East Region Playoff Discussion

[Jonny Utah]

I remember getting some **** at the beginning of the year by complimenting St. John Fisher's scheduling, and saying that it would make them more battle ready for the playoffs.  A lot of people jumped down my throat saying it was dumb and smarter to just schedule weak opponents, win your conference or get in at 9-1 in a Pool C.  So now we have a little time to break this down, how do we all feel about it now???

Fisher didn't win their conference.  Lost 2 in conference games, but their schedule got them a bid, and they hit the playoffs running knowing that they could compete with very good teams.  Hobart had a weak non-conference schedule(which so many people think is the best move), went undefeated, and knew they were in trouble heading into Fisher.  Injury related or not, Hobart would have had a tough time last week.

I also feel strongly that if Fisher didn't get selected, they would have understood, but also would've known they could have done some damage in the playoffs regardless.  Earlier, everyone said it's all about 'just making the playoffs', but do those people feel the same way now?  Hobart likely feels that their undefeated regular season is now a disappointment, because they beat a sub-mediocre opponent in round 1, and got smoked by an in-region rival in round 2.  Fisher on the other hand would have felt like they had a good season if they weren't selected and played an ECAC game, feeling like they were one bad conference game away(1 they SHOULD have won) from getting to the dance.

More than ever, I stand by my thoughts from earlier in the year.  If Fisher lost to Cortland or W&J and then lost 2 conference games, there would be no gripes either.  Tough but beatable opponents are the way to go with at LEAST 1 or 2 OOC games.

St. Lawrence was 2 plays away from being 9-1 (with a softer OCC than SJF).  Can we say for certain that SJF would have gotten a bid over St. Lawrence?

I'm playing devils advocate here, as I have always thought a tougher schedule is better for your team.  But the NCAA has done strange things, although I will admit those strange things seem to diminish each year.

[ITH radio]

Even if SLU was 9-1 they would have had a significantly weaker SOS compared to SJF and two LL teams haven't made the tourney in several years.  My guess is Fisher, even at 8-2 could have edged them out (especially since we now know prior year playoff data is factored in).

[Bombers798891]

I remember getting some **** at the beginning of the year by complimenting St. John Fisher's scheduling, and saying that it would make them more battle ready for the playoffs.  A lot of people jumped down my throat saying it was dumb and smarter to just schedule weak opponents, win your conference or get in at 9-1 in a Pool C.  So now we have a little time to break this down, how do we all feel about it now???

Fisher didn't win their conference.  Lost 2 in conference games, but their schedule got them a bid, and they hit the playoffs running knowing that they could compete with very good teams.  Hobart had a weak non-conference schedule(which so many people think is the best move), went undefeated, and knew they were in trouble heading into Fisher.  Injury related or not, Hobart would have had a tough time last week.

I also feel strongly that if Fisher didn't get selected, they would have understood, but also would've known they could have done some damage in the playoffs regardless.  Earlier, everyone said it's all about 'just making the playoffs', but do those people feel the same way now?  Hobart likely feels that their undefeated regular season is now a disappointment, because they beat a sub-mediocre opponent in round 1, and got smoked by an in-region rival in round 2.  Fisher on the other hand would have felt like they had a good season if they weren't selected and played an ECAC game, feeling like they were one bad conference game away(1 they SHOULD have won) from getting to the dance.

More than ever, I stand by my thoughts from earlier in the year.  If Fisher lost to Cortland or W&J and then lost 2 conference games, there would be no gripes either.  Tough but beatable opponents are the way to go with at LEAST 1 or 2 OOC games.

This seems a little like after the fact cherry picking to me. It worked for this particular Fisher team, with this particular season and its assortment specific teams vying for Pool Cs, and against these specific playoff opponents. Whether or not it's a replicable long-term strategy would require more than a sample size of one. What's the track record of 8-2 teams getting Pool C bids over 9-1 teams with weaker SOS'? If Pool C shrinks, who's the committee more likely to squeeze out?

I was one of the people who was suggesting a 9-1 season with a weaker OOC was a more likely path to the playoffs than 8-2 season with a strong one. This was based on the constant talk of a shrinking Pool C and the dearth of two-loss teams getting at large bids. Heck, until Alfred-Fisher turned into a defacto playoff game, everyone around here seemed consigned to Fisher in the ECACs.

