FB: Liberty League

[Frank Rossi]

LD... Did you catch my "if I were an AD" discussion in my long post yesterday?  If so, do you agree or disagree with that approach?

Missed it.  It was really long so I read the first few and the last few.  Haha.

Here:

"If I were an AD at a Liberty League school, my approach to OOC scheduling starting in 2012 (when Springfield is in the mix) would be to schedule my OOC games before league play.  I'd start Week 1 with a moderate ECFC or NEFC team (a team my team SHOULD beat).  Week 2 would be an upper-echelon ECFC or NEFC team (a team that would be a challenge, but that we should still be able to beat in most years).  My Week 3 opponent would be a mid- to upper-echelon Empire 8 team (a team that would be a challenge in most years to help lead into the LL season with some good experience).

Now, look at what I've accomplished.  Let's say my team goes 3-0 in OOC games.  We're still Pool C-eligible.  We've also kept an eye on the SoS numbers since our OWP figures (which are 2/3 of the equation) will be helped by two of the three opponents (understood here that we can't predict how good teams will be two years in advance, but there are definite trends that would tend to tell us what teams should transcend others).  As long as two of the three OOC opponents finish two games over .500 and as long as the third opponent doesn't finish below two games below .500, my team has an advantage over any NJAC team in the Pool C mix, assuming we end up losing the LL with one league loss.  Why?  NJAC teams will have SoS figures that will not have a variance outside .480 to .520.  Our SoS would likely head closer to .550.

So, tell me how Wesley would fit into this equation any better than an excellent team like SJF for Hobart."

[Pat Coleman]

The NJAC membership is changing, remember. The SOS variance is going to be a little wider there once Buffalo State is gone to the E8.

[labart96]

LD -

Good catch on one hand but on the other TGP honestly has no issue with SLU's 2010 season at all.  

Would TGP have preferred a "better representative" made the playoffs as far as overall record is concerned?  Yeah, probably (e.g., Hobart shouldn't have lost to the Saints but the Statesmen threw 2 picks in the final 90 seconds when trying to close the game), but who's to say that any other team would have fared better than SLU did (i.e., lost to MUC in a one-sided game) last season?

Did SLU take away a playoff spot from a more deserving team?  Perhaps given TGP would venture that a team like say, Redlands probably could have beaten SLU last season, but technically the Saints won their Pool A fair and square given they are in a Pool A conference and deserved to enter the tournament given the current rules.

TGP thinks we tend to agree on the problem, and it's not really about scheduling.  Until there is a "reward" for teams to schedule better opponents, the only purpose OOC games play right now is to fill out the schedule in conferences with <9 teams, provide recruiting opps in areas not in your "bread n' butter (e.g., Pittsburgh for Hobart playing CMU) and preparing your team for the in conference schedule.

TGP agrees with most posters here (at least it seems like we agree on this), especially as a fan, this sucks b/c TGP would have loved to have seen how Hobart would have fared against a dominant team like Wesley, but honestly there is no benefit to the Statesmen  to that game given the current system.

Scheduling isn't the problem, it's the NCAA...

[Jonny Utah]

LD... Did you catch my "if I were an AD" discussion in my long post yesterday?  If so, do you agree or disagree with that approach?

Missed it.  It was really long so I read the first few and the last few.  Haha.

Here:

"If I were an AD at a Liberty League school, my approach to OOC scheduling starting in 2012 (when Springfield is in the mix) would be to schedule my OOC games before league play.  I'd start Week 1 with a moderate ECFC or NEFC team (a team my team SHOULD beat).  Week 2 would be an upper-echelon ECFC or NEFC team (a team that would be a challenge, but that we should still be able to beat in most years).  My Week 3 opponent would be a mid- to upper-echelon Empire 8 team (a team that would be a challenge in most years to help lead into the LL season with some good experience).

Now, look at what I've accomplished.  Let's say my team goes 3-0 in OOC games.  We're still Pool C-eligible.  We've also kept an eye on the SoS numbers since our OWP figures (which are 2/3 of the equation) will be helped by two of the three opponents (understood here that we can't predict how good teams will be two years in advance, but there are definite trends that would tend to tell us what teams should transcend others).  As long as two of the three OOC opponents finish two games over .500 and as long as the third opponent doesn't finish below two games below .500, my team has an advantage over any NJAC team in the Pool C mix, assuming we end up losing the LL with one league loss.  Why?  NJAC teams will have SoS figures that will not have a variance outside .480 to .520.  Our SoS would likely head closer to .550.

So, tell me how Wesley would fit into this equation any better than an excellent team like SJF for Hobart."

