East Region Fan Poll

[Pat Coleman]

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

No, what it is is that a 4-5 team that should have gotten a more reasonable second-round game instead gets to travel to Mount Union, and a 2-3 team that could have played a toss-up game in the regional finals gets to travel to Mount Union. I know I'll probably upset an Ithaca person or two but I don't think the bottom seed has a real gripe. If they're an at-large, they have to be happy they're in the playoffs and it shouldn't matter where you go.

[Jonny Utah]

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

No, what it is is that a 4-5 team that should have gotten a more reasonable second-round game instead gets to travel to Mount Union, and a 2-3 team that could have played a toss-up game in the regional finals gets to travel to Mount Union. I know I'll probably upset an Ithaca person or two but I don't think the bottom seed has a real gripe. If they're an at-large, they have to be happy they're in the playoffs and it shouldn't matter where you go.

Well I don't really care about that.  If I were a 4-5 seed, I'd rather go to Mt. Union and play them in the first round.  That is just me though I guess.

[Jonny Utah]

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).

Right, and selection should be the most important issue.  After that, make sure the teams that really deserve it get the most home games against the worst opponents. 

[Bombers798891]

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

No, what it is is that a 4-5 team that should have gotten a more reasonable second-round game instead gets to travel to Mount Union, and a 2-3 team that could have played a toss-up game in the regional finals gets to travel to Mount Union. I know I'll probably upset an Ithaca person or two but I don't think the bottom seed has a real gripe. If they're an at-large, they have to be happy they're in the playoffs and it shouldn't matter where you go.

Why would this upset "an Ithaca person"? I know, for one, when Ithaca was playing Mount in Round one in 2007, I was excited to see what it was all about. Even more excited when we did what no OAC team could do like score on their first team defense, (which, based on what we'd heard, was an impenetrable death squad that the ate souls of quarterbacks and running backs alike), even more excited when the team they played in the national semis couldn't put up points until they were down 55-0 in the 4th quarter. Ithaca and Whitewater were the only two teams that actually managed to land a couple punches against Mount that season.

Heck, that game said more about how good that team was than several of the wins they had that year.

I would have been excited to see Ithaca against a non-Mount team, because they were steamrolling everyone at that point, and heck, I think they could have beaten a lot of teams that season, but I've always said Ithaca deserves exactly what it gets because every year they blow winnable games. That year, they screwed the pooch at the 'Wick, so the 2007 team was no exception in the "You got what you deserved" litany of Bomber squads (like the 2004 team before them, and the 2008 team a year later)

That being said, this debate, for me, and many others I suspect, isn't about the fate of the #8 team in the region, or the 4/5 teams (unless they were good enough to win on their own) It's about the totally subjective "Best 4" teams in the country getting the one seeds--when there's no way to effectively compare teams from different regions--and the regional aspect of the game disappearing

[Pat Coleman]

Good. Glad you're not upset by it, then. I thought there was a chance.

[Bombers798891]

And although it may be hard to believe, I would have the exact same issue if this was about Rowan, or even Ithaca being the team shipped to a so-called "Easier" region. I believe the game today is regional, and should remain that way in the playoffs.

[Bombers798891]

Good. Glad you're not upset by it, then. I thought there was a chance.

Although next time, you can always just refer to me by my handle, and not "An Ithaca Person".

[Pat Coleman]

Are you now the only one?

[Bombers798891]

Are you now the only one?

No, but when I posted that I wasn't upset by it, you wrote "Thought there was a chance," which seems to indicate that I was one of the "Ithaca posters" you were referring to

[SJFF82]

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?

No Jonny, that is not the question we have been discussing...the problem I raised and we have been discussing is the TOP of the East bracket, #1, and not the bottom.  I dont think anyone is arguing that some East team deserves to be in the play-offs, that didnt get in (that argument starts in a few weeks when the third world AQ's get handed out in New England  )

The premise behind my stance is that no other team (save MUC/UWW of course) in the Country has shown on the field that they deserve a #1 anymore than a 9-1 or 10-0 East team.  The 10-0 West teams that replace UWW as the West #1, so that UWW can move North to replace a 10-0 MUC, either lose before they even get out of their play-off bracket or end up getting creamed by MUC just like the East teams do.  In some years I believe it has been a North 10-0 team that 'needed' a #1, so that MUC gets shipped over. 

