FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

This from the blog, Matt:

Punter7 Says:
The 28th of October, 2006 at 9:50 pm

What are the chances that Bridgewater will make the playoffs as an at large bid with their win today over Washington and Lee

Also, of course Burrow says that -- he's gotta speak the letter of the law, right? Duh. The only rule for being an at-large team is that you have to have a .500 record or above and Bridgewater is not eliminated from that, technically.

When (if) the two west coast games overnight we'll run a new QOW and see exactly where Bridgewater falls.

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

Crying about an ineligible seems to be grasping at straws, my friends. [...]  It looks real weak.

(1) We lost our two ODAC games this year because of our performance (or lack thereof) on the field.  No Bridgewater coach, player or fan would deny that.

(2) I know the whole story about the ineligible player, and to be honest, I can see why the ODAC didn't issue any forfeits.  But just because nothing will be done (forfeit-wise) about it, doesn't mean it can't be brought up here with discussion.  Clearly Guilford, the ODAC, D3football.com and news outlets have decided not to issue information or a story because of the lack of action taken (on the ODAC's part).

(3) It wasn't Bridgewater that "tattled" on Guilford to the ODAC.  Clark and the football office have held firm with their opinion that the Quakers beat them on the field.  End of story.  So no crying from their end.

(4) No BC fan wants a forfeit win.  We were gracious when we lost, and only pointed figures at ourselves.  All they're looking for are answers and reasoning, that's all.

(5) If it's Guilford's first infraction, then yes, they probably only deserve a slap on the hand by the ODAC and NCAA.  But...

(6) Since the player made a huge impact in what could end up being a conference championship deciding game (GC v BC), should the Quakers then consider taking the action upon themselves? [uh oh - here come the '01 Rowan comparisons]

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

This from the blog, Matt:

Punter7 Says:
The 28th of October, 2006 at 9:50 pm

What are the chances that Bridgewater will make the playoffs as an at large bid with their win today over Washington and Lee

Also, of course Burrow says that -- he's gotta speak the letter of the law, right? Duh. The only rule for being an at-large team is that you have to have a .500 record or above and Bridgewater is not eliminated from that, technically.

When (if) the two west coast games overnight we'll run a new QOW and see exactly where Bridgewater falls.

I understand.  And trust me, no BC fan (including myself) is thinking we have a good chance at making the playoffs.  I've tried to preface any playoff-talk with synonyms of infinitesimal.  But Keith came on here (and/or the blog) acting as though he was informed.  He isn't.  He's just opinionated.

I just think sometimes you, Cummings, and now Keith, say things from time to time that come across as brash.  An I'm-right-and-your-opinion-doesn't-matter kind of way.  But in most cases, that's my problem more than it is yours.

[Pat Coleman]

Not sure why you're painting me with this broad brush. I think I've been pretty level headed on the subject.

http://www.d3football.com/qow.php
Bridgewater: 8.625

A reminder of what the numbers looked like on Selection Sunday last year:
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/?p=148

Cal Lutheran stayed home with one less loss and a 9.667 QOW.

So yes, while technically according to the NCAA rules and the NCAA director of championships, Bridgewater has not been eilminated from an at-large bid, reality says otherwise.

Keith is informed enough. Sorry the numbers don't work out in your favor, but it IS reality.

[K-Mack]

All right "K-Mack", you let me know who had EHC beating BC and I'll personally send each of them a prize.....

If you disagreed with the analysis, you should have done so on September 22nd.  Anybody can play monday-morning quarterback after the fact.  

But, to your point, I was wrong.  My "analysis" was way off.  The EHC game totally hit me by suprise.  Hell, I still can't believe it.  So good work pointing that out.  I wonder how many years you've been waiting for that chance?  

So "K-Mack" (I have to giggle every time I write that), see you in Ashland Saturday???

Miz,
(much cooler than "K-Mack," so no giggling here) ... Only reason I didn't disagree on Sept. 22 is because I haven't been back to the ODAC board since then. When you click on the little new button, it takes you to the last posts you made, and there that was.

