The 2008 Playoffs Thread

[Ralph Turner]

Great summary hscoach...

Historical context for the 2002 MUC Trinity Stagg Bowl...

The Trinity starting QB was suspended from the Stagg Bowl because of disciplinary matters related to a celebratory party on the Riverwalk.

Correct.  But unless Roy could have played defense too, it wouldn't have mattered.  Trinity had no answer for Dan Pugh and the Mount running game.

Yes, that was the thinking down here in Texas was that Trinity would have to outscore MUC to beat them.  We were hoping that TU could keep it close.  (The weather was very windy that day!)

[DanPadavona]

Perhaps it would be better to approach this from what you CAN prove than what you disagree with. I havn't seen anything close to a rational argument for what you are trying to say. Heck, I don't even know what you ARE trying to say.

I'm not sure why you are taking so much offense to my posts USee.  No need to start calling me irrational and turn this into something personal.

I have noticed that anytime anyone (not just me) suggests there is very little difference in overall quality between the North and the East once Mount Union is subtracted from the conversation, quite a backlash ensues.  Perhaps the onus should be on those who constantly drag down the East to prove their points, rather than survive on their own opinions.

So I'll try to write this as clearly as I can so you can finally understand my posts.  The committee clearly screwed up with their selections for top seeds in the North, because they all lost.  And because they all lost, there is no longer a suitable opponent capable of giving Mount Union a decent game in the semifinals.  In fact there was never a suitable potential semifinal opponent in the North bracket once Mount Union was exported.  If North Central or Trine was the real deal, they'd still be playing.  A Western or Southern power (within the 500 mile radius) should have been exported to the North to make up for the loss of Mount Union.

[DanPadavona]

The way to "prove yourself" is to compile a resume worthy of a No. 1 seed, which your very own Cortland State seemed slated to do until Cortaca, and then a bracket is built around them.

BL: They win that game, this discussion isn't taking place.

You are certainly correct in that the committee would have built a bracket around Cortland or Ithaca had they been undefeated.  I don't disagree with you - we both know what the committee would have done.

I don't agree with the committee's logic of basing it all on who is undefeated, and who isn't, to determine seeding and who gets moved from bracket to bracket.  10 games simply isn't statistically significant enough to draw such far reaching conclusions.  People get way too caught up with who is 9-1 vs who is 10-0.  The difference between a .300 hitter and a .200 hitter over 10 At-bats is whether or not a bloop hit drops in or gets caught. 

Mount Union obviously is tons better than anyone in the North and East brackets, so whether you keep them home or move them East, it is still their bracket unless the world gets shocked.  Whichever bracket you don't move them to is left with a big hole.  Which is why I argue that UWW or someone should have been moved into the North bracket to even things out.  Isn't the idea to try to get the perceived 4 strongest teams into a position to win a bracket and advance to the semi's?  (not withstanding H-S or Trinity playing UMHB in the first round in recent years)

I'm not sure why everybody thinks I am arguing for Cortland to have had their own bracket.  I never once argued that.  Even if they were 10-0, they weren't one of the Top 4 teams in the country. 

[Ralph Turner]

The way to "prove yourself" is to compile a resume worthy of a No. 1 seed, which your very own Cortland State seemed slated to do until Cortaca, and then a bracket is built around them.

BL: They win that game, this discussion isn't taking place.

You are certainly correct in that the committee would have built a bracket around Cortland or Ithaca had they been undefeated.  I don't disagree with you - we both know what the committee would have done.

I don't agree with the committee's logic of basing it all on who is undefeated, and who isn't, to determine seeding and who gets moved from bracket to bracket.  10 games simply isn't statistically significant enough to draw such far reaching conclusions.  People get way too caught up with who is 9-1 vs who is 10-0.  The difference between a .300 hitter and a .200 hitter over 10 At-bats is whether or not a bloop hit drops in or gets caught. 

Mount Union obviously is tons better than anyone in the North and East brackets, so whether you keep them home or move them East, it is still their bracket unless the world gets shocked.  Whichever bracket you don't move them to is left with a big hole.  Which is why I argue that UWW or someone should have been moved into the North bracket to even things out.  Isn't the idea to try to get the perceived 4 strongest teams into a position to win a bracket and advance to the semi's?  (not withstanding H-S or Trinity playing UMHB in the first round in recent years)

I'm not sure why everybody thinks I am arguing for Cortland to have had their own bracket.  I never once argued that.  Even if they were 10-0, they weren't one of the Top 4 teams in the country. 

Accurate assessment...

