East Region Playoff Discussion

[emma17]

I don't think I singled out the OAC, so I'm not sure where that came from.  That said, if the dipstick is competitiveness against Mount Union, I think I remember just one scare since ONU beat Mount in 2005 in the school's entire OAC schedule (63 games in 7 years).  So, if you're asking me to use that as the end-all, be-all indicator, then you're really not convincing me of much.  That said, that's not how I derive relative strength since comparing results against Mount doesn't give you much statistical significance.  For instance, Widener yesterday tied the most points scored against Mount this season.  That must mean they have one of the most potent offenses in the country, right?  Hmmmm... That's the trouble you get in when you try to compare losses of 55 against losses of 25 -- it doesn't prove much.

I actually had a few OAC teams besides Mount in my ballot this season (BW, Ott, Heid).  So, I don't discount the strength overall.  However, what you're trying to focus in on is consistency -- and neither region (Mount excluded) has shown much of it.  What you're grasping at is the idea that there are a couple teams that showed glimmers of hope in the last five years in the North (Wheaton, NCC, etc.).  That begs the question:  since regions average 7-8 teams per year in the playoffs and the first two rounds generally have in-region matchups, didn't SOMEBODY have to win from the North and the East in those years?  Until last year, the regional crossover in the playoffs wasn't much to speak of, especially early on.  Since that crossover began, the East hasn't done terribly -- and if you toss out Mount in the analysis, I believe the East outperformed the North in these two years (it's either on par or better based on my quick glimpse).

I stick to my original statements yesterday -- no verdict can be drawn from yesterday about the overall relative strength from the East any more than the verdicts we've tried to reach in prior years.  My statement goes a step further, though, in saying that since the regional crossovers began last year, the East hasn't exactly, as LD would put it, dropped the deuce.  Once we get beyond Wesley, UMHB, Mount, UWW, Linfield and St. Thomas most years, there's not exactly much ability to spot the level of consistency.  The problem that we're spotting is that there is no East team in that pack of 6.  My response would be that the West was not as stacked as stated there a decade ago, so things do change as teams get better.  In five years, this conversation will be held in another region's message boards because things do change, as pointed out by another poster concerning the Rowan era.

The dipstick isn't winning or losing vs Mt (and why do you ignore a 40 point loss to St Thomas) it's the results of the effort to make the playoffs as competitive as possible. Two teams from the East Region lost their playoff games by a combined total of 95 points- 95 points. There is only one conclusion from that result, the Committee needs to go back to the drawing board and reconsider how pairings are determined.
When there are only 8 teams remaining, it reflects negatively on D3 to have such blowouts.

[Frank Rossi]

I don't think I singled out the OAC, so I'm not sure where that came from.  That said, if the dipstick is competitiveness against Mount Union, I think I remember just one scare since ONU beat Mount in 2005 in the school's entire OAC schedule (63 games in 7 years).  So, if you're asking me to use that as the end-all, be-all indicator, then you're really not convincing me of much.  That said, that's not how I derive relative strength since comparing results against Mount doesn't give you much statistical significance.  For instance, Widener yesterday tied the most points scored against Mount this season.  That must mean they have one of the most potent offenses in the country, right?  Hmmmm... That's the trouble you get in when you try to compare losses of 55 against losses of 25 -- it doesn't prove much.

I actually had a few OAC teams besides Mount in my ballot this season (BW, Ott, Heid).  So, I don't discount the strength overall.  However, what you're trying to focus in on is consistency -- and neither region (Mount excluded) has shown much of it.  What you're grasping at is the idea that there are a couple teams that showed glimmers of hope in the last five years in the North (Wheaton, NCC, etc.).  That begs the question:  since regions average 7-8 teams per year in the playoffs and the first two rounds generally have in-region matchups, didn't SOMEBODY have to win from the North and the East in those years?  Until last year, the regional crossover in the playoffs wasn't much to speak of, especially early on.  Since that crossover began, the East hasn't done terribly -- and if you toss out Mount in the analysis, I believe the East outperformed the North in these two years (it's either on par or better based on my quick glimpse).

