East Region Fan Poll

[ExTartanPlayer]

I guess here's how I view Hobart: They're a team that won a mediocre conference, and lost in the first round of the playoffs. To some degree, that's out of their control. They had some scheduling issues, and the LL being down isn't their fault. But that's still their season. I think you're right that sometimes teams are playing better than their seeding/record might indicate, but I don't think 26th is an insult to the team.

Very nice post, overall, Bombers, and some very good points.  While Hobart probably deserves to be ranked higher than #26, I think that you've made a nice point that the overall "body of work" is a bit thin, and that has to count SOMEHOW in the rankings.

Re: the Union win, you've described it very well.  It was a fine win against a decent team that steadily improved over the course of the season.  As the "second-best" win on a schedule of a Top 25 team, it's not so hot (remember, Union lost to an NEFC team at the start of the season - not even the "best" NEFC team, but an NEFC team that finished third in their own division - and you guys generally complain that the weak NEFC gets a playoff berth).*  If that win over Union is your fourth-best win, then you're looking pretty darned strong.

*Yes, I know, one could argue that it was a "fluky" loss and that Union improved over the course of the season, and that's certainly true.  But aren't you guys ignoring this logic in the Hobart/SJF debate?  If you concede that Union must have improved over the course of the season, isn't it possible that SJF did the same?

If one stacks up the major accomplishments in Hobart's season, you could probably boil it down to three "good" items and one "bad" item.

#1 win over 10-3 quarterfinalist St. John Fisher
#2 win over 6-4 but dangerous Union
Competitive loss against 12-2 semifinalist Wesley
Surprising loss to 4-5 RPI

Now let's look at the teams ranked immediately ahead of Hobart:

#25 Bethel (8-2)

#1 win over 6-4 St. John's
#2 win over 6-4 Augsburg
Competitive loss to semifinalist St. Thomas
2-point loss to 8-2 St. Olaf

Not all that different, really.  They don't have a win over a team that's the caliber of SJF, but nor do they have a loss to a team that finished 4-5 in a mediocre conference.  They also have a similarly close loss to a Final Four team.

#24 Baldwin-Wallace

#1 win over 8-2 Heidelberg
#2 win over 6-4 Ohio Northern
Close loss to national finalist Mount Union
Surprising loss to 5-5 Capital

Again - how are we supposed to say that this resume is CLEARLY weaker than Hobart's?  Their top wins, again, are relatively similar to Hobart's.  The slight difference in #1 win is probably offset by the fact that Baldwin-Wallace nearly beat Mount Union - at Mount Union - and their "surprising" loss, again, probably comes against a better team than RPI.

#23 Thomas More is one team that Hobart could probably be ranked ahead of - they are lacking a signature win of any kind, and their losses came to fine teams but no one the caliber of Wesley.  (TMC's final ranking is probably more a function of their third straight PAC championship than anything they accomplished this year)

#22 Wheaton

#1 win over 7-3 UW-Platteville
#2 win over MIAA champion Albion
Close loss to Illinois Wesleyan
26-point loss to North Central

Wheaton beat a second-place team from the notoriously tough WIAC (on the road) and soundly defeated another conference's champion.  They had a close loss (again, on the road) to playoff team Illinois Wesleyan and a bad loss to North Central (who everyone THOUGHT was a possible challenger to Mount Union until they were upset by Wabash).  Is Hobart's resume demonstrably better?  Again, hard to say that for certain.  Are we really sure that wins over SJF and Union are THAT superior to wins over UW-Platteville and Albion?  Doesn't it matter that both of Wheaton's losses came against teams that are SIGNIFICANTLY better than RPI?

Summary: After looking at the resumes compiled by teams  #22-25, it's hard to CLEARLY state that Hobart accomplished appreciably more than most of them.  While Hobart probably COULD be interchanged with these teams in the rankings, I don't think that having any single team ranked above of them screams for a re-vote.

[Jonny Utah]

Yea but if Mount Union played Hobarts schedule they would have only had 8 wins.  Unless you are saying pollsters are punishing the team because of the schedule they had to play?

One team's punishing is another team's rewarding. It's rewarding another team that played a more complete schedule.

Ok then, what if Hobart scheduled Colgate and Cornell and beat those teams instead of playing SJF and Bruce Dickinson?  Would they still have been punished by playing the best schedule in the country?  Or what if they replaced SJF and Bruce with MIT and Anna Maria, Caselton and Husson?  That would be a 10 game schedule that is worse than their 8 game schedule, and much worse if they had played Colgate and Cornell.

Here's the thing: We've seen teams play weak schedules. We've seen teams play shortened schedules. But Hobart did both. Eight games, and an SOS good for 128th in the country. That strikes me as unique, (although maybe Frank or Pat know of some other instances where something similar occurred?)