And as I also presented, and my co-counsel Rossi and Dlip backed, which way does the NCAA want it   Regional or Non-Regional?

[SJFF82]

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.

...well, except, the discussion started in response to a few predictions that a 10-0 DVC doesnt get #1 in the East this year.  I think we all kinda understood that we were debating the prospective issue.  But Frank also raises the claim that a 9-1 East team should get a number 1, despite them clearly not being a Top 4....I cannot say I disagree with that.  if you are 10-0 and your fate is to lose to MUC 42-10 in the National Semis, are you a better team than a 9-1 IC squad that may have lost by 25 to SJF in the reg season?

[Bombers798891]

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.

...well, except, the discussion started in response to a few predictions that a 10-0 DVC doesnt get #1 in the East this year.  I think we all kinda understood that we were debating the prospective issue.  But Frank also raises the claim that a 9-1 East team should get a number 1, despite them clearly not being a Top 4....I cannot say I disagree with that.  if you are 10-0 and your fate is to lose to MUC 42-10 in the National Semis, are you a better team than a 9-1 IC squad that may have lost by 25 to SJF in the reg season?

We lost that game by 31, thank you very much.

[dlippiel]

82 dlip is giving you +k because he feels not only are your thoughts/points well thought out, passionate, and sensible, but because you continue to stand strong.

[Upstate]

Easy Fix...

Just have two brackets so no one's feelings get hurt...

Based on last year's bracket it would look like something like:

East with UMU as it's #1 and a West with N. Central as it's #1...


EAST:..................WEST:

1) UMU..................1) N Central
16) STL................16) St. Norbert

8) Ham/Syd............8) Depaw
9) Montclair............9) Trine

5) Maritime.............5) O. Northern
12) Alfred.............12) Wittenberg

4) Cortland St.........4) Wheaton
13) Endicott..........13) Coe

6) MHB..................6) Wartburg
11) CNU...............11) Bethel

3) Thomas Moore....3) UWW
14) Wash & Lee.....14) Franklin

7) Salisbury............7) Cal Lute
10) DVC...............10) Linfield

2) Wesley..............2) St. Thomas
15) Muhlenburgh....15) Benedictine

[SUADC]

I believe that MUC should not be #1 in the East. I believe if we make so much of a fuss on regional wins this and regional wins that. Then it can only be right to keep MUC in the North. If there are two teams in the North that are undefeated, then they (MUC & St. Thomas) should be compared with each other to see who is #1 or #2 in the North and allow the teams that are regionally in the East be compared with each other to see who is #1 in the East (same as our regional rankings).

Moreover, if St. Thomas becomes #1 in the North and MUC becomes #1 in the East.  St. Thomas still has to play MUC in alliance, assuming they both play each other in the semi-finals. So what is the real reason of moving Mount Union East and awarding St. Thomas a #1 seed in the North, there is no real reason.  In all honesty, when you decide on the overall #1, #2, #3, and #4 at the end of the day W-W will be #1 Overall, Mount Union #2,  Mary Harding Baylor #3, and some "east regional team" #4.  This is what it should be, based on region. I feel that St. Thomas is overrated in regards to points. St. Thomas hasn't had a great history of doing damage in the playoffs and proved itself as a force, so why do they deserve a #1 seed over an undefeated Del Val team.  Many people who oppose to this post. Your argument is what difference does it make to play Mount Union during the 1st round or semi-finals. The difference is that most likely you are going to have enough time to see your opponent against good teams, instead of Mount Union weak conference foes (no pun intended).  So the real question is; what is the difference in Mount Union playing against in their own North regions teams? Drum roll please....they are playing within their own region.