I stick to my original statements yesterday -- no verdict can be drawn from yesterday about the overall relative strength from the East any more than the verdicts we've tried to reach in prior years.  My statement goes a step further, though, in saying that since the regional crossovers began last year, the East hasn't exactly, as LD would put it, dropped the deuce.  Once we get beyond Wesley, UMHB, Mount, UWW, Linfield and St. Thomas most years, there's not exactly much ability to spot the level of consistency.  The problem that we're spotting is that there is no East team in that pack of 6.  My response would be that the West was not as stacked as stated there a decade ago, so things do change as teams get better.  In five years, this conversation will be held in another region's message boards because things do change, as pointed out by another poster concerning the Rowan era.

The dipstick isn't winning or losing vs Mt (and why do you ignore a 40 point loss to St Thomas) it's the results of the effort to make the playoffs as competitive as possible. Two teams from the East Region lost their playoff games by a combined total of 95 points- 95 points. There is only one conclusion from that result, the Committee needs to go back to the drawing board and reconsider how pairings are determined.
When there are only 8 teams remaining, it reflects negatively on D3 to have such blowouts.

I think a grand total of 7 games out of the 28 games played so far in the playoffs have been what I'd call highly competitive based on the scoreboard alone so far.  If we extend it to the 12-point game at UMHB yesterday, I'll grant you an 8th.  No team has played competitively against Mount Union so far, regardless of region.  If you're going to use the Hobart result to taint an entire region and playoff structure, then I guess Hobart proved in the first two weeks that the East is greater than the South and the North (when Mount isn't considered).  That's basically what your post suggests.

[DanPadavona]

Not a good showing in my opinion.  What signature win did the east win?  And against the #1 seeds then best of the east were not competitive.

Not saying region isn't solid overall, but it severely lacks elite teams.

This would make more sense if the following wasn't the breakdown of today's participants:

East - 2
South - 2
West - 3
North - 1

If the North is going to live and die by the fortunes of Mount Union every year, then I question the logic of undercutting the East to that degree today.

Frank, I appreciate your defense of the East region playoff teams.  But you seem to give no attention to the fact that the two East region teams lost by a combined total of 95 points.  I'm not knocking the East region as quite honestly, I don't know much about them being from the midwest.  But 95 points in the third round is simply too much of a disparity and shouldn't happen this deep in the playoffs.  The simple fact that the East had two teams in the third round isn't proof of their ability to play at the highest level- it's purely a function of who they played to get this far. 
I hope the East does produce a top tier team, it's good for D3 football.

Let's not skirt the fact that the North has basically one team. And then North Central, which has been competitive in the playoffs but has yet to make a serious title run. Would you like to compare scores? Wittenberg beats Capital 44-17 and then gets beaten by Hobart 35-10. Do we seriously want to denigrate the East when clearly Wittenberg was a full tier below the best Eastern teams?

How did Franklin do? Lost 63-17 to UMHB. Is that much different than what Wesley did to Cortland, or Mount Union over Widener? And why aren't we slamming Salisbury, since Widener beat them convincingly one week prior? How did southern participants like Johns Hopkins and Christopher Newport do in the playoffs this season?

The problem with D3 Football is there are only 2 or 3 relevant championship contenders in any given year, and only a handful more which can compete with the Top 2. The drop-off between #5 and #15 is ridiculously steep. And for the last decade, one could argue that the drop-off between #1 and #5 was just as steep.

As much as I detest the BCS system, the BCS division is much more interesting to watch on a national scale. Just in the last few weeks I have watched Texas A&M stun Alabama on the road, Baylor destroy an unbeaten Kansas State, and a supposedly unbeatable Oregon team go down. Heck nobody has taken Notre Dame seriously for almost 2 decades and they are about to play for the National Championship. Can you imagine Wittenberg going on the road and beating Mount Union? How about some D3 team coming from nowhere in 2013 to play for the NCAA Championship? No, I can't imagine it either.

I love D3, but beyond following my own team, their conference, and their trophy game, D3 football doesn't interest me that much anymore. It's not sour grapes. It's simply...boring. Great for Mount Union fans I'm sure, and great for UWW for the last several years too, but dreadfully dull for a lot of us.  It shouldn't be so easy to predict national champions in August, and that doesn't bode well for long term interest in the product.

The only light at the end of the tunnel I can see is that there are 4 strong teams at the finish this season. That's not something we have seen a lot of in recent memory. Between Oshkosh, UMHB, MUC, and St Thomas, I think you can make an interesting argument for any of the 4 as being the team to beat. But once you get past those Top 4, who is competitive with the eventual champion? Anybody?