Well no one can argue that Hobart played a short schedule, but they did play SJF non league.  Having a top 10 team in your nonleague slate is more than a lot of teams can say.

Hobart lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 7 points in the playoffs and lost to another top 10 team (or close to it) by a monkeystomp.  Hobart should have been ranked around 15 in my opinion.

The LL was not a great conference this past year but I think they were a little underated.  As bad as some of their records were, they showed that many of their teams could play with the best.  Maybe the most inconsistent conference thats for sure.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Hobart lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 7 points in the playoffs and lost to another top 10 team (or close to it) by a monkeystomp.  Hobart should have been ranked around 15 in my opinion.

Jonny,

I would have agreed with this until I looked at the resumes of teams in the lower tier of the top 25 and noticed that many of them could claim something similar.  Hobart lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 7?  Bethel lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 10.  Baldwin-Wallace lost to one of the top 2 teams in the country by 5 (and actually LED in the fourth quarter).  Both of Wheaton's losses came against playoff teams.  None of the aforementioned teams lost to a team as "bad" as RPI.

As a factual correction: you reference Hobart losing a monkey-stomp to another top 10 team, but I think you got temporarily mixed up.  Hobart actually WON a monkey-stomp against a borderline top 10 team (SJF), but they LOST to a very mediocre 4-5 RPI team (and they did this late in the season, when the "Oh, it was Week 1" or "Well, they improved over the season" arguments probably don't hold up any more).

[Jonny Utah]

Hobart lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 7 points in the playoffs and lost to another top 10 team (or close to it) by a monkeystomp.  Hobart should have been ranked around 15 in my opinion.

Jonny,

I would have agreed with this until I looked at the resumes of teams in the lower tier of the top 25 and noticed that many of them could claim something similar.  Hobart lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 7?  Bethel lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 10.  Baldwin-Wallace lost to one of the top 2 teams in the country by 5 (and actually LED in the fourth quarter).  Both of Wheaton's losses came against playoff teams.  None of the aforementioned teams lost to a team as "bad" as RPI.

As a factual correction: you reference Hobart losing a monkey-stomp to another top 10 team, but I think you got temporarily mixed up.  Hobart actually WON a monkey-stomp against a borderline top 10 team (SJF), but they LOST to a very mediocre 4-5 RPI team (and they did this late in the season, when the "Oh, it was Week 1" or "Well, they improved over the season" arguments probably don't hold up any more).

Yea I know these things can go either way, but Hobart knew what it needed to do to get in the playoffs and they did it and then lost on the road in a close game (I think) in the playoffs.  That is the only reason why I give them the edge over those other teams.

[Frank Rossi]

Hobart lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 7 points in the playoffs and lost to another top 10 team (or close to it) by a monkeystomp.  Hobart should have been ranked around 15 in my opinion.

Jonny,

I would have agreed with this until I looked at the resumes of teams in the lower tier of the top 25 and noticed that many of them could claim something similar.  Hobart lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 7?  Bethel lost to one of the top 4 teams in the country by 10.  Baldwin-Wallace lost to one of the top 2 teams in the country by 5 (and actually LED in the fourth quarter).  Both of Wheaton's losses came against playoff teams.  None of the aforementioned teams lost to a team as "bad" as RPI.

As a factual correction: you reference Hobart losing a monkey-stomp to another top 10 team, but I think you got temporarily mixed up.  Hobart actually WON a monkey-stomp against a borderline top 10 team (SJF), but they LOST to a very mediocre 4-5 RPI team (and they did this late in the season, when the "Oh, it was Week 1" or "Well, they improved over the season" arguments probably don't hold up any more).

Yea I know these things can go either way, but Hobart knew what it needed to do to get in the playoffs and they did it and then lost on the road in a close game (I think) in the playoffs.  That is the only reason why I give them the edge over those other teams.

It's very plausible to suggest here that UMHB and Linfield both enjoyed some level of buoying from the idea that they both lost to Wesley in reasonably close games (Linfield had already beaten CalLute earlier in the season, so that win didn't buoy them much, and the ensuing loss to Wesley by giving up 42 in a row in the 2nd half wasn't awe-inspiring unless you're giving Wesley super-team status, and same goes for UMHB except for the closer game they played against Wesley at home).  I guess the question is why those teams can prosper from their affiliations with Wesley in the playoffs, but Hobart seemed somewhat ignored in the same assessment.

[Upstate]

I really would have liked to seen Hobart go up against Wesley with their starting QB.  He really impressed me when they obliterated my Cardinals.  He was a deadly 20-29 for 266 and 5 TDs, he was hitting people in stride and putting the ball on the money when guys were coming out of their breaks.  Then when Fisher would get pressure he would escape out of the pocket and make plays either throwing on the run or taking off and running with it...

I really think it could have been a different game considering how much trouble Bart's back up QB had in the game...

