FB: Liberty League

[Jonny Utah]

Stated differently, that's just a stupid tiebreaker.  Sorry, but when these conferences could be costing the country Pool C bids based on their lack of understanding of numbers or lazyness, it actually affects all of our teams.  I think it's time that Division III bestows a uniform tiebreaker on all conferences, as this gets more and more ridiculous annually.

Good point.  This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the AQ system....

[Frank Rossi]

Stated differently, that's just a stupid tiebreaker.  Sorry, but when these conferences could be costing the country Pool C bids based on their lack of understanding of numbers or lazyness, it actually affects all of our teams.  I think it's time that Division III bestows a uniform tiebreaker on all conferences, as this gets more and more ridiculous annually.

Good point.  This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the AQ system....

OMG... We agree on something?!  Well, remember, I think the E8 tiebreaker (for 3-way, unbreakable ties) is pretty ugly, too.  I know the WIAC only plays one out-of-conference game a year generally, but there are ways to take that into account with a uniform tiebreaker. 

I'm just concerned that the way they have written it leaves room for great controversy.  Yes, Pat, I know you're going to call me Mr. Conspiracy Theorist for this, but I keep reading it and can't figure it out for the life of me -- even knowing the "Rose Bowl Rule."

[Frank Rossi]

RPI has a chance to make it to #20 on the D3Football.com Top 25 Poll.

Oct. 25  4:30 PM  No. 16 Willamette  52  No. 23 Linfield  28  Final   
Oct. 25  1:00 PM  Catholic  33  No. 18 Hampden-Sydney  21  Final   
Oct. 25  1:30 PM  No. 19 Otterbein  38  No. 21 Capital  9  Final   
Oct. 25  1:00 PM  No. 22 Delaware Valley  7  Lycoming  10  Final

Four teams above them (and within their poll vicinity) lost, and RPI's final score was impressive, even against a winless team.  This should prove interesting to see where all these lost points go in the poll.

[Jonny Utah]

Stated differently, that's just a stupid tiebreaker.  Sorry, but when these conferences could be costing the country Pool C bids based on their lack of understanding of numbers or lazyness, it actually affects all of our teams.  I think it's time that Division III bestows a uniform tiebreaker on all conferences, as this gets more and more ridiculous annually.

Good point.  This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the AQ system....

OMG... We agree on something?!  Well, remember, I think the E8 tiebreaker (for 3-way, unbreakable ties) is pretty ugly, too.  I know the WIAC only plays one out-of-conference game a year generally, but there are ways to take that into account with a uniform tiebreaker. 

I'm just concerned that the way they have written it leaves room for great controversy.  Yes, Pat, I know you're going to call me Mr. Conspiracy Theorist for this, but I keep reading it and can't figure it out for the life of me -- even knowing the "Rose Bowl Rule."

I think they should roll one of those D@D 12 sided die to determine the winner.  And then the loser has to go into a cave and fight a pack of goblins....

[Frank Rossi]

Stated differently, that's just a stupid tiebreaker.  Sorry, but when these conferences could be costing the country Pool C bids based on their lack of understanding of numbers or lazyness, it actually affects all of our teams.  I think it's time that Division III bestows a uniform tiebreaker on all conferences, as this gets more and more ridiculous annually.

Good point.  This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the AQ system....

OMG... We agree on something?!  Well, remember, I think the E8 tiebreaker (for 3-way, unbreakable ties) is pretty ugly, too.  I know the WIAC only plays one out-of-conference game a year generally, but there are ways to take that into account with a uniform tiebreaker. 

I'm just concerned that the way they have written it leaves room for great controversy.  Yes, Pat, I know you're going to call me Mr. Conspiracy Theorist for this, but I keep reading it and can't figure it out for the life of me -- even knowing the "Rose Bowl Rule."

I think they should roll one of those D@D 12 sided die to determine the winner.  And then the loser has to go into a cave and fight a pack of goblins....

Basically, that's the meaning of the WIAC tiebreaker.

[Jonny Utah]

But again, although the tiebreaker is silly, it still helps other teams in that conference if the best team doesnt get that bid

[Frank Rossi]

But again, although the tiebreaker is silly, it still helps other teams in that conference if the best team doesnt get that bid

Right -- and is that fair for the rest of D3?  Why not just have a tiebreaker that says, "The worst in-region win-loss record team in any tiebreaker beyond the head-to-head tiebreaker will be declared the AQ?"

[Jonny Utah]

But again, although the tiebreaker is silly, it still helps other teams in that conference if the best team doesnt get that bid

Right -- and is that fair for the rest of D3?  Why not just have a tiebreaker that says, "The worst in-region win-loss record team in any tiebreaker beyond the head-to-head tiebreaker will be declared the AQ?"

Yea it isn't fair and the NCAA should get involved if something silly happens.

