FB: Liberty League

[softballrz]

You all need to read todays NEFC press release

NEFC announces league restructuring for 2013 season

Starting in 2013, Endicott will be one of eight teams competing in the newly restructured NEFC.Rob Palardy, Sports Information Director
2/9/2012 10:00:00 AM
FITCHBURG, Mass. - New England Football Conference (NEFC) Commissioner Sue Lauder has announced a restructuring of the Conference that will take place prior to the 2013 season. The NEFC, founded in 1965 by Bridgewater State College, Curry College, and Maine Maritime Academy, will function as an eight team league and will retain the NEFC's automatic bid to the NCAA Division III Championship Tournament.  The realigned NEFC will consist of Curry College, Endicott College, Maine Maritime Academy, MIT, Nichols College, Salve Regina University, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and Western New England University.

Institutions that are currently members of the multi-sport Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Conference (Bridgewater State University, Fitchburg State University, Framingham State University, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Westfield State University, and Worcester State University) will compete in a newly formed MASCAC football league.  Plymouth State University and UMass Dartmouth, two schools that have a playing relationship with the MASCAC through an affiliation agreement between the MASCAC and the Little East Conference, will also join the new league.

"It's been an honor to have been a member of the NEFC and to work with the quality student athletes, coaches and administrators at all of the NEFC institutions," said Lauder who is also the Director of Athletics at Fitchburg.  "I wish the conference continued success and look forward to maintaining relationships with NEFC members."

The NEFC, with 16 members divided into two divisions, is the largest Division III football conference in the nation.  The Conference's championship game between the winners of the two divisions is also unique among Division III football.

Dating back to 2003, the first season of varsity competition for Endicott, eight of the nine conference champions have been from one of the remaining institutions in the newly restructured NEFC.  Historically, Endicott holds a 31-16 record against Curry, Maine Maritime, MIT, Nichols, Salve Regina and Western New England and a 10-1 mark over the past two seasons.  The Gulls have never faced Coast Guard in their nine-year history.

The Blue and Green earned their first ever NEFC title in 2010 which led to an appearance in the NCAA Division III Tournament.  Behind strong leadership and immense skill from their senior class, the Gulls followed up their record-breaking 2010 campaign with an even more impressive season in 2011.  All-time records across offense, defense and special teams resulted in a program-best 11 wins and an Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC) North Atlantic Bowl victory over Mount Ida, 31-22.

[lewdogg11]

You all need to read todays NEFC press release

NEFC announces league restructuring for 2013 season

Starting in 2013, Endicott will be one of eight teams competing in the newly restructured NEFC.Rob Palardy, Sports Information Director
2/9/2012 10:00:00 AM
FITCHBURG, Mass. - New England Football Conference (NEFC) Commissioner Sue Lauder has announced a restructuring of the Conference that will take place prior to the 2013 season. The NEFC, founded in 1965 by Bridgewater State College, Curry College, and Maine Maritime Academy, will function as an eight team league and will retain the NEFC's automatic bid to the NCAA Division III Championship Tournament.  The realigned NEFC will consist of Curry College, Endicott College, Maine Maritime Academy, MIT, Nichols College, Salve Regina University, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and Western New England University.

Institutions that are currently members of the multi-sport Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Conference (Bridgewater State University, Fitchburg State University, Framingham State University, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Westfield State University, and Worcester State University) will compete in a newly formed MASCAC football league.  Plymouth State University and UMass Dartmouth, two schools that have a playing relationship with the MASCAC through an affiliation agreement between the MASCAC and the Little East Conference, will also join the new league.

"It's been an honor to have been a member of the NEFC and to work with the quality student athletes, coaches and administrators at all of the NEFC institutions," said Lauder who is also the Director of Athletics at Fitchburg.  "I wish the conference continued success and look forward to maintaining relationships with NEFC members."

The NEFC, with 16 members divided into two divisions, is the largest Division III football conference in the nation.  The Conference's championship game between the winners of the two divisions is also unique among Division III football.

Dating back to 2003, the first season of varsity competition for Endicott, eight of the nine conference champions have been from one of the remaining institutions in the newly restructured NEFC.  Historically, Endicott holds a 31-16 record against Curry, Maine Maritime, MIT, Nichols, Salve Regina and Western New England and a 10-1 mark over the past two seasons.  The Gulls have never faced Coast Guard in their nine-year history.