I also don't understand your last point. Are you suggesting that Fisher would have a better view of its season if it had gone to the ECACs than Hobart has of making the second round of the NCAAs?

[lewdogg11]

Re:  St. Lawrence vs. St. John Fisher - St. Lawrence would schedule High School teams if it got them to the dance.  I think Fisher's program is a different animal.  This discussion is not ALL teams.  But programs that are legit and want to actually take that next step and not get greased in by default, this is for them.  Hobart is an elite program and should schedule like it.  Look at Wesley's schedule each year.  I know they are Independent, but they make a solid schedule. 

To Bombers, i'm saying a program like St. John Fisher, if they lost to W&J or Cortland, wouldn't feel slighted by the system, or upset at their scheduling.  They probably would've felt like they didn't deserve to be in the playoffs. 

[boobyhasgameyo]

I remember getting some **** at the beginning of the year by complimenting St. John Fisher's scheduling, and saying that it would make them more battle ready for the playoffs.  A lot of people jumped down my throat saying it was dumb and smarter to just schedule weak opponents, win your conference or get in at 9-1 in a Pool C.  So now we have a little time to break this down, how do we all feel about it now???

Fisher didn't win their conference.  Lost 2 in conference games, but their schedule got them a bid, and they hit the playoffs running knowing that they could compete with very good teams.  Hobart had a weak non-conference schedule(which so many people think is the best move), went undefeated, and knew they were in trouble heading into Fisher.  Injury related or not, Hobart would have had a tough time last week.

I also feel strongly that if Fisher didn't get selected, they would have understood, but also would've known they could have done some damage in the playoffs regardless.  Earlier, everyone said it's all about 'just making the playoffs', but do those people feel the same way now?  Hobart likely feels that their undefeated regular season is now a disappointment, because they beat a sub-mediocre opponent in round 1, and got smoked by an in-region rival in round 2.  Fisher on the other hand would have felt like they had a good season if they weren't selected and played an ECAC game, feeling like they were one bad conference game away(1 they SHOULD have won) from getting to the dance.

More than ever, I stand by my thoughts from earlier in the year.  If Fisher lost to Cortland or W&J and then lost 2 conference games, there would be no gripes either.  Tough but beatable opponents are the way to go with at LEAST 1 or 2 OOC games.

This seems a little like after the fact cherry picking to me. It worked for this particular Fisher team, with this particular season and its assortment specific teams vying for Pool Cs, and against these specific playoff opponents. Whether or not it's a replicable long-term strategy would require more than a sample size of one. What's the track record of 8-2 teams getting Pool C bids over 9-1 teams with weaker SOS'? If Pool C shrinks, who's the committee more likely to squeeze out?

I was one of the people who was suggesting a 9-1 season with a weaker OOC was a more likely path to the playoffs than 8-2 season with a strong one. This was based on the constant talk of a shrinking Pool C and the dearth of two-loss teams getting at large bids. Heck, until Alfred-Fisher turned into a defacto playoff game, everyone around here seemed consigned to Fisher in the ECACs.

I also don't understand your last point. Are you suggesting that Fisher would have a better view of its season if it had gone to the ECACs than Hobart has of making the second round of the NCAAs?

Didn't Pat speak to this earlier?  How it has been happening in recent times.  St. John Fisher in 2011 who won a couple of games, Pac Lutheran and Louisiana College last year, St. John Fisher again this year.  It's been happening.  Fisher was in all likelihood the last team selected this year, so I guess if the pool C bids shrunk again like they will in the future then they would have been toast.  I think that Fisher is doing everyone else in the country a solid though by what they've done the past couple of postseasons as a two loss at large. 

[Ralph Turner]

I remember getting some **** at the beginning of the year by complimenting St. John Fisher's scheduling, and saying that it would make them more battle ready for the playoffs.  A lot of people jumped down my throat saying it was dumb and smarter to just schedule weak opponents, win your conference or get in at 9-1 in a Pool C.  So now we have a little time to break this down, how do we all feel about it now???

Fisher didn't win their conference.  Lost 2 in conference games, but their schedule got them a bid, and they hit the playoffs running knowing that they could compete with very good teams.  Hobart had a weak non-conference schedule(which so many people think is the best move), went undefeated, and knew they were in trouble heading into Fisher.  Injury related or not, Hobart would have had a tough time last week.