[ExTartanPlayer]

I guess the question is why those teams can prosper from their affiliations with Wesley in the playoffs, but Hobart seemed somewhat ignored in the same assessment.

IMHO, the answer is a combination of the following:

1) neither of those teams had a black mark as "bad" as Hobart's loss to RPI.
2) 'Bart is hurt by the curiously short schedule.
3) Most of the "peers" that we're comparing Hobart to have at least one similar result (again, Bethel played UST tough, B-W nearly beat Mount) - and they don't have a bad loss.

IMHO, #2 shouldn't matter (but most non-East-Region voters probably just see that 7-2 record and think "Hmmmm...")

[pumkinattack]

I'm glad I didn't come in to be pushing this debate solely and appreciate the discussion as a Hobart fan (easterners devour ourselves internally and then coem together against the mongol hordes from the rest of the country).  I think JHU really is the most perplexing to me (+106 pts, nothing against Hopkins).  The CC isn't any better and they don't have a win (as Pat constantly points out, it's who you beat) anywhere near as good as Hobart's.  They've done nothing to earn that 18 slot in direct comparison (unless the whole anchor is the 8 game schedule - but it shouldn't be).  I also don't see where DelVal's resume is all that much more impressive (214 more pts).

Re: the Wesley game.  A loss is a loss, but clearly it does influence many of the voters (the discussion about a tough loss to a top team always has applied, there's a bout a gazillion posts reflecting this).  Not only was Strang out, but also the #1 and #3 WR's (top punter and no kicker as well) and two of the 4 best defensive players were only cleared to play late in the week (Worthington and R Robinson), so they were definately short handed against an excellent team (the clear #3). 

Ex Tartan is probably right about how the thought process shook out.  It just doesn't strike me if you put up the ranked and ORV teams from the East, that the gap between Hobart and the other east teams should be nearly that large considering the total vote differential of many.  The other thing, is one really wanted to be circumspect on this topic is to consider what Vosberg and the guys who saw Hobart play as well as the Wesley staff said about the team.  I really hope that it just motivates the 10 game 2012 version to blow kids up all season next year.   

[Pat Coleman]

It is who you beat, but remember that Hobart has the extra loss that Johns Hopkins doesn't have. The understanding behind the "It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat," mantra is that the "who you lost to" is a ranked team or a high-quality opponent.

[Bombers798891]

It is who you beat, but remember that Hobart has the extra loss that Johns Hopkins doesn't have. The understanding behind the "It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat," mantra is that the "who you lost to" is a ranked team or a high-quality opponent.

I agree. Look, if RPI were even a solid team, I could entertain Hobart being higher. But they were bad. Other than Hobart, their wins were Castleton State (4-6 in the ECFC), Rochester, and St. Lawrence. They lost at home to the 6th place team in the E8, and blown off the field by the 3rd place team in the E8. They also lost to the two worst teams in the LL.

And this wasn't a Union/Ithaca type thing, where it was early in the year, and the team hadn't hit their stride. RPI was hardly getting better. They lost at home to Merchant Marine next week.

Blowing a 28-7 lead at home to a team that bad is inexplicable, even if RPI needed a special teams meltdown by the Statesman to do it.

[ExTartanPlayer]

It is who you beat, but remember that Hobart has the extra loss that Johns Hopkins doesn't have. The understanding behind the "It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat," mantra is that the "who you lost to" is a ranked team or a high-quality opponent.

Good point...perhaps Hopkins doesn't have a win anywhere near the quality of SJF, but nor do they have a loss nearly as damning as Hobart's loss to RPI.

We keep talking about Hobart's win over SJF and close loss to Wesley as evidence that they should be ranked much higher, but we cannot just ignore the fact that they lost to a mediocre Liberty League team that finished 4-5.

Re: the perceived weakness of the Centennial Conference and how that affects Hopkins, I have two comments with respect to that point:

1) The Centennial did have a pretty disastrous nonconference record this year, but CC runner-up Muhlenberg lost by one point to #1 seed Del Val.  Further, Hopkins really hammered most of their CC rivals (83-21 win over Gettysburg and 37-9 win over Ursinus, who both finished T-3rd in the conference).  So even though the CC was pretty weak, Hopkins really pounded everybody (even the Muhlenberg game wasn't that close). 

Yes, they faded a little bit at the end of the season, but they still WON their games, while Hobart lost to RPI.  If one wants to argue that RPI was better than most of the teams that Hopkins played...

2) RPI lost to Merchant Marine right after beating Hobart.  Hopkins annihilated Merchant Marine in week 1 (on the road).

I'm not using that as proof that Hopkins is "better" than Hobart - you don't have to tell me twice how silly it is to compare teams through three degrees of separation, especially when you're using results that are clearly the "extreme" observations in a team's body of work - but if we're giving Hobart credit for beating SJF, we also have to dock them pretty hard for losing to RPI (which is something that Hopkins did NOT do).

