2009 Playoff Bracket & Reactions

[Bob.Gregg]

...the Joy Solomen intvw...
Dr S basically sadi it was a tough call but they all felt like WJ was the better choice....

Interestingly enough, THAT is the very thing that K-Mack seemed to lobby for on the Pool C board yesterday, in the hours ahead of the announcment--allowing the committee to use some leeway to select who they felt "best belongs in the field"...

Now, that they've done that, and said so, all of a sudden it becomes a travesty.


I'll give Pat credit, he asked the tough question, he was persistent and prepared.  Not that I expected anything less.

[smedindy]

It's a questionable call, but I can definitely see some logic in putting WJ in. However, the best solution for St. Norbert's, ONU, North Central and others is to win the game. That's why you play. 

[hickory_cornhusker]

I agree, I would have loved to see St. Norbert make the field but if you can't win your conference championship you have a weak argument that you should be national champion. If you don't win every game you can't complain if you don't make the field. Pool C's are primarily there to level off the bracket and give a few lucky teams a second chance. Don't like the fate Pool C gives you then avoid it all together and take the Pool A bid.

[K-Mack]

...the Joy Solomen intvw...
Dr S basically sadi it was a tough call but they all felt like WJ was the better choice....

Interestingly enough, THAT is the very thing that K-Mack seemed to lobby for on the Pool C board yesterday, in the hours ahead of the announcment--allowing the committee to use some leeway to select who they felt "best belongs in the field"...

Now, that they've done that, and said so, all of a sudden it becomes a travesty.

I'll give Pat credit, he asked the tough question, he was persistent and prepared.  Not that I expected anything less.

Actually, I was asking you how you felt about that idea ... I can't remember if I got an answer or not, but let's just say I wasn't asking that question randomly.

Also, I'm very clearly on record taking issue with W&J's choice of non-conference opposition, so please don't try to portray it like we've flip-flopped because we didn't get the result we wanted. I never thought W&J was one of the six best at-large teams, even though I was allowing for the possibility that they would get in.

However, I'll entertain the implication that I argued for the committee to have this leeway, even though I think you're actually speaking generally and not just to me (but you put my name in it, so I get to play devil's advocate again). If your point is that people are unhappy because they used the available means and still came out with the "wrong" team, I don't understand why you would expect people to be happy with that.

I see what you're saying, that people only like the process when it produces the result they want ... but of course they care more about the result than the process. That's your point?

If the IRS came up with a way to use its best judgement to give you a fatter tax refund, and then you got a smaller one ...

[Pat Coleman]

Now, that they've done that, and said so, all of a sudden it becomes a travesty.

They did it the past two years, as well, but they went out of their way to pick teams with strong schedules. I think the issue with W&J's selection is the message it sends to coaches: Schedule cupcakes so you don't dare lose a second game.

[K-Mack]

It's a questionable call, but I can definitely see some logic in putting WJ in. However, the best solution for St. Norbert's, ONU, North Central and others is to win the game. That's why you play. 

I agree, I would have loved to see St. Norbert make the field but if you can't win your conference championship you have a weak argument that you should be national champion. If you don't win every game you can't complain if you don't make the field. Pool C's are primarily there to level off the bracket and give a few lucky teams a second chance. Don't like the fate Pool C gives you then avoid it all together and take the Pool A bid.

Oh yeah, there are definitely arguments for W&J, especially if St. Norbert is the only other team that you're honestly comparing them to. I make at least two of these arguments for W&J in the first 15-20 minutes of the podcast.

(The PAC is stronger than the MWC, the MOV of the one loss is closer, W&J went deep into the playoff field last season and deserved a measure of respect because of it.)

In past years, I've been in the tank for 9-1 teams who lose by a touchdown to their (undefeated) conference champion. Cortland State went 9-1 one year with an OT loss to Rowan, and I think Franklin went 9-1 that same year with a seven or eight-point loss to MSJ ... it was a particularly deep field that year.

That's sort of the point, on one hand, that everything's relative to the strength of the at-large field. And the makeup of the committee, which began to favor SOS the past two years, but now seems to be back on regional win pct. only.

On the other, it's really the fallout from this that bothers me. What's the incentive for North Central to take a game against Ohio Northern when they could have just scheduled some patsy from Illinois, went 9-1 and gotten in? It's like an endorsement of weak scheduling as an insurance plan against not winning your AQ.

