East Region Fan Poll

[clandfan]

Thanks Pat.  I suppose that could be true.  I don't envy you your job but I still don't see him ahead of Pitcher, D'Andrea, or Babin for that matter if you want a WR.  Then again, it doesn't really matter what I think.  You guys do a great job and I know you just don't throw darts.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Sometimes the MVP of a conference isn't the best player, but the best player on the championship team.

Excellent point.  There's a distinction between a "Most Valuable Player" award and a "Player of the Year" award which many fans (of all sports, at all levels) have a hard time grasping.

Despite the built-in definition given its name, fans often think that "Most Valuable Player" is supposed to go to the "best" (let's call this "Most Outstanding") player.  Most Valuable is not necessarily equal to Most Outstanding.

IMHO, it's OK to include "wins" as part of the criteria when selecting an MVP.  The best way to add "value" to a team, after all, would be adding wins.  Pat's point comes into play here - the MVP award often goes to the "best player on the best team" type.

POY awards are excellent for recognizing the "Most Outstanding" player, even if that player's team struggled quite a bit.  IMHO, the selection process of a POY should give less weight to wins and more weight to individual accomplishments.

MVP and POY awards are not mutually exclusive.  In some situations, they will be one and the same; but it's OK to recognize that they do not HAVE to be the same.

For example, let's consider last year's NFL season.  Arian Foster had a RIDICULOUS season with over 1600 rushing yards, 600 receiving yards, and 18 touchdowns.  He had over 300 more total yards from scrimmage than the next-closest RB/WR.  It was one of the best individual all-purpose seasons since Marshall Faulk's heyday on the Greatest Show on Turf.  He's the textbook Offensive POY case. 

However, the Texans went 6-10.  Perhaps one argues that without Foster, they'd have gone 2-14 or 3-13, but how much "value" does that really constitute?  Is taking a 2-14 team to 6-10 worth an MVP vote?

Tom Brady, on the other hand, put up solid numbers (though not the best of his career) while guiding the Patriots to a 14-2 record. With that said, check out his supporting cast and you'll see a bunch of solid but unspectacular players - no 1,000 yard receiver (last year; I know that Welker is over 1000 this year), no prototype deep-ball threat - and their defense was pretty average.  The leading receivers were a pair of rookie TE's and undersized slot receivers.  Take Brady off that 2010 Patriots team and they'd be lucky to finish 8-8.*  That makes Brady a textbook MVP - he put up outstandin numbers AND had a profound effect on his team's record.  Switch Tom Brady for Arian Foster and the Patriots are certainly not 14-2.  That's what differentiates an MVP from a POY.

*Yes, I know they went 11-5 with Matt Cassel in 2008, but that was a much more talented Patriots team than the 2010 version.  More experienced RB's, still had Randy Moss in the fold, and a much better defense.

[jknezek]

OK. This is kind of tongue in cheek and I can't imagine how much I'm going to get dinged for it, but while SJF had a nice playoff run and everyone wants to point to Salisbury and SJF in the last eight as proof the East is better than everyone thinks... I can't help but point out that the ONLY region NOT represented in the Final Four, even in a year of multiple cross region games is... The East.

Wesley knocked off a strong West team in Linfield, UWW knocked off a strong East team in Salisbury, UST knocked off a strong East team in SJF, and UMU knocked off a strong North team in Wabash. So the only team not to have to really prove itself across region was UMU (I know Centre was South, but we're not talking a traditional power program). The South and West both proved they can win top quality cross region games (Wesley, St. Thomas and UWW), and the North (UMU) will get a shot this week, though UMU has plenty of history to be given the benefit of the doubt.

SJF did knock off a very well respected South team in JHU, again not really a power program, but that certainly deserves props. Salisbury's run involved CNU and Kean, so basically a lower South team and an East team. Looking at it this way, the East feasted on itself, SJF knocking off Del Val and Salisbury knocking off Kean, but once again fell at the higher cross-region hurdle.

As I said, this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek since some of who you play in Elite Eight is luck, but the fact remains that when people look at the Final Four year after year, the East has been under-represented for a while. And this year it can't be blamed on moving UMU to the region. So next year, I fully expect the same arguments about the East to come up again, although if the committee continues to seed like they did this year, it certainly becomes less important.

[Bombers798891]

I agree with the Cortland fan...(ugh)

Even taking into account Pat's point, Gallo's numbers were virtually identical to Babin's.

D'Andrea, in my view, also had a better season, averaging 158 yards per game on the ground in a much better conference.

