East Region Fan Poll

[wally_wabash]

If things break Ithaca's way, Cortland loss to Brockport and 2 Salisbury loses, and they may be the first team on the board from the East with 2 loses.  It will be interesting to see how the committee ranks some of the smaller/weaker conferences.  If W Conn loses to Framingham, W Conn only has 1 loss, does the committee keep them ahead of Ithaca?  Looking forward to the East Regional Rankings to see how it plays out.

Ithaca is president of the good loss club.  13-7 vs. presumed East #1 Brockport and 10-9 to presumed East #3 RPI.  I'd say their SOS advantage over WCSU would put Ithaca ahead of WCSU if WCSU picks up a loss.  The SOS advantage plus 0-2 vs RROs E1 and E3 is significantly better than 0-1 vs. RRO E8/9/10 (kind of a best case scenario for Framingham).

Wally, can you expand a bit on how the committee tends to view RRO records?

Like, I know it all depends where the teams are ranked, but in general, is there a point at which an extra loss/losses trumps fewer games/wins? As an extreme example, if a team went 0-3 against like E1, E3, E7, and another team went 1-0 against say, E10, what's looked at as a better result?

Three losses seems to be the tipping point where it doesn't really matter any more who you lost to or by how much.  Win percentage is a primary criteria and when the win percentage hits 0.700, you're basically out of the rankings and definitely out of the at-large picture. 

We've heard committee chairs tell us in different ways over the last few years that results against ranked opponents are not created equal.  So at large teams that are both 0-1 vs. RRO may be differentiated if one team lost to S1 and another team lost to W9.  I think it also matters to some committee members if the games were competitive- if a team is 0-2 vs. E1 and E3 (hypothetically, of course!) and those games were close and competitive, they may help a bit more than if that same team didn't have those two results but did have a narrow win over E9.  But the mileage on that is going to differ for each individual member of the advisory committee and then again for the members of the national committee. 

A couple of extreme examples of when you can have too many "good" losses:
- In 2017, UW-Whitewater lost tight games against N5, W8, and a not-quite-as-close game against W1.  They also beat W7.  They were not ranked in the final set of rankings.
- In 2015, North Central lost in OT to W7, lost to E1 by one point when Joe Callahan converted a 2-point try with 7 seconds left, and by 8 to N2.  North Central did get ranked, but were ranked behind several one loss teams with curmmy SOS's and poor or nonexistent results vs. RROs. 

Going back to 2014, the only three loss teams that have been (officially) ranked at any point are:
2014 - Rowan (E9)
2015 - North Central (N10)
2016 - Salisbury (E10)

[Bombers798891]

If things break Ithaca's way, Cortland loss to Brockport and 2 Salisbury loses, and they may be the first team on the board from the East with 2 loses.  It will be interesting to see how the committee ranks some of the smaller/weaker conferences.  If W Conn loses to Framingham, W Conn only has 1 loss, does the committee keep them ahead of Ithaca?  Looking forward to the East Regional Rankings to see how it plays out.

Ithaca is president of the good loss club.  13-7 vs. presumed East #1 Brockport and 10-9 to presumed East #3 RPI.  I'd say their SOS advantage over WCSU would put Ithaca ahead of WCSU if WCSU picks up a loss.  The SOS advantage plus 0-2 vs RROs E1 and E3 is significantly better than 0-1 vs. RRO E8/9/10 (kind of a best case scenario for Framingham).

Wally, can you expand a bit on how the committee tends to view RRO records?

Like, I know it all depends where the teams are ranked, but in general, is there a point at which an extra loss/losses trumps fewer games/wins? As an extreme example, if a team went 0-3 against like E1, E3, E7, and another team went 1-0 against say, E10, what's looked at as a better result?

Three losses seems to be the tipping point where it doesn't really matter any more who you lost to or by how much.  Win percentage is a primary criteria and when the win percentage hits 0.700, you're basically out of the rankings and definitely out of the at-large picture. 

We've heard committee chairs tell us in different ways over the last few years that results against ranked opponents are not created equal.  So at large teams that are both 0-1 vs. RRO may be differentiated if one team lost to S1 and another team lost to W9.  I think it also matters to some committee members if the games were competitive- if a team is 0-2 vs. E1 and E3 (hypothetically, of course!) and those games were close and competitive, they may help a bit more than if that same team didn't have those two results but did have a narrow win over E9.  But the mileage on that is going to differ for each individual member of the advisory committee and then again for the members of the national committee. 