I also feel strongly that if Fisher didn't get selected, they would have understood, but also would've known they could have done some damage in the playoffs regardless.  Earlier, everyone said it's all about 'just making the playoffs', but do those people feel the same way now?  Hobart likely feels that their undefeated regular season is now a disappointment, because they beat a sub-mediocre opponent in round 1, and got smoked by an in-region rival in round 2.  Fisher on the other hand would have felt like they had a good season if they weren't selected and played an ECAC game, feeling like they were one bad conference game away(1 they SHOULD have won) from getting to the dance.

More than ever, I stand by my thoughts from earlier in the year.  If Fisher lost to Cortland or W&J and then lost 2 conference games, there would be no gripes either.  Tough but beatable opponents are the way to go with at LEAST 1 or 2 OOC games.

This seems a little like after the fact cherry picking to me. It worked for this particular Fisher team, with this particular season and its assortment specific teams vying for Pool Cs, and against these specific playoff opponents. Whether or not it's a replicable long-term strategy would require more than a sample size of one. What's the track record of 8-2 teams getting Pool C bids over 9-1 teams with weaker SOS'? If Pool C shrinks, who's the committee more likely to squeeze out?

I was one of the people who was suggesting a 9-1 season with a weaker OOC was a more likely path to the playoffs than 8-2 season with a strong one. This was based on the constant talk of a shrinking Pool C and the dearth of two-loss teams getting at large bids. Heck, until Alfred-Fisher turned into a defacto playoff game, everyone around here seemed consigned to Fisher in the ECACs.

I also don't understand your last point. Are you suggesting that Fisher would have a better view of its season if it had gone to the ECACs than Hobart has of making the second round of the NCAAs?

Didn't Pat speak to this earlier?  How it has been happening in recent times.  St. John Fisher in 2011 who won a couple of games, Pac Lutheran and Louisiana College last year, St. John Fisher again this year.  It's been happening.  Fisher was in all likelihood the last team selected this year, so I guess if the pool C bids shrunk again like they will in the future then they would have been toast.  I think that Fisher is doing everyone else in the country a solid though by what they've done the past couple of postseasons as a two loss at large.

When the current shifts in alignments finally settle down in 2015, I think that we end up with 26 Pool A bids, 0 Pool B bids and 6 Pool C bids.

[PA_wesleyfan]

I remember getting some **** at the beginning of the year by complimenting St. John Fisher's scheduling, and saying that it would make them more battle ready for the playoffs.  A lot of people jumped down my throat saying it was dumb and smarter to just schedule weak opponents, win your conference or get in at 9-1 in a Pool C.  So now we have a little time to break this down, how do we all feel about it now???

Fisher didn't win their conference.  Lost 2 in conference games, but their schedule got them a bid, and they hit the playoffs running knowing that they could compete with very good teams.  Hobart had a weak non-conference schedule(which so many people think is the best move), went undefeated, and knew they were in trouble heading into Fisher.  Injury related or not, Hobart would have had a tough time last week.

I also feel strongly that if Fisher didn't get selected, they would have understood, but also would've known they could have done some damage in the playoffs regardless.  Earlier, everyone said it's all about 'just making the playoffs', but do those people feel the same way now?  Hobart likely feels that their undefeated regular season is now a disappointment, because they beat a sub-mediocre opponent in round 1, and got smoked by an in-region rival in round 2.  Fisher on the other hand would have felt like they had a good season if they weren't selected and played an ECAC game, feeling like they were one bad conference game away(1 they SHOULD have won) from getting to the dance.

More than ever, I stand by my thoughts from earlier in the year.  If Fisher lost to Cortland or W&J and then lost 2 conference games, there would be no gripes either.  Tough but beatable opponents are the way to go with at LEAST 1 or 2 OOC games.

This seems a little like after the fact cherry picking to me. It worked for this particular Fisher team, with this particular season and its assortment specific teams vying for Pool Cs, and against these specific playoff opponents. Whether or not it's a replicable long-term strategy would require more than a sample size of one. What's the track record of 8-2 teams getting Pool C bids over 9-1 teams with weaker SOS'? If Pool C shrinks, who's the committee more likely to squeeze out?