I didn't realize it would hurt your feelings that I pointed out erroneous analysis with the obvious benefit of hindsight. I wasn't trying to lord over you like Mr. Cool Guy, I even cracked on my own alma mater in the process.

Speaking of which, no I will not be in Ashland next week. Homecoming was this week and H-SC is Nov. 11 ... At this juncture, I do not consider any other R-MC games for my personal viewing pleasure.

Of course I didn't have E&H over Bridgewater this year, we've all grown accustomed to chalking up the ODAC's AQ to the Eagles.   

As far as waiting years for a chance to point out that E&H beat Bridgewater, that makes no damn sense. What do I care if the Wasps beat the Eagles?

CompuDis stats:
Miz disses thrown: 3
Miz disses landed: 0

Thank you for riding the K-Mack jock. Please watch your step as you deboard.

[hasanova]

Just a statistical oddity - after today's RMC game, Josh Vogelbach became Guilford's career passing leader with 6248 yards.  He's played 18 games and he's already surpassed guys who played 40.  lol  On a side note, he may also already be the career interceptions leader.  

[K-Mack]

I will see what I can find out about the ineligible player situation. My guess is that if nothing is being done it's because there wasn't a violation, or it can't be proven ... but hey, call me crazy.

Thank You Kmack! Matt obviously has said nothing because he knows its not his place to break the news. Regardless of how you view it, it is news worthy and quite a story to report once you get the particulars. I'm not bashing Guilford for what happened, just wondered how it could slip through the cracks for 3/4 of a season and what are the Commisoner's reasons for his decision. We will all await what you findout and report.

Fair enough,
 Although if someone besides myself is armed with facts, then I don't have a problem with them reporting it.

What I can't stand is rumor becoming rampant speculation and whining, and then condemnation of the powers that be if people don't have the information. Plus I hate when people complain about the officials when their team usually pissed the game down their legs themselves, so that was sort of an observation about the overall mood in here.

But this is your board, you post here every day, I don't, so don't let me stop you guys from doing you. If my observations are unwelcome, I'll keep them to myself.

Actually, I won't, but that sounded like the right thing to say.

[K-Mack]

But no ODAC team [a la Bridgewater] will sniff at at-large bid in any way, shape or form this season.

Welp folks, you heard it directly from a NCAA selection committee member himself.  Oh wait, "K-Mack" is just a D3football.com columnist?!  Hmm, then why the usage of absolutes?

Keith - For the record, I believe I'm the only one on the ODAC board (and my web site's blog) that's even mentioning a chance (albeit a very small one) of BC earning an at-large.  So I take your comments personally.  It's one thing to correct misinformed people (or in this case, just me), but it more seems like you're taking pleasure in stifling the small hope of BC earning an at-large.

From a Daily News-Record article Oct. 25;

Wayne Burrows, the NCAA's director of championships, said Bridgewater hasn't been completely eliminated from at-large consideration.

I think I'll take his opinion over yours in this case.

I'll take Wayne Burrows over me too. When I talked to him earlier this week, I told him he should change his title to "go-to guy." Dude definitely has the answers.

However, unless Bridgewater takes the AQ in any of the tie scenarios that I said I have not fully considered, they aren't going to the playoffs.

The possibility of a two-loss team making the playoffs is still in play, per Wayne. However, the number of improbable results that would have to come in for that to happen is so great that I thought it best to be honest and upfront about Bridgewater's chances. It's my experience that people do not like to be lied to. I take pleasure in opening up doors for people regarding the information they need about Division III football. I'm not in high school, I don't take pleasure in crushing people's hopes to boost myself up. That's preposterous.

The Eagles have two conference losses and no definitive wins. The best team they've beaten was W&L, a team that lost to a 3-5 team from the mighty Centennial Conference. There is no one on the Eagles' schedule currently of national consequence. I wouldn't even like their playoff chances as a 1-loss runner-up in the ODAC. There are just that many teams currently with one loss (I'm aware that can change) that have better-looking resumes, from Wartburg (1 loss in OT to unbeaten conference leader) to Hardin-Simmons to Wheaton to the five New York teams still in the mix. There are currently 12 one-loss teams waiting on six, maybe seven, Pool C slots, according to Gordon's Immediate Reactions to Week 9 blog post.