Pitcher as well...31 TD's to 5 INT's is astounding. Here's the thing about those numbers too...the NJAC had three teams who finished the year with 20 interceptions, which was tied for eighth in the country. Some of that may be due to bad quarterback play, but Pitcher still only threw two INT's in those three games against obviously good secondaries. He also chipped in with 318 rushing yards (sack yardage not included) and three TD's, which is enough in my view that it provides a slight boost

Gallo had a great year but to me it was:

1. Pitcher
2. D'Andrea
T-3 Gallo, Babin

[SUADC]

OK. This is kind of tongue in cheek and I can't imagine how much I'm going to get dinged for it, but while SJF had a nice playoff run and everyone wants to point to Salisbury and SJF in the last eight as proof the East is better than everyone thinks... I can't help but point out that the ONLY region NOT represented in the Final Four, even in a year of multiple cross region games is... The East.

Wesley knocked off a strong West team in Linfield, UWW knocked off a strong East team in Salisbury, UST knocked off a strong East team in SJF, and UMU knocked off a strong North team in Wabash. So the only team not to have to really prove itself across region was UMU (I know Centre was South, but we're not talking a traditional power program). The South and West both proved they can win top quality cross region games (Wesley, St. Thomas and UWW), and the North (UMU) will get a shot this week, though UMU has plenty of history to be given the benefit of the doubt.

SJF did knock off a very well respected South team in JHU, again not really a power program, but that certainly deserves props. Salisbury's run involved CNU and Kean, so basically a lower South team and an East team. Looking at it this way, the East feasted on itself, SJF knocking off Del Val and Salisbury knocking off Kean, but once again fell at the higher cross-region hurdle.

As I said, this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek since some of who you play in Elite Eight is luck, but the fact remains that when people look at the Final Four year after year, the East has been under-represented for a while. And this year it can't be blamed on moving UMU to the region. So next year, I fully expect the same arguments about the East to come up again, although if the committee continues to seed like they did this year, it certainly becomes less important.

Your post is very interesting. I agree that both of the two east teams that went to the elite 8 got knock off in the cross region games and that there is no East team represented in the Final Four. However, I don't think it is luck at all when it comes to getting to the Elite 8, you never know on any given weekend, what a team might do, that is why you play the game (Did you think Wabash was going to beat North Central or predict 100% of the many upsets throughout the year). It is just matchups and execution, some teams (Mount Union & Wisconisin-Whitewater) matchup and execute their game plans very well against certain teams (Every Division III team other than UWW & MU). Hypothetically speaking, do you believe that either Wisconsin-Whitewater or Mount Union regardless of what bracket they are put in are going to make it to the Stagg Bowl (Yes). So how do you make a claim that the historically the East is weaker, every other team that plays Whitewater & Mount Union are weaker.

Now, with the cross regional games in the third round, Yes, St. Thomas beat St. John Fisher whom beat Johns Hopkins and Delaware Valley (both undeafeated teams). But you overlook the other teams that beat St. John Fisher as well. Both Salisbury & Hobart beat beat St. John Fisher convincingly and both of these teams were playoff teams that  loss to great teams, Hobart to Wesley in a close one and Salisbury to Whitewater (who hasn't loss to Whitewater). When you match up any team from any region against Whitewater and Mount Union, what is the expected result (A loss). It is not who makes it to the Final Four, Elite Eight, or Stagg Bowl,  but who wins it all and proves it own the field (Not by votes and computer systems like the BCS) at the end of the day. Like Pat said in the podcast, it would have been Whitewater vs. St. Thomas traditionally in the third round and if done correctly St. John Fisher vs. Salisbury in the Third Round. Then as you exclaim about making it to the Final Four, either St. John Fisher or Salisbury would be in the Final Four. Again, we do not have a team in the Final Four, but put Mount Union in the West bracket next year, Whitewater in the South Bracket, Wesley in the East Bracke, and whomever in the East in the North Bracket, looking back, who do you find in the Stagg bowl, Whitewater and Mount Union. Nevertheless, I want to see a different matchup in the Stagg Bowl, but until any team from any region beat Whitewater and Mount Union, I believe that saying the East is Weak because there best team looses to the Purple Powers is Ludicrous.

I still give you a +K, because you explained yourself well and proper, without being an "A hole."

