East Region Playoff Discussion

[Jonny Utah]

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.

This is the main point though, but I still don't think it is such a big deal since the only thing that really changes is that the easts best team has to face MUC in round 3 instead of round 4.

As a small tease to Keith's article this week, here's my answer to this question when he posed it to me:

3. If you have to go through Mount Union to win it all anyway, what difference does it make when you do it?

There are two reasons. First, the disrespect issue -- it penalizes the East teams that schedule strong out-of-conference opponents (like Delaware Valley when the team schedules Wesley).  Because of the severe risk DelVal took, the team now likely gets penalized with the potential of just two home playoff games if it makes it that far.  That's a complete sign of disrespect to a team that tried to give the country an exciting cross-regional game.

Second, it's a self-defeating prophecy for the East.  The way to create an East team that can actually regularly compete with the powers of the South, West and North is by allowing a team to get the practice and actual game experience deeper in the playoffs.  By placing Mount Union in the East, it shorts the potential East winner one full game since no East team will go to the Semifinals if Mount Union isn't eliminated by them or another team earlier in the process.  The extra week of practice and extra game against a quality team would provide experience and lessons that can't be matched in normal regular season play.  So, if a team tries to go out and schedule a playoff-caliber team out of conference, they likely get penalized by being knocked down the bracket if they make it into the playoffs at all.  The Committee is not providing the East with a sufficient ability to breed a powerhouse by repeatedly placing Mount Union in the East and by penalizing teams taking risks earlier in the season.

Ok.  But what risk did Del Val really take?  Isn't that the same risk Ithaca takes by scheduling Union, Lycoming or Cortland?  Or the risk Union takes by playing Springfield or Ithaca?  Ithaca, Union and Del Val know that for all intents and purposes, they have to win their league to make the playoffs.  If Del Val is really worried about getting the number 1 seed in the east, then yea, don't play Wesley and go 10-0 in the MAC.  But what would have happend if Del Val beat Wesley but lost the league to a 9-1 Albright like what happened last year?  What happens is that Del Val probably makes the playoffs because of the win against Wesley (which they almost did anyway).  So the pro of having that extra game would be to actually making the playoffs while the con would be to having one more home game in round 3?  Thats why I think the pros overweigh the cons in that situation.

As for the extra week of practice, yea that helps but that is a very minor issue in the long run in my opinion.  It might help you for the next season, but for the season at hand, teams that are playing in week 13 all have 13 weeks of practice don't they?  And you might even have an advantage against Mt. Union earlier in the playoffs because you aren't as banged up or as tired in round 1 like you might be in round 4.  Mount Union is used to playing 14-15 games, Ithaca, Union and Hobart are not.  It might give east teams an advantage in round 1 againts MUC.  (edit: I would see an advantage of playing in a stagg bowl, but I do not see that much of an advantage playing in a semifinal game)

Right now, the Committee would treat that Wesley win as a pure win.  Not a win vs. Wesley.  It doesn't look like the Committee is doing much "win differentiation" or "loss differentiation."  I'd like to see DelVal/Wesley remain because it can only make DelVal better in the longrun unless they will be penalized by losing a quality game later in the process.  Why should scheduling Wesley early hurt DelVal if Wesley is likely going to be the top South team year to year?  If DVC loses to a MAC team and loses the MAC through that (8-2), DVC is done for the season -- that DelVal/Wesley game is suddenly a death knell when combined with the Albright or Lycoming loss.  Where's the reward for scheduling?  I'd say that DVC has taken a larger risk than Ithaca and Union, etc.  It's more on the keel of the risk SJF took vs. MUC for two years.  That game was not going to benefit SJF -- it required SJF to go undefeated for the rest of the season to enter the playoffs, while everyone else could still burn a game and potentially make it.  Again -- NO INCENTIVE.

Part of the problem here is that you're seeing just one part of my argument.  Keith said he'll be posting my entire argument later in the week -- so I might sit back now and let you guys argue the points that I have included so far.  Incentivization of scheduling is a huge thing -- and that scheduling needs to break regional boundaries to make things a little more interesting (and to spread losses to the other regions instead of containing them within four quality conferences).  More later in the week.