[pumkinattack]

Went to the Hobart - Merchant Marine game today.  Second time I've been out there in terrible weather.  It only rained significantly for a couple of small spurts in the second half, but the wind was a powerful force.  Doyle threw one deep out that should've been a over the should sideline type pass, but ended up falling inside the far hash. 

Its hard to get to fired up about crushing Merchant Marine, but the defense made me believe my prior thesis that it is the strength of the team.  The score was close through the first three, but Merchant Marine had no shot at scoring the entire game because they literally couldn't move the ball (five first downs, two from penalties - which were bs calls, especially the roughing the passer call).  0 net yards rushing and 45 total, looking at the stats, tells you everything.  Aruck looked possessed like he would never let what happened vs. Union occur again.  He was driving his guy three yards into the backfield every play and they ran a lot of blitzes like in the past for most of the first half.  I don't know why they didn't call more run blitzes against Union, but that game is in the past now. 

The offense struggled in the red zone, the moved the ball well between the 20's (rush and pass), but the line still isn't getting a surge on short yardage plays.  A couple of drives were stopped by penalties (a lot in the first half, all on Bart).  It remains a mystery how a team with four returning starting OL's, three of whom were all league last year, is so inept at the type of play most OL's love (grinding out short yardage).  They would consistently overload the right side and then run to the A gap.  Hobaica and Marlier (starting RB's) dance too much, but Marlier looked good.  Tritten and Simon the younger backups looked good in mop up duty. 

#61 on the OL was injured in the first half, walked off full weight on his leg, but came out for the second half out of pads.  They figured out that sometimes it makes sense to give the 230lb FB a carry for tough yards in the second half, so hopefully that will help.  Duliba, the LB, needs to get more touches.  He's like a vacuum and very athletic too.  He also went in for a play in the 4th at FB and steamrolled some poor LB.       

I still think that the Union game was a culmination of factors including Union's relatively desparate situation, Hobart's poor overall play and Union's improving youth talent.  We'll know, win or lose, next week, but I think Union wouldn't lose to U of R again and probably not WPI either and will finish the season strongly. 

All in all, I'm more optimistic than I was the last two weeks.  WPI will be a test, no doubt, but I think this team can still have a shot at the playoffs.  They're things that still needs to be improved, but I think the world may also have written them off a little too soon. 

[Frank Rossi]

Went to the Hobart - Merchant Marine game today.  Second time I've been out there in terrible weather.  It only rained significantly for a couple of small spurts in the second half, but the wind was a powerful force.  Doyle threw one deep out that should've been a over the should sideline type pass, but ended up falling inside the far hash. 

Its hard to get to fired up about crushing Merchant Marine, but the defense made me believe my prior thesis that it is the strength of the team.  The score was close through the first three, but Merchant Marine had no shot at scoring the entire game because they literally couldn't move the ball (five first downs, two from penalties - which were bs calls, especially the roughing the passer call).  0 net yards rushing and 45 total, looking at the stats, tells you everything.  Aruck looked possessed like he would never let what happened vs. Union occur again.  He was driving his guy three yards into the backfield every play and they ran a lot of blitzes like in the past for most of the first half.  I don't know why they didn't call more run blitzes against Union, but that game is in the past now. 

The offense struggled in the red zone, the moved the ball well between the 20's (rush and pass), but the line still isn't getting a surge on short yardage plays.  A couple of drives were stopped by penalties (a lot in the first half, all on Bart).  It remains a mystery how a team with four returning starting OL's, three of whom were all league last year, is so inept at the type of play most OL's love (grinding out short yardage).  They would consistently overload the right side and then run to the A gap.  Hobaica and Marlier (starting RB's) dance too much, but Marlier looked good.  Tritten and Simon the younger backups looked good in mop up duty. 

#61 on the OL was injured in the first half, walked off full weight on his leg, but came out for the second half out of pads.  They figured out that sometimes it makes sense to give the 230lb FB a carry for tough yards in the second half, so hopefully that will help.  Duliba, the LB, needs to get more touches.  He's like a vacuum and very athletic too.  He also went in for a play in the 4th at FB and steamrolled some poor LB.       

I still think that the Union game was a culmination of factors including Union's relatively desparate situation, Hobart's poor overall play and Union's improving youth talent.  We'll know, win or lose, next week, but I think Union wouldn't lose to U of R again and probably not WPI either and will finish the season strongly. 

All in all, I'm more optimistic than I was the last two weeks.  WPI will be a test, no doubt, but I think this team can still have a shot at the playoffs.  They're things that still needs to be improved, but I think the world may also have written them off a little too soon. 