[repete]

I'd say likely Linfield this season ...

[DanPadavona]

You may be right about that, but we'll see how Oshkosh does now that the Final 4 is set.

[dlippiel]

Dlip did over react yesterday and has had some time to reflect and most importantly, relax. To dlip there is very little if no way to really compare the regions. What makes most sense to dlip is the tiers. You have the top which consists of 5-6 teams out of ****ing 238. Then the second tier, which in itself can really be broken into 2 tier (ex. Wesley and Salisbury). Looking at these two, the Gulls are  consistently competitive with the Wolverines yet can't get over the hump. The Gulls then lose to a Widener team whom dlip feels would get  homogenized by Wesley. Then tier three which consists of like maybe 100 teams, and another 100 or so in tier 4. Maybe even some in a lowest tier, who knows???

The bottom line for our beloved east is that we are a touch im the second, mostly in the third, some fourth, and some in the fifth tier. **** dlip could tier all day! We are strong across tier three IDHO.

[SUADC]

Not a good showing in my opinion.  What signature win did the east win?  And against the #1 seeds then best of the east were not competitive.

Not saying region isn't solid overall, but it severely lacks elite teams.

This would make more sense if the following wasn't the breakdown of today's participants:

East - 2
South - 2
West - 3
North - 1

If the North is going to live and die by the fortunes of Mount Union every year, then I question the logic of undercutting the East to that degree today.

Frank, I appreciate your defense of the East region playoff teams.  But you seem to give no attention to the fact that the two East region teams lost by a combined total of 95 points.  I'm not knocking the East region as quite honestly, I don't know much about them being from the midwest.  But 95 points in the third round is simply too much of a disparity and shouldn't happen this deep in the playoffs.  The simple fact that the East had two teams in the third round isn't proof of their ability to play at the highest level- it's purely a function of who they played to get this far. 
I hope the East does produce a top tier team, it's good for D3 football.

Let's not skirt the fact that the North has basically one team. And then North Central, which has been competitive in the playoffs but has yet to make a serious title run. Would you like to compare scores? Wittenberg beats Capital 44-17 and then gets beaten by Hobart 35-10. Do we seriously want to denigrate the East when clearly Wittenberg was a full tier below the best Eastern teams?

How did Franklin do? Lost 63-17 to UMHB. Is that much different than what Wesley did to Cortland, or Mount Union over Widener? And why aren't we slamming Salisbury, since Widener beat them convincingly one week prior? How did southern participants like Johns Hopkins and Christopher Newport do in the playoffs this season?

The problem with D3 Football is there are only 2 or 3 relevant championship contenders in any given year, and only a handful more which can compete with the Top 2. The drop-off between #5 and #15 is ridiculously steep. And for the last decade, one could argue that the drop-off between #1 and #5 was just as steep.

As much as I detest the BCS system, the BCS division is much more interesting to watch on a national scale. Just in the last few weeks I have watched Texas A&M stun Alabama on the road, Baylor destroy an unbeaten Kansas State, and a supposedly unbeatable Oregon team go down. Heck nobody has taken Notre Dame seriously for almost 2 decades and they are about to play for the National Championship. Can you imagine Wittenberg going on the road and beating Mount Union? How about some D3 team coming from nowhere in 2013 to play for the NCAA Championship? No, I can't imagine it either.

I love D3, but beyond following my own team, their conference, and their trophy game, D3 football doesn't interest me that much anymore. It's not sour grapes. It's simply...boring. Great for Mount Union fans I'm sure, and great for UWW for the last several years too, but dreadfully dull for a lot of us.  It shouldn't be so easy to predict national champions in August, and that doesn't bode well for long term interest in the product.

The only light at the end of the tunnel I can see is that there are 4 strong teams at the finish this season. That's not something we have seen a lot of in recent memory. Between Oshkosh, UMHB, MUC, and St Thomas, I think you can make an interesting argument for any of the 4 as being the team to beat. But once you get past those Top 4, who is competitive with the eventual champion? Anybody?

IMHO, I think that the difference between being "ELITE" within these top teams is the coaching, there is talent on every team and don't get me wrong, some teams clearly have more talented players than others. However, when it comes to the playoffs, I believe that difference between close games and blowouts is either talent disparity, a team plays really bad and has a bad day, or the coaching. For example, Salisbury lost its game due to being very one dimensional offensively and early turnovers, there was no talent disparity between us and Widener.

