East Region Playoff Discussion

[union89]

I hate to waste post #3,000 on the Regional Rankings, but give me a break -- MUC at #3 tells me how much is wrong with the whole process.  The SoS numbers are a joke now, officially.

thank you...pbr was getting tired of banging what seemed like the lone drum for the last couple of years...agreed the whole process needs a MAJOR revamp...complete watered down product....

dlip just stopped even looking at them 

Even though the Regional Rankings may be flawed, you can count on the Selection Committee ignoring them altogether if they so desire.

Case in point, 2005: Regional rankings had, among others, in order St. John Fisher, then Alfred, with Wilkes behind Alfred. In Week 11 that year, Alfred beat St. John Fisher 13-7 to finish 8-2, same as Wilkes, who beat an (unranked) Kings 36-13. Yet Wilkes was selected over Alfred and the Colonels went on to suffer a 42-3 loss at Rowan.

Rankings mean little or nothing to Pep anymore.

pbr just keeps wandering how long its going to take for all the coaches/a.d.'s to wise up to the "way things are done..." and schedule nothing but cupcakes and walkovers to increase their chances to make the playoffs since nothing but records matter.  Its good to play someone like Wesley this year if your DVC and the coach is confident you can run the table in your league even if you lose to a top team. But if your a coach and not sure why take the chance...play the cupcakes and pump that record up to 10-0 on weak sisters (o.o.c. games) and run the table in your league or still have a chance if you lose 1 game in your league. Soon d3 will be a bunch of teams 10-0/9-1 and having played no one and no one has an idea of who is a contender/pretender....alas here we thought d3 might be different so they had a playoff to determine a national champion...now its a "well we think they are the best team but we're not so sure..."

One way of looking at it....but it won't happen.  Many alumns clammor for great regional matchups (ie., Union vs. Ithaca).  In the past, Union wouldn't schedule this game supposedly because Ithaca was not a like institution (I HATE that excuse).  Many ex-Union players wrote letters and made their feeling felt that an Ithaca game was not only good for both institutions, but Upstate football in general.  The administration listened and the game was added when both schools were finished with their current OOC commitments.

Heck, you can schedule the best OOC schedule in the country and lose every game...win your conference and you're in....scheduling solid OOC teams will make your team better....screw the Regional Ranking and take care of things you can control.

U89 any word if the series is still going to go on?

I have heard it is getting renewed for 2 more years.....don't hold me to that, but I'm about 80% certain that it has been extended.

[dlippiel]

You do have to face it though, the E8 is a better conference this year.  Although there isn't a huge difference.  SJF and Aflred is probably a notch ahead of everyone, and then everyone else from the E8 and LL is probably the same.

Yes JP dlip concurs with this through and thorugh. Sometimes dlip gets a tad sensitive thats all.

Dlip, let me apologize. That was my attempt to point out, that every so often, you get an AQ that is not as strong as a team that misses out on a Pool C bid. I simply used St. Lawrence for the fact that it's, in my view, a pertinent example. Yes, some of that is because they have lost to E8 teams that are going to miss the playoffs, although I didn't intend to make it sound like the LL is an inferior conference as a whole. It's mainly just because I see the "4" in the loss column. I never meant to infer that they're a bad program. There are other examples of 3- and 4-loss teams that have made the playoffs, I just couldn't remember any (Christopher Newport? Randolph-Macon?). Heck, you could concoct a scenario where the E8 could have gotten a 4-6 team in the playoffs at the start of the year, and if a 4-6 IC got a Pool A while an 8-2 Union who beat them got left out of Pool C, that would be stupid too. I should have used that hypothetical example instead of the Saints specific situation. Apologies

Obviously, I have a great deal of respect for Raymond and that program--I even spoke to him after the IC game

Bombers dlip kind of feels like a bit of a dick. No need for apologies here, like dlip said, he knows he can be overly sensitive.