I've gotta be honest -- Hobart's Offense is not impressing me much.  Defense played well, although I can't tell how well since MMA's Offense just looked meager today.  However, it took 48 minutes for an offensive touchdown by Hobart?!  The weather didn't help -- but listen, it's going to be cold, rainy/snowy and yucky for most of the rest of the season, I'd wager.  That's part of playing football in the NY/NE regions.  We have a great game coming up next weekend in Geneva -- the Battle of One-Loss Teams.  Basically, the top four teams in the LL will be facing off (2/3 WPI at Hobart -- 1/4 Union at Hobart... Union seems to have the best positioning right now of the two-loss teams, so it's not a stretch to call them #4 right now). 

Union is fighting for an ECAC slot right now -- assuming the school files for the slot (I've seen no sign of this so far, even though Coach Audino is on the Committee -- that'd be kind of foolish if they didn't put in a hosting/participation form by the 11/6 deadline).

Hobart is fighting for a Pool A/C slot.  They have their destiny in their own hands still.

WPI is fighting for a Pool A/C slot (although more likely, a Pool C slot).  They likely hold their Pool C hopes in their own hands.

RPI is fighting for a home playoff slot right now.  Even with a loss vs. Union, RPI would still control its own destiny in the LL.

This is an interesting week of football for the LL coming up.

[redswarm81]

Now for a tiebreaker that lacks a lot of sense:

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the
1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

That's the WIAC's tiebreaker, which came into play today after defending national champs, UW-Whitewater, got upended by UW-Steven's Point, 17-16.

While I THINK that's the Rose Bowl rule for the Big 10 and PAC 10 being used, the sentence for #2 makes no sense (it could just as easily mean I elimnate the most recent as much as it means I elimnate the least recent, as stated.  Also, in a three-way tie, do I eliminate just one of those teams, even though there should be a clear winner when I come out of #2 (assuming it IS the Rose Bowl rule stated really stupidly)?  Or do I go back to #1 with the two teams after a single team gets eliminated in #2? 

Stated differently, that's just a stupid tiebreaker.  Sorry, but when these conferences could be costing the country Pool C bids based on their lack of understanding of numbers or lazyness, it actually affects all of our teams.  I think it's time that Division III bestows a uniform tiebreaker on all conferences, as this gets more and more ridiculous annually.

First, I agree that whoever authored tiebreaker no. 2 is illiterate.  There is no way to make any sense of it.  This is stupidity of Selig-ian proportions.  (What an idiot--announcing at 8 p.m., in a driving rain, that the World Series Game 3 would be played tonight.  It was still raining at 9:20 p.m. when they removed the tarps.  Nice going Bud--guarantee that poor quality baseball will be played during the World Series.  What an ultramaroon.  What an embezzle.  What a gullibull.  What a nincowpoop.)

"reverse order of their last playoff appearance?"  What, pray tell, is the forward order of their last playoff appearance?  This is gibberish.

And I agree Frank, absent explanation, there's no way of knowing what is meant by "last."

I suspect as you do Frank, that the author was trying to restate the Pac 10's system, where ties are broken by awarding the bowl game to the team with the longest elapsed time since its most recent appearance in that bowl game.

BUT--be careful when you advocate that the NCAA just step in and start telling conferences how to behave.  The Division III system promotes regional and conference competition.   Pool A bids accomplish that by leaving it entirely up to the conferences.  Pool A bids account for 23 of the 32 playoff spots.   Pool B awards 3 bids to teams that don't have conferences.  That leaves 6 Pool C bids out of 32 playoff spots, and I personally don't see how 6 out of 32 is sufficient to justify a takeover by Central Planning.

[Frank Rossi]

BUT--be careful when you advocate that the NCAA just step in and start telling conferences how to behave.  The Division III system promotes regional and conference competition.   Pool A bids accomplish that by leaving it entirely up to the conferences.  Pool A bids account for 23 of the 32 playoff spots.   Pool B awards 3 bids to teams that don't have conferences.  That leaves 6 Pool C bids out of 32 playoff spots, and I personally don't see how 6 out of 32 is sufficient to justify a takeover by Central Planning.

What if this tiebreaker gave the WIAC a second Pool C bid because the worst of three teams got in, leaving two one-loss teams outside looking in?  Would that be a good thing?

Well, it appears that UW-Stout beat UW-River Falls to relieve the three-way, one-loss tie issue.  However, I'd like to see something done about tiebreakers this offseason -- and I'll be sending a letter to the NCAA related to it.  There can be a tiebreaker system that both promotes competitive scheduling and rewards great play across the nation.  This strategic scheduling/potentially strategic tiebreaker thing is getting outside the principle of fair play when there are so few Pool C teams allowed entry into the Tourney.

[Pat Coleman]

Frank,

You should find something more important to complain about.

[Frank Rossi]

Frank,

You should find something more important to complain about.

Maybe, but complacent Guru complaints won't get me very far around here.

  jk

[Pat Coleman]

I just don't think that the WIAC gives a rat's ass what you think about the wording of its tiebreaker. They know out there how the Big Ten's Rose Bowl rule works just fine and if you don't understand it, it's not really your concern, to be honest.