, even weighing criteria like scores and some subjective standards when looking at Pool B and Pool C teams.  This would explain the treatment of Husson and SJF in the Regional Rankings thus far.

- At the same time, we talked a bit about strength of schedule issues.  He was pretty blunt during this discussion, in terms of stating that strength of schedule -- not just the numbers, but the subjective review of a team's schedule -- is crucial in this process.  Paraphrasing his comments accurately, his reaction was that if a team plays a soft out-of-conference schedule, they're not going to experience an easy selection process.  My point in bringing this up is that we should not underestimate the objective and subjective review of a team's out-of-conference schedule at this point when we consider these issues.

There will be a lot more discussion of this on Sunday night, but I walk away from my brief conversation with Mr. Kaiser feeling that he is truly on top of the situation (he spit out a good number of stats about the number of teams in line for consideration and the task the Committee faces) and wants to give fair treatment to these teams both objectively and subjectively (since the objective numbers are not comprehensive enough to allow for full faith and credit with just 7-10 regional games played).

If I were involved, I'd mention to der Kaiser that the NCAA Selection Criteria could easily be written to remove the distinction between Primary Criteria and Secondary Criteria--however, those words "primary" and "secondary" are in there.   I'm sorry to see the meaning of those words dismissed so quickly.

I'd also point out that the Secondary Criteria specifically distinguish in-Division record from overall record.  Ultimately, overall record (including v. non-Div. III competition) can be considered in the Secondary criteria, but Husson's 1.000 in-Division winning percentage must be considered separately from their overall record, and I don't see how that can possibly hurt Husson in the secondary criteria.

How exactly does one measure "fairness" in subjective considerations?   Husson's undefeated in-Region and in-Division, and they're a completely unknown quantity--except to the seven teams that they've beaten.  If I downgrade Husson because I don't know anything about them, am I being fair to them?  Do I really know any less about 7-0 in-Region/in-Division Husson than I know about 6-1 in-Region/6-3 in-Division St. John Fisher, who has behaved erratically all season (e.g., they eked out 3 point home wins v. woeful Buff St. and disappointing Springfield)?  I get really uncomfortable when teams are selected by subjective criteria--which aren't really criteria at all, they're just feelings.

[redswarm81]

KS: It took Touchdown Tommy almost a year to come up with that new spin on his ducking me last October, for what it's worth.

Was someone picking a fight?

[superman57]

RPI, can also root for an Alfred win...Alfred wins, Ithaca gets the pool a, that opens up the pool c for RPI

[stimulator]

Believe me Hobart deserves to get in more than RPI (less they lose next wk  ) they got it done... RPI did not.

Have to differ on the running stats though.  Hobart was not known for a one-back rushing attack.  Yes they lost Hobaica but Marlier had nearly as many carries on the season.  And as for the attempts... sorry 28 should get more than 42 yards even w/o the TE.  Yes they gave up on the run.  I would too if I had -14 in the first half.   RPI had only 4 more attempts w/o their starting RT and gained 100 more yards.
RPI
Seems to me I remember a fake punt last year that got Hobart back in the RPI game and yes the RPI 4-10 catch this year was a do or die conversion to keep the game alive.  However the Hobart 20+ yd catch on 3-15 from your own 12 (right in front of me in the stands and what a clutch/athletic catch it was) was pretty big too.

You are right RPI was not as prolific offensively as the season numbers indicate but they have been strong defensively all year.  Minus the blocked punt Sat., Hobart struggled as much or more than RPI on O.


All that being said Hobart made the plays.  If RPI does not get in, they only have their own execution to blame. 

[Frank Rossi]

RPI, can also root for an Alfred win...Alfred wins, Ithaca gets the pool a, that opens up the pool c for RPI

It must me playoff time -- Supe put together a perfect post.  NICE JOB SUPE!!!!!   -k

[Frank Rossi]

It's amazing what a ten-minute conversation can do regarding your perception of things...

I spoke with Dick Kaiser, the Division III Committee Chair, earlier this morning to schedule him to appear on "In the HuddLLe" this Sunday night at 7:50pm EST.  He accepted the invitation and will discuss the East Region's bracket and the discussion regarding the selection/seeding of Liberty League teams in the NCAA Playoffs that will occur Saturday night.

Mr. Kaiser was very forthcoming during our brief discussion, as we were joking about the task that lays ahead for the Committee -- no doubt, with 13 one-loss teams not leading in their conferences, the Committee's task is daunting with just six Pool C bids.  I learned a lot, and I thought I'd share some of the ideas he presented to me today:

- When I brought up Husson, his reaction was, "Well, they're a two-loss team."  He went on to discuss that the Committee cannot simply stop at Primary Criteria in general when deciding teams for the Football Championships because there are simply not enough games played to allow such a low number of statistics to control the selection.  Stated differently, Secondary Criteria are going to apply just as much and as quickly as Primary Criteria.  In a sport like basketball, in which 30+ games are generally played, the Primary Criteria/Secondary Criteria hierarchy can work.  However, in football, his belief is that they need to enter into a full discussion immediately, even weighing criteria like scores and some subjective standards when looking at Pool B and Pool C teams.  This would explain the treatment of Husson and SJF in the Regional Rankings thus far.