[Bombers798891]

You do have to face it though, the E8 is a better conference this year.  Although there isn't a huge difference.  SJF and Aflred is probably a notch ahead of everyone, and then everyone else from the E8 and LL is probably the same.

Yes JP dlip concurs with this through and thorugh. Sometimes dlip gets a tad sensitive thats all.

Dlip, let me apologize. That was my attempt to point out, that every so often, you get an AQ that is not as strong as a team that misses out on a Pool C bid. I simply used St. Lawrence for the fact that it's, in my view, a pertinent example. Yes, some of that is because they have lost to E8 teams that are going to miss the playoffs, although I didn't intend to make it sound like the LL is an inferior conference as a whole. It's mainly just because I see the "4" in the loss column. I never meant to infer that they're a bad program. There are other examples of 3- and 4-loss teams that have made the playoffs, I just couldn't remember any (Christopher Newport? Randolph-Macon?). Heck, you could concoct a scenario where the E8 could have gotten a 4-6 team in the playoffs at the start of the year, and if a 4-6 IC got a Pool A while an 8-2 Union who beat them got left out of Pool C, that would be stupid too. I should have used that hypothetical example instead of the Saints specific situation. Apologies

Obviously, I have a great deal of respect for Raymond and that program--I even spoke to him after the IC game

Bombers dlip kind of feels like a bit of a dick. No need for apologies here, like dlip said, he knows he can be overly sensitive.

No harm, no foul. +K

[maxpower]

I'm not so sure Hobart would make it.  This would be the standings if you combined the LL and E8 with conference records reflecting the crossover games (Cortland not included)

SJF 5-1, 7-1
Alf 4-1, 6-1
ITH 4-1, 5-2
St. Lawrence 4-3, 4-4
SC 2-2, 5-2
Utica 2-2, 5-2
Hobart 2-2, 4-2,
MM 2-2, 3-5
Union 2-3, 2-4
RPI 2-3, 3-3
WPI 1-3, 3-4
Roch 1-4, 1-5
Wick 0-3, 2-4

Don't feel bad, LLers.... we've still got Wick.


[Getting ready for the karma snipe from Yanks99 and BoSox...]

[PBR...]

I hate to waste post #3,000 on the Regional Rankings, but give me a break -- MUC at #3 tells me how much is wrong with the whole process.  The SoS numbers are a joke now, officially.

thank you...pbr was getting tired of banging what seemed like the lone drum for the last couple of years...agreed the whole process needs a MAJOR revamp...complete watered down product....

dlip just stopped even looking at them 

Even though the Regional Rankings may be flawed, you can count on the Selection Committee ignoring them altogether if they so desire.

Case in point, 2005: Regional rankings had, among others, in order St. John Fisher, then Alfred, with Wilkes behind Alfred. In Week 11 that year, Alfred beat St. John Fisher 13-7 to finish 8-2, same as Wilkes, who beat an (unranked) Kings 36-13. Yet Wilkes was selected over Alfred and the Colonels went on to suffer a 42-3 loss at Rowan.

Rankings mean little or nothing to Pep anymore.

pbr just keeps wandering how long its going to take for all the coaches/a.d.'s to wise up to the "way things are done..." and schedule nothing but cupcakes and walkovers to increase their chances to make the playoffs since nothing but records matter.  Its good to play someone like Wesley this year if your DVC and the coach is confident you can run the table in your league even if you lose to a top team. But if your a coach and not sure why take the chance...play the cupcakes and pump that record up to 10-0 on weak sisters (o.o.c. games) and run the table in your league or still have a chance if you lose 1 game in your league. Soon d3 will be a bunch of teams 10-0/9-1 and having played no one and no one has an idea of who is a contender/pretender....alas here we thought d3 might be different so they had a playoff to determine a national champion...now its a "well we think they are the best team but we're not so sure..."