There are also somewhere between a dozen and two dozen two-loss teams ahead of Bridgewater in the QoWI.

That's just the reality of the situation. That's what I've built my reputation on around here. If you want the real, I'll give it to you. If you want rah-rah, that's what Bridgewaterfootball.com is for.

I didn't come here to rain on your parade. I came here because I made a post on the blog off the top of my head. I respect your ability to crunch numbers and I respect the ODAC fans' enthusiasm, and since my mind has been elsewhere most of today (here in Texas), I posted because I wanted to see if anyone had considered a tie scenario that I hadn't or spotted any holes in my tie scenarios.

I didn't come here to be a condescending computer screen tough guy. That's lame as all hell, I'd quit altogether before I start operating like that on a regular basis. If I'm being direct, it's probably because I'm trying to get to to the point. I have a tendency to ramble. If it comes off as unnecessarily brash, I apologize. But I often give the amount of respect I get. I know the style of the ODAC board and have met many of you face to face. I operate under the assumption a lot of times that we're all friends here and you guys can take it as well as you dish it out.

Having a professional capacity with the site however, I do try to limit how much I post, because when I get in one-on-one battles with people what can I do but be brash?

This from the blog, Matt:

Punter7 Says:
The 28th of October, 2006 at 9:50 pm

What are the chances that Bridgewater will make the playoffs as an at large bid with their win today over Washington and Lee

Also, of course Burrow says that -- he's gotta speak the letter of the law, right? Duh. The only rule for being an at-large team is that you have to have a .500 record or above and Bridgewater is not eliminated from that, technically.

When (if) the two west coast games overnight we'll run a new QOW and see exactly where Bridgewater falls.

I understand.  And trust me, no BC fan (including myself) is thinking we have a good chance at making the playoffs.  I've tried to preface any playoff-talk with synonyms of infinitesimal.  But Keith came on here (and/or the blog) acting as though he was informed.  He isn't.  He's just opinionated.

I just think sometimes you, Cummings, and now Keith, say things from time to time that come across as brash.  An I'm-right-and-your-opinion-doesn't-matter kind of way.  But in most cases, that's my problem more than it is yours.

Look,
You want to call my knowledge into question about the Guilford ineligible player situation, that's fine. Your numbered post on that made a lot of sense. I never said I knew anything about it, I said I would make an effort to find out when I get back from Texas. I also said it doesn't make sense for the ODAC office to look the other way like the conspiracy theorists claim. It makes sense for the ODAC to run a fair league where all it's coaches can trust that if they play by the rules, the other six teams will too.

Because it means a lot to you guys I will go above and beyond what I'm expected to do, and call and ask.

If you say I'm not informed about issues of national signifcance in D3 and the playoff picture, you're kidding yourself and anyone who's reading these posts. You know and I know nobody out there puts more time into this except Pat, and maybe Gordon. I'm not saying I'd never say anything that turned out to be wrong, but characterizing me as generally misinformed is foolish and you know it.

When you get over the fact that Bridgewater is not playoff-bound, I'm confident you'll come to your senses.

You -- especially you -- should watch whose reputations you are calling into question. And that actually goes more for the person who is questioning Brad Bankston's integrity than mine -- I know it comes with the territory and I'm OK with it. But Matt, you know you wouldn't appreciate that happening to you given all the time and effort you put into BridgewaterFootball.com for little reward other than the love you get for doing it. Don't be a hypocrite.

[K-Mack]

(2) I know the whole story about the ineligible player, and to be honest, I can see why the ODAC didn't issue any forfeits.  But just because nothing will be done (forfeit-wise) about it, doesn't mean it can't be brought up here with discussion.  Clearly Guilford, the ODAC, D3football.com and news outlets have decided not to issue information or a story because of the lack of action taken (on the ODAC's part).

Think about this for a second.

Pat and I both come on here saying we don't know the full story. So we're not "clearly deciding not to issue information or a story" ... We're not even aware that there is a story.

