East Region Playoff Discussion

[Jonny Utah]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

[Yanks 99]

What makes you think Hartwick is that much better than Curry this year?  It wasnt even close last year was it?

Again...not focused on last year.  By that arguement, Fisher is a far better team than IC this year...which is ridiculous.  Are you telling me an NEFC team that didnt even make its conference championship game is better then any of the top 4 teams in the E8?

I dont know if Curry is better than Hartwick.  

Im kind of playing devils advocate here, but why should I believe Hartwick is better than Curry?  And yes, we do have to go by what happened last year.  Thats why IC is so good this year, because they had a lot of starters returning from last year.  I dont know who Curry has comming back, but they are 9-1, the same as they were last year when they beat the #1 (#2-#3) ranked E8 team

And yes, sometimes we do have to look what happened last year.  Do you think anyone is going to overlook Plymouth St in the playoffs?  I dont think so.

Again, that was last year...this is a new team.

Here is another idea...shot in the dark...besides playing in a brutal E8 and finishing second, if you are the committee, why in the world would you not want to promote a QB like Boltus that may get a shot at the NFL?  If we are going to use criteria like what happened "last year", then why not go for the "good of the game" selection?

Because until you get to the NC game, no-one outside of these boards knows a thing about anyone in D-3...you think a first round game of Wick-MUC is going to get some sort of promotion?

Are you trying to tell me that scouts don't know who Jason Boltus is?  If that is what you are saying, you need to read up a bit. 

I'm aware the scouts know who he is. So what? Does anyone outside of these boards know that? You think the NCAA is going to send out a press release saying "Hey, this guy is a fringe NFL caliber QB, come watch him get destroyed by MUC?"

Come on now...I would say there has been a lot of pub about Boltus all over the place.  Besides, how many press releases is the NCAA really going to put out about the NCAA playoffs anyways?  And who would read them BESIDES the people on these boards.  You improve the quality of the sport by promoting your best teams and your best players...

[Bombers798891]

What makes you think Hartwick is that much better than Curry this year?  It wasnt even close last year was it?

Again...not focused on last year.  By that arguement, Fisher is a far better team than IC this year...which is ridiculous.  Are you telling me an NEFC team that didnt even make its conference championship game is better then any of the top 4 teams in the E8?

I dont know if Curry is better than Hartwick.  

Im kind of playing devils advocate here, but why should I believe Hartwick is better than Curry?  And yes, we do have to go by what happened last year.  Thats why IC is so good this year, because they had a lot of starters returning from last year.  I dont know who Curry has comming back, but they are 9-1, the same as they were last year when they beat the #1 (#2-#3) ranked E8 team

And yes, sometimes we do have to look what happened last year.  Do you think anyone is going to overlook Plymouth St in the playoffs?  I dont think so.

Again, that was last year...this is a new team.

Here is another idea...shot in the dark...besides playing in a brutal E8 and finishing second, if you are the committee, why in the world would you not want to promote a QB like Boltus that may get a shot at the NFL?  If we are going to use criteria like what happened "last year", then why not go for the "good of the game" selection?

Because until you get to the NC game, no-one outside of these boards knows a thing about anyone in D-3...you think a first round game of Wick-MUC is going to get some sort of promotion?

Are you trying to tell me that scouts don't know who Jason Boltus is?  If that is what you are saying, you need to read up a bit. 

I'm aware the scouts know who he is. So what? Does anyone outside of these boards know that? You think the NCAA is going to send out a press release saying "Hey, this guy is a fringe NFL caliber QB, come watch him get destroyed by MUC?"

Come on now...I would say there has been a lot of pub about Boltus all over the place.  Besides, how many press releases is the NCAA really going to put out about the NCAA playoffs anyways?  And who would read them BESIDES the people on these boards.  You improve the quality of the sport by promoting your best teams and your best players...

That's my point. The NCAA doesn't promote D-III football beyond the NC game. They never have. They never will. Why would Jason Boltus change that?

[redswarm81]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

[Yanks 99]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

I am not disagreeing.  If the rules are clear cut, then the rules are clear cut.  Doesn't mean I shouldn't voice an opinion about why Wick should get one of the remaining Pool C's.  They aren't always clear cut...if that was the case then a two loss IC team wouldn't have gotten a Pool C over a one loss Plymouth State team last year.

[Jonny Utah]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

Ok then.  And this is a serious question.

Can you define "evaluate" for me?  If it were that straight forward couldnt a computer do it?

[Bombers798891]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

Ok then.  And this is a serious question.

Can you define "evaluate" for me?  If it were that straight forward couldnt a computer do it?

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. Democracy doesn't work." --Kent Brockman

[redswarm81]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

Ok then.  And this is a serious question.