One way of looking at it....but it won't happen.  Many alumns clammor for great regional matchups (ie., Union vs. Ithaca).  In the past, Union wouldn't schedule this game supposedly because Ithaca was not a like institution (I HATE that excuse).  Many ex-Union players wrote letters and made their feeling felt that an Ithaca game was not only good for both institutions, but Upstate football in general.  The administration listened and the game was added when both schools were finished with their current OOC commitments.

Heck, you can schedule the best OOC schedule in the country and lose every game...win your conference and you're in....scheduling solid OOC teams will make your team better....screw the Regional Ranking and take care of things you can control.

yup but puts a ton of pressure on you winning the regular season. 1 hiccup and your done.

[K-Mack]

We have had many discussions here regarding some of the struggles or percieved struggles of the East. dlip tends to see both sides of the coin regarding this discussion. One: Recruting has become a problem (competition, finances, D1, FCS, DII schools, and priority lying on other D1 sports). dlip can tell you one thing if UMU had D1 hockey dlip would bet there would eventually...evenutally be a slide in that programs success. Yet on the flip side dlip also feels that the East must somehow make adjustments and simply, "get better." There are just so many factors involved, to dlip, it is not black and white.

I definitely agree with you there.

Even after writing the piece, there were good solid leftovers that I didn't even get to mention.

And I -- er, K-Mack -- had to separate out/postpone the entire No. 1 seed-in-the-east column until next week.

[Frank Rossi]

I had a text convo with a friend earlier tonight about the topic of the East.  The following were my messages regarding my honest defense of the East that I haven't seen here to this point.  Feel free to debate:

"Well, I think you need to consider two things before you make a final judgment [that the East is weak] there. First, I named you 11 teams generally in the mix for the top 2 spots in the East [Union, RPI, Hobart, SJF, Ithaca, Alfred, Rowan, Montclair, Cortland, DelVal, Lycoming]. Drop Wesley, MUC and UWW. Now name me 10 teams from the other regions that you can make the same claim for.

Second, the East has the fewest Pool A conferences -- 5. One of them is the NEFC. So those 11 teams I named are dispersed only in 4 conferences. This means that we will see no more than 4 undefeated teams here of quality -- and less since they intermix at a high level. The fact that the other regions have so many 9-0 and 10-0 teams tells you two things: there are simply more Pool A conferences in which they are dispersed and they are not crossing over as much against quality OOC teams in their own region.    If that wasn't true, there would be less X-0 teams. I think we have trouble understanding what the numbers DON'T mean as much as we understand what they DO mean. DVC is X-1. Why? Because they took the top South team to the edge. If DVC scheduled Salve Regina instead, they would be X-0. This isn't isolated here (Cortland/Ithaca, Fisher/Hobart, Union/Ithaca, Rowan/Lycoming, Alfred/RPI, etc.). Someone has to lose those games.

I think the issue of roster limits and stuff like they were discussing this week is BS. 100 players is sufficient for a quality, deep team if you have [high quality athletes] across the board. They're just not understanding the issue of their own region's structure (BTW, throw in Springfield in the mix and remember Springfield/Union is a game, too).

[When challenged on the East's strength in the nation] How can SoS numbers look good for East teams if even playing the "quality" teams here involves computing more losses in the equation? We're looking at incomplete numbers right now. The East is at a disadvantage in SoS when the season ends because the intermixing forces more L's in every team's equation. And SoS is the main determining factor for any 1-loss teams surviving the regular season without Pool A bids.

[When it was stated that ADs are taking responsibility for the East's weakness of late] They're trying to take responsibility for things they don't even understand. Look at the NJAC's tiebreaker. OOWP isn't meant for a standalone stat. Yet, that's their 3-way tiebreak?! ADs endorsed that?! They don't understand.

[Still being challenged on depth] Fine, then shift a conference to the East that's in the North or South.  Let's make the playing field level. I bet a lot would change and scheduling would become very odd suddenly compared to what happens now. The East is NOT at level footing.

