FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[HSCTiger fan]

Thanks Tigerfanalso thanks for the pep talk. I had just about decided after reading JK's posts about the improbability of HSC's or most any other teams chances of winning in the national tournament to give up.

Scots thank you too, - finally someone willing to agree it's ok to believe you can win even when  "statistical probability" and the "laws of physics" are against you. 

[firstdown]

Tigerfanalso noted "I know Wabash has a good defense but I don't see how it can pretty or even as good as Linfield's D. I'll let ya'll know on the 7th."  From the standpoint of statistics, the Wabash defense was first in total defense in Division 3 last as well as several other categories.  It was first in two categories for all divisions of NCAA football as well.  While jnezek points out that statistics aren't the only measure of a defense,  the Wabash defense is the real deal.  Whether it is  better or not as good as Linfield's, I will leave that metaphysical conclusion to you.  Suffice it to say, September 6th will be a good test both for Mr. Nash and for the Wabash defense. 

[jknezek]

I, and maybe others, sit back and look at the d3 landscape and see the same top 7 or so and it seems like unless they play one another then the games played should be blowouts/easy wins. That's not the case some times.

I was curious about this so I took a bit of a deeper look. For the last six seasons I defined the top six teams as these: UWW, UMHB, UMU, Linfield, Wesley and NCC. I refer to these teams as "elite" through the rest of this post. You could probably sub someone else in for NCC or even Linfield. A MIAC team makes sense, but it's somewhat hard to do. The MIAC champion is elite every year, but over this time that has rotated a bit. St. Thomas is probably closest with big seasons in 2010-2012, but not really before that.

Anyway, the six teams I chose had 43 losses over roughly 468 games (I didn't count the games, just assumed 13 per year per team. Since some teams played 15 games and others played as few as 10 in a season, it probably averages out close to correct +/- 10 games). Of those 43 losses, 23 came to one of the other five teams. So when these teams lose, a rare occurrence, they lose to each other more than half the time. 20 losses came to others outside those 6, but that includes Linfield losing to NC runner up St. Thomas in 2012.

Team by team it looks like this: UWW had 3 losses in 2012 to non elite teams. Other than that they have had one non-elite loss in six years. UMHB has taken a single loss to D3 competition in each of the 6 seasons, only once to a non-elite team. UMU never lost over the period to someone who wasn't UWW. Linfield had 5 non-elite losses (including St. Thomas) and 3 elite losses. Wesley is the real tough one. They have 10 losses to D3 over this period, 7 to the elite teams. NCC is the least by this measure, 10 losses but only 3 to elite teams.

So these six teams lose at varying rates to non-elite teams, with UMU, UMHB, and Wesley losing the least to non-elite teams, a total of 4 times in six seasons, and Linfield and NCC losing the most, a total of 12 times over six seasons. UWW falls in the middle, thanks mainly to a crappy 2012 season.

What does this mean? It not only seems like the top 6 lose primarily to each other, they actually DO lose primarily to each other.

I will say if you go back slightly farther the numbers change a bit. Primarily because Linfield and NCC are less dominant in 2005-2008. In those years UWW never lost to a non-elite, UMHB lost 5 times to elite teams and twice to non-elite, UMU lost once to an elite and once to a non-elite (their only conference lost in a long time), Linfield lost 5 times, 4 times to non-elite teams, Wesley lost 5 times, 3 times to non-elite, and NCC lost seven times, only once to an elite. Over this period you would probably sub Linfield and NCC for other teams, since they lost 10 of 12 to non-elite teams.

The fact remains, however, that elite teams are elite for a reason and non-elite teams don't stand much of a chance of beating them. There is always a 1, but the number on the other side is pretty big. In the information for the period above you have a 1 in 23 chance of beating these teams as a group. Individually you have a 1 in 10 chance of beating NCC (7 out of 73 games) and a 0% chance of beating UMU (0 out of 90 games). What do you know? There isn't a 1 for UMU in this sample!

Data and stats, not always the answer but a pretty good indicator...

[tigerfanalso]

FirstDown

I get it and I know Wabash is the real deal, just don't think they are as good as Linfield based on lots of things already stated in many prior post. Linfield top 7 team most every year, competed well vs. UWW on the road, etc., etc. I'll let you know if I change my mind after our game. Look forward to our visit. Hope the tailgate starts early.

[tigerfanalso]

Jk

You are working too hard. I agree with your argument but what has not been mentioned, and part of the reason the elite teams are so dominant is, they never have to travel in the playoffs. Much easier to sit home and win. Granted, they earned the right to play at home, but if home field advantage is taken away, the stats you are using would look different than they now look. Shack up the home field advantage, don't always give it to UWW & MU (i know they earn it) make MU travel to MHB in the quarter finals or semi finals and I doubt MU would make it to Salem as often as they have. 

[jknezek]

Jk

You are working too hard. I agree with your argument but what has not been mentioned, and part of the reason the elite teams are so dominant is, they never have to travel in the playoffs. Much easier to sit home and win. Granted, they earned the right to play at home, but if home field advantage is taken away, the stats you are using would look different than they now look. Shack up the home field advantage, don't always give it to UWW & MU (i know they earn it) make MU travel to MHB in the quarter finals or semi finals and I doubt MU would make it to Salem as often as they have.

Not a great argument. UMU and UWW rarely lose road games in conference. Even if you put them on the road against UMHB or Wesley they would still only be losing to another elite team. It wouldn't change the stats about who they lose to. For example UWW beat UMHB last year in Belton. So it was an elite loss for UMHB and qualified as their only loss in 2013.