You know the full story -- and the full story meaning Guilford's side too, I'm sure -- but can't say/won't say. But when you drop hints, everyone else has nothing else to go on but half-truths and partial information. Human nature is to fill in the blanks. Sure it can be brought up for discussion, but if nobody really knows what they're talking about, how valuable is that discussion?

[K-Mack]

Just a statistical oddity - after today's RMC game, Josh Vogelbach became Guilford's career passing leader with 6248 yards.  He's played 18 games and he's already surpassed guys who played 40.  lol  On a side note, he may also already be the career interceptions leader.  

Partlow was like that for R-MC too. He was healthy for about a season and a half, I think, and passed Sidney Chappell.

Sometimes when an offense is ultra-prolific at a school that has had scant years of ultra-prolificness, it doesn't take long to set the school records.

Is this offense really better than the Santes Beatty-Dan Strelkauskas/David Heggie/Junior Lord/William Rochelle years?

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

Keith,

Just as much as BC fans are fully aware that I "rah-rah" about Bridgewater football, they should also know that you're only voicing your opinion about BC not making the playoffs.  I know the two losses and horrid QOW put us at the bottom of the list, but the point is, we're on the list (even if we are one of 20-30 schools on it).

I never questioned your knowledge of Division III football - the "not informed" statement was directed at you saying "BC will not make the playoffs."  Most casual readers of this message forum will see your "D3football.com Guru" under your handle and think "ahh, he must know for sure."  Well, you don't.  You're just speculating that because of our two losses and crumby QOW, we're done.  I don't appreciate your cheap shots at me when you misinterpreted what I said (about being uninformed).  I didn't want casual readers thinking you had a direct line to the NCAA selection chair.

You know I respect you as much as I do Mr. Coleman and Mr. Cummings.  If I saw you tomorrow, I'd still buy any one of you lunch (don't hold me to that ).  Message board banter will never make me lose respect for any one of you all (aww, group hug?).

I'm sorry it seems like I can't let go of the fact that BC's six-year playoff run will come to an end.  It's quite the opposite.  I realize finishing 8-2 (if we can win out, which won't be easy) heading into 2007 will benefit us more than an 8-3 season if we make the playoffs and are shipped out to MHB or Wesley.  Not that I don't have confidence in our team to win a game against one of them on the road, but our lack of experience and thus inconsistencies this year will better serve us to finish out on a three-game winning streak instead of a possible blowout loss in a first round playoff game.

And regarding the GC situation ... I don't believe I was the first to bring up the ineligible player.  Our radio crew mentioned it on the postgame show following today's game, so plenty of people heard it there.  I simply tried to be politically correct by stating that I knew about it and that I can see how the ODAC came to its decision.  I then posed the question if GC should consider taking their own action.  All you need to know is what other people have presented: (1) GC had an ineligible player and (2) the ODAC didn't make them forfeit any games.

[K-Mack]

Kid,
You are/were taking it as a personal slap in the face, and I wasn't even responding to you. I was responding to Punter 7 ASKING THE QUESTION on the Daily Dose.

  I didn't come in here shutting people's dreams down and taking cheap shots at you. That's where you're dead wrong.

Punter7 Says:
The 28th of October, 2006 at 9:50 pm
What are the chances that Bridgewater will make the playoffs as an at large bid with their win today over Washington and Lee?

I copied my answer over because I wanted people like you to look at my four- and five-way tie scenarios and to see if anyone had figured out who takes the tiebreaker yet, as I admitted in my post I had not had time to consider that.

Funny thing is there's all this banter and no one ever touched those scenarios. The one that involves R-MC beating H-SC may or may not be believeable, but the other scenario requires no really improbable results.

As far as taking cheap shots ... What's this?

But no ODAC team [a la Bridgewater] will sniff at at-large bid in any way, shape or form this season.

Welp folks, you heard it directly from a NCAA selection committee member himself.  Oh wait, "K-Mack" is just a D3football.com columnist?!  Hmm, then why the usage of absolutes?