- At the same time, we talked a bit about strength of schedule issues.  He was pretty blunt during this discussion, in terms of stating that strength of schedule -- not just the numbers, but the subjective review of a team's schedule -- is crucial in this process.  Paraphrasing his comments accurately, his reaction was that if a team plays a soft out-of-conference schedule, they're not going to experience an easy selection process.  My point in bringing this up is that we should not underestimate the objective and subjective review of a team's out-of-conference schedule at this point when we consider these issues.

There will be a lot more discussion of this on Sunday night, but I walk away from my brief conversation with Mr. Kaiser feeling that he is truly on top of the situation (he spit out a good number of stats about the number of teams in line for consideration and the task the Committee faces) and wants to give fair treatment to these teams both objectively and subjectively (since the objective numbers are not comprehensive enough to allow for full faith and credit with just 7-10 regional games played).

If I were involved, I'd mention to der Kaiser that the NCAA Selection Criteria could easily be written to remove the distinction between Primary Criteria and Secondary Criteria--however, those words "primary" and "secondary" are in there.   I'm sorry to see the meaning of those words dismissed so quickly.

I'd also point out that the Secondary Criteria specifically distinguish in-Division record from overall record.  Ultimately, overall record (including v. non-Div. III competition) can be considered in the Secondary criteria, but Husson's 1.000 in-Division winning percentage must be considered separately from their overall record, and I don't see how that can possibly hurt Husson in the secondary criteria.

How exactly does one measure "fairness" in subjective considerations?   Husson's undefeated in-Region and in-Division, and they're a completely unknown quantity--except to the seven teams that they've beaten.  If I downgrade Husson because I don't know anything about them, am I being fair to them?  Do I really know any less about 7-0 in-Region/in-Division Husson than I know about 6-1 in-Region/6-3 in-Division St. John Fisher, who has behaved erratically all season (e.g., they eked out 3 point home wins v. woeful Buff St. and disappointing Springfield)?  I get really uncomfortable when teams are selected by subjective criteria--which aren't really criteria at all, they're just feelings.

We may not know much about Husson, but we know enough about Husson's quality of opponents to make some pretty cogent arguments for some subjectivity in the Committee's likely argument.  If you're going to try to argue Husson's case for a playoff slot, I'm all ears.

[labart96]

Believe me Hobart deserves to get in more than RPI (less they lose next wk  ) they got it done... RPI did not.

Have to differ on the running stats though.  Hobart was not known for a one-back rushing attack.  Yes they lost Hobaica but Marlier had nearly as many carries on the season.  And as for the attempts... sorry 28 should get more than 42 yards even w/o the TE.  Yes they gave up on the run.  I would too if I had -14 in the first half.   RPI had only 4 more attempts w/o their starting RT and gained 100 more yards.
RPI
Seems to me I remember a fake punt last year that got Hobart back in the RPI game and yes the RPI 4-10 catch this year was a do or die conversion to keep the game alive.  However the Hobart 20+ yd catch on 3-15 from your own 12 (right in front of me in the stands and what a clutch/athletic catch it was) was pretty big too.

You are right RPI was not as prolific offensively as the season numbers indicate but they have been strong defensively all year.  Minus the blocked punt Sat., Hobart struggled as much or more than RPI on O.


All that being said Hobart made the plays.  If RPI does not get in, they only have their own execution to blame. 

TGP agrees with stim on this one.  RPI had a solid rush D going into this game and Hobart - although Bart did average about 150 yds/game with the tandem of hobaica/marlier, neither of these guys are feature backs and it was clear early on that RPI was giving up yards on the pass and the run was absolutely stuffed, so why not stick with what was working?

Typical west-coast offense - pass to set up the run (only if needed) - for Hobart.

Bart also has a history - at least since '96 season (the advent of Greg Helmer kicking off the "new age QB" era that has played at Hobart - birdsall, swanson, mizro, and strom - in the last 10+ seasons) - of living and dying on the big play calls - fake punts, blocked punts, INTs, going for 2 to win, etc, so this was not a surprise to the Bart faithful.  

Either way, at this point TGP is now a LL fan as much as a Hobart one.  Would continue to be for the best for the league if we can get in 2 teams and have them advance.

[Frank Rossi]

Either way, at this point TGP is now a LL fan as much as a Hobart one.  

Did this happen before or after the creation of "In the HuddLLe?" 

