East Region Fan Poll

[SJFF82]

Does this mean you guys should be listening to me about Ithaca? After all, if 82 is supposed to be impressed by 80+ games over seven years, then what's 200+ over the last 24? Shouldn't Pep be anointed the all-knowing sage of Alfred?

Go back and look at what SJF82 initially asked.  He was looking for input from someone who has seen Del Val more than once this year.  I have so I offered input.  He's not obliged to take it. I wasn't offended that he didn't.

And actually I do personally put more weight in your view of Ithaca than other posters who aren't as familiar with the school.

while I certainly appreciate your opinion on Del Val, and when its top observer claims they aint one of the Top 5 I have no basis to debate, I did not ask how good they were nor did I claim they were Top 5, or one of the "Top 4" in the land.

That was Pat's implication of my posts because he refuses to address the point that I did make (and several other posters have as well)

I believe you that DVC aint one of the 4 best in the land....

The point I clearly made was that a 10-0 DVC team (regardless of their perceived National Ranking) has earned and deserves the #1 EAST REGION ranking?

That is the question PC, that you cant answer, so dont claim someone else answered it and that I ignored it.  Gordanmann was not even responding to my post....go back and look at the thread.  He responded to Pumpkin attack's post.

Why is it called the East Region in the play-offs?

Bombers does make some good pts about The East teams shooting themselves in the foot, but what we have been discussing of late is the perception that a 10-0 East team may still play second fiddle to MUC.

Show me the team from the North that has recently played MUC closer or further into a Region final or National semi than SJF, IC, or Cortland.

I have shown you how the North pushed its best team out the door last year for the Tommies who couldnt score 2 TDs against Bethel in the Region finals.  Without looking, I believe a similar scenario has played itself out in the North a few times since MUC has been coming East.

The fact is, that whatever team replaces MUC in the NORTH, usually doesnt even win the Region, and even if they do, they get smoked by MUC anyway.

If that so called #1 cant win the North Region, then what evidence is there that they are a Top 4 team???  Because PC sarcastically says so???

   St. Thomas was #1 in the WEST.   

exactly...and the argument is that UWW should have #1 in the West, the Tommies #2 and MUC #1 in the Region I am not allowed to call the North anymore

The Tommies, like other teams in previous years, could not live up to their #1, so why does the West keep getting the benefit of the doubt by essentially spreading their #1's around at the East's expense?

Only MUC/UWW  deserve the benefit of the doubt (although what doubt is there?)

[Mr. Ypsi]

And before UMU, there was Capital...

And note that Capital lost by only 3 to UMU (then MUC).  And since Capital only beat NCC by 2 in the first round, then Wabash by 3 in the second, it is certainly plausible that either of those teams could ALSO have given the Mount a run for their money (or conceivably even won).

I'm finding this board fascinating, but quit your whining!  Alliance is closer to many of you than it is to the CCIW, and we had to put up with them for their first 8 national titles!   (PLUS, in exchange for UMU, we got UWW for all three of their titles! )

[Bombers798891]

And before UMU, there was Capital...

And note that Capital lost by only 3 to UMU (then MUC).  And since Capital only beat NCC by 2 in the first round, then Wabash by 3 in the second, it is certainly plausible that either of those teams could ALSO have given the Mount a run for their money (or conceivably even won).

I'm finding this board fascinating, but quit your whining!  Alliance is closer to many of you than it is to the CCIW, and we had to put up with them for their first 7 national titles!   (PLUS, in exchange for UMU, we got UWW for all three of their titles! )

Rowan didn't exactly get dragged around the field either. It was 14-7 in the 4th quarter. Not as close as Capital, but clearly, the Profs could play with them.

And Pat, your Cortland/Wheaton comp is technically right but sort of misses the point. Yes, Wheaton wound up closer, but it's somewhat misleading. Wheaton got down 24-0 and trailed by 21 at the half. Cortland actually led Mount, and trailed by only six at the half. The Wheaton game may have been closer at the end, but Cortland actually hung with them for a half. My original statement was the East teams gave Mount some of their "best" games, not necessarily closest.

[Pat Coleman]

Hard to prove either of our subjectivities are wrong.

[Bombers798891]

Hard to prove either of our subjectivities are wrong.

I agree. I mean, I'm not trying to say the East teams play closer by a wide margin, or by a small one even. But it seems that most years, Mount gets a reasonably competitive game out of an East team, which is pretty much all anyone who isn't Whitewater can ask for. So this stereotype that the East teams are these weak nobodies that Mount comes over and steamrolls just doesn't seem borne out. I don't think they;re any worse than some of the other regions would. But as you say, pretty impossible to prove I guess

[Upstate]

Look, I don't want to try and sound reasonable because that's just not my style...BUT

Isn't this whole conversation moot since the East Region hasn't had a legitimate #1 seed in what seems like forever?