Yea.  If you beat Wesley and Wesley goes 9-1 and Hobart goes 8-2 with losses to a 10- Union and a 10-0 SJF, there is a good chance Hobart gets the pool C bid with 2 losses (you asked for examples of this Frank and posters have come up with 2)

Again, would this happen?  No, only because we know Hobart probably wouldn't beat Wesley anyway and that sticks in all our heads when we talk about putting them on a schedule.

[Frank Rossi]

Jonny, there has not been a case that I can remember in the six Pool C-bid era that a one-loss team was not picked due to the selection of a two-loss team.  It is now extremely rare because of the number of teams and autobid conferences out there for us not to have six one-loss non-qualifying teams.  If the scenario you just mentioned happened last year, Hobart would not have been considered -- it's based on everything the Committee has told us over the past three years and is consistent with their selection trends.  THAT'S the problem I'm pointing out here.

[Jonny Utah]

Jonny, there has not been a case that I can remember in the six Pool C-bid era that a one-loss team was not picked due to the selection of a two-loss team.  It is now extremely rare because of the number of teams and autobid conferences out there for us not to have six one-loss non-qualifying teams.  If the scenario you just mentioned happened last year, Hobart would not have been considered -- it's based on everything the Committee has told us over the past three years and is consistent with their selection trends.  THAT'S the problem I'm pointing out here.

Like I asked before, has there been any 2 loss teams that deserved to make it?  I think if a 2 loss team is attractive enough to the committee, then they will take them.  The NCAA has gone against their own policies in the past, so there is nothing you can say that will indicate that they won't do it again in the future.

And I'm not saying you are 100% wrong here.  There has to be a balance of non-conference games.  You can't go out there and play three top 10 teams because then the odds are really stacked against you to win 8 games.  But Hobart (like any LL or E8 team) doesn't have good enough teams right now to schedule 2 top OCC games and still win 8 games and deserve to make the playfoffs.  that is the problem Hoabat has.  If you lose to St. Lawrence/WPI or Hartwick/Utica then you don't deserve to get a pool C bid 99% of the time.

[Frank Rossi]

Take a look at this, though:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Salisbury/2008/index

2008 was the year that Curry got the final Pool C bid, we believe.  Sure, Curry beat Ithaca in the First Round.  However, strictly from a selection standpoint, what team would you pick if you had complete subjectivity in this matter:  8-2 Salisbury with losses to Wesley and DelVal or 9-1 Curry with a loss to Plymouth State?

[Jonny Utah]

Take a look at this, though:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Salisbury/2008/index

2008 was the year that Curry got the final Pool C bid, we believe.  Sure, Curry beat Ithaca in the First Round.  However, strictly from a selection standpoint, what team would you pick if you had complete subjectivity in this matter:  8-2 Salisbury with losses to Wesley and DelVal or 9-1 Curry with a loss to Plymouth State?

I would have picked Salisbury, and maybe they weren't picked because the NCAA wanted to force teams to join AC conferences?

[Frank Rossi]

Take a look at this, though:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Salisbury/2008/index

2008 was the year that Curry got the final Pool C bid, we believe.  Sure, Curry beat Ithaca in the First Round.  However, strictly from a selection standpoint, what team would you pick if you had complete subjectivity in this matter:  8-2 Salisbury with losses to Wesley and DelVal or 9-1 Curry with a loss to Plymouth State?

I would have picked Salisbury, and maybe they weren't picked because the NCAA wanted to force teams to join AC conferences?

That was the first year of "In the HuddLLe," and the first time we had an on-the-record conversation with the Selection Committee Chairman.  Dr. Kaiser made it clear to us that the Committee was not really looking past one-loss teams that year -- that winning percentage became primary, and SoS was the differentiation at that point for the Committee.  This was an opportunity for the Committee to really look past a one-loss team in favor of a two-loss team.  However, it has been made clear to us that this will likely not happen under current rules and circumstances.

And thus, there is the conundrum coaches face now in scheduling.

[Jonny Utah]

Take a look at this, though:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Salisbury/2008/index

2008 was the year that Curry got the final Pool C bid, we believe.  Sure, Curry beat Ithaca in the First Round.  However, strictly from a selection standpoint, what team would you pick if you had complete subjectivity in this matter:  8-2 Salisbury with losses to Wesley and DelVal or 9-1 Curry with a loss to Plymouth State?

I would have picked Salisbury, and maybe they weren't picked because the NCAA wanted to force teams to join AC conferences?

That was the first year of "In the HuddLLe," and the first time we had an on-the-record conversation with the Selection Committee Chairman.  Dr. Kaiser made it clear to us that the Committee was not really looking past one-loss teams that year -- that winning percentage became primary, and SoS was the differentiation at that point for the Committee.  This was an opportunity for the Committee to really look past a one-loss team in favor of a two-loss team.  However, it has been made clear to us that this will likely not happen under current rules and circumstances.