A couple of extreme examples of when you can have too many "good" losses:
- In 2017, UW-Whitewater lost tight games against N5, W8, and a not-quite-as-close game against W1.  They also beat W7.  They were not ranked in the final set of rankings.
- In 2015, North Central lost in OT to W7, lost to E1 by one point when Joe Callahan converted a 2-point try with 7 seconds left, and by 8 to N2.  North Central did get ranked, but were ranked behind several one loss teams with curmmy SOS's and poor or nonexistent results vs. RROs. 

Going back to 2014, the only three loss teams that have been (officially) ranked at any point are:
2014 - Rowan (E9)
2015 - North Central (N10)
2016 - Salisbury (E10)

Yeah, that was a bad example on my part. I guess what I'm saying is, IC's 0-2 against E1/E3. Is that better than a 1-0 vs 8?

[wally_wabash]

If MMA gets an at large bid, the system is severely flawed and we are all much worse off for being fans of D3 football.

Do remember that Pool B is the NEWMAC and Thomas More.  It's a pretty small club.  USMMA isn't competing with runners up out of power conferences for this spot. 

[Ice Bear]

If things break Ithaca's way, Cortland loss to Brockport and 2 Salisbury loses, and they may be the first team on the board from the East with 2 loses.  It will be interesting to see how the committee ranks some of the smaller/weaker conferences. If W Conn loses to Framingham, W Conn only has 1 loss, does the committee keep them ahead of Ithaca?  Looking forward to the East Regional Rankings to see how it plays out.

The other debate, does a 3 loss team belong in?  Based on the voters it seems so.  I don't get it, but perception seems to be trumping reality.

This would be a damn shame and another representation of how the system DOES NOT select the best teams on occasion. You might as well just have the head of the selection committee call over Swanstrom and just punch him in the face...that would probably be much easier for him to handle.

[Ice Bear]

If MMA gets an at large bid, the system is severely flawed and we are all much worse off for being fans of D3 football.

Yeah, that would certainly be another example of a flawed system and make one think to sit and rotate on a very sharp pointy ****ing object. Let's hope the best case scenario works out for the teams that deserve to be there as opposed to the ones the system may allow in.

[Pat Coleman]

If things break Ithaca's way, Cortland loss to Brockport and 2 Salisbury loses, and they may be the first team on the board from the East with 2 loses.  It will be interesting to see how the committee ranks some of the smaller/weaker conferences. If W Conn loses to Framingham, W Conn only has 1 loss, does the committee keep them ahead of Ithaca?  Looking forward to the East Regional Rankings to see how it plays out.

The other debate, does a 3 loss team belong in?  Based on the voters it seems so.  I don't get it, but perception seems to be trumping reality.

This would be a damn shame and another representation of how the system DOES NOT select the best teams on occasion. You might as well just have the head of the selection committee call over Swanstrom and just punch him in the face...that would probably be much easier for him to handle.

Dunno about this -- I understand losing to Brockport because they've been pretty much crushing people for a season and a half. But I don't think a loss to RPI is automatically excused the way a loss to Mount Union, UMHB and Brockport are.

[MRMIKESMITH]

If things break Ithaca's way, Cortland loss to Brockport and 2 Salisbury loses, and they may be the first team on the board from the East with 2 loses.  It will be interesting to see how the committee ranks some of the smaller/weaker conferences. If W Conn loses to Framingham, W Conn only has 1 loss, does the committee keep them ahead of Ithaca?  Looking forward to the East Regional Rankings to see how it plays out.

The other debate, does a 3 loss team belong in?  Based on the voters it seems so.  I don't get it, but perception seems to be trumping reality.

This would be a damn shame and another representation of how the system DOES NOT select the best teams on occasion. You might as well just have the head of the selection committee call over Swanstrom and just punch him in the face...that would probably be much easier for him to handle.

Dunno about this -- I understand losing to Brockport because they've been pretty much crushing people for a season and a half. But I don't think a loss to RPI is automatically excused the way a loss to Mount Union, UMHB and Brockport are.

I agree, I think anytime you get into the two-loss range (although to top teams), it can get interesting.

[Bombers798891]

I agree with Pat here. Look, RPI is probably going to go 9-0. But the Engineers, record and ranking aside, feel to me like exactly the caliber of team that a playoff-caliber team needs to be able to beat at home. They're good, and they're beatable.

Frankly Ithaca's wins, while also not coming against RR teams, haven't exactly been a tour de force show of strength.

In their best win, at Alfred, they played a god-awful first half of football in every way, trailing 13-0. They needed a red zone stand to get out of St. John Fisher, of all places.

They're not even putting in 60 great minutes against the dregs of the league. In the Rochester game, the Yellow Jackets made 5 red zone trips, and three trips inside the 10. Credit IC's defense, sure. But when RPI got Rochester, they dominated them. Rochester got 4 first downs on its second drive, and three the rest of the game.