[Ralph Turner]

OK. This is kind of tongue in cheek and I can't imagine how much I'm going to get dinged for it, but while SJF had a nice playoff run and everyone wants to point to Salisbury and SJF in the last eight as proof the East is better than everyone thinks... I can't help but point out that the ONLY region NOT represented in the Final Four, even in a year of multiple cross region games is... The East.

Wesley knocked off a strong West team in Linfield, UWW knocked off a strong East team in Salisbury, UST knocked off a strong East team in SJF, and UMU knocked off a strong North team in Wabash. So the only team not to have to really prove itself across region was UMU (I know Centre was South, but we're not talking a traditional power program). The South and West both proved they can win top quality cross region games (Wesley, St. Thomas and UWW), and the North (UMU) will get a shot this week, though UMU has plenty of history to be given the benefit of the doubt.

SJF did knock off a very well respected South team in JHU, again not really a power program, but that certainly deserves props. Salisbury's run involved CNU and Kean, so basically a lower South team and an East team. Looking at it this way, the East feasted on itself, SJF knocking off Del Val and Salisbury knocking off Kean, but once again fell at the higher cross-region hurdle.

As I said, this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek since some of who you play in Elite Eight is luck, but the fact remains that when people look at the Final Four year after year, the East has been under-represented for a while. And this year it can't be blamed on moving UMU to the region. So next year, I fully expect the same arguments about the East to come up again, although if the committee continues to seed like they did this year, it certainly becomes less important.

SJF did us fans in the South Region and D-III fans in general a big favor.  JHU is well placed geographically to dominate the schools around it who are the usual first round opponents.  As a 2-loss Pool C candidate from 2 states away, SJF beat them by 2 scores. I think that we can see where the conferences in the Mid-Atlantic stand from that game.

The inter-region match-ups have made this a fun playoff.

[Bombers798891]

I like SUDAC's point...for all the complaining we do about Mount moving wherever, and  teams beating up on each other, and the East being horrible, and whatever else, we're still getting the same Stagg each year, and in some ways, as much as we all respect those two programs, that says something about the weakness of EVERYONE. Because that is what we're competing for, after all. A championship.

Granted, the gap is closing, and Mount isn't rolling teams 66-0 in the semifinals like they were, but Division III football is one of the most top heavy sports there is. Mount's been nearly unbeatable for 15 years, and we're staring at seven straight Stagg Bowls featuring the same two opponents. Good for them, of course, but it's sort of sad we're reduced to Final 4 appearances, #1 seeds, and having to remove two teams from almost any discussion of other team's relative strength...

[jknezek]

Your post is very interesting. I agree that both of the two east teams that went to the elite 8 got knock off in the cross region games and that there is no East team represented in the Final Four. However, I don't think it is luck at all when it comes to getting to the Elite 8, you never know on any given weekend, what a team might do, that is why you play the game (Did you think Wabash was going to beat North Central or predict 100% of the many upsets throughout the year). It is just matchups and execution, some teams (Mount Union & Wisconisin-Whitewater) matchup and execute their game plans very well against certain teams (Every Division III team other than UWW & MU). Hypothetically speaking, do you believe that either Wisconsin-Whitewater or Mount Union regardless of what bracket they are put in are going to make it to the Stagg Bowl (Yes). So how do you make a claim that the historically the East is weaker, every other team that plays Whitewater & Mount Union are weaker.

Now, with the cross regional games in the third round, Yes, St. Thomas beat St. John Fisher whom beat Johns Hopkins and Delaware Valley (both undeafeated teams). But you overlook the other teams that beat St. John Fisher as well. Both Salisbury & Hobart beat beat St. John Fisher convincingly and both of these teams were playoff teams that  loss to great teams, Hobart to Wesley in a close one and Salisbury to Whitewater (who hasn't loss to Whitewater). When you match up any team from any region against Whitewater and Mount Union, what is the expected result (A loss). It is not who makes it to the Final Four, Elite Eight, or Stagg Bowl,  but who wins it all and proves it own the field (Not by votes and computer systems like the BCS) at the end of the day. Like Pat said in the podcast, it would have been Whitewater vs. St. Thomas traditionally in the third round and if done correctly St. John Fisher vs. Salisbury in the Third Round. Then as you exclaim about making it to the Final Four, either St. John Fisher or Salisbury would be in the Final Four. Again, we do not have a team in the Final Four, but put Mount Union in the West bracket next year, Whitewater in the South Bracket, Wesley in the East Bracke, and whomever in the East in the North Bracket, looking back, who do you find in the Stagg bowl, Whitewater and Mount Union. Nevertheless, I want to see a different matchup in the Stagg Bowl, but until any team from any region beat Whitewater and Mount Union, I believe that saying the East is Weak because there best team looses to the Purple Powers is Ludicrous.