Which brings me to your points, hickory ... Losing once, especially to a really good team in a close game, does not necessarily mean a team is not playoff worthy or championship worthy. PLU won in 1999 after losing to Willamette (they avenged the loss in the first round). UMHB finished second to HSU in '04 and very nearly beat Linfield in the Stagg Bowl. Mount Union lost to ONU in '05, and ONU managed not to win the conference or get in, and MUC won the title; but the Purple Raiders had lost a conference game by a TD and could've been one of those teams. I actually researched this earlier this year, and about half the champions going back to the mid-80s had a loss or a tie on their record.

So I think the first part of your statement

if you can't win your conference championship you have a weak argument that you should be national champion. If you don't win every game you can't complain if you don't make the field.

is fairly untrue, but the second part is as true as can be.

As long as there is fair access, that each team had a chance and knew what its chance was, then after that it's a complete and total crapshoot.

With one loss only, especially to the conf. champ (which by the way was how Coe, STU, UMHB, Bash and Albright got in), you probably should get in most years. But with 23 Pool A conferences and only six bids, there are going to be years where there are more than six conferences with a worthy second team. You

Once you get to loss No. 2, it's a definite that nothing is guaranteed. ONU finishes the game against OTT, it's in easy, etc. ... Willamette doesn't lose to a middling Concordia-Moorhead in its opener, it's in. Redlands finishes against Oxy, it's in.

But all the above is subscribing to the "who you lost to and how" theory. Going by that, W&J's tight loss to Thomas More puts it in better shape than Coe (L 24-6 Central) or Albright (drubbed by Del Val). (UMHB, STU and Bash all lost by an FG, and UMHB to a team that lost another D3 game)

However, if you go by the "it's who you beat" theory, then ONU, North Central and Otterbein have better cases than W&J, Coe and UMHB, quite frankly.

(maybe should've broken this into several posts; maybe I'll rewrite for ATN )

[Bob.Gregg]

K-Mack, in direct answer--I'd be all for a strictly by-the-numbers selection process, as long as it was totally cut & dried.  Agree to the formula, publish it, and stick to it without variation.

But THAT is where I think the committee gets called into question--they publish criteria, then, I believe W&J is a perfect example, they don't follow it...

I have repeatedly said that W&J doesn't make the grade based on the stated criteria for selection, and I don't believe the Chair of the Committee changed anybody's mind on that topic.  I do not believe W&J was one of the six-best Pool C candidates based on the guidelines.


Pat, the AA selection PROCESS is what sends that message out, not their specific selection of W&J.  Allowing the HUMAN ELEMENT to trump the specific data is the problem, not who the team IN or OUT was specifically.

Will W&J's addition of Del.Vall. next year be sufficient?  Or do the Presidents have to add either Mount or UMHB for their other non-conference date?

Of course, should we expect Marietta to be booted from their conference 'cause a win over them means nothing, and a loss is a death knell...

[K-Mack]

Will W&J's addition of Del.Vall. next year be sufficient?  Or do the Presidents have to add either Mount or UMHB for their other non-conference date?

I was looking for a place to squeeze this in on the podcast, but it never came. The MAC-PAC challenge means this will be somewhat moot next season.

I thought W&J would get Albright though ... the No. 2s match up? I know it's 9 teams vs. 8 teams, which PAC team is not in the challenge? Thomas More? That makes sense travel wise ... so you bump W&J up to the 1?

[Bob.Gregg]

K-Mack, I believe TMC was never included in the process (travel).

[Mr. Ypsi]

K-Mack, in direct answer--I'd be all for a strictly by-the-numbers selection process, as long as it was totally cut & dried.  Agree to the formula, publish it, and stick to it without variation.

But THAT is where I think the committee gets called into question--they publish criteria, then, I believe W&J is a perfect example, they don't follow it...

I have repeatedly said that W&J doesn't make the grade based on the stated criteria for selection, and I don't believe the Chair of the Committee changed anybody's mind on that topic.  I do not believe W&J was one of the six-best Pool C candidates based on the guidelines.


Pat, the AA selection PROCESS is what sends that message out, not their specific selection of W&J.  Allowing the HUMAN ELEMENT to trump the specific data is the problem, not who the team IN or OUT was specifically.

Will W&J's addition of Del.Vall. next year be sufficient?  Or do the Presidents have to add either Mount or UMHB for their other non-conference date?

Of course, should we expect Marietta to be booted from their conference 'cause a win over them means nothing, and a loss is a death knell...

