East Region Fan Poll

[Bombers798891]

And you think the defensive team didn't do anything to stop them at the 28 yard line versus the 15 yard line?

Okay, let me to respond to this with an example of what I'm talking about.

Say in Week 1, St John Fisher is beating Ithaca 17-16 with a minute to go, and they stop them at the 33-yard line and Max Rottenecker makes a 50-yard FG, and the next week Cortland is leading Ithaca 17-16, and they stop them at the 5 yard line but he misses a 22-yard kick.

The outcome of the kicks result in Fisher being 0-1 and Cortland being 1-0, but when I'm trying to decide if the Red Dragons are actually better than Fisher, I have to ask myself: Did Cortland do something Fisher didn't, or is this ending simply the result of the week-to-week inconsistency of a D-III kicker?

The Falcons/Lions game last week is a great example of why I don't hinge everything on results. It looks like Detroit has scored the game winning touchdown, but then there's a replay review. Why would my opinion of the Falcons change simply because the review showed Tate was a foot short, and the rule book calls for a 10-second run off rather than a 7 second one? Does that foot somehow alter the quality of the Falcons?

[jknezek]

And you think the defensive team didn't do anything to stop them at the 28 yard line versus the 15 yard line?

Okay, let me to respond to this with an example of what I'm talking about.

Say in Week 1, St John Fisher is beating Ithaca 17-16 with a minute to go, and they stop them at the 33-yard line and Max Rottenecker makes a 50-yard FG, and the next week Cortland is leading Ithaca 17-16, and they stop them at the 5 yard line but he misses a 22-yard kick.

The outcome of the kicks result in Fisher being 0-1 and Cortland being 1-0, but when I'm trying to decide if the Red Dragons are actually better than Fisher, I have to ask myself: Did Cortland do something Fisher didn't, or is this ending simply the result of the week-to-week inconsistency of a D-III kicker?

If this is your only data point, then I'm looking at this and saying the two teams are fairly equal and would rank them that way. Generally though, unless this is week 1 and both games were played either home or away, and all stats were the same, and turnovers were equal, and there were no significant injuries... in other words, it's never just this simple and there is usually a pretty easy way to justify a decision one way or the other. People may disagree, which is the whole point of polls, to create conversation and interest, but I find it hard to believe that this will be your sole data point in deciding between the two teams.

No one says you have to base everything on results. It's fairly lazy to do so. But it's also a good starting point. For example, in my SRFP, I was skeptical of SRSU going into the season. However, when they lost to UMHB, without being hammered to pieces, I moved them into my poll. It wasn't about the result, a loss, it was about the data provided by playing the game.

[D3MAFAN]

With everyone talking about dropping without losing and extra points. I am just hoping we can get a home game or two (if we remain undefeated) and we luck up with the #2 or #3 seed in the east. Granted playoffs are based on region and not seeding. I can only wish. 

[wesleydad]

Week 4 Fan Poll 

Team	Record	Points	Last Rating	Next Week
1   Brockport State ( 4 )	4-0	47	1	at Cortland
2   Delaware Valley ( 1 )	4-0	44	3	at FDU-Florham
3   Frostburg State	4-0	42	2	Open Date
4   Wesley	2-1	33	4	vs. Southern Virginia
5   Alfred	3-0	30	5	vs. #10 Buffalo State
6   Albright	4-0	20	6	at King's
7   Hobart	3-1	19	7	at Ithaca
8   Framingham State	4-0	18	9	Open Date
9   Springfield	4-0	10	8	vs. Norwich
10  Buffalo State	3-0	6	NR	at #5 Alfred

Dropping Out:
RPI


Also Receiving votes:               
Christopher Newport 5
Stevenson 1
                     
            
Voting Distribution:            

Brockport State (1,4,1,1,1)
Delaware Valley (3,1,2,2,3)
Frostburg State (2,2,3,4,2)
Wesley (7,3,5,3,4)
Alfred (4,5,4,7,5)
Albright (5,7,8,8,7)
Hobart (6,8,6,5,NR)
Framingham State (10,6,9,6,6)
Springfield (8,NR,7,NR,8)
Buffalo State (9,10,10,NR,9)
Christopher Newport (NR,9,NR,9,10)
Stevenson (NR,NR,NR,10,NR)