This is D-III, and our student-athletes are not flying around the country to fulfill a perfect #1-#32 #16-#17, etc. bracket.

I think that seemingly everyone else was objecting to the fact that the East region did not have its own team as the #1 seed.

Does this seem to hold over from the days, especially in basketball where every region got 8 bids, regardless of size?

As for Cortland, had those players won the NJAC, and beaten Ithaca, and gone 10-0 doing that, I could not have asked those players to accomplish more with the schedule they were given.  They may not have been one of the four best teams in the country when the playoffs worked themselves out, but they had given evidence worthy of being the #1 seed.

[DanPadavona]

Thanks for the feedback Ralph. 

It doesn't have to be a perfect Top 4 of course.  I'd be happy with a #5-#6 leading a bracket, which I don't think we got this season.

An interesting conundrum - what does the committee do next season if Curry is undefeated?  I think the odds favor that they will be undefeated given their competition level.  They have wins over Hartwick and Ithaca in back to back playoffs.  Do they get a #1 seed and keep Mount Union in the North?  That would be a wild decision if it happened, and I don't think it would do much good for the perception of Eastern football.

[Knightstalker]

I agree with you Dan, for years everyone said the East was Rowan and no one else.  Now the East is well balanced region.  The addition of the MAC to the East region did help a lot.  But the East has several good teams and it could be argued that the best team year in, year out in the East is now Hobart.

Take Mount away and the East and North are fairly equal regions.  The OAC usually does have two or three strong teams besides Mount.  I think minus Mount the top five from the East and the North are fairly equal over the last several years.  Perhaps I am wrong but that is my opinion.

I also think Dan is correct, once the East was made to come to the "Mount" UWW should have been moved to the North as not the number 1 but possibly the number 2 seed.

[pumkinattack]

I'm a bit less knowledgeable on the playoffs than many here, but one thing I wondered about from this thread is that while I understand they aren't regional brackets, given a 9 or 10 game schedule (as Dan pointed out is not statistically that valuable), it seems that the system discourages out of conference inter-regional play since they don't count for the playoff profile.  Doesn't Wesley and Salisbury end up with 3 or 4 regional games each year so a loss drastically reduces their regional W/L %?

If this is correct, then the brackets are based on "top" teams, but the measurement seems flawed since the regular season is at least 70% in region and more likely 90% - 100% in region.  I don't know if Cortland or Ithaca is as good, better or worse than NCC, but there's no way to know in this system.  Taken to its extreme, one region could, particularly the south based on the 500 mile rule, have the top 8 teams in the country and only have one in the final four.  

Its still better than the BCS, but the travel rule clearly means that seedings and brackets are never fair and hindsight from the playoffs still doesn't tell anyone anything beyond the top three or so teams in the country.  

[Augie6]

DP,

You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how?  I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII.  UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW.  However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West.  UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location.  Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected.  They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007.  The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year).  But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed.  You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span).  But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season.  All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance.  If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you.  However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong.  The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.

Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals.  If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs?  Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument. 

[ADL70]

Remember, Whitewater ws the fifth seed in its bracket.  Monmouth was the highest seeded team in that bracket east of the Mississippi at three.  Would (not should) Whitewater have been seeded higher than third in any other bracket?

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks for the feedback Ralph. 

It doesn't have to be a perfect Top 4 of course.  I'd be happy with a #5-#6 leading a bracket, which I don't think we got this season.

An interesting conundrum - what does the committee do next season if Curry is undefeated?  I think the odds favor that they will be undefeated given their competition level.  They have wins over Hartwick and Ithaca in back to back playoffs.  Do they get a #1 seed and keep Mount Union in the North?  That would be a wild decision if it happened, and I don't think it would do much good for the perception of Eastern football.

Good morning, Dan!

I am happy with the dichotomy of seeding the teams by the criteria in the Handbook and then letting the teams figure who wins the championship on the field.

I really like the way that D3 has strengthened the conferences.  Some conferences are stronger in respective sports, and so the Pool A will be seeded differently in various sports.  In any case, I want to honor the conference champions.  That is a special goal for which 210+ of the 239-odd teams can strive.  (The consolidation into conferences by adding affiliates, and what the E8 does to keep the Pool A bid, is another discussion)

I take some of the wisdom that was used in the old 48-team basketball bracket for "away-home-bye* into the 8-team bracket.  Who has demonstrated in the regular season that they deserve three home games?  Who has demonstrated that they deserve the host 2 home games?  One home game?  For seeds, 5-8, how do we match these teams most equitably with the acknowledgment of distance, conference, seed?

