FB: Liberty League

[Pat Coleman]

1 change...put mac champion in there instead of lyco as 4 teams have a shot to win the mac this weekend...

Only three do -- Lebanon Valley cannot win the automatic bid.

[Senor RedTackle]

Ok, something to break up the angst and monotony of today's posts.....

Let's go back to the 90's. Who was hotter in Saved by the Bell?

Jessie


OR

Kelly

[PBR...]

1 change...put mac champion in there instead of lyco as 4 teams have a shot to win the mac this weekend...

Only three do -- Lebanon Valley cannot win the automatic bid.

correct pbr didnt break it down far enuf...3 w/ chance for the AQ and 4 w/ chance to win the mac title

[pg04]

Why do all the Union Posters hate each other?  

Anyway, I'm going to be non-conventional and say I liked Jessie.  Brains and the look!  

[Reno Hightower]

U89's, "Pay No Mind" List

#1......RedSwarm81........made list 11-2-05
#2......Frank Rossi...........made list 10-5-08

Im striving to get there. Also wondering exactly what being on your pay no mind list does, since you still join in banter with those on the list!

U89, what was your career record versus Hobart/RPI?
Reno graduated in 03.

[labart96]

TGP votes Kelly post-"enhancements" albeit the prissy turned sassy was tough to go against.

[Senor RedTackle]

Why do all the Union Posters hate each other?  

Anyway, I'm going to be non-conventional and say I liked Jessie.  Brains and the look!  

RT liked Jessie back in the day, and this elevated to new levels in Showgirls. However, once Kelli got on 90210 and took on some "enhancements", something about her bumped her ahead of Jessie in RT's rankings. She kind of got that Shannen Doherty quality to her....

[Frank Rossi]

Why do all the Union Posters hate each other?  

Anyway, I'm going to be non-conventional and say I liked Jessie.  Brains and the look!  

I'm feeling like the hatred is only toward one right now.  Otherwise, we love each other.  We even have matching sweaters for our wine and cheese functions to show the love.

Kelly, by a landslide.

[union89]

I have problems with 1....

[Reno Hightower]

I have problems with 1....

Why do you have problems with Frank? Seems to me like he just wants the program to be what it once was. An 8-9 win team year in and year out. I would think an alum would have that same desire. Or would perhaps want even greater things for his Alma Mater.

[redswarm81]

RPI has taken the gauntlet and run with it.

I think this one should be listed in the WikiLLPedia.

Right next to:

RS-isms -- Statistical and rhetorical jibberish that require readers of the LLPP to re-read a post 14 times, while standing on their heads for five of those times, just to make some level of sense of the statement.  Often, there is intent for humor in the RS-ism, although, a stopped clock is right twice a day, too -- so you never do know if that is truly the intent of the poster.

Lord knows, I use RS-isms all the time, so trust me -- I'm not innocent

Always hilarious, FR.  

Nobody reads RedSwarm81 posts.  Supes has replied to RedSwarm81 posts several times to say as much.

[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.

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.

I thought that OWP/OOWP was supposed to tell us what we need to know about opponents (and opponents' opponents), so that we don't need to rely on subjectivity regarding opponents.

There's not enough information available, according to Mr. Kaiser, to allow them to strictly follow OWP and OOWP without doing their own subjective confirmation of a team's schedule to validate/invalidate the findings.

OWP and OOWP, along with Winning Percentage (and head-to-head and common opponents and record v. RROs), provide a LOT of objective information--and that's just in the Primary Criteria.

When you get into the Secondary Criteria, Husson actually gets a boost from its 1.000 in-Division winning percentage, when Husson is being compared to any team with a D-III loss, as is surely the case.

As I've told Keith on the Top 25 Board, I'm uncomfortable when someone looks at all that objective information and decides that hunches are more valuable.

[dewcrew88]

Why do all the Union Posters hate each other?  

Anyway, I'm going to be non-conventional and say I liked Jessie.  Brains and the look!  

I'm feeling like the hatred is only toward one right now.  Otherwise, we love each other.  We even have matching sweaters for our wine and cheese functions to show the love.

Kelly, by a landslide.

Agreed. Kelly, easy. But Jessie was pretty hot in Showgirls, as RT said.

[bigdvs]

Why do all the Union Posters hate each other?  

Anyway, I'm going to be non-conventional and say I liked Jessie.  Brains and the look!  

bigdvs is loved and hated by all equally, like switzerland.

[Frank Rossi]

As I've told Keith on the Top 25 Board, I'm uncomfortable when someone looks at all that objective information and decides that hunches are more valuable.

But that's not what I relayed here yesterday.  The numbers form the basis for the initial discussions in the first place.  However, once teams are legitimately on the table is when more than mere numbers are discussed because of the paucity of differentiating information that might be available.