It's the "East's" fault for not having a team worthy of the #1 seed.  Don't give me the attrition or fatigue junk either there were like 11 teams that were 10-0 or 9-0 last year, why couldn't have AU/Cort/DVC be one of them? No offense here but they were not that strong of teams to begin with if they were they would have ran the table. 

Is it "fatigue" or "attrition" that Kean lost to a piss poor Brockport team (no offense PG) that just lost to Buff St by 21? Or that Widener lost to a sub par Wilkes team? Their two lowest scoring outputs were 27 & 31, they could probably be the best team in the "East" right now but they screwed the pooch versus a mediocre team.

Is it anyone but Hobart's fault they're only playing 8 games this year when they honestly could have had a legit shot at a #1 this year? I mean they killed themselves with the back to back BYE weeks in weeks 2 & 3 they've got no momentum at all because of their truncated schedule.

If DVC runs the table maybe the "East" has a legitimate #1 seed seeing as they face their two toughest opponents on their schedule including one of the "East's" best teams in Widener.

Until the "East" has a team strong enough to be a #1 seed and it then gets passed over for UMU then this discussion that just lasted the past 10 pages is just a bunch of dizzying jargon that made me go cross eyed.

[dlippiel]

I understand that the East Region fans would love to have eight guaranteed spots for East Region teams but that isn't how it works.

PC...you would love to find an East Region fan who actually 'said' that or even implied that....

have you read this thread...at all?    Nobody is asking for 8 spots....the discussion has been strictly about 1 spot....the #1 spot.....focus

It happened right here, 82:

dlip just thinks the touney should be set up BY regions (yes meaning each region's bracket only contains teams from that region). Right or wrong, weak or strong, this is just dlip's opinion. It's region this, and region that, all year until it's time to place teams into the brackets (specifically the top four seeds). dlip doesn't think it's a bad idea to place the best 4 teams as #1 seeds, he just likes the purely regional set-up better. He thinks it provides each geographic region the opportunity to continue the battle, within itself, to make the final four. Then you truly have the best teams from each region facing off.

Very clearly stated in this post that dlip would prefer the brackets be purly regional, not that he thinks it would be the "best" way to do it. And of course 82 is correct, dlip was only kidding  . He also states that he does not think it's a bad idea to have the four best teams as the top four seeds. Only problem with that is it is very subjective. *aside from UWW and MUC as 1 and 2 of course .

[Frank Rossi]

Very subjective based on virtually no regional crossover all year.  Remember, the D1 basketball comparisons are faulty because the teams travel all over the country -- our teams don't.  Without the ability to make objective comparisons in virtually any meaningful way, this "Top 4 Teams" idea is a fool's game, especially when Wesley has a loss this season.

Let me say this to the other regions:  the East has faced this before and we never complained about it.  We had Rowan.  Rowan was the 800lb. Gorilla in the East and meaningfully in the country for years in the 1990s.  The NCAA never shifted Rowan around.  We accepted it because they belonged here geographically in a regional system -- it was, and here's the word, JUSTIFIABLE that they were placed in the East, even though other teams in the tournament may have played them in the regular season (less likely back when there were 16 teams, 4 to a region, but possible).  We suffered through the regional nature of the system, too, and now we're suffering through the nationalized system?  Why?  To justify a national fiction that even the Committee admits they can't use strength of schedule numbers to verify?  Again, either subsidize cross-regional games every year to allow for some level of objective placement and seeding, or stick to the regional system, shifting only lower seeded teams when shifting is an absolute necessity.  Top teams with 0 or 1 loss deserve to be at the top of their regional bracket.  The lower teams can lay no such claim.  That's the only way the present system collectively makes any sense.

[Bombers798891]

Very subjective based on virtually no regional crossover all year.  Remember, the D1 basketball comparisons are faulty because the teams travel all over the country -- our teams don't.  Without the ability to make objective comparisons in virtually any meaningful way, this "Top 4 Teams" idea is a fool's game, especially when Wesley has a loss this season.