The Blue and Green earned their first ever NEFC title in 2010 which led to an appearance in the NCAA Division III Tournament.  Behind strong leadership and immense skill from their senior class, the Gulls followed up their record-breaking 2010 campaign with an even more impressive season in 2011.  All-time records across offense, defense and special teams resulted in a program-best 11 wins and an Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC) North Atlantic Bowl victory over Mount Ida, 31-22.

There goes the neighborhood.  The NEFC appears to be retaining the better teams, and the MASCAC gets the dookies.  What are the playoff implications for the MASCAC?  Will they have a probation period or is it Pool A right from the get go? 

And how much do we bet that Endicott schedules MASCAC OOC games?

[Jonny Utah]

Well it was just a matter of time before this happened.  And now the NCAA is almost pushed against the wall for pool A spots.  Don't be suprised if they up the league minimums for pool a bids in the the future.

And it looks like West Conn is leaving the NJAC and joining the new league.

[Frank Rossi]

For those who are interested, Pat just published the D3football.com article on the matter:  http://d3football.com/notables/2012/02/nefc-splits

This is one of those stories I predicted a couple years ago on these boards and in other discussions, but I had prayed I be wrong based on the ultimate implications.  Yet, after the Endicott snub by the Committee, it was clear to me that such an announcement was imminent.  In the words of a Bud Light commercial, "Here we go."

What does it mean?  Well, first, look at the new landscape of the East Region:

1) LL, 2) E8, 3) NJAC, 4) MAC, 5) ECFC, 6) MASCAC, 7) NEFC

By 2015 (potentially in 2014 if an exemption is permitted), barring any other movement, those seven conferences will have automatic bids.  Based on the current known plans of conferences, that would total 26 automatic qualifer (AQ/Pool A) conferences.  There are some schools like Wesley, potentially Salisbury and Frostburg, and a few others that could technically comprise a 27th by that time, although there are no specific plans known to suggest that is in the cards.

That said, I've been saying for over a year that 28 is the maximum Pool A conferences schools would be able to stomach since that would leave one Pool C bid per region.  Anything less than four would dillute the pool in ways that work against the balance the NCAA appears to have intended between playoff access and playoff strength.  Remember that last year, we moved from 23 autobids to 25.

The Division III membership has what I see as four options here, as things get more and more problematic inside the present system:

1) Do Nothing.  This is unlikely at a certain level based on the problems I outlines above about balancing access with strength.  In many ways, football is not a self-checking sport insofar as conference champions go since we don't have a conference tournament system in place or a conference championship game like basketball.  Thus, just relying on Pool A conferences to determine their champions through regular season play and assuming that the strength will always rise to the top isn't realistic in football, especially through the maze of tiebreakers we see in the conferences.  Also, any conference with two power teams causes problems -- either the other power team is behind the eight ball always if their only loss is to the conference champion, or such conferences would always have an inside track to the sparse number of Pool C bids we're left with.  However, if the membership can't determine what to do here, then doing nothing would be the fallback position.

2) Expand the Playoffs.  The present NCAA mandate is that we are locked in at 32 teams, and the desire is to maintain the bye week for teams, especially since not all programs have the budgets to begin in Week 1 (to house and feed the players before their academic year begins).  There is no plausible way to start the season earlier based on these costs -- schools would not accept that mandate easily.  I don't see this option as viable at all.

3) Raise the Access Ratio for Football.  The current access ratio to be maintained for a Pool A bid is in the 6.5:1 range, meaning that 7 teams are the minimum number for any Pool A conference (assuming the correct composition of associate and core members in those conferences).  We've discussed before the idea of raising the access ration so that it would force more Pool B bids -- which would at least allow the Committee to select the best of the teams not composing Pool A conferences.  It would not create Pool C bids since Pool B is also based on equivalent access ratios -- non-qualifying conferences fall back into Pool B.  The other question would be exactly where to draw the line.  If 8 teams was the level needed, I don't think we'd see much change -- there are not many 7-team conferences, and this could just be a temporary fix as Division III football membership expands further.  I believe that 9 teams would be the best threshold to ensure not having to revise the system again and again and to open up enough at-large slots.  Yes, that would cause some mega-shifting as a result -- but pure math tells us that we would not return to the present scenario without the creation of over 30 new programs at a 9 threshold.

