FB: Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference

[Just_that_kid]

RON: Out of curiosity, how likely would it have been that Millsaps get a pool C bid even if they did win all but one conference game? I haven't been following D3 extremely long, but when was the last time two SCAC teams both made an appearance? I don't know how the pool C bid works.

Regardless, I doubt Millsaps is playing for a pool C bid. It isn't the old Millsaps. Anything short of defending the crown would be unaccountable.
The experience and depth is what Millsaps lacked last season. For example: When Tyson Roy and Nick Namis went down with injuries, Millsaps had to rely on a freshman who hadn't seen many looks. Kenny Metzger is a quality back, but hadn't been thrown in the fire. Trinity and C. Mellon made him  battle tested, and now he's part of a "back by committee" situation.

I agree with Frank. I don't pretend to know what Coach DuBose is thinking, but I'm sure he's got something in mind, and something in store. Any way you look at it, Millsaps' starters absolutely dominated M.C. last night.

[exmajor]

Not much else to say about this than what has already been said.  I was able to follow the fourth quarter and was very disappointed with the outcome.  However, like Frank has alluded to, Dubose has a plan and he stuck to it last night.  After an incredible run last year, I am not questioning anything at this point.

I agree with Ron that this virtually eliminates Pool C chances, but depth was an issue last year and it appears it is being addressed early.  I am interested in seeing this plan play out as the season progresses.

Of course this really hurt's my pick-em chances this year, wish Coach Dubose and I were on the same page before I called Millsaps by 14! 

[historymajor]

Maybe I've just had one too many drinks of the Mike DuBose Kool-Aide, but here are some pros to offset the con mentioned by Ron:
--Millsaps saw what they needed to see from their starters.  While Millsaps and MC both fumbled away a good scoring opportunity in the first half, the 17 point halftime difference was a good reflection of the two teams.  If it was a conference game, the final score would probably have been around 35-10.

Whoa... What's in that Kool-Aid???

[Pat Coleman]

Regardless, I doubt Millsaps is playing for a pool C bid.

Which is fine. But not playing to win, which is what's being suggested here, is ludicrous. Not just a Pool C bid but a shot at a first-round home game rides on winning every non-conference game.

[Ron Boerger]

RON: Out of curiosity, how likely would it have been that Millsaps get a pool C bid even if they did win all but one conference game? I haven't been following D3 extremely long, but when was the last time two SCAC teams both made an appearance? I don't know how the pool C bid works.

It's a long story but basically a 9-1 team with all games in-region and good results is close to a lock at a Pool C (unless you're UMHB, long sad story there).   The selection committee looks at a number of factors including strength of opposition, results against other playoff teams, record, and such.  There's a page somewhere on the site that describes the process, I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

The SCAC has never had a pool C bid, but I also don't think it's had a team go 9-1 and not win the conference.

Re the depth argument and the other valid points made here:  I'm not disagreeing with any of that or with the fact that coach DuBose has more coaching talent in his little finger than I have in my whole body.  It's just unfortunate that the margin of error as far as making the playoffs is now totally gone.   DuBose's strategy paid off last year and may pay off again this year. 

EDIT:  Here is what Pat had to say about Pool C last year.

Pool C was not as easy. There are nine teams with one loss and only seven spots in Pool C. This year our team of bracketologists went one step further in our playoff projections, mocking up the final regional rankings that the committee will work from. We felt this was important with the shuffling in the East Region and especially the West, because Pool C candidates are evaluated in the order in which they are ranked in the region. The top team on the board in each of the four regions are evaluated against each other, and once a team is put in the field, the next team from its region replaces it on the list.

These are the primary criteria (not in priority order) which will be reviewed by the NCAA:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
• In-region head-to-head competition
• In-region results against common regional opponents
• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams.
Opponents are considered ranked only if they are ranked at the time of the ranking or playoff selection process.
• Quality of wins index–only contests versus regional competition (see Quality of Wins on the left-hand rail for most recent calculation)
• Conference postseason contest(s) is included.

One thing was brought home to me over the past year: Note that some areas say "results" against regional opponents, regionally ranked teams, etc. This does not say winning percentage. It's possible that merely playing a regionally ranked team and losing is better than going 0-0. Something to keep in mind.