I still give you a +K, because you explained yourself well and proper, without being an "A hole."

I like this post. Well put. The first bolded part is what I meant by luck. Any upset in one of the two prior rounds can get you an easier or harder opponent or a home or away game. The fact that both East teams had to travel was a bit unlucky, the fact that Salisbury got UWW is a bit unlucky, though more or less scripted from the bracket, but the way the bracket was set up by pods means Salisbury got unlucky playing UWW after winning their pod as opposed to say Wesley or UMHB who are great teams, but not UWW or UMU obviously.

The second bolded part is kind of interesting, but a non-sequitor from my argument. I made the point that the East appears weak year after year because they don't progress as deep into the Tournament as teams from other regions on a consistent basis. Your point that UMU and UWW make the West and North appear strong is a good one, but this year that argument is blunted by SJF. The 1 and 2 East lost to the 1 and 2 in the West this year, and neither game was all that close, although I'd say they were a long way from truly bad losses. In other words, part of your argument stands, but part of it is no good. At some point, your 1 needs to beat someone else's 1, or your 2 needs to beat someone else's 2. With 1 vs 1 in recent years (UMU versus the last East team standing) hasn't worked out well, or been expected to work out well, 2 vs 2 this year wasn't so good either.

I'm not sure how the third bolded part helps your argument. Wesley beat Hobart. A close loss or a bad loss, the East Region again fell at a cross-region hurdle. The fact that Hobart beat SJF means they were quality teams, but still not up to the snuff of the best teams other regions can produce. That doesn't seem to help the East's case unless you are arguing depth versus top line strength. I always struggle with depth because there aren't enough cross-region games, though SJF beating up on JHU is certainly a good argument that there is more depth in the East than the South, a point I might concede though I don't think JHU would have held up well against Trinity, McM, La. College, UMHB, Wesley or maybe even Centre. They did, however, go undefeated and need to be respected.

Finally, I completely agree with the last bolded point, but that is the problem you and I are getting at. In years past, the East could point to that and say... "you try and do better against a Purple Power". This year with SJF and Hobart, that argument is muted. Both were very good teams in the East, top tier, and both lost against top tier teams from other regions that WEREN'T a Purple Power. Salisbury, however, is admittedly a different case.

Great discussion and I'm going to +K you back because while we may not agree, we can have fun talking about it without slinging mud!

[clandfan]

Your post is very interesting. I agree that both of the two east teams that went to the elite 8 got knock off in the cross region games and that there is no East team represented in the Final Four. However, I don't think it is luck at all when it comes to getting to the Elite 8, you never know on any given weekend, what a team might do, that is why you play the game (Did you think Wabash was going to beat North Central or predict 100% of the many upsets throughout the year). It is just matchups and execution, some teams (Mount Union & Wisconisin-Whitewater) matchup and execute their game plans very well against certain teams (Every Division III team other than UWW & MU). Hypothetically speaking, do you believe that either Wisconsin-Whitewater or Mount Union regardless of what bracket they are put in are going to make it to the Stagg Bowl (Yes). So how do you make a claim that the historically the East is weaker, every other team that plays Whitewater & Mount Union are weaker.

Now, with the cross regional games in the third round, Yes, St. Thomas beat St. John Fisher whom beat Johns Hopkins and Delaware Valley (both undeafeated teams). But you overlook the other teams that beat St. John Fisher as well. Both Salisbury & Hobart beat beat St. John Fisher convincingly and both of these teams were playoff teams that  loss to great teams, Hobart to Wesley in a close one and Salisbury to Whitewater (who hasn't loss to Whitewater). When you match up any team from any region against Whitewater and Mount Union, what is the expected result (A loss). It is not who makes it to the Final Four, Elite Eight, or Stagg Bowl,  but who wins it all and proves it own the field (Not by votes and computer systems like the BCS) at the end of the day. Like Pat said in the podcast, it would have been Whitewater vs. St. Thomas traditionally in the third round and if done correctly St. John Fisher vs. Salisbury in the Third Round. Then as you exclaim about making it to the Final Four, either St. John Fisher or Salisbury would be in the Final Four. Again, we do not have a team in the Final Four, but put Mount Union in the West bracket next year, Whitewater in the South Bracket, Wesley in the East Bracke, and whomever in the East in the North Bracket, looking back, who do you find in the Stagg bowl, Whitewater and Mount Union. Nevertheless, I want to see a different matchup in the Stagg Bowl, but until any team from any region beat Whitewater and Mount Union, I believe that saying the East is Weak because there best team looses to the Purple Powers is Ludicrous.