Can you define "evaluate" for me?  If it were that straight forward couldnt a computer do it?

Fair question.  First, let's make sure we are reading the same requirements:

• 31.3.5.2 Selection Criteria. The governing sports committee responsible for the selection of the balance of the championships field shall select teams in Pools B and C based on the criteria below. The criteria of two or more teams shall be compared to determine the higher-ranked team. An attempt shall be made to determine the ranking of two or more teams after consideration of the primary criteria (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.1). If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be used (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.2).  All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in preferential order). (Adopted: 1/12/04)

By my interpretation, the Committee may only go to the secondary criteria after it has

• considered all of the primary criteria, and
• attempted to determine a [winner] based on all of the primary criteria, and
• concluded that there is no [winner] based on all of the primary criteria.

But still, what does "evaluate" mean?  Well, a team could, by those Selection Criteria, be chosen on the basis of an "evaluation."  So "evaluate" has to include the process of choosing a winner based on those criteria.

If you're arguing that "evaluate" gives so much leeway that the Committee could say "ignore those actual statistics, we've got a made-for-tv qb in Boltus, and a guaranteed 8000 person gate with a second round Cortland - Ithaca rematch, then I think you're off-base.  I'm not so cynical to believe the NCAA would permit such a thing.

They have to select someone.  And they select them based on the Primary Criteria first.  I'll update this some more.

UPDATE:  clearly, the committee has to assign priority to each criterion.  If I were on the committee, I'd assign highest priority to winning percentage.  Penn State is yet another example that even a good team with a light schedule still has a hell of a time winning all its games.

OWP/OOWP can't be as valuable as winning percentage, since a team with no wins could easily have a better OWP/OOWP than an undefeated team.

In the case of Pool C candidates, and Hartwick and Husson are good examples, there are rarely head-to-head results, and neither team has a win v. an RRO.

I think that the Committee might be adding winning percentage to OWP and OOWP to compare those stats.  So Husson gets 1.000 + .356 + .500 = 1.856, and Hartwick gets 0.778 + 0.492 + 0.537 =  1.807  My problem with this formula is it actually places a higher priority on OWP+OOWP

Where I would really get uncomfortable is where a Committee used a different priority for one set of teams than it used for a different set of teams being evaluated.

[Bombers798891]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

Ok then.  And this is a serious question.

Can you define "evaluate" for me?  If it were that straight forward couldnt a computer do it?

Fair question.  First, let's make sure we are reading the same requirements:

• 31.3.5.2 Selection Criteria. The governing sports committee responsible for the selection of the balance of the championships field shall select teams in Pools B and C based on the criteria below. The criteria of two or more teams shall be compared to determine the higher-ranked team. An attempt shall be made to determine the ranking of two or more teams after consideration of the primary criteria (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.1). If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be used (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.2).  All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in preferential order). (Adopted: 1/12/04)

By my interpretation, the Committee may only go to the secondary criteria after it has

• considered all of the primary criteria, and
• attempted to determine a [winner] based on all of the primary criteria, and
• concluded that there is no [winner] based on all of the primary criteria.

But still, what does "evaluate" mean?  Well, a team could, by those Selection Criteria, be chosen on the basis of an "evaluation."  So "evaluate" has to include the process of choosing a winner based on those criteria.

If you're arguing that "evaluate" gives so much leeway that the Committee could say "ignore those actual statistics, we've got a made-for-tv qb in Boltus, and a guaranteed 8000 person gate with a second round Cortland - Ithaca rematch, then I think you're off-base.  I'm not so cynical to believe the NCAA would permit such a thing.

They have to select someone.  And they select them based on the Primary Criteria first.  I'll update this some more.

I'd agree with you there Swarm...

1) I don't think Boltus is quite the draw people say. Really, are people in Alliance who would otherwise stay home suddenly going to show up for Boltus and the terrible defense he's dragging with him? Kimic would be the all-time leading rusher in d-3 if you gave him 35 carries against that defense

2) I wasn't allowed to go to Cortaca games when I was 5, so I don't remember 1988 that well, but my guess is, IC kids wouldn't be all that uppity for a Cortland rematch...

[Yanks 99]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

Ok then.  And this is a serious question.

Can you define "evaluate" for me?  If it were that straight forward couldnt a computer do it?

Fair question.  First, let's make sure we are reading the same requirements:

• 31.3.5.2 Selection Criteria. The governing sports committee responsible for the selection of the balance of the championships field shall select teams in Pools B and C based on the criteria below. The criteria of two or more teams shall be compared to determine the higher-ranked team. An attempt shall be made to determine the ranking of two or more teams after consideration of the primary criteria (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.1). If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be used (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.2).  All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in preferential order). (Adopted: 1/12/04)

By my interpretation, the Committee may only go to the secondary criteria after it has

• considered all of the primary criteria, and
• attempted to determine a [winner] based on all of the primary criteria, and
• concluded that there is no [winner] based on all of the primary criteria.