And even if you can't see them in person, in D-I, you can actually watch many of these teams play on TV, thanks to DVRs and the 75 ESPNs, and at least then you're seeing the team and can get a decent feel for them. In D-III, you're reading boxscores and going off second/third hand accounts all the time. There's so much bias built into that equation its kind of hard to gain an accurate view

[dlippiel]

Very subjective based on virtually no regional crossover all year.  Remember, the D1 basketball comparisons are faulty because the teams travel all over the country -- our teams don't.  Without the ability to make objective comparisons in virtually any meaningful way, this "Top 4 Teams" idea is a fool's game, especially when Wesley has a loss this season.

Let me say this to the other regions:  the East has faced this before and we never complained about it.  We had Rowan.  Rowan was the 800lb. Gorilla in the East and meaningfully in the country for years in the 1990s.  The NCAA never shifted Rowan around.  We accepted it because they belonged here geographically in a regional system -- it was, and here's the word, JUSTIFIABLE that they were placed in the East, even though other teams in the tournament may have played them in the regular season (less likely back when there were 16 teams, 4 to a region, but possible).  We suffered through the regional nature of the system, too, and now we're suffering through the nationalized system?  Why?  To justify a national fiction that even the Committee admits they can't use strength of schedule numbers to verify?  Again, either subsidize cross-regional games every year to allow for some level of objective placement and seeding, or stick to the regional system, shifting only lower seeded teams when shifting is an absolute necessity.  Top teams with 0 or 1 loss deserve to be at the top of their regional bracket.  The lower teams can lay no such claim.  That's the only way the present system collectively makes any sense.

Great point referencing Rowan and the East's experience with the Profs during their time in the national spotlight. This is a fair comparison to what we have today, in dlip's opinion. dlip just thinks having a purely regional set-up would make sense and be exciting for each region's teams/fans as teams continue to battle, in region, to make the final four. As this debate goes on, aside from Pat being very annoying and taking his typical pot shots from the podium, dlip does get a sense just how difficult it is to work this out with the amount of teams D3 has.

And even if you can't see them in person, in D-I, you can actually watch many of these teams play on TV, thanks to DVRs and the 75 ESPNs, and at least then you're seeing the team and can get a decent feel for them. In D-III, you're reading boxscores and going off second/third hand accounts all the time. There's so much bias built into that equation its kind of hard to gain an accurate view

dlip likes this post as well from Bombers. As fans, pollsters, coaches, etc, we are unable to get around and see as many teams play. As a result of this, subjectiviety sits and creates this debate.  We should ask ourselves, what would be best for the student athletes regarding this playoff bracket system? What woudl be affordable for parents to travel and see their sons play in an NCAA game? If the answer does not fit dlip's preference than so be it. Anything subjective will always be questioned, as it should. If one can't handle that then get out of the business. Gordon seemed to handle it fine and not take it personally. Anyway dlip has had enough of this debate. It is what it is and that's it. Question it like 82 did and your just ignoring the most knowledgeable, smartest football analysts in the world, right? 

[Pat Coleman]

Very subjective based on virtually no regional crossover all year.  Remember, the D1 basketball comparisons are faulty because the teams travel all over the country -- our teams don't.  Without the ability to make objective comparisons in virtually any meaningful way, this "Top 4 Teams" idea is a fool's game, especially when Wesley has a loss this season.

Let me say this to the other regions:  the East has faced this before and we never complained about it.  We had Rowan.  Rowan was the 800lb. Gorilla in the East and meaningfully in the country for years in the 1990s.  The NCAA never shifted Rowan around.  We accepted it because they belonged here geographically in a regional system -- it was, and here's the word, JUSTIFIABLE that they were placed in the East, even though other teams in the tournament may have played them in the regular season (less likely back when there were 16 teams, 4 to a region, but possible).  We suffered through the regional nature of the system, too, and now we're suffering through the nationalized system?  Why?  To justify a national fiction that even the Committee admits they can't use strength of schedule numbers to verify?  Again, either subsidize cross-regional games every year to allow for some level of objective placement and seeding, or stick to the regional system, shifting only lower seeded teams when shifting is an absolute necessity.  Top teams with 0 or 1 loss deserve to be at the top of their regional bracket.  The lower teams can lay no such claim.  That's the only way the present system collectively makes any sense.

Great point referencing Rowan and the East's experience with the Profs during their time in the national spotlight. This is a fair comparison to what we have today, in dlip's opinion. dlip just thinks having a purely regional set-up would make sense and be exciting for each region's teams/fans as teams continue to battle, in region, to make the final four. As this debate goes on, aside from Pat being very annoying and taking his typical pot shots from the podium, dlip does get a sense just how difficult it is to work this out with the amount of teams D3 has.