First off I agree with most of what you are saying.  I'm playing devils advocate a little, but I'm also not really seeing the big picture with this arguement about the "east being weak".  I know its just a discussion, but 90% of the problem is that MUC has better coaches and players than Union or Ithaca does.  All this stuff we are talking about here is important, but in my opinion its just a small part of the easts problem.

Secondly, isn't Wesley/Del Vall a regional game, and doesn't the NCAA have primary and seondary criteria which would basically take a win versus Wesley into consideration?  Name me a team that didn't make the playoffs that deserved to because of their nonleague schedule.  I can think of an Ithaca team which did make it because of their non-league wins.

Again if DelVal loses to a MAC team and Wesley and loses the conference, can you really make the arguement that they deserved to make the playoffs anyway? 

[wesleydad]

jt, i totally agree.  after talking to some mount people the last couple of years they would agree with you also.  the extra practice makes a difference, how much is open to debate, but it has to help.  if it turns out to be 2 extra years worth of playing time then that is a lot.  also, making them meet in the semis would certainly make a lot of other people happy.  the games have been good to watch, but it is getting old.  i agree with frank, delval is taking a risk playing wesley.  if they lose that game they can not slip up.  it has been great for wesley also in that it gives them a quality opponent to play early. it will be interesting to see how the rest of the year plays out and then see what happens with the seeding.  after seeing delval play twice this year, i would have no complaint if they got the one seed.  the south is going to be interesting with the undefeateds all thinking they deserve it.

[Frank Rossi]

If the losses were to Lycoming and Wesley by 3 on the road, yes I can.  Show me a team with one loss that would have a resume even close to the one DVC would possess at that point.  The Committee has pretty much thrown out the distinction between Primary and Secondary criteria since they view the sample size being considered to be too small to try to draw distinctions.  We heard Dick Kaiser say that as Chair a couple years ago, and it was pretty much echoed by Joy Solomen last year.  So, in-region and out-of-region wins and losses count pretty much equally now.  Look at the pros and cons of playing a powerhouse team in an OOC slot:

Pro -- If you can win, you may help your seeding slightly
Pro -- You've gotta play the best to be the best
Con -- If you lose, you are at risk, even in Pool C at 1 loss
Con -- Even if you make the playoffs with the loss, you'll lose at least one, maybe two home games and be seeded lower
Con -- You place your team at a disadvantage compared to the other teams in the Region that didn't take as much of a risk
Con -- If you're one of the top teams in the Region, you risk allowing MUC to take the top of the bracket if no other team in your Region can go undefeated, potentially taking away the experience you gained in the quality game you lost during the season since you likely don't make it to the Semifinals.

I just don't see the incentives to quality in-season scheduling anymore.  For all the years we used to pick on RPI's scheduling, I'm suddenly not opposed to the old RPI schedule -- although, I'd do it in a 10-game structure, not 9.  Go 10-0 against mediocre competition in the OOC games and get rewarded with a #1 seed and the chance to win three playoff games.  Why not?

[JT]

If the DIII playoffs was Texas Hold 'em with $10K buy in.  

Mount - has 10K in chips, always starts with pocket rockets, and always gets to bet last.
West team - has 10K in chips
South team - has 10K in chips
East team - pays 10K for chips but only gets 6K in chips, and always has to bet first.

Mount has earned the pocket rockets with their historical performance over the years.  They have not earned the right to always bet last.  Maybe that is why the East is "weak".

[Jonny Utah]

If the losses were to Lycoming and Wesley by 3 on the road, yes I can.  Show me a team with one loss that would have a resume even close to the one DVC would possess at that point.  The Committee has pretty much thrown out the distinction between Primary and Secondary criteria since they view the sample size being considered to be too small to try to draw distinctions.  We heard Dick Kaiser say that as Chair a couple years ago, and it was pretty much echoed by Joy Solomen last year.  So, in-region and out-of-region wins and losses count pretty much equally now.  Look at the pros and cons of playing a powerhouse team in an OOC slot:

Pro -- If you can win, you may help your seeding slightly
Pro -- You've gotta play the best to be the best
Con -- If you lose, you are at risk, even in Pool C at 1 loss
Con -- Even if you make the playoffs with the loss, you'll lose at least one, maybe two home games and be seeded lower
Con -- You place your team at a disadvantage compared to the other teams in the Region that didn't take as much of a risk
Con -- If you're one of the top teams in the Region, you risk allowing MUC to take the top of the bracket if no other team in your Region can go undefeated, potentially taking away the experience you gained in the quality game you lost during the season since you likely don't make it to the Semifinals.