But still, what does "evaluate" mean?  Well, a team could, by those Selection Criteria, be chosen on the basis of an "evaluation."  So "evaluate" has to include the process of choosing a winner based on those criteria.

If you're arguing that "evaluate" gives so much leeway that the Committee could say "ignore those actual statistics, we've got a made-for-tv qb in Boltus, and a guaranteed 8000 person gate with a second round Cortland - Ithaca rematch, then I think you're off-base.  I'm not so cynical to believe the NCAA would permit such a thing.

They have to select someone.  And they select them based on the Primary Criteria first.  I'll update this some more.

I'd agree with you there Swarm...

1) I don't think Boltus is quite the draw people say. Really, are people in Alliance who would otherwise stay home suddenly going to show up for Boltus and the terrible defense he's dragging with him? Kimic would be the all-time leading rusher in d-3 if you gave him 35 carries against that defense

2) I wasn't allowed to go to Cortaca games when I was 5, so I don't remember 1988 that well, but my guess is, IC kids wouldn't be all that uppity for a Cortland rematch...

That is still as clear as mud...

Look, Wick may not get in.  No player in D3 is going to bring in a "huge" draw...but Boltus could generate some interest as a potential pro player...even against a MUC team.

The NCAA's does some crazy things...so you never know.  I just think Wick's arguement for a Pool C is as strong, if not stronger, then the other Pool C potentials.  For every arguement against Wick and for another team, a counter arguement can be made...and vice versa.

If its a ECAC bid, so be it.  Wick suits it up and looks to go 8-2 and finish off a great two year run...and hopefully much more future success.

[Bombers798891]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

Ok then.  And this is a serious question.

Can you define "evaluate" for me?  If it were that straight forward couldnt a computer do it?

Fair question.  First, let's make sure we are reading the same requirements:

• 31.3.5.2 Selection Criteria. The governing sports committee responsible for the selection of the balance of the championships field shall select teams in Pools B and C based on the criteria below. The criteria of two or more teams shall be compared to determine the higher-ranked team. An attempt shall be made to determine the ranking of two or more teams after consideration of the primary criteria (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.1). If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be used (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.2).  All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in preferential order). (Adopted: 1/12/04)

By my interpretation, the Committee may only go to the secondary criteria after it has

• considered all of the primary criteria, and
• attempted to determine a [winner] based on all of the primary criteria, and
• concluded that there is no [winner] based on all of the primary criteria.

But still, what does "evaluate" mean?  Well, a team could, by those Selection Criteria, be chosen on the basis of an "evaluation."  So "evaluate" has to include the process of choosing a winner based on those criteria.

If you're arguing that "evaluate" gives so much leeway that the Committee could say "ignore those actual statistics, we've got a made-for-tv qb in Boltus, and a guaranteed 8000 person gate with a second round Cortland - Ithaca rematch, then I think you're off-base.  I'm not so cynical to believe the NCAA would permit such a thing.

They have to select someone.  And they select them based on the Primary Criteria first.  I'll update this some more.

I'd agree with you there Swarm...

1) I don't think Boltus is quite the draw people say. Really, are people in Alliance who would otherwise stay home suddenly going to show up for Boltus and the terrible defense he's dragging with him? Kimic would be the all-time leading rusher in d-3 if you gave him 35 carries against that defense

2) I wasn't allowed to go to Cortaca games when I was 5, so I don't remember 1988 that well, but my guess is, IC kids wouldn't be all that uppity for a Cortland rematch...

That is still as clear as mud...

Look, Wick may not get in.  No player in D3 is going to bring in a "huge" draw...but Boltus could generate some interest as a potential pro player...even against a MUC team.

The NCAA's does some crazy things...so you never know.  I just think Wick's arguement for a Pool C is as strong, if not stronger, then the other Pool C potentials.  For every arguement against Wick and for another team, a counter arguement can be made...and vice versa.

If its a ECAC bid, so be it.  Wick suits it up and looks to go 8-2 and finish off a great two year run...and hopefully much more future success.

Would it be a travesty if Wick made it? No. And sure, they may make it. I've only seen them once this season, so I'm probably biased. As we can see now, IC scores on everyone not named Fisher, but man, I can't get over how bad that defense is

[Yanks 99]

Guys, get serious.  They don't just sit around in one of Boston's three remaining cigar bars and ask themselves "who would be good to have in the tournament?"