If you look at the remaining four teams, they are well balance as far as running and passing. Now between those teams going forward, it comes down to defense. As for the four teams that loss this past weekend, Widener was one-dimensional, Wesley was somewhat one-dimensional. If you take away that big run in the first, Hobart was one-dimensional. Now out of the four games this past weekend two were competitive. Let's look at the Linfield vs UW-Oshkosh game, each teams appeared to be well-balance complemented with great coaching and great talent, therefore as many expected, it being a great game. Next, the UMHB vs. Wesley game, Wesley was very one-dimensional (ran more than the first game) especially in the redzone, but was complimented with a great defense (better than many expected). Then there is the games that east teams played in, I believe there was a coaching experience gap between the east teams and their opponents, complimented with each team being one-dimensional, being one-dimensional just doesn't bode well when playing late in the playoffs. I believe the Guru's wrote up a great analysis early in the year that explained certain teams faired in the playoffs base on their style of play. I believe that if you are not clearly better than the other team your facing, you can't afford to be one-dimensional.

Now as far as the seedings concerned, I would like to see some head-to-head results for the year, before saying that a region is clearly better than another. It may be some team from a certain region is just better than everyone else.

If we look at this year's playoff (which says nothing):

East vs. South: 1-2
East vs. West: 0-1
East vs. North: 1-1
South vs. North: 1-2
South vs. West: 0-0
West vs. North: 2-2

Overall: East 2-4, West 3-2, South 3-3, and North 5-4
East losses: Wesley (2), UST (1), and MUC (1)
West losses: North Central (Ill.) (1), Elmhurst (1)
South Losses: Hobart (1), MUC (2)
North Losses: Linfield (1), Hobart (1), UST (1), and UMHB (1)

[hazzben]

The North is more competitive than you guys are giving them credit for. Elmhurst gave UST a great game. That's the third best team in the CCIW. NCC is a solid team. Wheaton didn't make the field, but would have been a prime candidate to win at least a game, if not two and been playing this past weekend.

The South has an elite team (UMHB) and a very good team (Wesley).

The West has 3 'elite' teams. UST, UWO and Linfield (they took their quarterfinal game to OT). By comparison, Hobart lost by a similar margin to UST as Bethel did. Did Hobart play it's best game, probably not...neither did Bethel. UST does that to you.

I think the difference is that every other region has elite level teams and other schools that are competitive with those elite teams. The East definitely has some good teams. But they don't have any elite teams or teams that can push or play with an elite team. And they haven't for some time. Again, there are good teams in the region. But I think there is a lack of top teams as well as depth of very good teams.

The teams that finish 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the WIAC, MIAC, NWC, CCIW, OAC, etc. seem much better than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams in the E8, LL or NJAC. And the conference champions of the non-East elite conferences are all Final Four or Stagg threats in most years. Several of the 2nd place teams in these conferences would have arguments that they could be undefeated in the East, given the results of recent years.

I'd love to see what North Central, Elmhurst, Wheaton, Bethel, UWP, Concordia-Moorhead, PLU or Coe could have done against Hobart and Widener. We'll never know. And I don't think Hobart and Widener would lose all or even most. But none of those teams are 'elite' North or West teams. And I think yesterday showed that several would have had every chance of beating Hobart or Widener.

Again, this isn't to conclude that the East is bad. But it is definitely the outlier of the 4 regions.

[boobyhasgameyo]

The North is more competitive than you guys are giving them credit for. Elmhurst gave UST a great game. That's the third best team in the CCIW. NCC is a solid team. Wheaton didn't make the field, but would have been a prime candidate to win at least a game, if not two and been playing this past weekend.

The South has an elite team (UMHB) and a very good team (Wesley).

The West has 3 'elite' teams. UST, UWO and Linfield (they took their quarterfinal game to OT). By comparison, Hobart lost by a similar margin to UST as Bethel did. Did Hobart play it's best game, probably not...neither did Bethel. UST does that to you.

I think the difference is that every other region has elite level teams and other schools that are competitive with those elite teams. The East definitely has some good teams. But they don't have any elite teams or teams that can push or play with an elite team. And they haven't for some time. Again, there are good teams in the region. But I think there is a lack of top teams as well as depth of very good teams.