You're still not addressing what IMO is the key issue - they have a list of primary criteria, but do not state how they are to be weighed.  It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that this year ONE criterion overrode all the other criteria - winning %.  If ANY one-loss team is automatically preferred to ANY two-loss team (to the point that the two-loss teams will not even be considered), say so.  Don't pretend that there are five primary criteria, if there is really only one and the rest are de facto secondary criteria.

[Toby Taff]

But all the above is subscribing to the "who you lost to and how" theory. Going by that, W&J's tight loss to Thomas More puts it in better shape than Coe (L 24-6 Central) or Albright (drubbed by Del Val). (UMHB, STU and Bash all lost by an FG, and UMHB to a team that lost another D3 game)

However, if you go by the "it's who you beat" theory, then ONU, North Central and Otterbein have better cases than W&J, Coe and UMHB, quite frankly.

If you're putting things into perspective here's some info to consider about the UMHB loss.

MC was coming off a bye week and had 2 weeks to prepare a defensive scheme.

Quincy Daniels was out because of his knee, RB #2 was knocked out of the game (and for the season) early in the third,  Mayes came in during the 3rd and went for 113 yds.

A freshman started the game @ QB and played like a freshman.  He pitched on the option once during the game ( and that pitch was to a guy 7yds behind the LOS with the D on top of him).  The MC announcers commented on the MC feed the only option he seemed to have was whether to run or whether to throw.

Truthfully, the game plan and the UMHB team that played every other game this season were very different from what took the field that day, and it had as much to do with personnel as with MC, and it took a late interception thrown by a stone-cold qb to set up a field goal to put MC up with seconds left in the game.  Both defenses that day played amazing football: Shaffer was held to 18 - 40 for 194 yds and MC kept UMHB under 300yds of rushing on the day (only 2 other teams can say that this season, and only then because the breaks were put on in blowouts).

[euleria]

You're still not addressing what IMO is the key issue - they have a list of primary criteria, but do not state how they are to be weighed.  It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that this year ONE criterion overrode all the other criteria - winning %.  If ANY one-loss team is automatically preferred to ANY two-loss team (to the point that the two-loss teams will not even be considered), say so.  Don't pretend that there are five primary criteria, if there is really only one and the rest are de facto secondary criteria.

No one has mentioned one other one-loss team in all this:  SJFC.  If the primary criteria really are *primary*, then what of SJFC?   A 6-1 team in their region,  they have the second best opponent's winning pct among all 1 loss teams (.613), and the third best opp-opp winning pct among all 1 loss teams (.568).   SJFC falls apart on most of the secondary criteria, and I don't know of any fans who expected them to contend for pool C, but looking at the published criteria, one would think they're in the mix.

So in practice, were the  criteria:  overall winning %, regional winning %, and then a series of secondary (or tertiary) criteria?

If there are published criteria, they should match actual practice.

[pumkinattack]

You're ignoring the team's own winning % (6-1), which is inferior to all others here (except maybe Wesley through no fault of their own).  It's not just one loss, but team's winning %, people are just referring to one loss assuming you're talking about 8-1 or 9-1.  If you're only 6-1, then of course the committee will have to look at other criteria for your candidacy and two OOC losses, of to a 5-5 team ends the discussion immediately. 

[Bob.Gregg]

No one has mentioned one other one-loss team in all this:  SJFC.  

I did, euleria, Saturday, November 14, 2009, 10:34:19 pm POOL C thread...

I did, however, come quickly to the same conclusion as pumkinattack, along with most other people in this discussion, including the AA committee.

[euleria]

I'm trying to understand the distinction between "primary criteria" and "secondary criteria".

If SJFC is out because of their in-region winning pct (6-1) is too low, then no two loss team would be considered either.

If SJFC is out because of their 2 out-of-region losses, then that suggests that overall winning percentage is being used as a primary criterion, not a secondary one.

The primary criteria, all based on in-region record and the record of ones in-region opponents and opponents' opponents, appear to favor SJFC over any of the "two loss in region" teams.  And with the exception of in-region winning percentage, SJFC comes out ahead of most of the other one-loss teams under consideration.

Leading back to:  does in-region winning pct trump the other primary criteria, or is overall winning pct being used as a primary criterion instead of a secondary criterion?

I'm not advocating for SJFC as a pool C team, but I think their example might shed light on how the criteria were applied to other teams with a less tenuous claim to being on the bubble.