FB: Liberty League

[Frank Rossi]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Not to lose this point -- the whole 1991 thing plays a role in it, too.  I'm guessing this is when the modern WIAC formed -- but it throws a real monkey wrench into the wording since I'm not sure if a team that hasn't been in the Playoffs since 1991 is just ignored, if there is just a single elimination in the second rule -- etc.  There are about 6 different ways to read this rule.

I'm not saying I like the Big Ten rule's functioning.  I think it's a socialist policy of sorts -- penalize the team with the most recent success.  How about taking the strongest team by some agreed-upon standard and sending them as the winner?!  But at least the Big Ten explains its method.

[Frank Rossi]

You're welcome to write a letter that supports the present system. 

And this is necessary because?

Because I'm writing one to raise awareness of the problems that are present.  It sounds like you disagree with me -- but you're really not convincing me that your position is any better than mine.  So, I'm maintaining what I said my plan is.  Instead of arguing with me here, feel free to send a letter in support of the present process(es) if you choose to.  We all know you love to make me look wrong

[redswarm81]

I don't think the Liberty League or the NCAA should have any say in how any other conference selects its champion. I'm in favor of each conference having sovereignty over its championships.

Did someone suggest that the Liberty League should have any say in how any other conference selects its champion?

I agree that the NCAA ought not mandate specific or even standardized tiebreakers.

[Frank Rossi]

I don't think the Liberty League or the NCAA should have any say in how any other conference selects its champion. I'm in favor of each conference having sovereignty over its championships.

Did someone suggest that the Liberty League should have any say in how any other conference selects its champion?

I agree that the NCAA ought not mandate specific or even standardized tiebreakers.

I've suggested a uniform tiebreaker.  My point re: the Liberty League or any other East Region conference was that other conferences should be CONCERNED about a Pool C slot disappearing based on such flimsy tiebreaker rules in other conferences.  The only way to solve this conundrum is to put forth a uniform tiebreaker -- otherwise, I'll advocate to the LL that they just do what the E8 or WIAC does.  Why not risk the worst team in the tiebreaker getting a bid so that the better teams are virtually guaranteed a Pool C bid or two of them??

[redswarm81]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Am I the only one who noted the irony in the commissioner making a random selection?

Most conferences use a "coin flip" as the final tiebreaker, but it normally follows 6 or more other criteria that are normally based on some level of competitiveness or strength balancing.  I've never seen a system as short and really laughable as this one.  At least the Big Ten considers OVERALL win/loss percentages.  Throw in an SoS component that balances that, if you want competitive scheduling, but going directly to what might be (but isn't as stated) the Rose Bowl Rule is questionable.  And then, as a third tiebreaker, a commissioner decision?  C'mon. 

The irony I found humorous is that the commissioner isn't making a decision at all, if the selection is truly random.

[Frank Rossi]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Am I the only one who noted the irony in the commissioner making a random selection?

Most conferences use a "coin flip" as the final tiebreaker, but it normally follows 6 or more other criteria that are normally based on some level of competitiveness or strength balancing.  I've never seen a system as short and really laughable as this one.  At least the Big Ten considers OVERALL win/loss percentages.  Throw in an SoS component that balances that, if you want competitive scheduling, but going directly to what might be (but isn't as stated) the Rose Bowl Rule is questionable.  And then, as a third tiebreaker, a commissioner decision?  C'mon. 

The irony I found humorous is that the commissioner isn't making a decision at all, if the selection is truly random.

It'll be him and the Vice-Commissioner playing Rock, Paper, Scissors -- at least that seems more fair than Tiebreaker #2.

[Jonny Utah]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Am I the only one who noted the irony in the commissioner making a random selection?

Most conferences use a "coin flip" as the final tiebreaker, but it normally follows 6 or more other criteria that are normally based on some level of competitiveness or strength balancing.  I've never seen a system as short and really laughable as this one.  At least the Big Ten considers OVERALL win/loss percentages.  Throw in an SoS component that balances that, if you want competitive scheduling, but going directly to what might be (but isn't as stated) the Rose Bowl Rule is questionable.  And then, as a third tiebreaker, a commissioner decision?  C'mon. 

The irony I found humorous is that the commissioner isn't making a decision at all, if the selection is truly random.

It'll be him and the Vice-Commissioner playing Rock, Paper, Scissors -- at least that seems more fair than Tiebreaker #2.

Not funny Frank.  Looks like you didn't look to see what the 4th tiebreaker was.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki3FXJQoFrI&feature=related

[JT]

By the way -- best GameDay commercial EVER...

Desmond Howard walking out into the main area of the GameDay bus to find Lee Corso playing a Wii dancing game in somewhat womanly gym clothes.  How do they convince Corso to do this to himself EVERY year?!

Its all about the dead presidents. Plus he's a big ham.

['gro]

Everyone, meet LLPP's new VP of Marketing

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27365431

[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. 

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.