Key Matchups:
#10 Buffalo State at #5 Alfred

It looks good to me.  I am still holding out on putting Hobart in the top 10.  Waiting for them to play a good game and this week may be a tell tale for me.  Common opponents to compare to with Ithaca and some of the teams in the top 10.  Not sure how Stevenson is getting any votes, they have been trounced twice now.  Top 10 teams do not get trounced by 2 teams.  They are not that good.  Interesting that the RV group has dwindled to 2 teams.

Wesleydad,
     Based on your logic, how do you make the case for Wesley to be in the top 10, if Hobart is not in the top 10? The two teams that Wesley have beaten are quite  weak(TCNJ and William Patterson record is 0-8). Hobart's wins are against teams that put up a challenge to D3 football opponents and actually won 3 games ( Shenandoah and Endicott). I have always respected  your judgement/opinion, but based on this logic both teams should be out of the top ten. You are probably dinging Hobart for the abysmal first half against Brockport, which I understand, however Hobart came back in the second half and slugged it out and was tied 20-20 at the end of the third quarter against a team I think will cause severe headaches for some top D3 teams by the end of the year. With all due respect, Bartman

Guess you can see it that way.  I saw both losses for both teams and Wesley's was not as bad as Hobart's was in my opinion.  The other opponents are poor, but Wesley did what they should as did Hobart.  Hobart is not in my top 10 because of the teams that I have put in who are undefeated.  I did throw CNU a bone this week because their loss was to the top team on my ballot in a very close game.  Hobart is considered each week, just have not jumped them back in due to other teams.  Wesley did not drop out of the top 10 with their loss, that is why they are still in.  If someone did not have them in the top 10 for any reason I would not argue with the logic, a loss is a loss.  I tried to drop Wesley out, but some other top teams lost also and I could not find any worthy teams at 1-0 to bump them.

[Bombers798891]

I find it hard to believe that this will be your sole data point in deciding between the two teams.

Right, this was my whole point: Why would my opinion on teams change meaningfully based on the admittedly unpredictable outcome of a kick when there's other things that are more informative?

[jknezek]

I find it hard to believe that this will be your sole data point in deciding between the two teams.

Right, this was my whole point: Why would my opinion on teams change meaningfully based on the admittedly unpredictable outcome of a kick when there's other things that are more informative?

That's your point? Who the heck would ONLY look at kicking? The point is, you don't ignore kicking. It's part of the game. But you judge based on as much of the data available as possible. I guess I just didn't understand your original point. It's quite possible to be part of a poll and not be 100% constrained by win/loss record. I'm guessing most of us who participate don't go solely by wins/losses.

Anyone voting in this poll only look at win/loss and not any other mitigating circumstance?

[Bombers798891]

That's your point? Who the heck would ONLY look at kicking? The point is, you don't ignore kicking. It's part of the game.

I never said I ignored kicking though. I think it maybe came across like I was saying teams can't differentiate themselves by virtue of having a strong or weak kicker. I didn't mean it that way.

I said (or meant to say) that because kicking at this level is so inconsistent, if the only real difference between two teams is a missed kick or two, the result of the game doesn't have much meaning for me in how I'd vote.

[Bartman]

That's your point? Who the heck would ONLY look at kicking? The point is, you don't ignore kicking. It's part of the game.

I never said I ignored kicking though. I think it maybe came across like I was saying teams can't differentiate themselves by virtue of having a strong or weak kicker. I didn't mean it that way.

I said (or meant to say) that because kicking at this level is so inconsistent, if the only real difference between two teams is a missed kick or two, the result of the game doesn't have much meaning for me in how I'd vote.

I think we have totally reached our quota on kicking discussions for the entire year 

[fisheralum91]

That's your point? Who the heck would ONLY look at kicking? The point is, you don't ignore kicking. It's part of the game.