Name me 11 teams, aside from UWW that, every year, are in the discussion for the top 2 seeds in that bracket (and North and South).  How many of your top teams in other regions intermix in reg season?

[When challenged on why depth means ignoring MUC, WES, and UWW for a moment] No, because DEPTH means number of teams of quality. I'm focusing on depth.

The only team the East's strongest teams get measured against now is MUC. So if we use that as an indicator, sure, the East is awful. But aside from UWW and Wesley, no team from any region challenges MUC. So we have to appraise the East beyond performance in the playoffs -- or grade the North, South and West using the same rationale. But one team in each region is not what defines depth.

It's a more salient debate than I think some people understand when u look at the geography, teams and numbers involved together."

[theoriginalupstate]

Great points Frank!

+K

[PBR...]

I had a text convo with a friend earlier tonight about the topic of the East.  The following were my messages regarding my honest defense of the East that I haven't seen here to this point.  Feel free to debate:

"Well, I think you need to consider two things before you make a final judgment [that the East is weak] there. First, I named you 11 teams generally in the mix for the top 2 spots in the East [Union, RPI, Hobart, SJF, Ithaca, Alfred, Rowan, Montclair, Cortland, DelVal, Lycoming]. Drop Wesley, MUC and UWW. Now name me 10 teams from the other regions that you can make the same claim for.

Second, the East has the fewest Pool A conferences -- 5. One of them is the NEFC. So those 11 teams I named are dispersed only in 4 conferences. This means that we will see no more than 4 undefeated teams here of quality -- and less since they intermix at a high level. The fact that the other regions have so many 9-0 and 10-0 teams tells you two things: there are simply more Pool A conferences in which they are dispersed and they are not crossing over as much against quality OOC teams in their own region.    If that wasn't true, there would be less X-0 teams. I think we have trouble understanding what the numbers DON'T mean as much as we understand what they DO mean. DVC is X-1. Why? Because they took the top South team to the edge. If DVC scheduled Salve Regina instead, they would be X-0. This isn't isolated here (Cortland/Ithaca, Fisher/Hobart, Union/Ithaca, Rowan/Lycoming, Alfred/RPI, etc.). Someone has to lose those games.

I think the issue of roster limits and stuff like they were discussing this week is BS. 100 players is sufficient for a quality, deep team if you have [high quality athletes] across the board. They're just not understanding the issue of their own region's structure (BTW, throw in Springfield in the mix and remember Springfield/Union is a game, too).

[When challenged on the East's strength in the nation] How can SoS numbers look good for East teams if even playing the "quality" teams here involves computing more losses in the equation? We're looking at incomplete numbers right now. The East is at a disadvantage in SoS when the season ends because the intermixing forces more L's in every team's equation. And SoS is the main determining factor for any 1-loss teams surviving the regular season without Pool A bids.

[When it was stated that ADs are taking responsibility for the East's weakness of late] They're trying to take responsibility for things they don't even understand. Look at the NJAC's tiebreaker. OOWP isn't meant for a standalone stat. Yet, that's their 3-way tiebreak?! ADs endorsed that?! They don't understand.

[Still being challenged on depth] Fine, then shift a conference to the East that's in the North or South.  Let's make the playing field level. I bet a lot would change and scheduling would become very odd suddenly compared to what happens now. The East is NOT at level footing.

Name me 11 teams, aside from UWW that, every year, are in the discussion for the top 2 seeds in that bracket (and North and South).  How many of your top teams in other regions intermix in reg season?

[When challenged on why depth means ignoring MUC, WES, and UWW for a moment] No, because DEPTH means number of teams of quality. I'm focusing on depth.

The only team the East's strongest teams get measured against now is MUC. So if we use that as an indicator, sure, the East is awful. But aside from UWW and Wesley, no team from any region challenges MUC. So we have to appraise the East beyond performance in the playoffs -- or grade the North, South and West using the same rationale. But one team in each region is not what defines depth.