I didn't intend to make the weather suggest an excuse, but simply that passing was going to be eschewed for rushing due to the weather, which will have the effect of draining the clock, partly explaining the low scoring.  Hobart ran the ball a ton, generated a number of first downs on three consecutive 3 - 5 yard rushes between the 20's.  I'm certainly concerned about the offense, but its a very specific problem.  The QB is getting plently of pass protection, the receivers and TE's are fine (in the pass game) - they did put up 35 pts on 5 - 9 from the red zone and 430 or so yards against Union.  The running game is averaging 150yds/game and around 4.0/carry.  The problem is specifically getting tough, necessary short yardage in general and specifically in the red zone. 

As far as the defense, they've given up 13, 10, 38 and 0 in conference (21 and 16 in OOC against decent competition, 8 - 4 outside of the games vs bart).  The 13 against SU included a late junk TD against the backups and Paveletz was largely shutdown and SLU got most of their offense in the first half when they jumped out quickly and controlled the TOP in the first half.  I think SLU got around 80yds in the second half of that game.  So the body of work for the defense indicates that they are fine, when through six games they've had one bad one.  If they had three or four bad defensive performances in a row and then looked like world beaters against Merchant Marine I'd think the question marks are much more significant about the D. 

If anyone who's seen Bart this year has any ideas how to fix the short yardage rushing attack I'd love to hear it.  Two games in a row they have run a number of overload right short yardage plays and accomplished next two nothing.  The OL is experienced and has evidenced a capacity for pass blocking, so is this a problem that can be fixed for games against strong competition or a weakness that has to be "hidden" in close games? 

This upcoming week is going to be very interesting.  Two games where the cumulative record is 20 - 5.  Rochester also has Alfred and while they don't appear to have much offense this year, will hopefully represent the league well against a team in the upper half of the E8. 

[union89]

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....

Wow!!!!  All 3 of us agree on this 1!!!

[union89]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Am I the only one who noted the irony in the commissioner making a random selection?

Most conferences use a "coin flip" as the final tiebreaker, but it normally follows 6 or more other criteria that are normally based on some level of competitiveness or strength balancing.  I've never seen a system as short and really laughable as this one.  At least the Big Ten considers OVERALL win/loss percentages.  Throw in an SoS component that balances that, if you want competitive scheduling, but going directly to what might be (but isn't as stated) the Rose Bowl Rule is questionable.  And then, as a third tiebreaker, a commissioner decision?  C'mon. 

The irony I found humorous is that the commissioner isn't making a decision at all, if the selection is truly random.

It'll be him and the Vice-Commissioner playing Rock, Paper, Scissors -- at least that seems more fair than Tiebreaker #2.

Not funny Frank.  Looks like you didn't look to see what the 4th tiebreaker was.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki3FXJQoFrI&feature=related

Man, that rat has some moves.....must be a River Rat.

[Jonny Utah]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Am I the only one who noted the irony in the commissioner making a random selection?

Most conferences use a "coin flip" as the final tiebreaker, but it normally follows 6 or more other criteria that are normally based on some level of competitiveness or strength balancing.  I've never seen a system as short and really laughable as this one.  At least the Big Ten considers OVERALL win/loss percentages.  Throw in an SoS component that balances that, if you want competitive scheduling, but going directly to what might be (but isn't as stated) the Rose Bowl Rule is questionable.  And then, as a third tiebreaker, a commissioner decision?  C'mon. 

The irony I found humorous is that the commissioner isn't making a decision at all, if the selection is truly random.

It'll be him and the Vice-Commissioner playing Rock, Paper, Scissors -- at least that seems more fair than Tiebreaker #2.

Not funny Frank.  Looks like you didn't look to see what the 4th tiebreaker was.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki3FXJQoFrI&feature=related

Man, that rat has some moves.....must be a River Rat.

Watch the top left of the screen at about the 35 second mark at the start of the race.  It looks like the yellow bird with the cape takes out about 4 guys at the knees.

[unionfan]

I don't think the Liberty League or the NCAA should have any say in how any other conference selects its champion. I'm in favor of each conference having sovereignty over its championships.

Well that's just silly.  The NCAA is in the business of handing out AQs, and they (and the AQ recipients) have an absolute interest in ensuring that the conferences are using that AQ appropriately, in the interests of sportmanship, etc.  What if a conf decided simply to rotate its "champion" each year so that everyone took turns?  No one would be advocating conference sovereignty then (at least within an AQ-driven playoff system).

Now, I'm not sure that the stupidity that Frank points out demands NCAA intervention, but I suspect that if it creates a stupid result then I imagine Frank's letter may at least actually get read...

[redswarm81]

What if a conf decided simply to rotate its "champion" each year so that everyone took turns?  No one would be advocating conference sovereignty then (at least within an AQ-driven playoff system).

Now THAT's just silly.  Your argument suggests that "a conference" is somehow disconnected from the teams that comprise the conference.

If "a conference" decided to rotate its champion each year as you describe, then no teams would be advocating membership in that conference.  There would immediately be "a conference" with no members.