[Bombers798891]

The LL was not a great conference this past year but I think they were a little underated.  As bad as some of their records were, they showed that many of their teams could play with the best. Maybe the most inconsistent conference thats for sure.

Other than Hobart, who showed anything close to that in the LL? The rest of the conference was 6-14 in OOC play this season

Here were the OOC wins by the LL teams other than Hobart

Springfield (6-4, 4th place in the E8)
Case Western (9-1, 1st place in UAA)
Castleton State (4-6, 5th place in the ECFC)
Norwich (7-4, 1st in ECFC)
Coast Guard (2-7, 7th in NEFC)
Becker (1-9, 7th in ECFC)

Four absolutely awful teams, one decent, tough to play team (Springfield) and one team that got an also receiving votes (Case).

And the losses were similarly uninspiring. Salve, Utica, and Ithaca by Union is not exactly a murderer's row. Rochester hung with Alfred but got embarrassed by Fisher. RPI lost to Utica and got waxed by Alfred. So did St. Lawrence. Merchant got waxed by Hopkins and lost to Maritime. WPI got lit up by Merrimack, and lost to Worchester State.

I'm not trying to pile on, but come on. Other than Hobart, what's standing out here?

[Jonny Utah]

The LL was not a great conference this past year but I think they were a little underated.  As bad as some of their records were, they showed that many of their teams could play with the best. Maybe the most inconsistent conference thats for sure.

Other than Hobart, who showed anything close to that in the LL? The rest of the conference was 6-14 in OOC play this season

Here were the OOC wins by the LL teams other than Hobart

Springfield (6-4, 4th place in the E8)
Case Western (9-1, 1st place in UAA)
Castleton State (4-6, 5th place in the ECFC)
Norwich (7-4, 1st in ECFC)
Coast Guard (2-7, 7th in NEFC)
Becker (1-9, 7th in ECFC)

Four absolutely awful teams, one decent, tough to play team (Springfield) and one team that got an also receiving votes (Case).

And the losses were similarly uninspiring. Salve, Utica, and Ithaca by Union is not exactly a murderer's row. Rochester hung with Alfred but got embarrassed by Fisher. RPI lost to Utica and got waxed by Alfred. So did St. Lawrence. Merchant got waxed by Hopkins and lost to Maritime. WPI got lit up by Merrimack, and lost to Worchester State.

I'm not trying to pile on, but come on. Other than Hobart, what's standing out here?

Well I'm including Hobart, Wesley, and SJF as some of the "best".  I think many of the LL teams (Union, Rochester, RPI) could have given any E8 team a good game at the end of the season.

[pumkinattack]

Ok, so we all think then that Kean, DelVal and SJF are far superior to Hobart then?  Before it was that all those teams are much closer (like a page or two ago).  I'm really not interested in responding to Pat here simply because I've never witnessed him accept anyone else's opinion when it differs from him on anything (when we're discussing subjective matters that require critical thought - his defense will be something about how many teams he's seen play this year, but listening others, currently involved in the game is somehow not germane). 

How about this, Thomas More (Sorry SF, just trying to make a point).  Is a home loss to Waynesburg any different?  34 pts is a decent difference, especially when it's clear that Bart's pt total is inflated by LL homer FR. 

I think the real answer is that Hobart started off completely off the map after two mediocre years and becasue they didn't get that natural inflation over the course of the season that others did, they didn't make the grade.  That's fine, but it seems to me it would be honest to accept that many voters start with a preseason projection and drift teams up and if you don't start high you damn well run the table in the regular season. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Jonny, I really mean this as a good-natured debate, but when you say this:

"I think many of the LL teams (Union, Rochester, RPI) could have given any E8 team a good game at the end of the season."

I'm basically going to repeat what Bombers said back to you: what makes you believe that's true?

Union beat the E8's fourth-place team, Springfield, by one touchdown at home.  Springfield got hammered by Salisbury and SJF and also lost to Alfred.  Perhaps I'm just arguing semantics, but I don't see how that means that Union could have given "any" E8 team a good game by the end of the season.

Rochester went 0-2 against the E8, getting destroyed by SJF early and losing to Alfred later (an Alfred team that had just lost two straight E8 games, giving up 69 and 54 points, and one of THOSE came against a mediocre Frostburg State team who wasn't in the top half of the E8).

RPI got steamrolled by Alfred to open the season and lost to LL bottom-feeder Merchant Marine to end it.  The only thing that suggests that they could have given "any" E8 team a good game by the end of the season is their upset win over Hobart, but considering that was sandwiched between two losses and came a few weeks after a home loss to E8 bottom-feeder Utica, I'm still not sure that I'm buying RPI giving "any" E8 team a good game by the end of the season.