There are rules.  Read what they are, and explain how a two loss team evaluates ahead of an undefeated team, using only the Primary Criteria.

you mean reviewing the primary criteria?

I've read the Selection Criteria over and over.  They are required to evaluate two or more teams (4, in the case of a Pool C showdown) on ALL Primary Criteria BEFORE they can consider the Secondary Criteria.  They can only go to Secondary if they look at ALL Primary Criteria and say "nope, no winner yet."

Ok then.  And this is a serious question.

Can you define "evaluate" for me?  If it were that straight forward couldnt a computer do it?

Fair question.  First, let's make sure we are reading the same requirements:

• 31.3.5.2 Selection Criteria. The governing sports committee responsible for the selection of the balance of the championships field shall select teams in Pools B and C based on the criteria below. The criteria of two or more teams shall be compared to determine the higher-ranked team. An attempt shall be made to determine the ranking of two or more teams after consideration of the primary criteria (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.1). If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be used (see Bylaw 31.3.5.2.2).  All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in preferential order). (Adopted: 1/12/04)

By my interpretation, the Committee may only go to the secondary criteria after it has

• considered all of the primary criteria, and
• attempted to determine a [winner] based on all of the primary criteria, and
• concluded that there is no [winner] based on all of the primary criteria.

But still, what does "evaluate" mean?  Well, a team could, by those Selection Criteria, be chosen on the basis of an "evaluation."  So "evaluate" has to include the process of choosing a winner based on those criteria.

If you're arguing that "evaluate" gives so much leeway that the Committee could say "ignore those actual statistics, we've got a made-for-tv qb in Boltus, and a guaranteed 8000 person gate with a second round Cortland - Ithaca rematch, then I think you're off-base.  I'm not so cynical to believe the NCAA would permit such a thing.

They have to select someone.  And they select them based on the Primary Criteria first.  I'll update this some more.

I'd agree with you there Swarm...

1) I don't think Boltus is quite the draw people say. Really, are people in Alliance who would otherwise stay home suddenly going to show up for Boltus and the terrible defense he's dragging with him? Kimic would be the all-time leading rusher in d-3 if you gave him 35 carries against that defense

2) I wasn't allowed to go to Cortaca games when I was 5, so I don't remember 1988 that well, but my guess is, IC kids wouldn't be all that uppity for a Cortland rematch...

That is still as clear as mud...

Look, Wick may not get in.  No player in D3 is going to bring in a "huge" draw...but Boltus could generate some interest as a potential pro player...even against a MUC team.

The NCAA's does some crazy things...so you never know.  I just think Wick's arguement for a Pool C is as strong, if not stronger, then the other Pool C potentials.  For every arguement against Wick and for another team, a counter arguement can be made...and vice versa.

If its a ECAC bid, so be it.  Wick suits it up and looks to go 8-2 and finish off a great two year run...and hopefully much more future success.

Would it be a travesty if Wick made it? No. And sure, they may make it. I've only seen them once this season, so I'm probably biased. As we can see now, IC scores on everyone not named Fisher, but man, I can't get over how bad that defense is

The D is still really young.  They had two really tough games this year...IC and SC.  Not saying they are a top flight D...but they were serviceable in the other 7 games, and played really well in spurts.  I like the attitude the new DC has brought in...and I think they are moving in the right direction.

Our offense can hang with anyone...

[HHawks]

You seen their defense at their worse. They played decent the rest of the defense minus the Springfield game. If you have an offense that scores 43 points a game, you only need to make a couple of stops and they played strong when they needed to.

[Bombers798891]

You seen their defense at their worse. They played decent the rest of the defense minus the Springfield game. If you have an offense that scores 43 points a game, you only need to make a couple of stops and they played strong when they needed to.

1) You won't be hanging 43 on MUC...we went in there last season averaging 40 points a game over our last 6 games and put up 18 points. MUC has only allowed 60 points all season. They're not going to put up anything close to 43 on MUC

2) Yes, Hartwick's defense improved, but come on. We're talking a team in MUC who is averaging 47 points a game. They'll gash Wick. Kimic would run for 400 yards

[HHawks]

You seen their defense at their worse. They played decent the rest of the defense minus the Springfield game. If you have an offense that scores 43 points a game, you only need to make a couple of stops and they played strong when they needed to.

1) You won't be hanging 43 on MUC...we went in there last season averaging 40 points a game over our last 6 games and put up 18 points. MUC has only allowed 60 points all season. They're not going to put up anything close to 43 on MUC

2) Yes, Hartwick's defense improved, but come on. We're talking a team in MUC who is averaging 47 points a game. They'll gash Wick. Kimic would run for 400 yards

Im not saying we would score 43 but I think we could score at least 20.