4) Force a Shorter Season with Required "Play-In Games" for the 10th Game.  This is the least likely option, but it's an idea a coach recently suggested as plausible.  If the idea is that the calendar is long enough already, there could be a mandate to limit the number of regular season games scheduled to 9.  Each conference would be obligated to hold a conference championship game, even if that were a rematch game.  The winners of those games would receive the automatic bids.  The other teams would have the option to play a 10th game that week either inside or outside their conference (and those games could be prescheduled and later changed based on the play-in game participants).  The Committee would then award the runners up in those games the remaining Pool C bids.  Essentially, it's geographically regionalizing a week of extra playoffs without really creating an extra NCAA playoffs week.  Conferences that did not want to take part in the mandatory championship would be placed into Pool B, meaning that they risked zero bids.  Again, it's unlikely, but it's a bit novel.

I don't know which option or sub-option will happen.  However, today's move has begun a lot of discussion already.  The geography of this (now with three New England bids guaranteed to schools that are all over 500 miles from Mount Union) throws in another monkey wrench since, if the Committee is forced to regionalize the playoff brackets a bit more than they did last year, Mount Union's entry into an East-centric bracket would mean they'd play, at worst, a 5 seed in the first round if the New England teams don't improve over the next years.  In fact, the geography could wreak much havoc in any attempt to schedule inter-regional games since most schools are not within 500 miles of a decent percentage of another region.  This places the new bracketing of inter-regional games in some jeopardy since three schools will be geographically isolated -- meaning 6 East teams will be locked into one bracket unless flights are allowed at the same or greater level than what we saw last season.

No matter what, today's releases highlight a lot of what-ifs.  Luckily, we have a couple years to figure this out.  However, here's the biggest what-if:  what if the NESCAC decides to participate in the playoffs?  Then, we have even bigger issues in the present system.  Ya never know what those wacky NESCAC folk will do...

[Jonny Utah]

For those who are interested, Pat just published the D3football.com article on the matter:  http://d3football.com/notables/2012/02/nefc-splits

This is one of those stories I predicted a couple years ago on these boards and in other discussions, but I had prayed I be wrong based on the ultimate implications.  Yet, after the Endicott snub by the Committee, it was clear to me that such an announcement was imminent.  In the words of a Bud Light commercial, "Here we go."

What does it mean?  Well, first, look at the new landscape of the East Region:

1) LL, 2) E8, 3) NJAC, 4) MAC, 5) ECFC, 6) MASCAC, 7) NEFC

By 2015 (potentially in 2014 if an exemption is permitted), barring any other movement, those seven conferences will have automatic bids.  Based on the current known plans of conferences, that would total 26 automatic qualifer (AQ/Pool A) conferences.  There are some schools like Wesley, potentially Salisbury and Frostburg, and a few others that could technically comprise a 27th by that time, although there are no specific plans known to suggest that is in the cards.

That said, I've been saying for over a year that 28 is the maximum Pool A conferences schools would be able to stomach since that would leave one Pool C bid per region.  Anything less than four would dillute the pool in ways that work against the balance the NCAA appears to have intended between playoff access and playoff strength.  Remember that last year, we moved from 23 autobids to 25.

The Division III membership has what I see as four options here, as things get more and more problematic inside the present system:

1) Do Nothing.  This is unlikely at a certain level based on the problems I outlines above about balancing access with strength.  In many ways, football is not a self-checking sport insofar as conference champions go since we don't have a conference tournament system in place or a conference championship game like basketball.  Thus, just relying on Pool A conferences to determine their champions through regular season play and assuming that the strength will always rise to the top isn't realistic in football, especially through the maze of tiebreakers we see in the conferences.  Also, any conference with two power teams causes problems -- either the other power team is behind the eight ball always if their only loss is to the conference champion, or such conferences would always have an inside track to the sparse number of Pool C bids we're left with.  However, if the membership can't determine what to do here, then doing nothing would be the fallback position.

2) Expand the Playoffs.  The present NCAA mandate is that we are locked in at 32 teams, and the desire is to maintain the bye week for teams, especially since not all programs have the budgets to begin in Week 1 (to house and feed the players before their academic year begins).  There is no plausible way to start the season earlier based on these costs -- schools would not accept that mandate easily.  I don't see this option as viable at all.