I just don't see the incentives to quality in-season scheduling anymore.  For all the years we used to pick on RPI's scheduling, I'm suddenly not opposed to the old RPI schedule -- although, I'd do it in a 10-game structure, not 9.  Go 10-0 against mediocre competition in the OOC games and get rewarded with a #1 seed and the chance to win three playoff games.  Why not?

Again, if you lose to Lycoming by 3, you don't deserve to make the playoffs, and you whole body of work usually shows that.  The fact is DelVal did not lost to Lycoming by 3, they pretty much blew out everyone in the MAC, and they almost beat Wesley.  If they did lost to Lycoming by 3, they probably wouldn't have given Wesley a game either.

You also remember that if RPI goes 10-0 with a weak OCC, they probably deserve to make the playoffs and are more likely than not to be a great football team.  Take this year for an example.  They actually have a decent OCC but can win the league games.  The league games are 90% of it.  All this other stuff isn't going to matter and hasn't really mattered as far as I can tell.

[JT]

Since 1999:

Mount has been beaten once during the regular season in the OAC and never in the playoffs.  Mount has been beaten East, South, West five times.  Time for Mount's regional opponents to step up or shut up.  No?

[theoriginalupstate]

I just posted this in the E8 board, but this is how I feel...

It's a pointless argument honestly...

It's the East's fault and no one elses...

It's DVC's fault for losing to Wesley...

It's Fisher fault for not beating AU...

It's AU's fault for beating SJF and losing to RPI and UR...

It's Rowan's fault for losing to Montclair...

It's Corltand's fault for losing to Rowan...

It's Montclair's fault for losing to Cortland...

It's the LL's fault for sucking all together...

If ONE (just ONE and not ALL of them or a COMBINATION of them, just ONE) of those teams just would get their act together and win out this wouldn't be an issue...

The last time Mount wasn't in the East was 2006...

That year:

The West had 4 teams at 10-0 (UW-W, St. Norbert, Whitworth, Central)...

The South had 2 teams at 10-0 (Wesley, Carnegie Mellon)...

The North had 2 teams at 10-0 (Mount, Concordia)...

The East had 2 teams at 10-0 (Well 1 in Wilkes and then Curry at 11-0)...

[JT]

If the losses were to Lycoming and Wesley by 3 on the road, yes I can.  Show me a team with one loss that would have a resume even close to the one DVC would possess at that point.  The Committee has pretty much thrown out the distinction between Primary and Secondary criteria since they view the sample size being considered to be too small to try to draw distinctions.  We heard Dick Kaiser say that as Chair a couple years ago, and it was pretty much echoed by Joy Solomen last year.  So, in-region and out-of-region wins and losses count pretty much equally now.  Look at the pros and cons of playing a powerhouse team in an OOC slot:

Pro -- If you can win, you may help your seeding slightly
Pro -- You've gotta play the best to be the best
Con -- If you lose, you are at risk, even in Pool C at 1 loss
Con -- Even if you make the playoffs with the loss, you'll lose at least one, maybe two home games and be seeded lower
Con -- You place your team at a disadvantage compared to the other teams in the Region that didn't take as much of a risk
Con -- If you're one of the top teams in the Region, you risk allowing MUC to take the top of the bracket if no other team in your Region can go undefeated, potentially taking away the experience you gained in the quality game you lost during the season since you likely don't make it to the Semifinals.

I just don't see the incentives to quality in-season scheduling anymore.  For all the years we used to pick on RPI's scheduling, I'm suddenly not opposed to the old RPI schedule -- although, I'd do it in a 10-game structure, not 9.  Go 10-0 against mediocre competition in the OOC games and get rewarded with a #1 seed and the chance to win three playoff games.  Why not?

Again, if you lose to Lycoming by 3, you don't deserve to make the playoffs, and you whole body of work usually shows that.  The fact is DelVal did not lost to Lycoming by 3, they pretty much blew out everyone in the MAC, and they almost beat Wesley.  If they did lost to Lycoming by 3, they probably wouldn't have given Wesley a game either.