I still give you a +K, because you explained yourself well and proper, without being an "A hole."

I like this post. Well put. The first bolded part is what I meant by luck. Any upset in one of the two prior rounds can get you an easier or harder opponent or a home or away game. The fact that both East teams had to travel was a bit unlucky, the fact that Salisbury got UWW is a bit unlucky, though more or less scripted from the bracket, but the way the bracket was set up by pods means Salisbury got unlucky playing UWW after winning their pod as opposed to say Wesley or UMHB who are great teams, but not UWW or UMU obviously.

The second bolded part is kind of interesting, but a non-sequitor from my argument. I made the point that the East appears weak year after year because they don't progress as deep into the Tournament as teams from other regions on a consistent basis. Your point that UMU and UWW make the West and North appear strong is a good one, but this year that argument is blunted by SJF. The 1 and 2 East lost to the 1 and 2 in the West this year, and neither game was all that close, although I'd say they were a long way from truly bad losses. In other words, part of your argument stands, but part of it is no good. At some point, your 1 needs to beat someone else's 1, or your 2 needs to beat someone else's 2. With 1 vs 1 in recent years (UMU versus the last East team standing) hasn't worked out well, or been expected to work out well, 2 vs 2 this year wasn't so good either.

I'm not sure how the third bolded part helps your argument. Wesley beat Hobart. A close loss or a bad loss, the East Region again fell at a cross-region hurdle. The fact that Hobart beat SJF means they were quality teams, but still not up to the snuff of the best teams other regions can produce. That doesn't seem to help the East's case unless you are arguing depth versus top line strength. I always struggle with depth because there aren't enough cross-region games, though SJF beating up on JHU is certainly a good argument that there is more depth in the East than the South, a point I might concede though I don't think JHU would have held up well against Trinity, McM, La. College, UMHB, Wesley or maybe even Centre. They did, however, go undefeated and need to be respected.

Finally, I completely agree with the last bolded point, but that is the problem you and I are getting at. In years past, the East could point to that and say... "you try and do better against a Purple Power". This year with SJF and Hobart, that argument is muted. Both were very good teams in the East, top tier, and both lost against top tier teams from other regions that WEREN'T a Purple Power. Salisbury, however, is admittedly a different case.

Great discussion and I'm going to +K you back because while we may not agree, we can have fun talking about it without slinging mud!

Classy posts +K

[ExTartanPlayer]

Granted, the gap is closing, and Mount isn't rolling teams 66-0 in the semifinals like they were, but Division III football is one of the most top heavy sports there is. Mount's been nearly unbeatable for 15 years, and we're staring at seven straight Stagg Bowls featuring the same two opponents. Good for them, of course, but it's sort of sad we're reduced to Final 4 appearances, #1 seeds, and having to remove two teams from almost any discussion of other team's relative strength...

I agree, Bombers, and for that reason I am REALLY hoping that Wesley or St. Thomas knocks off one of the purple powers this year.  I have nothing against UMU or UWW; I just want to see some new blood.  I was thrilled a while back when St. John's toppled Mount in the early 00's, because I thought that might end the complete Purple Reign, but instead Mount came back stronger than ever, and then an even bigger "bully" (UWW) emerged.

You make the point that at least Mount isn't winning semifinal games by 60 anymore, but that hasn't happened for a while.  There have only been a few really bad blowouts in the semifinals in the last 7-8 years (and while Wesley got demolished by UWW a couple times in 2005-06, they did play Mount very tough in 2009). 

[Bombers798891]

Something else to consider regarding regional strength. The only team to beat a Final 4 team this season? An East team   

[lewdogg11]

Yes the 'East' hasn't been represented in the Final 4 in a while, but just take a look at the Final 4 the last 3 years.  Mount Union, UWW, and Wesley.  Ok, so there's the North, South, and West all represented.  Outside of this year, Mount Union took the 'East' bracket so the East has still been boxed out.  This year was the best chance that the East had, but i'm not totally convinced that UWW will run over St. Thomas.  Maybe St. Thomas is the real deal?  We'll find out, but im guessing UMU, UWW, and Wesley are the only teams that might be able to beat them this year, so it's fitting.  This website had them ranked 3rd at the end of the year.  Makes sense.  There is no doubt that the East teams are as deep if not deeper than every other region, and can compete with the majority of the teams in any other region.  D3 football is extremely top heavy, but beyond that, I think the East has proven it can hang with 'Tier 2'.