3) Raise the Access Ratio for Football.  The current access ratio to be maintained for a Pool A bid is in the 6.5:1 range, meaning that 7 teams are the minimum number for any Pool A conference (assuming the correct composition of associate and core members in those conferences).  We've discussed before the idea of raising the access ration so that it would force more Pool B bids -- which would at least allow the Committee to select the best of the teams not composing Pool A conferences.  It would not create Pool C bids since Pool B is also based on equivalent access ratios -- non-qualifying conferences fall back into Pool B.  The other question would be exactly where to draw the line.  If 8 teams was the level needed, I don't think we'd see much change -- there are not many 7-team conferences, and this could just be a temporary fix as Division III football membership expands further.  I believe that 9 teams would be the best threshold to ensure not having to revise the system again and again and to open up enough at-large slots.  Yes, that would cause some mega-shifting as a result -- but pure math tells us that we would not return to the present scenario without the creation of over 30 new programs at a 9 threshold.

4) Force a Shorter Season with Required "Play-In Games" for the 10th Game.  This is the least likely option, but it's an idea a coach recently suggested as plausible.  If the idea is that the calendar is long enough already, there could be a mandate to limit the number of regular season games scheduled to 9.  Each conference would be obligated to hold a conference championship game, even if that were a rematch game.  The winners of those games would receive the automatic bids.  The other teams would have the option to play a 10th game that week either inside or outside their conference (and those games could be prescheduled and later changed based on the play-in game participants).  The Committee would then award the runners up in those games the remaining Pool C bids.  Essentially, it's geographically regionalizing a week of extra playoffs without really creating an extra NCAA playoffs week.  Conferences that did not want to take part in the mandatory championship would be placed into Pool B, meaning that they risked zero bids.  Again, it's unlikely, but it's a bit novel.

I don't know which option or sub-option will happen.  However, today's move has begun a lot of discussion already.  The geography of this (now with three New England bids guaranteed to schools that are all over 500 miles from Mount Union) throws in another monkey wrench since, if the Committee is forced to regionalize the playoff brackets a bit more than they did last year, Mount Union's entry into an East-centric bracket would mean they'd play, at worst, a 5 seed in the first round if the New England teams don't improve over the next years.  In fact, the geography could wreak much havoc in any attempt to schedule inter-regional games since most schools are not within 500 miles of a decent percentage of another region.  This places the new bracketing of inter-regional games in some jeopardy since three schools will be geographically isolated -- meaning 6 East teams will be locked into one bracket unless flights are allowed at the same or greater level than what we saw last season.

No matter what, today's releases highlight a lot of what-ifs.  Luckily, we have a couple years to figure this out.  However, here's the biggest what-if:  what if the NESCAC decides to participate in the playoffs?  Then, we have even bigger issues in the present system.  Ya never know what those wacky NESCAC folk will do...

They should use option 3, but seeing what the NCAA has done with d3 lacrosse, they will probably go with option 1.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I've long argued that THE perfect size for a conference is 8 - 6 is too small to deserve an AQ, 10 leaves only one OOC game if a round-robin (and anything less than a round robin is inherently unfair), and any odd number is a scheduling nightmare, as someone is left out each weekend during the conference season.  (And most conferences want stability across sports, not just fball - 8 is IMO also perfect for bball: a double round-robin (anything else is also inherently unfair) still leaves a nice balance of 11 OOC games.)

But unless fball can somehow find a way to expand beyond 32, I fear your scenario of raising the minimum to 9 may be necessary.  One option that might be explored (seems to violate the access norm of d3, but doesn't totally) would be that any conference losing in the first round four (or some number) years in a row loses its AQ, and falls into pool B.  It has worked out well for Wesley; it could work out well for a really good team from a crappy conference.

[Frank Rossi]

I've long argued that THE perfect size for a conference is 8 - 6 is too small to deserve an AQ, 10 leaves only one OOC game if a round-robin (and anything less than a round robin is inherently unfair), and any odd number is a scheduling nightmare, as someone is left out each weekend during the conference season.  (And most conferences want stability across sports, not just fball - 8 is IMO also perfect for bball: a double round-robin (anything else is also inherently unfair) still leaves a nice balance of 11 OOC games.)