You also remember that if RPI goes 10-0 with a weak OCC, they probably deserve to make the playoffs and are more likely than not to be a great football team.  Take this year for an example.  They actually have a decent OCC but can win the league games.  The league games are 90% of it.  All this other stuff isn't going to matter and hasn't really mattered as far as I can tell.

FWIW... RPI took their weak regular season to the semi's against St John's in 2003. RPI played better against the National Champs then Mount Union did in the Stagg Bowl that year.  The funny thing is that RPI almost didn't get a bid.  They finished 11-2.

[Frank Rossi]

Upstate, who were the OOC opponents of the other regions' undefeated teams that year?  I'm serious -- I don't have time to look because I'm running to church and prepping for ITH tonight.  However, how many OOCs did they all play, and what was the strength of the OOC opponents at least on a subjective level?

[JT]

I just posted this in the E8 board, but this is how I feel...

It's a pointless argument honestly...

It's the East's fault and no one elses...

It's DVC's fault for losing to Wesley...

It's Fisher fault for not beating AU...

It's AU's fault for beating SJF and losing to RPI and UR...

It's Rowan's fault for losing to Montclair...

It's Corltand's fault for losing to Rowan...

It's Montclair's fault for losing to Cortland...

It's the LL's fault for sucking all together...

If ONE (just ONE and not ALL of them or a COMBINATION of them, just ONE) of those teams just would get their act together and win out this wouldn't be an issue...

The last time Mount wasn't in the East was 2006...

That year:

The West had 4 teams at 10-0 (UW-W, St. Norbert, Whitworth, Central)...

The South had 2 teams at 10-0 (Wesley, Carnegie Mellon)...

The North had 2 teams at 10-0 (Mount, Concordia)...

The East had 2 teams at 10-0 (Well 1 in Wilkes and then Curry at 11-0)...

Yet the North clearly benefits from this arrangement, since they can't beat Mount in the playoffs, and only once in the regular season since 1994.

[Jonny Utah]

If the losses were to Lycoming and Wesley by 3 on the road, yes I can.  Show me a team with one loss that would have a resume even close to the one DVC would possess at that point.  The Committee has pretty much thrown out the distinction between Primary and Secondary criteria since they view the sample size being considered to be too small to try to draw distinctions.  We heard Dick Kaiser say that as Chair a couple years ago, and it was pretty much echoed by Joy Solomen last year.  So, in-region and out-of-region wins and losses count pretty much equally now.  Look at the pros and cons of playing a powerhouse team in an OOC slot:

Pro -- If you can win, you may help your seeding slightly
Pro -- You've gotta play the best to be the best
Con -- If you lose, you are at risk, even in Pool C at 1 loss
Con -- Even if you make the playoffs with the loss, you'll lose at least one, maybe two home games and be seeded lower
Con -- You place your team at a disadvantage compared to the other teams in the Region that didn't take as much of a risk
Con -- If you're one of the top teams in the Region, you risk allowing MUC to take the top of the bracket if no other team in your Region can go undefeated, potentially taking away the experience you gained in the quality game you lost during the season since you likely don't make it to the Semifinals.

I just don't see the incentives to quality in-season scheduling anymore.  For all the years we used to pick on RPI's scheduling, I'm suddenly not opposed to the old RPI schedule -- although, I'd do it in a 10-game structure, not 9.  Go 10-0 against mediocre competition in the OOC games and get rewarded with a #1 seed and the chance to win three playoff games.  Why not?

Again, if you lose to Lycoming by 3, you don't deserve to make the playoffs, and you whole body of work usually shows that.  The fact is DelVal did not lost to Lycoming by 3, they pretty much blew out everyone in the MAC, and they almost beat Wesley.  If they did lost to Lycoming by 3, they probably wouldn't have given Wesley a game either.

You also remember that if RPI goes 10-0 with a weak OCC, they probably deserve to make the playoffs and are more likely than not to be a great football team.  Take this year for an example.  They actually have a decent OCC but can win the league games.  The league games are 90% of it.  All this other stuff isn't going to matter and hasn't really mattered as far as I can tell.

FWIW... RPI took their weak regular season to the semi's against St John's in 2003. RPI played better against the National Champs then Mount Union did in the Stagg Bowl that year.  The funny thing is that RPI almost didn't get a bid.  They finished 11-2.