2011
UMU
UWW
Wesley
UST

2010
UMU
UWW
Wesley
Bethel

2009
UMU
UWW
Wesley
Linfield

[Upstate]

Great discussion and great points on both sides +K all around!

What really bums me out is that for the first time since 2006 the East got a #1 seed and they didn't do anything with it.  Don't get me wrong I'm glad that the Cardinals were able to knock off the Aggies but it didn't do the region any favors when the last team in, a 2 loss team with their 3rd string QB, was able to go on the road and beat them...

I don't think the East will be seeing a #1 seed again anytime soon...

[Frank Rossi]

Great discussion and great points on both sides +K all around!

What really bums me out is that for the first time since 2006 the East got a #1 seed and they didn't do anything with it.  Don't get me wrong I'm glad that the Cardinals were able to knock off the Aggies but it didn't do the region any favors when the last team in, a 2 loss team with their 3rd string QB, was able to go on the road and beat them...

I don't think the East will be seeing a #1 seed again anytime soon...

I think you're off on that.  I think the policy, which has been stated for four years running now (but we all didn't seem to want to believe it this year) is that a quality East conference undefeated team WILL get a #1 seed from the Committee.  Note my surprise in the Joy Solomen interview on "In the HuddLLe" on Selection Sunday when I asked her what the #1 seeds were.  When it comes down to it, in order to build somewhat reasonable brackets, the Committee honestly would want an East #1 for the simple reason that the travel implications become dicey whenever there isn't one (even with UMU on the top of the bracket now that two Pool A East conferences are almost entirely >500 miles away).  There's some geography at play in this, still.

[Bombers798891]

Granted, the gap is closing, and Mount isn't rolling teams 66-0 in the semifinals like they were, but Division III football is one of the most top heavy sports there is. Mount's been nearly unbeatable for 15 years, and we're staring at seven straight Stagg Bowls featuring the same two opponents. Good for them, of course, but it's sort of sad we're reduced to Final 4 appearances, #1 seeds, and having to remove two teams from almost any discussion of other team's relative strength...

I agree, Bombers, and for that reason I am REALLY hoping that Wesley or St. Thomas knocks off one of the purple powers this year.  I have nothing against UMU or UWW; I just want to see some new blood.  I was thrilled a while back when St. John's toppled Mount in the early 00's, because I thought that might end the complete Purple Reign, but instead Mount came back stronger than ever, and then an even bigger "bully" (UWW) emerged.

You make the point that at least Mount isn't winning semifinal games by 60 anymore, but that hasn't happened for a while.  There have only been a few really bad blowouts in the semifinals in the last 7-8 years (and while Wesley got demolished by UWW a couple times in 2005-06, they did play Mount very tough in 2009).

Remember that thing I said about the gap closing? That is what I was referring to

To me, there's two distinct era's of "No parity" in D-III. The first was the "Mount Era" when Mount won (I think) 109 of 110 games at one point and you were getting these Stagg Bowls:

56-24, 61-12, 44-24, 48-7

Now we're in the Purple Power era where the scores are better, but now we have two teams doing all the winning. Call me crazy, but I liked the first one better. Finals Fours and score differentials are one thing, but it was great to watch the Stagg Bowl and pull for Trinity, Bridgewater, St. Johns, and poor, poor Rowan. I'm watching the biggest game of the season, and while I love watching them play at such a great level, well...it's boring. There's no underdog. There's no team you really, really hope gets over the hump. Sure, I do that in the playoffs now, but it's not the same when it's not the Stagg Bowl, because a win in the semis doesn't mean a new champion. If we get round 7 this year, you're looking at pulling for either a team going for its 45th straight win, or Mount Union.

And honestly, I feel guilty rooting for a team to lose, but I sort of feel like that's where we are. I've talked to Coach Leipold, and he's a great guy, down to earth, honest, helpful (in the journalistic sense of the word) and I have no inherent reason to dislike them (or Mount) and yet, I just want them both to lose. I confess, I don't even know who plays who, and yet, I don't care. Seriously, if Cortland beat both of them on the way to a Stagg Bowl title, I would send a congrats over there.

Hey, maybe I'm in the bitter minority here, but it is what it is