It's a more salient debate than I think some people understand when u look at the geography, teams and numbers involved together."

excellent points frank! fight the good fight for us easterners!!

[Knightstalker]

We have had many discussions here regarding some of the struggles or percieved struggles of the East. dlip tends to see both sides of the coin regarding this discussion. One: Recruting has become a problem (competition, finances, D1, FCS, DII schools, and priority lying on other D1 sports). dlip can tell you one thing if UMU had D1 hockey dlip would bet there would eventually...evenutally be a slide in that programs success. Yet on the flip side dlip also feels that the East must somehow make adjustments and simply, "get better." There are just so many factors involved, to dlip, it is not black and white.

I definitely agree with you there.

Even after writing the piece, there were good solid leftovers that I didn't even get to mention.

And I -- er, K-Mack -- had to separate out/postpone the entire No. 1 seed-in-the-east column until next week.

+K to K-Mack for the ATN.  Good stuff.

[labart96]

I think the issue of roster limits and stuff like they were discussing this week is BS.

Amen counselor....

[JT]

I had a text convo with a friend earlier tonight about the topic of the East.  The following were my messages regarding my honest defense of the East that I haven't seen here to this point.  Feel free to debate:

"Well, I think you need to consider two things before you make a final judgment [that the East is weak] there. First, I named you 11 teams generally in the mix for the top 2 spots in the East [Union, RPI, Hobart, SJF, Ithaca, Alfred, Rowan, Montclair, Cortland, DelVal, Lycoming]. Drop Wesley, MUC and UWW. Now name me 10 teams from the other regions that you can make the same claim for.

Second, the East has the fewest Pool A conferences -- 5. One of them is the NEFC. So those 11 teams I named are dispersed only in 4 conferences. This means that we will see no more than 4 undefeated teams here of quality -- and less since they intermix at a high level. The fact that the other regions have so many 9-0 and 10-0 teams tells you two things: there are simply more Pool A conferences in which they are dispersed and they are not crossing over as much against quality OOC teams in their own region.    If that wasn't true, there would be less X-0 teams. I think we have trouble understanding what the numbers DON'T mean as much as we understand what they DO mean. DVC is X-1. Why? Because they took the top South team to the edge. If DVC scheduled Salve Regina instead, they would be X-0. This isn't isolated here (Cortland/Ithaca, Fisher/Hobart, Union/Ithaca, Rowan/Lycoming, Alfred/RPI, etc.). Someone has to lose those games.

I think the issue of roster limits and stuff like they were discussing this week is BS. 100 players is sufficient for a quality, deep team if you have [high quality athletes] across the board. They're just not understanding the issue of their own region's structure (BTW, throw in Springfield in the mix and remember Springfield/Union is a game, too).

[When challenged on the East's strength in the nation] How can SoS numbers look good for East teams if even playing the "quality" teams here involves computing more losses in the equation? We're looking at incomplete numbers right now. The East is at a disadvantage in SoS when the season ends because the intermixing forces more L's in every team's equation. And SoS is the main determining factor for any 1-loss teams surviving the regular season without Pool A bids.

[When it was stated that ADs are taking responsibility for the East's weakness of late] They're trying to take responsibility for things they don't even understand. Look at the NJAC's tiebreaker. OOWP isn't meant for a standalone stat. Yet, that's their 3-way tiebreak?! ADs endorsed that?! They don't understand.

[Still being challenged on depth] Fine, then shift a conference to the East that's in the North or South.  Let's make the playing field level. I bet a lot would change and scheduling would become very odd suddenly compared to what happens now. The East is NOT at level footing.

Name me 11 teams, aside from UWW that, every year, are in the discussion for the top 2 seeds in that bracket (and North and South).  How many of your top teams in other regions intermix in reg season?

[When challenged on why depth means ignoring MUC, WES, and UWW for a moment] No, because DEPTH means number of teams of quality. I'm focusing on depth.