But unless fball can somehow find a way to expand beyond 32, I fear your scenario of raising the minimum to 9 may be necessary.  One option that might be explored (seems to violate the access norm of d3, but doesn't totally) would be that any conference losing in the first round four (or some number) years in a row loses its AQ, and falls into pool B.  It has worked out well for Wesley; it could work out well for a really good team from a crappy conference.

Smells a bit like English League Soccer.  How would the relegated conference regain Pool A status?

[Mr. Ypsi]

I've long argued that THE perfect size for a conference is 8 - 6 is too small to deserve an AQ, 10 leaves only one OOC game if a round-robin (and anything less than a round robin is inherently unfair), and any odd number is a scheduling nightmare, as someone is left out each weekend during the conference season.  (And most conferences want stability across sports, not just fball - 8 is IMO also perfect for bball: a double round-robin (anything else is also inherently unfair) still leaves a nice balance of 11 OOC games.)

But unless fball can somehow find a way to expand beyond 32, I fear your scenario of raising the minimum to 9 may be necessary.  One option that might be explored (seems to violate the access norm of d3, but doesn't totally) would be that any conference losing in the first round four (or some number) years in a row loses its AQ, and falls into pool B.  It has worked out well for Wesley; it could work out well for a really good team from a crappy conference.

Smells a bit like English League Soccer.  How would the relegated conference regain Pool A status?

That was a 'top of the head' suggestion, but I suppose that by winning even one game in the playoffs (once a team makes them) they now earn another 4 (or whatever) seasons of AQ.

Just trying to find a way to avoid going beyond requiring >8 teams per conference! 

[7express]

Well it was just a matter of time before this happened.  And now the NCAA is almost pushed against the wall for pool A spots.  Don't be suprised if they up the league minimums for pool a bids in the the future.

And it looks like West Conn is leaving the NJAC and joining the new league.

I wouldn't be against it.  Travel would be shorter (I'd rather drive to Endicott then down to Rowan or up to Cortland state or Morrisville state), and even though the league will probably be of weaker quality, we can use some wins; we've only had 0 since October 2009.

[pg04]

Well it was just a matter of time before this happened.  And now the NCAA is almost pushed against the wall for pool A spots.  Don't be suprised if they up the league minimums for pool a bids in the the future.

And it looks like West Conn is leaving the NJAC and joining the new league.

I wouldn't be against it.  Travel would be shorter (I'd rather drive to Endicott then down to Rowan or up to Cortland state or Morrisville state), and even though the league will probably be of weaker quality, we can use some wins; we've only had 0 since October 2009.

Yeah, I just mentioned on the E8 board how this can only help W. Conn, as they got beat up by even the bad NJAC teams.  It seems as there were 4 levels.  The top(Kean, Cortland, Montclair), the middle (Rowan, TCNJ), the bad (WPU, Brockport, Morrisville), and then W. Conn.

Their point differential on the season was -357, including a 48-0 loss to SUNY Maritime!

[Frank Rossi]

Let's take a look at the net effect the shuffling of the 58 teams in the East Region conferences will have on OOC scheduling...

As of 2013:

NEFC: 8 teams - 7 Games

8 x 3 = 24 OOC slots

MASCAC: 9 teams - 8 Games

9 x 2 = 18 OOC slots

ECFC: 8 teams - 7 Games

8 x 3 = 24 OOC slots

LL: 8 teams - 7 Games

8 x 3 = 24 OOC slots

E8: 8 teams - 7 Games

6 x 3 = 18 OOC slots (assuming SAL/FRO play South OOCs)

NJAC: 8 teams - 7 Games

8 x 3 = 24 OOC slots

MAC: 9 teams - 8 Games

9 x 2 = 18 OOC slots

150 OOC slots, Potentially 75 East OOC games

-------

In 2012:

NEFC: 16 teams - 8 Games (7 in-division, 1 crossover)

16 x 2 = 32 OOC slots

ECFC: 8 teams - 7 Games

8 x 3 = 24 OOC slots

LL: 8 teams - 7 Games

8 x 3 = 24 OOC slots

E8: 8 teams - 7 Games

6 x 3 = 18 OOC slots (assuming SAL/FRO play South OOCs)