If you were to put them on the road in the first or second round I suppose that would change the stats if they lost, but do you really think UWW loses at St. Norbert or Franklin last year? They gave up 10 points total to those teams and scored more than 60. UMU beat W&J by 14 in the first round and Wittenberg by 35 in the second. They aren't losing those games on the road either.

It's an interesting straw to grab, but not a supportable one.

[wildcat11]

When you say you should've won by 28, you're being dismissive and it rubs me the wrong way.

I didn't say we should have won the previous game by 28.  I said if we played HSC "again" the game would be a more decisive Linfield victory. 

That was in reply to HSCTiger saying that HSC coaches and players believe that they would win if they played Linfield again. 

When Linfield "woke up" (as Favret said "They woke up and we didn't counter punch") Linfield put up 28 consecutive points while not allowing HSC to even cross the 50 for the remaining 2 1/2 quarters of the game.    Why is it out of line to believe that if Linfield played a complete game they couldn't beat HSC by 28? 

[HSCTiger fan]

Holy Cow JK. Give it a rest. We get it they are good. Passion, emotion, and momentum will never play a roll when a team is playing a team you designate as elite.  A non-elite cannot beat an elite. Got it.

Thank goodness you were not around to advise the colonies during the revolution.

[tigerfanalso]

Wildcat

I think the first 19 minutes of that game were so easy for HSC, they went to sleep and forgot to wake up !!!!!!!

[HSCTiger fan]

When you say you should've won by 28, you're being dismissive and it rubs me the wrong way.

I didn't say we should have won the previous game by 28.  I said if we played HSC "again" the game would be a more decisive Linfield victory. 

That was in reply to HSCTiger saying that HSC coaches and players believe that they would win if they played Linfield again. 

When Linfield "woke up" (as Favret said "They woke up and we didn't counter punch") Linfield put up 28 consecutive points while not allowing HSC to even cross the 50 for the remaining 2 1/2 quarters of the game.    Why is it out of line to believe that if Linfield played a complete game they couldn't beat HSC by 28?

Why is it out of line to believe that if Linfield played a complete game they couldn't beat HSC by 28?  14 of those points came on drives of 32, and 27 yards and 7 points were from a fumble recover in the end zone. It wasn't like Linfield came roaring back and crammed it down HSC's neck.  HSC certainly did not move the ball in the 2nd half and your right they did not cross the 50. Field position had a lot to do with that. In the 2nd half HSC started on their own 5, 13, 22, 9, 6, 1 and 27. What's more remarkable is that once Linfield woke up in the 2nd half their starting field position was their own 39 the HSC 32, the HSC 32 again, the HSC 27, their own 10 and 44. That's smoking hot field position for an elite team playing at home in the playoffs and yet that resulted in 14 Linfield points.

HSC could ask the same question. Why is it out of line to think that if HSC played a complete game they couldn't beat Linfield by 28?  I'll wait for JK to explain this to me using quantum physics.

[Scots13]

When you say you should've won by 28, you're being dismissive and it rubs me the wrong way.

I didn't say we should have won the previous game by 28.  I said if we played HSC "again" the game would be a more decisive Linfield victory. 

That was in reply to HSCTiger saying that HSC coaches and players believe that they would win if they played Linfield again. 

When Linfield "woke up" (as Favret said "They woke up and we didn't counter punch") Linfield put up 28 consecutive points while not allowing HSC to even cross the 50 for the remaining 2 1/2 quarters of the game.    Why is it out of line to believe that if Linfield played a complete game they couldn't beat HSC by 28?

Why is it out of line to believe that if Linfield played a complete game they couldn't beat HSC by 28?  14 of those points came on drives of 32, and 27 yards and 7 points were from a fumble recover in the end zone. It wasn't like Linfield came roaring back and crammed it down HSC's neck.

HSC could ask the same question. Why is it out of line to think that if HSC played a complete game they couldn't beat Linfield by 28?  I'll wait for JK to explain this to me using quantum physics.

^what he said.

[wildcat11]

Why is it out of line to think that if HSC played a complete game they couldn't beat Linfield by 28?

Now you're just getting silly.

Is there a chance that HSC could beat Linfield in a rematch.  Sure. Why not?

[jknezek]

Holy Cow JK. Give it a rest. We get it they are good. Passion, emotion, and momentum will never play a roll when a team is playing a team you designate as elite.  A non-elite cannot beat an elite. Got it.

Thank goodness you were not around to advise the colonies during the revolution.

Yeah it's always tough when reality intrudes on your fantasy. Being woken up that way always makes me grouchy. Of course even that wouldn't sink me down to trying to make an irrelevant link between modern sports and 18th century warfare when no other logic prevailed.

[HSCTiger fan]

True. A more modern example might be appropriate. Thank goodness you did not give a pre game speech to Appalachian State before they beat Michigan, or JMU when they beat VTech.  Upsets happen.  Your elitist argument is what's fantasy.

[jknezek]

True. A more modern example might be appropriate. Thank goodness you did not give a pre game speech to Appalachian State before they beat Michigan, or JMU when they beat VTech.  Upsets happen.  Your elitist argument is what's fantasy.

I don't know my fellow board user. I swear you are proving my point. I've said upsets happen. They are extremely rare. App State is the only FCS school to ever beat a top 10 ranked FBS school at the time of their ranking. THAT MEANS IT IS EXTREMELY RARE. Thanks for proving my point. A 1 in a large number chance, which is EXACTLY what I've been saying. I just don't know what to tell you. Statistics aren't that hard. Understanding an upset is EXTREMELY RARE, which is what makes it an upset, isn't that hard. I guess some things just don't click no matter how much evidence you provide.