The teams that finish 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the WIAC, MIAC, NWC, CCIW, OAC, etc. seem much better than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams in the E8, LL or NJAC. And the conference champions of the non-East elite conferences are all Final Four or Stagg threats in most years. Several of the 2nd place teams in these conferences would have arguments that they could be undefeated in the East, given the results of recent years.

I'd love to see what North Central, Elmhurst, Wheaton, Bethel, UWP, Concordia-Moorhead, PLU or Coe could have done against Hobart and Widener. We'll never know. And I don't think Hobart and Widener would lose all or even most. But none of those teams are 'elite' North or West teams. And I think yesterday showed that several would have had every chance of beating Hobart or Widener.

Again, this isn't to conclude that the East is bad. But it is definitely the outlier of the 4 regions.

The team that finished tied for second in the WIAC, Whitewater, lost to the team in a giant log jam for 3rd place in the E8 in Buff State. The second place team in the OAC couldn't even advance to the second round.  But the team that soundly defeated Heidelberg in the first round got smoked by Hobart.  Your line about the conference champions of the elite conferences being Stagg threats isn't really saying anything new as those are the conferences that have the 5 of 6 teams that we've been saying are elite all along.  It's not like Mount Union is coming out of the ECFC.  It's like you guys refuse to acknowledge the Southern and Northern conference champions or pool C's that we've beaten the past 2 years when they started crossing over more and only want to focus on how we lose to the huge teams we already said we cannot beat at this time. 

I will say the margin of defeat is probably your most compelling argument as to relative strength of conferences.  But looking at the MIAC for instance arguing oh hey we only lost to St. Thomas by 3 touchdowns where you lost by 5 isn't exactly enough science for me to say they'd run a train through our conference.  Also consider that a trip to St. Paul Minnesota is a different experience for our teams (and not exactly a hop skip and jump away) whereas you play against them year in and year out.  There is familiarity there. 

 

[Bombers798891]

The problem with the comparison scores is that people use it selectively...

I don't remember the East Region getting credit from non-east people when a third-place E8 team scored more points in one playoff game against Mount that the ENTIRE OAC did to that point. (Ithaca in 2007). It took an East region team less than a quarter to score a touchdown against a first team defense that hadn't been scored on all year and was supposedly invincible. And then they did it again the next quarter. And again later.

Was anyone outside of the East fans on these boards touting how good the East teams were because of that game? Or when Cortland followed that by giving Mount the closest game of their 2008 season to that point?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Booby and Bombers, since we're picking and choosing our examples, I'll join in!  Yes, Heidi, whom most of us thought to be the second or third best team in the north got rolled by Witt, which got totally rolled by Hobart.  (Either we were VERY wrong about Heidi, or they totally laid an egg.)  But Elmhurst (a tri-champion of the CCIW, but generally considered the least of the three) lost at UST by 7; Hobart lost by 40.

I'm not an East basher (there just are not enough inter-regional games to say much about all but the 'elite' teams, who meet each other in the last 2-3 rounds of the playoffs), but the North is NOT just Mount and a bunch of red-headed step-children.  A number of teams can compete with anyone (besides Elmhurst at UST, NCC beat #8 Cal Lu on the road, and might have beaten Linfield on the road if not for a bad case of the 'dropsies' [SEVEN TOs, several unforced]; Wheaton was probably better than Elmhurst but was not selected for the tourney, and IWU was undefeated and ranked #12 in the country before injuries decimated them - and that is JUST the CCIW).

[Bombers798891]

Booby and Bombers, since we're picking and choosing our examples, I'll join in!  Yes, Heidi, whom most of us thought to be the second or third best team in the north got rolled by Witt, which got totally rolled by Hobart.  (Either we were VERY wrong about Heidi, or they totally laid an egg.)  But Elmhurst (a tri-champion of the CCIW, but generally considered the least of the three) lost at UST by 7; Hobart lost by 40.