The only team the East's strongest teams get measured against now is MUC. So if we use that as an indicator, sure, the East is awful. But aside from UWW and Wesley, no team from any region challenges MUC. So we have to appraise the East beyond performance in the playoffs -- or grade the North, South and West using the same rationale. But one team in each region is not what defines depth.

It's a more salient debate than I think some people understand when u look at the geography, teams and numbers involved together."

Holy in depth analysis Batman! +K

[dlippiel]

I had a text convo with a friend earlier tonight about the topic of the East.  The following were my messages regarding my honest defense of the East that I haven't seen here to this point.  Feel free to debate:

"Well, I think you need to consider two things before you make a final judgment [that the East is weak] there. First, I named you 11 teams generally in the mix for the top 2 spots in the East [Union, RPI, Hobart, SJF, Ithaca, Alfred, Rowan, Montclair, Cortland, DelVal, Lycoming]. Drop Wesley, MUC and UWW. Now name me 10 teams from the other regions that you can make the same claim for.

Second, the East has the fewest Pool A conferences -- 5. One of them is the NEFC. So those 11 teams I named are dispersed only in 4 conferences. This means that we will see no more than 4 undefeated teams here of quality -- and less since they intermix at a high level. The fact that the other regions have so many 9-0 and 10-0 teams tells you two things: there are simply more Pool A conferences in which they are dispersed and they are not crossing over as much against quality OOC teams in their own region.    If that wasn't true, there would be less X-0 teams. I think we have trouble understanding what the numbers DON'T mean as much as we understand what they DO mean. DVC is X-1. Why? Because they took the top South team to the edge. If DVC scheduled Salve Regina instead, they would be X-0. This isn't isolated here (Cortland/Ithaca, Fisher/Hobart, Union/Ithaca, Rowan/Lycoming, Alfred/RPI, etc.). Someone has to lose those games.

I think the issue of roster limits and stuff like they were discussing this week is BS. 100 players is sufficient for a quality, deep team if you have [high quality athletes] across the board. They're just not understanding the issue of their own region's structure (BTW, throw in Springfield in the mix and remember Springfield/Union is a game, too).

[When challenged on the East's strength in the nation] How can SoS numbers look good for East teams if even playing the "quality" teams here involves computing more losses in the equation? We're looking at incomplete numbers right now. The East is at a disadvantage in SoS when the season ends because the intermixing forces more L's in every team's equation. And SoS is the main determining factor for any 1-loss teams surviving the regular season without Pool A bids.

[When it was stated that ADs are taking responsibility for the East's weakness of late] They're trying to take responsibility for things they don't even understand. Look at the NJAC's tiebreaker. OOWP isn't meant for a standalone stat. Yet, that's their 3-way tiebreak?! ADs endorsed that?! They don't understand.

[Still being challenged on depth] Fine, then shift a conference to the East that's in the North or South.  Let's make the playing field level. I bet a lot would change and scheduling would become very odd suddenly compared to what happens now. The East is NOT at level footing.

Name me 11 teams, aside from UWW that, every year, are in the discussion for the top 2 seeds in that bracket (and North and South).  How many of your top teams in other regions intermix in reg season?

[When challenged on why depth means ignoring MUC, WES, and UWW for a moment] No, because DEPTH means number of teams of quality. I'm focusing on depth.

The only team the East's strongest teams get measured against now is MUC. So if we use that as an indicator, sure, the East is awful. But aside from UWW and Wesley, no team from any region challenges MUC. So we have to appraise the East beyond performance in the playoffs -- or grade the North, South and West using the same rationale. But one team in each region is not what defines depth.

It's a more salient debate than I think some people understand when u look at the geography, teams and numbers involved together."

Rossi very solid. You have, in many ways, brought dlip around with these points. dlip cannot remember a single post by another that ever really got dlip thinking and formulating an opinion as much as this post. Well done. There is a reason dlip holds you in high regard.

[clandfan]

Tip of the hat Frank....well done.

[clandfan]

OK....Now what?