I was one of the people who was suggesting a 9-1 season with a weaker OOC was a more likely path to the playoffs than 8-2 season with a strong one. This was based on the constant talk of a shrinking Pool C and the dearth of two-loss teams getting at large bids. Heck, until Alfred-Fisher turned into a defacto playoff game, everyone around here seemed consigned to Fisher in the ECACs.

I also don't understand your last point. Are you suggesting that Fisher would have a better view of its season if it had gone to the ECACs than Hobart has of making the second round of the NCAAs?

Didn't Pat speak to this earlier?  How it has been happening in recent times.  St. John Fisher in 2011 who won a couple of games, Pac Lutheran and Louisiana College last year, St. John Fisher again this year.  It's been happening.  Fisher was in all likelihood the last team selected this year, so I guess if the pool C bids shrunk again like they will in the future then they would have been toast.  I think that Fisher is doing everyone else in the country a solid though by what they've done the past couple of postseasons as a two loss at large.

When the current shifts in alignments finally settle down in 2015, I think that we end up with 26 Pool A bids, 0 Pool B bids and 6 Pool C bids.

When does Salisbury St  and Frostburg St contract end with the E8?

[SJFF82]

I remember getting some **** at the beginning of the year by complimenting St. John Fisher's scheduling, and saying that it would make them more battle ready for the playoffs.  A lot of people jumped down my throat saying it was dumb and smarter to just schedule weak opponents, win your conference or get in at 9-1 in a Pool C.  So now we have a little time to break this down, how do we all feel about it now???

Fisher didn't win their conference.  Lost 2 in conference games, but their schedule got them a bid, and they hit the playoffs running knowing that they could compete with very good teams.  Hobart had a weak non-conference schedule(which so many people think is the best move), went undefeated, and knew they were in trouble heading into Fisher.  Injury related or not, Hobart would have had a tough time last week.

I also feel strongly that if Fisher didn't get selected, they would have understood, but also would've known they could have done some damage in the playoffs regardless.  Earlier, everyone said it's all about 'just making the playoffs', but do those people feel the same way now?  Hobart likely feels that their undefeated regular season is now a disappointment, because they beat a sub-mediocre opponent in round 1, and got smoked by an in-region rival in round 2.  Fisher on the other hand would have felt like they had a good season if they weren't selected and played an ECAC game, feeling like they were one bad conference game away(1 they SHOULD have won) from getting to the dance.

More than ever, I stand by my thoughts from earlier in the year.  If Fisher lost to Cortland or W&J and then lost 2 conference games, there would be no gripes either.  Tough but beatable opponents are the way to go with at LEAST 1 or 2 OOC games.

Great points

[AUPepBand]

When does Salisbury St  and Frostburg St contract end with the E8?

Pep was under the impression that it was an indefinite association...that would likely end when there were enough D3 football-playing schools in the Capital Athletic Conference to earn an AQ. Don't know whether that has materialized or is even a possibility now.

[Frank Rossi]

When the current shifts in alignments finally settle down in 2015, I think that we end up with 26 Pool A bids, 0 Pool B bids and 6 Pool C bids.

I don't believe that's correct.  While the SAA and MASCAC leave Pool B by 2015, they leave 10 approved teams in Pool B.  The ratio would still support a factor 9 -- meaning 9 Pool B teams would be enough for 1 bid in 2015.  Addition of teams like Alfred St. would protect that.  It should be 26/1/5, with the future of the SCAC, UAA and CAC perhaps creating the 27th and 28th Pool A bids later in the decade.  At that point, we'd be at 0 Pool B unless more teams add football (not outside the range of possibilities).

[ExTartanPlayer]

When the current shifts in alignments finally settle down in 2015, I think that we end up with 26 Pool A bids, 0 Pool B bids and 6 Pool C bids.

I don't believe that's correct.  While the SAA and MASCAC leave Pool B by 2015, they leave 10 approved teams in Pool B.  The ratio would still support a factor 9 -- meaning 9 Pool B teams would be enough for 1 bid in 2015.  Addition of teams like Alfred St. would protect that.  It should be 26/1/5, with the future of the SCAC, UAA and CAC perhaps creating the 27th and 28th Pool A bids later in the decade.  At that point, we'd be at 0 Pool B unless more teams add football (not outside the range of possibilities).

I don't think - repeat: think - that the UAA will factor into this.  We'll see how sustainable the proposed arrangement is but my understanding is that CWRU/CMU will have AQ access through their affiliation with the PAC and WashU/Chicago will have the same with the SAA, so the four UAA schools will be affiliated with conferences that already have an AQ.  Perhaps I'm wrong about this, though.