With all due respect, they did get a bid, and they lost to SJU 38-10.  But you are right.  Ithaca gave MUC a game in 2007 and they had 2 losses and did better at MUC than any other team that year.

[theoriginalupstate]

Undefeated teams based on last weeks Regional Rankings:

North: 6
South: 6
West: 3
East: 2

[JT]

If the losses were to Lycoming and Wesley by 3 on the road, yes I can.  Show me a team with one loss that would have a resume even close to the one DVC would possess at that point.  The Committee has pretty much thrown out the distinction between Primary and Secondary criteria since they view the sample size being considered to be too small to try to draw distinctions.  We heard Dick Kaiser say that as Chair a couple years ago, and it was pretty much echoed by Joy Solomen last year.  So, in-region and out-of-region wins and losses count pretty much equally now.  Look at the pros and cons of playing a powerhouse team in an OOC slot:

Pro -- If you can win, you may help your seeding slightly
Pro -- You've gotta play the best to be the best
Con -- If you lose, you are at risk, even in Pool C at 1 loss
Con -- Even if you make the playoffs with the loss, you'll lose at least one, maybe two home games and be seeded lower
Con -- You place your team at a disadvantage compared to the other teams in the Region that didn't take as much of a risk
Con -- If you're one of the top teams in the Region, you risk allowing MUC to take the top of the bracket if no other team in your Region can go undefeated, potentially taking away the experience you gained in the quality game you lost during the season since you likely don't make it to the Semifinals.

I just don't see the incentives to quality in-season scheduling anymore.  For all the years we used to pick on RPI's scheduling, I'm suddenly not opposed to the old RPI schedule -- although, I'd do it in a 10-game structure, not 9.  Go 10-0 against mediocre competition in the OOC games and get rewarded with a #1 seed and the chance to win three playoff games.  Why not?

Again, if you lose to Lycoming by 3, you don't deserve to make the playoffs, and you whole body of work usually shows that.  The fact is DelVal did not lost to Lycoming by 3, they pretty much blew out everyone in the MAC, and they almost beat Wesley.  If they did lost to Lycoming by 3, they probably wouldn't have given Wesley a game either.

You also remember that if RPI goes 10-0 with a weak OCC, they probably deserve to make the playoffs and are more likely than not to be a great football team.  Take this year for an example.  They actually have a decent OCC but can win the league games.  The league games are 90% of it.  All this other stuff isn't going to matter and hasn't really mattered as far as I can tell.

FWIW... RPI took their weak regular season to the semi's against St John's in 2003. RPI played better against the National Champs then Mount Union did in the Stagg Bowl that year.  The funny thing is that RPI almost didn't get a bid.  They finished 11-2.

With all due respect, they did get a bid, and they lost to SJU 38-10.  But you are right.  Ithaca gave MUC a game in 2007 and they had 2 losses and did better at MUC than any other team that year.

Tied 10-10 at half.

[Jonny Utah]

If the losses were to Lycoming and Wesley by 3 on the road, yes I can.  Show me a team with one loss that would have a resume even close to the one DVC would possess at that point.  The Committee has pretty much thrown out the distinction between Primary and Secondary criteria since they view the sample size being considered to be too small to try to draw distinctions.  We heard Dick Kaiser say that as Chair a couple years ago, and it was pretty much echoed by Joy Solomen last year.  So, in-region and out-of-region wins and losses count pretty much equally now.  Look at the pros and cons of playing a powerhouse team in an OOC slot:

Pro -- If you can win, you may help your seeding slightly
Pro -- You've gotta play the best to be the best
Con -- If you lose, you are at risk, even in Pool C at 1 loss
Con -- Even if you make the playoffs with the loss, you'll lose at least one, maybe two home games and be seeded lower
Con -- You place your team at a disadvantage compared to the other teams in the Region that didn't take as much of a risk
Con -- If you're one of the top teams in the Region, you risk allowing MUC to take the top of the bracket if no other team in your Region can go undefeated, potentially taking away the experience you gained in the quality game you lost during the season since you likely don't make it to the Semifinals.