I'm not an East basher (there just are not enough inter-regional games to say much about all but the 'elite' teams, who meet each other in the last 2-3 rounds of the playoffs), but the North is NOT just Mount and a bunch of red-headed step-children.  A number of teams can compete with anyone (besides Elmhurst at UST, NCC beat #8 Cal Lu on the road, and might have beaten Linfield on the road if not for a bad case of the 'dropsies' [SEVEN TOs, several unforced]; Wheaton was probably better than Elmhurst but was not selected for the tourney, and IWU was undefeated and ranked #12 in the country before injuries decimated them - and that is JUST the CCIW).

I don't have a problem if people want to rank regions on strength, or that the East region is considered the weakest, even. But my point on bringing up the IC game is score comparisons are really useless. Beyond the fact that scores can be misleading for a variety of reasons, anyone can pick a handful of games that give them the answer they want. Lord knows we've seen East region teams get destroyed on the national stage, often by Mount. But let's not pretend the East just never shows up, ever.

[DanPadavona]

I am uncertain why we are debating regional strength at all these days. The regional bracket has all but disappeared, and brackets are now headlined by the top 4 seeds (or close to that) regardless of region. The only reason some semblance of region still exists in the playoffs is to cut down on travel cost in round 1. After round 1, it is a free-for-all.

Are any of the "out of region posters" suggesting that the East teams should not have been in the playoffs? Of course not. Every East team still alive after the first round clearly belonged in the playoffs. If you don't like seeing them in the Elite 8, then beat them before they make it there. If you want to argue about the merits of the ECFC, then you can feel free to preach to the converted. It matters not. The NCAA wants them in, so they are in. It's not an Eastern thing, it's an NCAA thing.

I spent most of Saturday afternoon watching the video feed of Wesley-UMHB, so I have no idea what St Thomas-Hobart looked like to the naked eye. Statistically it appeared to be very one-sided, and so I feel no compelling argument can be made that Hobart is close to St Thomas on a national scale. However, I do feel the score would have been closer had St. Thomas been asked to travel across the country to play Hobart, rather than the other way around. To some degree, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy when we rank a few elite teams as top seeds, and then allow them home field advantage until the Final Four.

That doesn't mean I think Widener would give Mount Union a good game at home. But I think the lopsided nature of these scores is exacerbated by forcing one set of teams to constantly prove themselves on the road.

I also think far more than coaching separates the top 4 teams from the top 25 teams. I watched the Wesley-Cortland feed, and I didn't feel more than 5 Cortland kids could legitimately have started for Wesley. Wish I could say I felt differently, but it looked like a talent mismatch, especially on the lines.

[lewdogg11]

Why is everyone ready to jump off of a bridge about the 'East' region.  Mount Union kills everyone.  St. Thomas has pretty much killed everyone, and MHB pretty much has killed everyone.

It's not a Regional thing going on.  There are always 2-4 really f'ing good teams and no one fares well against them.  Just because they happen to be in a particular part of the country means nothing.  They are just good.  It doesn't mean the Region is dominant, it means they have a good team. 

Look at MHB in 2008:
Round 1 they beat a 9-1 Wesley 46-14
Round 2 they beat an 11-1 W&J 63-7
Then in Round 3 they lose to UWW 39-13

I can give so many of these similar examples with UWW and Mt Union.  This year, it appears maybe St. Thomas IS that calibur too.  MHB definitely is, as well as Mt. Union(as always - and may have one of their better teams ever this year).  UW Osh-Kosh B'Gosh will probably get SMOKED by St. Thomas next week, and Mt. Union very well could roll MHB. 

This is not a regional issue.  1-4ish in the rankings are just typically a different calibur than the rest.  For those ranked 5-8, does it matter what Region they are in?  No, because the results would usually be the same against those top teams. 

The East won't/shouldn't be punished at all.  I think the East probably has more Tier 2 teams than any other Region.  They just haven't produced a Tier 1 team in 10-12 years.(but the Tier 1's have been the same pretty much throughout that time frame)

[Bombers798891]

There are always 2-4 really f'ing good teams and no one fares well against them. 

I think the East probably has more Tier 2 teams than any other Region.  They just haven't produced a Tier 1 team in 10-12 years.(but the Tier 1's have been the same pretty much throughout that time frame)

Co-sign on the first part.

And honestly, I think this second part is really interesting. There's more to "strength" than having a team be a legit national title contender. The Empire 8 is annually considered one of the best conferences in D-III, and really, the 2006 Fisher team was probably the only one that had a realistic shot at a title. So why can't this logic be extended to regions as well?