There's always a reason right? Nabi's been hurt for some of these games, Gladney's been hurt for others, and when they finally get them on the field at the same time, the weather is terrible and who can move the ball in a mud pit, anyway. But the line between reason and excuse is really thin when you're 8-2 as opposed to 9-1

Look, I'm an IC fan, and they have arguably the best defense in the region. And we've all seen what the Nabi-Gladney-Vito trio can do when it's clicking (witness the first half of Cortaca 2017).

There's a better Bombers team lurking somewhere in this one, but we haven't seen it yet

[Ice Bear]

Certainly all good points here...but again Ithaca defeats West Conn 9 out of 10 times...maybe 10 out of 10. Don't give a **** if it's all defense that does it. Also, That O would look a lot better against West Conn than probably any other decent team on their schedule minus SLU, Roch, and maybe Vincent.

DB understands this is the way it is regarding the system but why the **** is it so hard to understand/admit that there are always teams not selected in regional rankings and even the NCAA that are a good deal better than some teams selected. The number of losses, while obviously used as criteria for selection doesn't make a team automatically worse than a team with less losses from a weaker conference. It's not ****ing brain surgery. That's DB's only real point. That teams like West Conn are almost always not as good as the 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes 4th best teams in the NJAC, E8, LL, and sometimes the MAC.

[Ice Bear]

Let DB be clear though that obviously there must be certain criteria used to rank and select teams to the NCAA tourney. Also DB admits that he has no idea how to go about making sure the "best" teams would be selected, he's not that ****ing smart. It just seems to him that we are quite far off from being near that...which IDBHO should be something every selection committee in any sport should strive for...getting the strongest teams in.

[Ice Bear]

BTW, whose the ****ing corn hole karma sniper here? Snipe away...

[UfanBill]

I agree with Pat here. Look, RPI is probably going to go 9-0. But the Engineers, record and ranking aside, feel to me like exactly the caliber of team that a playoff-caliber team needs to be able to beat at home. They're good, and they're beatable.

Frankly Ithaca's wins, while also not coming against RR teams, haven't exactly been a tour de force show of strength.

In their best win, at Alfred, they played a god-awful first half of football in every way, trailing 13-0. They needed a red zone stand to get out of St. John Fisher, of all places.

They're not even putting in 60 great minutes against the dregs of the league. In the Rochester game, the Yellow Jackets made 5 red zone trips, and three trips inside the 10. Credit IC's defense, sure. But when RPI got Rochester, they dominated them. Rochester got 4 first downs on its second drive, and three the rest of the game.

There's always a reason right? Nabi's been hurt for some of these games, Gladney's been hurt for others, and when they finally get them on the field at the same time, the weather is terrible and who can move the ball in a mud pit, anyway. But the line between reason and excuse is really thin when you're 8-2 as opposed to 9-1

Look, I'm an IC fan, and they have arguably the best defense in the region. And we've all seen what the Nabi-Gladney-Vito trio can do when it's clicking (witness the first half of Cortaca 2017).

There's a better Bombers team lurking somewhere in this one, but we haven't seen it yet

Dissatisfied with how the Bombers offense showed against St. Lawrence and Rochester? I've got a solution for you. Cut the grass at Butterfield ...or better yet, get in the 21st century, get turf ! .

[Machiavelli]

Certainly all good points here...but again Ithaca defeats West Conn 9 out of 10 times...maybe 10 out of 10. Don't give a **** if it's all defense that does it. Also, That O would look a lot better against West Conn than probably any other decent team on their schedule minus SLU, Roch, and maybe Vincent.

DB understands this is the way it is regarding the system but why the **** is it so hard to understand/admit that there are always teams not selected in regional rankings and even the NCAA that are a good deal better than some teams selected. The number of losses, while obviously used as criteria for selection doesn't make a team automatically worse than a team with less losses from a weaker conference. It's not ****ing brain surgery. That's DB's only real point. That teams like West Conn are almost always not as good as the 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes 4th best teams in the NJAC, E8, LL, and sometimes the MAC.

Dude, St. Lawrence beats WConn 9 times out of 10. Ithaca beats them 100 times out of 10.

[Bombers798891]

Certainly all good points here...but again Ithaca defeats West Conn 9 out of 10 times...maybe 10 out of 10.

What were your thoughts before Ithaca/Curry '08?

[Machiavelli]

Certainly all good points here...but again Ithaca defeats West Conn 9 out of 10 times...maybe 10 out of 10.

What were your thoughts before Ithaca/Curry '08?

That Curry team had been the cream of New England for 7-8 years consecutively and had playoff experience and were starting to become a wagon at that time. They were recruiting well and had great coaches. They can NOT be compared to this year's West Conn who can barely beat horrible teams.

To that, they also lost the following week to Cortland 42-0.