I just don't see the incentives to quality in-season scheduling anymore.  For all the years we used to pick on RPI's scheduling, I'm suddenly not opposed to the old RPI schedule -- although, I'd do it in a 10-game structure, not 9.  Go 10-0 against mediocre competition in the OOC games and get rewarded with a #1 seed and the chance to win three playoff games.  Why not?

Again, if you lose to Lycoming by 3, you don't deserve to make the playoffs, and you whole body of work usually shows that.  The fact is DelVal did not lost to Lycoming by 3, they pretty much blew out everyone in the MAC, and they almost beat Wesley.  If they did lost to Lycoming by 3, they probably wouldn't have given Wesley a game either.

You also remember that if RPI goes 10-0 with a weak OCC, they probably deserve to make the playoffs and are more likely than not to be a great football team.  Take this year for an example.  They actually have a decent OCC but can win the league games.  The league games are 90% of it.  All this other stuff isn't going to matter and hasn't really mattered as far as I can tell.

FWIW... RPI took their weak regular season to the semi's against St John's in 2003. RPI played better against the National Champs then Mount Union did in the Stagg Bowl that year.  The funny thing is that RPI almost didn't get a bid.  They finished 11-2.

With all due respect, they did get a bid, and they lost to SJU 38-10.  But you are right.  Ithaca gave MUC a game in 2007 and they had 2 losses and did better at MUC than any other team that year.

Tied 10-10 at half.

Yea but thats kind of my whole point here.  Are we really worried about halftime scores, round 3 or 4 respect home games from a neighboring state, or extra weeks of practice that would benefit you the next season?  MUC has crushed everyone over the past 10 years.  Yea there have been close games at halftime, close games in general, and 1 or 2 upsets, but in general the best teams from the east make the playoffs and everyone has a fair chance to win a national championship (or at least compete for one).

[usee]

Some tgreat thoughts on here. I have been reading with interest over the last few days and thought I'd chime in from an outsiders perspective.

This series of arguments is a repeat of years of arguments we have had in the North and elsewhere the past few years. As a follower of the CCIW and a Wheaton fan, I can speak with some experience as Wheaton has made the playoffs 6 times in the last 15 years. They have won every playoff game in the North to teams not named Mt Union. They won the north region in 2008 (which is the last time UWW or Mt Union were not in the North) and lost to Mt in the Semi's.

I don't think the East is getting screwed by anybody (except maybe the NESCAC). you have 51 eligble teams (61 with the NESCAC teams) and 4 Pool A bids (which would be 5 if not for the ....). the North has 56 teams, the west 58 teams and the south 60 teams. The NCAA won't get rid of the regional concept because they want to reward teams who don't spend money in scheduling. That said I totally agree with the concept that scheduling tough games is NOT rewarded.

In the CCIW this year the conference went 23-1 in non conference games. 7 of their 8 teams are now in the top SOS based on this despite playing the likes of Olivet, greenville, Luther, Albion, Illinois College, Benedictine, etc. Their non AQ (the loser of this weeks NCC/Wheaton game) is a virtual lock for a Pool C based on the SOS and other criteria despite playing a "weak sauce" non conference schedule. Last year, North Central went 8-2 and didn't get in as Pool C because they lost in week 1 to Ohio Northern. Thanks for scheduling. If they had played Olivet and finished 9-1, they are in the playoffs.

Separately, the idea of the East being "weak" stems from 2002 when John Carroll was the OAC #2 and a pool C and won the East bracket, falling to Mt in the semis. Since that time there hasn't been a competitive East game against Mt Union (except maybe Ithaca in 07). Prior to that, the East was perceived to be strong with Rowan and much earlier the likes of Ithaca, Union, Salisbury, etc making deep post season runs. I don't think the perception is accurate, but that is how it has come about IMO. It will take some cross regional competition to change that, barring a deep post season run and/or a competitive game vs Mt Union.

In the North, we know we either get Mt Union or UWW in our bracket every year. All you can do is win your games and get seeded opposite them in your region. That gives you at least a couple post season games and the experience of playing at Mt Union/UWW to help your program try and close the gap. North Central is working on the formula to compete with the big dogs. Their theory is 1 player from every 10 recruits (raising their roster to 150+ this year) and scheduling tough teams across regions to raise their profile (despite it costing them a pool C last year). We will all know in a month or so how it is working out!