[labart96]

Either way, at this point TGP is now a LL fan as much as a Hobart one.  

Did this happen before or after the creation of "In the HuddLLe?" 

Not sure.  Maybe after, since now TGP is not just a LLPP poster but a "guru", "analyst", "specialist" and occasionally the "Frank Rossi of Hobart".

[Frank Rossi]

For Union to make the ECACs, here's what needs to happen:

1) Union must win against Susquehanna Saturday;

2) Five teams from the Northwest and Northeast portions of the ECAC must qualify for the NCAA Playoffs or be disqualified from consideration for the ECACs.  We know that two teams will be taken through Pool A (the E8 Champ and the LL Champ).  The NEFC Championship could be won by a team that did not declare for the ECACs, but Plymouth State will play its 11th game on Saturday, disqualifying it from ECAC consideration win or lose.  Thus, there are three teams.  

This means that two teams must be selected through Pool B (Husson) or Pool C (Husson, RPI and/or Ithaca).  Therefore, Union fans need to root for Ithaca, Kean and any one-loss team that is sitting in a better spot than RPI is presently to enable RPI to enter the playoffs.  However, it is imperative that Ithaca be selected for a Pool C bid for Union to gain an ECAC slot.

[Frank Rossi]

Either way, at this point TGP is now a LL fan as much as a Hobart one.  

Did this happen before or after the creation of "In the HuddLLe?" 

Not sure.  Maybe after, since now TGP is not just a LLPP poster but a "guru", "analyst", "specialist" and occasionally the "Frank Rossi of Hobart".

Be prepared for Touchdown Tommy to snipe at you now that you have that last title.

[pumkinattack]

Stim,

  I didn't mean to pick apart the Hobart game specifically as it relates to RPI, but rather to put a different perspective on the picture you were painting simply to show how it could be construed. 

  On Bart's running game, I've had a problem with the way its been run all year.  The plays are called predictably (DeWall may design brilliant plays, but he needs to evolve more in his situational play calling) and the majority of the hand off's are from shotgun and there have been problems with the exchange all year (especially with Marlier) which have led to the RB confronting a defender behind the line of scrimmage.  Secondly, in both RPI and Union, Bart has had 60 carries, however only 27 have been by Marlier/Hobaica and Doyle isn't a runner like Strom.  Even in the RPI game, Marlier had 9 carries, Tritten the backup had two, both fumbled pitches.  Even in the Mizro/Swanson years they would line up under the center and hand off the ball 10 - 20 times a game.  This shotgun thing really came about Mizro's senior year, but even Blakowski took a bunch of handoffs from an I formation.  It could be that Spinella (great lax fogo) and Siravo haven't been as skilled of blockers as Whipple and the other predecessors, but its disappointing and, I think, Bart's biggest weakness.   

  As for the fake punt.  I think its all part of the game, but anyone who's ever discredited a winning team in any way due to a trick play should be consistent on this.  I think people have criticized this for years (I saw people at the 2004 Union game trashing Bart over this as well as the Cortland playoff game). 

  I still think RPI is as good as Montclair and probably better than an injury depleted Ithaca (as well as comparable to a MAC champ this year) so I'll hope for them to get in.  I agree with TGP, that I hope both can win a first round game in a year where the league isn't at its strongest.  I think of every playoff game as progress.  Bart hasn't gotten out of the second round, but they've gotten experience against all types of competition which only improves Cragg and the staff as well as increasing Bart's footprint.

  TGP, other than for chronological purposes we should probably not include Birdsall/S.Kenny in the discussion of great QB's.  They fall in the Doyle camp. 

[Senor RedTackle]

Hmmm....so what would an Alfred win coupled with an IC loss all but assure RPI a pool C bid???

[Reno Hightower]

For Union to make the ECACs, here's what needs to happen:

1) Union must win against Susquehanna Saturday;

2) Five teams from the Northwest and Northeast portions of the ECAC must qualify for the NCAA Playoffs or be disqualified from consideration for the ECACs.  We know that two teams will be taken through Pool A (the E8 Champ and the LL Champ).  The NEFC Championship could be won by a team that did not declare for the ECACs, but Plymouth State will play its 11th game on Saturday, disqualifying it from ECAC consideration win or lose.  Thus, there are three teams.  

This means that two teams must be selected through Pool B (Husson) or Pool C (Husson, RPI and/or Ithaca).  Therefore, Union fans need to root for Ithaca, Kean and any one-loss team that is sitting in a better spot than RPI is presently to enable RPI to enter the playoffs.  However, it is imperative that Ithaca be selected for a Pool C bid for Union to gain an ECAC slot.

So Union needs Alfred to win just as much as they need Ithaca to win, correct? Doesnt 1 of those 2 scenarios put Ithaca in the Playoffs?

What other games could help/hurt Union?