And thus, there is the conundrum coaches face now in scheduling.

Well we know the NCAA always wants to take the easy way out when doing these types of things, but I still think a 2 loss team can make the playoffs under certain circumstances.  I also think Hobart doesn't need to play Wesley but it would be better than playing 9 games.

[Frank Rossi]

Take a look at this, though:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Salisbury/2008/index

2008 was the year that Curry got the final Pool C bid, we believe.  Sure, Curry beat Ithaca in the First Round.  However, strictly from a selection standpoint, what team would you pick if you had complete subjectivity in this matter:  8-2 Salisbury with losses to Wesley and DelVal or 9-1 Curry with a loss to Plymouth State?

I would have picked Salisbury, and maybe they weren't picked because the NCAA wanted to force teams to join AC conferences?

That was the first year of "In the HuddLLe," and the first time we had an on-the-record conversation with the Selection Committee Chairman.  Dr. Kaiser made it clear to us that the Committee was not really looking past one-loss teams that year -- that winning percentage became primary, and SoS was the differentiation at that point for the Committee.  This was an opportunity for the Committee to really look past a one-loss team in favor of a two-loss team.  However, it has been made clear to us that this will likely not happen under current rules and circumstances.

And thus, there is the conundrum coaches face now in scheduling.

Well we know the NCAA always wants to take the easy way out when doing these types of things, but I still think a 2 loss team can make the playoffs under certain circumstances.  I also think Hobart doesn't need to play Wesley but it would be better than playing 9 games.

I don't think that's a problem for Hobart starting in 2012 with Springfield's arrival in the LL.  I think they're aiming for 10 games from what I understand.

[labart96]

Hope you are right Frank.  Hobart hasn't had a 10 game regular season since '97 when they finished 6-4 (2-2 in the then, UCAA), losing to 'Wick and RPI by a combined 3 pts to wrap the season....

BTW - so far Hobart has only one OOC game scheduled for 2012 - vs. Geneva (hopefully not the local High School)...

[Mr. Ypsi]

Take a look at this, though:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Salisbury/2008/index

2008 was the year that Curry got the final Pool C bid, we believe.  Sure, Curry beat Ithaca in the First Round.  However, strictly from a selection standpoint, what team would you pick if you had complete subjectivity in this matter:  8-2 Salisbury with losses to Wesley and DelVal or 9-1 Curry with a loss to Plymouth State?

I would have picked Salisbury, and maybe they weren't picked because the NCAA wanted to force teams to join AC conferences?

That was the first year of "In the HuddLLe," and the first time we had an on-the-record conversation with the Selection Committee Chairman.  Dr. Kaiser made it clear to us that the Committee was not really looking past one-loss teams that year -- that winning percentage became primary, and SoS was the differentiation at that point for the Committee.  This was an opportunity for the Committee to really look past a one-loss team in favor of a two-loss team.  However, it has been made clear to us that this will likely not happen under current rules and circumstances.

And thus, there is the conundrum coaches face now in scheduling.

Interesting.  2008 is the year that 2-loss Wheaton got a pool C, then proved they deserved it by winning three games before meeting Mount Union in the national semi-finals.

[PA_wesleyfan]

  Husson is playing Wesley this year. Though IMHO I don't think it will turn out any better than any of Wesley's other visits to New England over the years.  But I applaud them for taking on the challenge.

[Jonny Utah]

Take a look at this, though:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Salisbury/2008/index

2008 was the year that Curry got the final Pool C bid, we believe.  Sure, Curry beat Ithaca in the First Round.  However, strictly from a selection standpoint, what team would you pick if you had complete subjectivity in this matter:  8-2 Salisbury with losses to Wesley and DelVal or 9-1 Curry with a loss to Plymouth State?

I would have picked Salisbury, and maybe they weren't picked because the NCAA wanted to force teams to join AC conferences?

That was the first year of "In the HuddLLe," and the first time we had an on-the-record conversation with the Selection Committee Chairman.  Dr. Kaiser made it clear to us that the Committee was not really looking past one-loss teams that year -- that winning percentage became primary, and SoS was the differentiation at that point for the Committee.  This was an opportunity for the Committee to really look past a one-loss team in favor of a two-loss team.  However, it has been made clear to us that this will likely not happen under current rules and circumstances.

And thus, there is the conundrum coaches face now in scheduling.

Interesting.  2008 is the year that 2-loss Wheaton got a pool C, then proved they deserved it by winning three games before meeting Mount Union in the national semi-finals.

Ah ok so maybe the NCAA draws the line at two 2 loss pool C bids?