Keith - For the record, I believe I'm the only one on the ODAC board (and my web site's blog) that's even mentioning a chance (albeit a very small one) of BC earning an at-large.  So I take your comments personally.  It's one thing to correct misinformed people (or in this case, just me), but it more seems like you're taking pleasure in stifling the small hope of BC earning an at-large.

It's cool, I can take it. I know the message board is the place for this, and I would love to argue/talk smack more and work on ATN less.

However, I stand by the "no team from the ODAC will sniff an at-large bid this year."

It may be an opinion, but is a VERY INFORMED opinion.

Not only did I present the above facts on why Bridgewater won't stack up as an at-large, I know you know how to look at this information (don't you? Maybe since the Eagles haven't been a Pool C candidate since '00, you don't) and come to the same conclusion yourself. Skim the standings for 1-loss teams. There are many more than seven. A lot of them play their conference equivalents of R-MC and CUA in the final two games. You would need several of those teams to lose just to drop them into the two-loss discussion with Bridgewater, which then incorporates another dozen or so teams that already have and will finish with two losses. Then, for the maybe one or two Pool C spots that open up for a two-loss team, you would need to grade out higher than all your competition on the primary playoff criteria, some of which are quality of wins index, which the Eagles are not strong in, and wins over regionally-ranked teams, which the Eagles will have one, maximum. It's highly improbable.

If you want to mince words, sure, you're right. They are infintesimal hopes. But if I am asked the question, which I was, my answer would be the honest one, which is 'no chance.' I consider that an important role to be the guiding light, so to speak, for the people who are new to D3 or have not had the time to understand playoff system that can appear complicated to the uninitiated.

I may not know the backup punter for Blackburn, but playoffs and national polls are my wheelhouse. Foolish of you to call me uninformed. I am not a committee member, but their criteria is available publically and I can make sense of it same as anyone else who chooses to take of their rose-colored fan glasses and look at it closely.

I'll give you 100-1 odds on a dollar bet that no ODAC team gets an at-large bid, and I won't even collect when I win, lest you think I am taking pleasure in that fact. I'm just that sure that my opinion is an informed one and will pan out.

To quote Chris Rock: "You know how they say 'never say never?' Well I'm saying never!"

You know I don't take any pleasure in seeing the ODAC down. You know I love Mike Clark and the job he's done. And you know we're still cool. At no point during this back-and-forth have we not been.

But it's funny that you called me misinformed on the subject of the playoffs. I posted to answer a specific question and stop misinformation from spreading. Sorry if that crushes dreams, but you don't want to be living on false hopes, do you?

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

Sorry if that crushes dreams, but you don't want to be living on false hopes, do you?

You're unreal.  I'm done talking with you.

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

ODAC fans,

This is an interesting scenario...

If the following happens over the next two weeks:

November 4, 2006
Bridgewater @ Randolph-Macon
Catholic @ Guilford
Emory & Henry @ Washington & Lee

November 11, 2006
Bridgewater @ Catholic
Guilford @ Emory & Henry
Randolph-Macon @ Hampden-Sydney

Then these would be the final standings:

1) BC 4-2
1) E&H 4-2
1) GC 4-2
1) H-SC 4-2
1) W&L 4-2
6) CUA 1-5
7) R-MC 0-6

All five 4-2 teams would have a 2-2 record when looking at head-to-head:

BC beat H-SC and W&L
E&H beat BC and W&L
GC beat BC and E&H
H-SC beat E&H and GC
W&L beat GC and H-SC

As far as I know, all five schools would be named ODAC champs.

What would be interesting would be how the ODAC would determine who gets the automatic bid to the playoffs.  The conference manual says they would then go to a five-point tiebreaker ... but I believe using that leaves us with everyone tied again.  So we then use the "Rose Bowl" rule which awards the automatic bid to the team who has not appeared in the NCAA Division III playoffs most recently.  Both GC and W&L have never been.

I'm not sure how they would decide between the Quakers and Generals.  Perhaps the head-to-head between those two schools?

[Pat Coleman]

Sorry if that crushes dreams, but you don't want to be living on false hopes, do you?

You're unreal.  I'm done talking with you.

Wow. Reality hurting a little today.