[jknezek]

When the current shifts in alignments finally settle down in 2015, I think that we end up with 26 Pool A bids, 0 Pool B bids and 6 Pool C bids.

I don't believe that's correct.  While the SAA and MASCAC leave Pool B by 2015, they leave 10 approved teams in Pool B.  The ratio would still support a factor 9 -- meaning 9 Pool B teams would be enough for 1 bid in 2015.  Addition of teams like Alfred St. would protect that.  It should be 26/1/5, with the future of the SCAC, UAA and CAC perhaps creating the 27th and 28th Pool A bids later in the decade.  At that point, we'd be at 0 Pool B unless more teams add football (not outside the range of possibilities).

I don't think - repeat: think - that the UAA will factor into this.  We'll see how sustainable the proposed arrangement is but my understanding is that CWRU/CMU will have AQ access through their affiliation with the PAC and WashU/Chicago will have the same with the SAA, so the four UAA schools will be affiliated with conferences that already have an AQ.  Perhaps I'm wrong about this, though.

You are correct ExTP. The UAA schools will no longer be a factor. You will have the SCAC schools, Wesley, Macalaster, and maybe one or two more just off provisional status schools as of 2015 unless another realignment happens. So somewhere between 6 and 8 schools given a status quo. Probably not enough for a Pool B at less than 8, 8 schools would be a toss-up.

[ExTartanPlayer]

When the current shifts in alignments finally settle down in 2015, I think that we end up with 26 Pool A bids, 0 Pool B bids and 6 Pool C bids.

I don't believe that's correct.  While the SAA and MASCAC leave Pool B by 2015, they leave 10 approved teams in Pool B.  The ratio would still support a factor 9 -- meaning 9 Pool B teams would be enough for 1 bid in 2015.  Addition of teams like Alfred St. would protect that.  It should be 26/1/5, with the future of the SCAC, UAA and CAC perhaps creating the 27th and 28th Pool A bids later in the decade.  At that point, we'd be at 0 Pool B unless more teams add football (not outside the range of possibilities).

I don't think - repeat: think - that the UAA will factor into this.  We'll see how sustainable the proposed arrangement is but my understanding is that CWRU/CMU will have AQ access through their affiliation with the PAC and WashU/Chicago will have the same with the SAA, so the four UAA schools will be affiliated with conferences that already have an AQ.  Perhaps I'm wrong about this, though.

You are correct ExTP. The UAA schools will no longer be a factor. You will have the SCAC schools, Wesley, Macalaster, and maybe one or two more just off provisional status schools as of 2015 unless another realignment happens. So somewhere between 6 and 8 schools given a status quo. Probably not enough for a Pool B at less than 8, 8 schools would be a toss-up.

Should have been more clear - I don't mean that the UAA will be out of Pool B, I mean that it also will have no affect on a changing number of Pool A's (Frank seemed to hint that perhaps the UAA schools could potentially be moving parts in some other arrangement that might account for an extra Pool A in the future, which is not outside the realm of possibility, but I hope the proposed affiliations hold up).

[Frank Rossi]

Should have been more clear - I don't mean that the UAA will be out of Pool B, I mean that it also will have no affect on a changing number of Pool A's (Frank seemed to hint that perhaps the UAA schools could potentially be moving parts in some other arrangement that might account for an extra Pool A in the future, which is not outside the realm of possibility, but I hope the proposed affiliations hold up).

Right, and I'm just suggesting that there are enough overall moving parts that perhaps we could move up to 28 Pool As by the end of the decade.

Also, in doing the math using the current Pre-Championship Manual, I'm thinking Pool B's number would actually remain at 8 needed teams per bid:

245 Teams - (10 NESCAC + 6 Currently Recognized Pool Bs That Won't Be 2015 Affiliated) = 229 / 26 Pool A Bids = 8.81

Dropping the decimal, that means 8 would be the key figure.  If the NCAA is still counting Nebraska Wesleyan at that point, I think we reach 8 pretty easily for 1 Pool B bid.

[Pat Coleman]

Nebraska Wesleyan has to file for the NCAA championship in order to do so. I am not aware they have done so for football. They have stopped doing so for basketball, it sounds like.