As an outsider, I thought that the E8's getting two Pool C bids in 2007 to the exclusion of the Northwest Conference champion getting even a Pool C bid, i.e., not even being the 9th best at large team in the country, was "East Coast Bias"!      It worked the other way this year.  In fact, Pool C was so balanced that 1-loss Curry and 2-loss Wheaton earned Pool C's by the criteria.  (Curry and Wheaton have justified the decision that they committee made.)

Take home from this year is that there were plenty of qualified teams (Salisbury (9-2) being one of them) that lost a game that they should not have lost.  


* Who deserves the bye? Who deserves a home game? Who should be happy just to be in the playoffs that we can send on the road for the first game?

[Toby Taff]

DP,

You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how?  I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII.  UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW.  However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West.  UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location.  Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected.  They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007.  The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year).  But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed.  You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span).  But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season.  All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance.  If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you.  However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong.  The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.

Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals.  If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs?  Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument. 

Just to be argumentative, UMHB was/is undefeated in D3 for the season. 

[Augie6]

DP,

You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how?  I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII.  UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW.  However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West.  UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location.  Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected.  They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007.  The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year).  But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed.  You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span).  But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season.  All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance.  If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you.  However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong.  The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.

Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals.  If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs?  Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument. 

Just to be argumentative, UMHB was/is undefeated in D3 for the season. 

Yes, but the team that beat UMHB (Southern Oregon) lost to Williamette (a #1 seed in the playoffs) and Linfield (who didn't make the playoffs) and was 3-7 overall.  Based on this, I think the selection committee was justified in making Millsaps the #1 seed and UMHB #2.

[d-train]

DP,

You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how?  I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII.  UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW.  However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West.  UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location.  Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected.  They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007.  The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year).  But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed.  You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span).  But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season.  All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance.  If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you.  However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong.  The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.

Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals.  If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs?  Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument. 

It doesn't change your point, but to clarify -- Willamette made the D3 playoffs in '99 and '04.

[Toby Taff]

DP,

You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how?  I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII.  UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW.  However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West.  UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location.  Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected.  They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007.  The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year).  But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed.  You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span).  But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season.  All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance.  If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you.  However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong.  The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.

Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals.  If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs?  Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument. 

Just to be argumentative, UMHB was/is undefeated in D3 for the season. 

Yes, but the team that beat UMHB (Southern Oregon) lost to Williamette (a #1 seed in the playoffs) and Linfield (who didn't make the playoffs) and was 3-7 overall.  Based on this, I think the selection committee was justified in making Millsaps the #1 seed and UMHB #2.

you are correct, but the UMHB team that lost was totally busted up and playing thousands of miles from home.  The RB's that played in that game included a freshman from the JV team, a sophomore LB that was moved to RB to help out and the starting FB.  I watched the game online and it was one of the worst games I ever saw the Cru play.  Saenz just doesn't miss his pitchman and pitch the ball into the end zone.  it happened that day.  Don't get me wrong SOU played well, and they played better as the momentum kept building, but that game took the perfect storm scenario for that result. 

My point was only that the loss was not a d3 loss.  Would a lone loss to a d1aa by a point disqualify a d3 with an otherwise perfect record from being a number 1?  I understand that Millsaps earned the #1 seed, but I'd bet that a score between UMHB and Millsaps would be more like Wesley or W&J vs UMHB than it would be HSU vs UMHB ( I also think that if Millsaps had played the Cru or the Cowboys in the first round it would have been a very short post-season for the majors)

[wildcat11]

you are correct, but the UMHB team that lost was totally busted up and playing thousands of miles from home.  The RB's that played in that game included a freshman from the JV team, a sophomore LB that was moved to RB to help out and the starting FB.  I watched the game online and it was one of the worst games I ever saw the Cru play.  Saenz just doesn't miss his pitchman and pitch the ball into the end zone.  it happened that day.  Don't get me wrong SOU played well, and they played better as the momentum kept building, but that game took the perfect storm scenario for that result. 

Toby,

I would love to blame Linfield's loss to HSU this year on the fact that Linfield had to travel thousands of miles away from home,  didn't get into their hotel until after midnight, had the games moved up 3 hours to 4pm because of a hurricane, lost their star running back on the second play, and lost their "would have been a star" QB early in the 3rd quarter, and that our corner slipped on a knee on that 3 and 15 on the Cowboys last drive when they pulled out the game.......but I don't think the committee cared what excuses I came up with.