And even if you can't see them in person, in D-I, you can actually watch many of these teams play on TV, thanks to DVRs and the 75 ESPNs, and at least then you're seeing the team and can get a decent feel for them. In D-III, you're reading boxscores and going off second/third hand accounts all the time. There's so much bias built into that equation its kind of hard to gain an accurate view

dlip likes this post as well from Bombers. As fans, pollsters, coaches, etc, we are unable to get around and see as many teams play. As a result of this, subjectiviety sits and creates this debate.  We should ask ourselves, what would be best for the student athletes regarding this playoff bracket system? What woudl be affordable for parents to travel and see their sons play in an NCAA game? If the answer does not fit dlip's preference than so be it. Anything subjective will always be questioned, as it should. If one can't handle that then get out of the business. Gordon seemed to handle it fine and not take it personally. Anyway dlip has had enough of this debate. It is what it is and that's it. Question it like 82 did and your just ignoring the most knowledgeable, smartest football analysts in the world, right? 

I think you're channeling 2007 or so if you think I'm taking it personally. I just don't have time for 5,000 words on the same argument every year. Too much to do.

[Bombers798891]

Again, either subsidize cross-regional games every year to allow for some level of objective placement and seeding, or stick to the regional system, shifting only lower seeded teams when shifting is an absolute necessity.

I hate to give Frank any +K's, since we're supposed to disagree on everything, but I like this too much not to. Your sport is either regional or it's not. The realities of conferences having 10 teams and the shrinking budgets for travel would, to me, seem to paint a pretty clear picture of a regional sport.

Hey, I thought it was cool when Huntington played at IC. I loved watching Fisher play Mount Union live. I'd love it if more games like that got played. But it's simply not realistic right now.

[Jonny Utah]

Again, either subsidize cross-regional games every year to allow for some level of objective placement and seeding, or stick to the regional system, shifting only lower seeded teams when shifting is an absolute necessity.

I hate to give Frank any +K's, since we're supposed to disagree on everything, but I like this too much not to. Your sport is either regional or it's not. The realities of conferences having 10 teams and the shrinking budgets for travel would, to me, seem to paint a pretty clear picture of a regional sport.

Hey, I thought it was cool when Huntington played at IC. I loved watching Fisher play Mount Union live. I'd love it if more games like that got played. But it's simply not realistic right now.

Doesn't it always come down to the final question though:

Is there a team which should have made the playoffs but didn't because Mt. Union got shipped to the east?

[Doid23]

I pasted below a post I have made the last two years this discussion has occurred (and it happens every year). To update for last seasons playoffs, MUC beat DelVal 31-3, Alfred 37-7, and Bethel 34-14. While all different, pretty much in the same ballpark (forgive me for not including St. Lawrence, but NOBODY argued that they were a good team last year). Also, MUC beat Ohio Northern, the #4 seed in the North Bracket, 27-0 during the regular season.

I stand by my point below.

The numbers don't support that the East is so  lacking vs. the North. This is going to seem strange, sometimes comparing blowout losses, but basically, the results over the last 5 years vs. the North and East are very similar for Mt. U's opponents:

2005  d. MSJ 49-6, Augustana 44-7, Capital 34-31, Rowan 19-7
2006  d. Hope 49-6, Wheaton 44-7, Capital 17-14, Fisher 26-14
2007  d. Ithaca 42-18,New Jersey 59-7, Fisher 52-10, Bethel 62-14
2008  d. RMacon 56-0, Hobart 42-7, Cortland 41-14, d. Wheaton 45-24
2009  d. W&J55-0, Montclair 62-14, Albright 55-3, Wesley 24-7

They blow out everyone in the first rounds, no matter where they're from. But, the scores show that over the years, the best North Rep excluding Mt. U (Capital, Capital, Bethel, Wheaton) had similar results vs Mt. U and the East (Rowan, Fisher, Fisher, Cortland). So, ex Mt. U, why exactly is the North considered superior to the East? Take away Mt. Union and I'd stack the East vs. the North any day.

[Frank Rossi]

Doesn't it always come down to the final question though:

Is there a team which should have made the playoffs but didn't because Mt. Union got shipped to the east?

No, that's not how it works.  Selection is done first.  Seeding is done second.  There could be 10 North teams, 6 East teams, 9 South teams and 7 West teams selected.  It's the seeding and placement that matter at that point.  My statement is to rank the regional selections and, when there are more than 8 teams in that region selected, shift the bottom teams over to a more empty region.  If the 500-mile rule is a problem, keep moving upward until it isn't.  Teams 7, 8, 9 and 10 in a region have very little claim to anything most years, so make them truly earn their next game(s).