I never said I ignored kicking though. I think it maybe came across like I was saying teams can't differentiate themselves by virtue of having a strong or weak kicker. I didn't mean it that way.

I said (or meant to say) that because kicking at this level is so inconsistent, if the only real difference between two teams is a missed kick or two, the result of the game doesn't have much meaning for me in how I'd vote.

I think we have totally reached our quota on kicking discussions for the entire year 

Football has kickers?

[AUPepBand]

That's your point? Who the heck would ONLY look at kicking? The point is, you don't ignore kicking. It's part of the game.

I never said I ignored kicking though. I think it maybe came across like I was saying teams can't differentiate themselves by virtue of having a strong or weak kicker. I didn't mean it that way.

I said (or meant to say) that because kicking at this level is so inconsistent, if the only real difference between two teams is a missed kick or two, the result of the game doesn't have much meaning for me in how I'd vote.

I think we have totally reached our quota on kicking discussions for the entire year 

But Pep would like to make an extra point.....

[jknezek]

Football has kickers?

Not at Fisher this year apparently... 

[fisheralum91]

+k Well played!

[jknezek]

+k Well played!

And I share your pain. W&L's frosh kicker is clearly still finding his leg. Not terrible by any means, but as with all frosh, room to grow...

[Bombers798891]

Yes, moving on...

This IC/Hobart matchup will be very interesting when you consider:

Hobart has yet to play a road game
The Bombers have had an extra week to prepare
Ithaca's made some significant changes from the early weeks (Nabi being the obvious one)

Bart is still the favorite in my mind, but it's going to be a good one. Forecast is for upper 50s and rainy

[ExTartanPlayer]

Apologies for the non-specific post, but I've got a general observation to make about the first couple weeks of the season, so I'm going to post this in each of the respective "fan poll" threads since they will typically get some readership from many different conferences / audiences (of course, within each thread, it can and likely will spawn some discussion specific to that region):

The first couple weeks of the season feel like we're seeing one of the more "wide open" seasons in D3 football in several years, IMHO.  It's not just about UWW losing a few games; all over the Division, we've seen signs that some leagues may not adhere to a traditional hierarchy. 

- Thomas More has already lost to two other conference rivals, turning the PAC into a potentially entertaining four-team horse race;

- Wabash had to scrap their way past an admittedly-improved Hiram team, leaving several NRFP voters believing that Denison and/or DePauw are the teams Wittenberg really needs to be worried about;

- Whitewater already has two losses on the board to "very good but not great; teams that you wouldn't normally expect them to lose to" opponents and travels to UW-Oshkosh this week facing the prospect of their earliest "likely elimination from playoff contention" since 2002;

- St. Thomas picked up an early loss to UW-Stout (?!) and now likely has to play the season under "win the MIAC or risk missing the playoffs" pressure;

- John Carroll, fresh off a season where they snapped Mount Union's forever-long OAC win streak and made an appearance in the national semifinals, took it on the chin from Heidelberg, leaving us wondering if maybe Heidelberg is the real "second banana" to challenge Mount this year rather than JCU

- Wesley, who has had as much success as any non-Purple (UMU, UWW, Linfield, UMHB, UST) in the last decade, took a loss in Week 1 - admittedly against a quality opponent, a much less surprising loss than Stout vs. UST - but, similarly to UST, likely will play the season under "win the league or you might be home for the holidays" pressure

I know there have been some early surprises in other seasons, too, but this just feels like a season that's elicited a lot more "Whoa! That happened?" reactions in the first few weeks than seasons past.  Instead of the inevitable slog to the playoffs where it feels like we already know who lots of the players will be, several leagues feel more open top-to-bottom than usual and we're seeing some fun teams getting votes in the poll who may or may not deserve to be there, but are sitting there currently lacking any other evidence that someone else is definitively better.  Raise your hand if you thought UW-Stout would appear in a D3fb top 25 this season.  Or if you thought Frostburg State would be ranked 11th in the same week UW-Whitewater is barely holding onto a few votes. 

It could be a wild second half, folks, and we're not even out of September.  Yee-haw!  High times for Division III football, if you ask me.