NJAC: 9 teams - 8 Games

9 x 2 = 18 OOC slots

MAC: 9 teams - 8 Games

9 x 2 = 18 OOC slots

134 OOC slots, Potentially 67 East OOC games


This split and reshuffling will have a somewhat dynamic effect, opening up eight more potential OOC matchups.  Some of this is due to the loss of the mandatory NEFC division crossover game.  When we isolate the New England conferences, we see an upcoming 60 empty slots vs. 56 in 2012.  However, the NJAC may actually be where we see the biggest changes, as each team remaining will have one more game to schedule.  I say this because the New England conferences will likely continue cross-scheduling, especially between the MASCAC and the new NEFC.  Thus, the LL, E8 and MAC may have to absorb more NJAC matchups than in prior years.  That actually spells a bigger problem for the East Region since one of the things we cite annually concerning East upper-echelon teams is that we see major powers crossing over in the regular season more often than other regions.  This would only exacerbate this issue -- meaning Pool C bids in the East might be even tougher to come by unless the Committee continues to reward subjective scheduling going forward.  Something to think about here, as the New England region will dillute the pool unless they change their scheduling approach like Salve Regina has over the past couple years.

[Pat Coleman]

Some of the NEFC or MASCAC teams may choose to continue to play just nine games. And you're right about the mandatory crossover game -- some will certainly choose to play one anyway rather than take on a big boy.

[Frank Rossi]

Some of the NEFC or MASCAC teams may choose to continue to play just nine games. And you're right about the mandatory crossover game -- some will certainly choose to play one anyway rather than take on a big boy.

Yeah.  Like I suggested, the most important move seems to be the WestConn move since a bad team in a good conference will no longer fill that conference's schedules.  If the New England conferences continue to intermingle, then that means the "Big Four" of the East (LL, E8, NJAC and MAC) may have some interesting top-level matchups coming up that we haven't seen in a while.

[hazzben]

I've long argued that THE perfect size for a conference is 8 - 6 is too small to deserve an AQ, 10 leaves only one OOC game if a round-robin (and anything less than a round robin is inherently unfair), and any odd number is a scheduling nightmare, as someone is left out each weekend during the conference season.  (And most conferences want stability across sports, not just fball - 8 is IMO also perfect for bball: a double round-robin (anything else is also inherently unfair) still leaves a nice balance of 11 OOC games.)

But unless fball can somehow find a way to expand beyond 32, I fear your scenario of raising the minimum to 9 may be necessary.  One option that might be explored (seems to violate the access norm of d3, but doesn't totally) would be that any conference losing in the first round four (or some number) years in a row loses its AQ, and falls into pool B.  It has worked out well for Wesley; it could work out well for a really good team from a crappy conference.

Smells a bit like English League Soccer.  How would the relegated conference regain Pool A status?

That was a 'top of the head' suggestion, but I suppose that by winning even one game in the playoffs (once a team makes them) they now earn another 4 (or whatever) seasons of AQ.

Just trying to find a way to avoid going beyond requiring >8 teams per conference!

Here'd be my crazy suggestion for this situation of diminishing at large bids. Keep in mind I'm shooting from the hip here.

I like the equal access principle of the NCAA. Win your conference and you're in.

I also prefer a strong playoff field.

What if the NCAA implemented a rule saying a conference received its Pool A bid only if its champion had at least 7 wins. However, if either the conference champion had 2 playoff wins in the previous 4 years or the conference had 4 playoff wins in the previous 4 years the requirement would be lowered to a .667 winning percentage. Any time a conference is unable to fill it's Pool A bid, the bid immediately becomes an extra Pool C for that year.

So if a conference champ goes 6-4, 5-4 or 5-5, no Pool A, period.

If they went 6-3 then they need either a recent strong conference or personal playoff history to get in.

It would provide a reasonable way for conferences to get an Auto bid while also ensuring that a total weak sister didn't dilute the field and keep more deserving teams at home. In a year when a particularly strong conference like the WIAC destroyed itself during the regular season, past playoff performance could ensure they still got a team in. It would also give incentive to schedule a full 10 games, while also making sure teams unable to schedule 10 but playing in strong conferences wouldn't be unduly penalized.

Very raw thoughts here. Those numbers and expectations seem reasonable?

Obviously this would

[lewdogg11]

That doesn't necessarily mean a team is a 'weak sister'. It could be a very tough and well balanced conference. Most recent NEFC winners are 0-1 loss teams. Means nothing.