[wally_wabash]

Making the tournament is certainly the most important thing...you can't win a championship if you don't qualify for the tournament.  BUT, it is a tough, tough chore to do it playing on the road...and coming out of the South region, that road is quite literally longer than most.  Going 10-0 means you definitely don't have to go someplace like Pittsburgh in the first round and it could likely mean that you don't have to leave campus until mid-December.  It's puzzling that a coach would treat non-conference games like they were exhibitions.   

[FerricMajor82]

I've got to go with Pat on this one.  Not playing to win is ridiculous.  I understand that Millsaps pulled all of the starters and never let them return to the game, but resting your first team kids for the entire second half is absurd. 
A friend of mine talked to DuBose yesterday morning, and wished him well in tonight's game.  He told my friend that the game didn't matter, but they were definitely "keeping score."  I believe DuBose even said this to the  news paper.  Well, obvioiusly they weren't keeping score.  If I was a player like Casey Younger that was at Millsaps when they were posting 2-8 records I would be a little bit upset that my coach didn't let me compete for a victory in my senior season opener against my rival. 
Do you think Tech would sit their kids against Georgia b/c the game just doesn't count when you look at ACC standings?
What gives?
PLAY TO WIN

[Ralph Turner]

Great discussion!  I don't know what to make of this either.

Seventy-four guys getting PT sounds like MUC depth.

Here's a question for the Millsaps guys.

Are there enough Junior colleges in Mississippi who would commit to filling 6 to 10 JV dates for Millsaps (and /or Mississippi College)?

If that is the case, then you can build an MUC or St John's dynasty.

[Josh Bowerman]

Wow.  This is one of the more unbelieveable things I've seen in a long time.  Talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket--seems pretty cavalier for a team that's only finished above .500 twice since 1999.

[frank_ezelle]

Most people seem to disagree with how Millsaps played the game and I certainly understand that.  It was clear from the result of the first 3 quarters that Millsaps was the far superior team Thursday night.  I feel sure that the players and coaches on both sides recognize that fact.  I don't know about the fans, but it is interesting that no MC fans have posted so far (at 10 a.m.) about their big victory, making me think that they realize it was a fairly hollow victory.

So why would a head coach give away a victory?  I'll propose a theory that might fit, one that I would find acceptable, but let me stress that this is just my theory:

--Coach DuBose said at the Senior Appreciation ceremony last spring that he'd like to build a program that had 20-30 seniors each year instead of the handful from the 2006 team.
--Coach DuBose also would like to build a program that is competitive on the national level and is a factor in the national playoffs.
--To accomplish these goals you need a large roster that is deep in talent.  You will not have 20-30 seniors each year unless you give guys playing time.  You won't have depth unless you give guys playing time.
--The problem last night was that the guys playing at the end of the game were guys with very little college playing experience.  A year from now they will be guys who have some college experience under their belt and they will be far less likely to lose a 20-point lead. 
--In the short term of one game or even one season, losing that game may not make much sense.  In the long term scheme of building a program that is competitive year after year, last night might have been one step backwards to eventually move three steps forward.

While this may seem like a stretch, in many ways it is like the Mississippi College basketball program, a team that is competitive on the national level because of their deep bench and depth of talent.  Millsaps football right now is in that transition year where they are trying to build depth and maybe they are willing to sacrifice 2 non-conference games this year to build that depth.

[Josh Bowerman]

Frank, with all due respect, that really is a stretch! 

[exmajor]

FerricMajor brings up another interesting point.  As long as the senior leadership of this team buy into the overall strategy by Dubose I think this team is certainly headed in the right direction, but if there is some grumblings about the way the gameplan was handled last night amongst the players it could pose some real problems.  

I speculate that everyone in the know at Millsaps is one the same page and has bought into the strategy.  Just having two winning seasons in a row would be a nice accomplishment for the Majors, another conference title would be two steps ahead and playoffs two years in a row would be icing on the cake.

I am reserving my judgement until November and there is alot of football to be played between now and then!

[Ralph Turner]

The ASC thanks the SCAC for the Quality win! 

[DPU3619]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.  Hello?  You play to win the game.  You don't play to just play it.  That's the great thing about sports.  You play to win.  I don't care if you don't have any wins.  You go play to win.  When you start telling me, "It doesn't matter," then retire.  Get out.  Because it matters.  So that....that... this whole conversation bothers me.

[Bill McCabe]

Playing not to win a regular season game is unimaginable.  Does that mean they were playing to lose?  Winning will bring more quality players to the program than anything else.  Most kids want to play for a winning team.  I'm not sure I've ever heard of something like this.  I hope Millsaps has a good season.