The 2008 Playoffs Thread

[janesvilleflash]

+k...AFCA doing better than I would have guessed.

[K-Mack]

Can we make a statement that parity has arrived in D-III?  In some ways it's true; but we still have MUC, UMHB, and UW-W hosting regional finals.

Something I've been keeping track of the last couple years...using the seeds and polls to make playoff "predictions:"

2006
NCAA 25-6
D3Football 25-6
AFCA 24-7

2007
NCAA 23-8
D3Football 26-5
AFCA 26-5

so far in 2008
NCAA 13-11
D3Football 15-9
AFCA 15-9

Appreciate the math, but you do make a point about the Big Three.

And also we're halfway through the '08 postseason, it might be too early to say parity.

If the final four is Cortland State, Franklin, Wartburg and W&J, then I'm rockin and rollin with the parity claim.

[K-Mack]

Match-ups between Pool C and Pool A conference members:

Conference	Teams "C" /"A""......................	Round of Outcome/Potential Match-up
ASC	HSU/UMHB	Round #1 UMHB 38-35
CCIW	Wheaton IL/North Central	Regional Finals
NEFC	Curry/Plymouth St	Regional Semi-finals
OAC	Otterbein/MUC	Semifinals
Pres AC	W&J/Thomas More	Stagg Bowl
WIAC	UWW/UWSP	Regional Finals

Nice chart, but the CCIW is the only one with two teams alive still.

I've been thinking of something similar this week:

Pool C teams who have outlasted the Pool A conf. champ that defeated them in the regular season:
W&J > Thomas More
UWW > UWSP
Curry > Plymouth State

UMHB >> HSU (beat them again)

North Central ? Wheaton

Mount Union won in the reg. sea. and outlasted Otterbein

Interesting to see the Cs were 4-2 this week. Second chances are often appreciated.

The Bs were 1-2.

Cs 3-1 this week (lost only Curry) and add another C outlasting its confernence champ in Wheaton/North Central.

[Bob.Gregg]

Just making sure I'm right on this (putting something out here will find out if it's wrong):

#5 W&J/#2 UMHB winner hosts one semifinal

#1 Mount/#3 SUNY-Cortland winner host the other.

[HScoach]

Just making sure I'm right on this (putting something out here will find out if it's wrong):

#5 W&J/#2 UMHB winner hosts one semifinal

#1 Mount/#3 SUNY-Cortland winner host the other.

Correct.  The East and South are hosting the semi's regardless of the winners on Saturday.

[Bob.Gregg]

Correct.  The East and South are hosting the semi's regardless of the winners on Saturday.

Well, it's only "regardless of the winners" because of the regional rankings of the teams involved.  At least as I understand it.

Higher-ranked teams would host.  If same ranking, East hosts North.  South hosts West.

[HScoach]

Right.  I didn't mean to imply that it didn't matter every year.  It just worked out that the East and South were the higher seeded regions and each have higher ranked teams left.  Sorry for the confusion.

[labart96]

Is that "technically true"? 

My understanding with the seedings is that the "regions" are/were a farce.  Basically the MUC bracket would host one and the Millsaps Bracket hosts the other.

No regions - just brackets.  Right?

[SJFF82]

Now that 3 of the 4 number 1 seeds lost in Round 2 this year, is it fair to state that next season, there should be no talk of the East not getting its own number 1 seed?  It seems the majority opinion has been that only an undefeated East team would deserve a Number 1, otherwise, MUC gets imported.  Well Cortland is still playing at 11-1, and I think would be a favorite to go to the final 4 against anyone other than MUC, had MUC not been imported.  Anyone of the other 3 number 1's apparently did not deserve the number 1 anymore than a one loss Cortland team did, and that should be remembered next year.

[Pat Coleman]

Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.

Actually, with Willamette as #1 and UWW as #5, they still would have played in round 2.

Or are you suggesting they would have beaten UWW if their round 1 opponent was Aurora rather than Oxy?

[SJFF82]

Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.

ok, fair enough perhaps, but what about my question in general?  Should there be a blanket presumption next year that all undefeated teams outside the East are more deserving of a #1 seed over a 9-1 East Region team who perhaps lost only to another 9-1 team?

[Pat Coleman]

Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.

Actually, with Willamette as #1 and UWW as #5, they still would have played in round 2.

Or are you suggesting they would have beaten UWW if their round 1 opponent was Aurora rather than Oxy?

No, I'm suggesting that the seedings do not reflect the strength of teams in the bracket. Hence "properly seeded."

[Mr. Ypsi]

Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.

Actually, with Willamette as #1 and UWW as #5, they still would have played in round 2.

Or are you suggesting they would have beaten UWW if their round 1 opponent was Aurora rather than Oxy?

No, I'm suggesting that the seedings do not reflect the strength of teams in the bracket. Hence "properly seeded."

Gotcha.  I focussed only on the geographically-determined match-ups (though the seeds DID probably follow the d3 criteria).

[Pat Coleman]

If only considering one, regional winning percentage, then yes.