D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

I am curious as to why both Johns Hopkins & Thomas More are ranked so high.  Thomas more got 59 more points that UWP whose only loss was to then #1 UWW by 10.  Looking at past years playoff results both JH and TM don't do all that well past round 1 or 2.  I'd be hard pressed to say that they are better than a 4-1 team from the WIAC or MIAC.  $10 says that 2015 playoff results will reflect that BUT that the final Top 25 won't.

[wally_wabash]

Teams that are in bad (meaning non-competitive in the playoffs) AQ conferences don't need to schedule up.  Teams that are in tough conferences - of which there are only a handful that are difficult in conference and relevant by Round 3 of the playoffs - can easily get themselves outside the 32 team bracket with a single non-conference loss.

Do some digging here...find all of the instances where all of these teams from tough conferences (by whatever definition you want to use) are going deep into the tournament and share that. 

My hunch is that you're going to find that it's the same team (not a bunch of teams from any one league) playing deep into the tournament and that what you're doing is giving credit to an entire conference's teams for the annual success of just one team. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Teams that are in bad (meaning non-competitive in the playoffs) AQ conferences don't need to schedule up.  Teams that are in tough conferences - of which there are only a handful that are difficult in conference and relevant by Round 3 of the playoffs - can easily get themselves outside the 32 team bracket with a single non-conference loss.

Do some digging here...find all of the instances where all of these teams from tough conferences (by whatever definition you want to use) are going deep into the tournament and share that. 

My hunch is that you're going to find that it's the same team (not a bunch of teams from any one league) playing deep into the tournament and that what you're doing is giving credit to an entire conference's teams for the annual success of just one team.

Or at most two teams alternating (e.g., Wheaton and NCC; I keep hoping IWU can make it three teams, but in the d3football.com era we've only made the dance 3 or 4 times, and only once made it to the second round, when we beat Wabash but got squashed by UWW.)

Or if looking at the long term, it may be succeeding dynasties.  UW-LaX was for a few years almost as dominant as UWW is now.  Augustana is STILL the only team to win four consecutive Stagg Bowls, though they now usually finish in the bottom half of the CCIW.

But your basic point is well documented: an entire league cannot be judged by postseason results, because those are usually produced by only one team over any short period of time (and at most two).  WWW's ranking of teams by postseason success of the league is (my apologies) ridiculous.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Finishing wally's and Ypsi's point above...let's go back a decade (2005-2014)

The CCIW has had playoff runs "past round 1 or 2" (which appears to be walla walla's threshold for counting as a really strong team, since Thomas More and Johns Hopkins haven't made it past round 1 or 2 enough for his taste) from:

2008 Wheaton
2008 North Central
2010 North Central
2013 North Central

(bet you're a little surprised by this one: the CCIW has only sent four total teams to the quarterfinals or beyond in the past decade.  I was surprised, but Wheaton and NCC have both lost in the second round several times.  Seems a little light for such a powerhouse league that you've decided merits an automatic spot in your top 10 rankings)

WIAC:

2005 UWW
2006 UWW
2007 UWW
2008 UWW
2009 UWW
2010 UWW
2011 UWW
2012 UWO
2013 UWW
2014 UWW

A worthwhile comment here: emma17 made an excellent point on the WIAC boards the other day that a key factor in getting people to believe the WIAC was more than a one-team league would be getting a second team into the playoffs, and having that team make a deep playoff run.  Unfortunately, we haven't had many instances where the WIAC did get a second team into the field.  Two things worth noting here: one is that the WIAC runner-up usually wasn't a viable candidate because they often ended up 7-3 overall; it's kinda their own fault if they drop a game to somebody from the lower half of the conference and that costs them a bid.  The second, however, is that the WIAC hasn't done itself any favors when they did get a second team in.  UWP lost to North Central by 28 points in the second round in 2013.  UWSP lost in the first round to Wartburg in 2008.  There's really not a long, illustrious history of WIAC second bananas making the playoffs and blowing through the field.  I'd be more sympathetic to this entire argument if the WIAC runners-up that did make the playoffs actually won in the playoffs.

MIAC:

2006 St. John's
2007 Bethel
2010 Bethel
2010 St. Thomas
2011 St. Thomas
2012 St. Thomas
2013 Bethel

That's it.  The MIAC is the only league that's sent more than two teams to the quarterfinals in the last decade, one of which has only one appearance that came 9 years ago.  No conference is chock-full of a rotating cast of characters that run deep into the playoffs.

Surely there will be some crowing that the WIAC would have had a second team advancing much more if only the selection committee hadn't screwed them so many times.  To which...well, we don't know that for sure, but the only 2 times I found a second WIAC team in the playoffs, they lost in round 2 (in a blowout) and round 1.  I don't think there's much evidence supporting that claim.

I don't get this rationale that teams who have lost multiple games would be making deep playoff runs, tough competition or not.  In the playoffs you go home when you lose; eight teams make the quarterfinals.  I don't think any of those teams that have lost three games did so against three teams that made the quarterfinals.  Most of them lost to at least one team who either didn't make the field, or lost in Round 1 or 2.  Suddenly I'm supposed to believe that they're one of the eight best teams in the country?  Why should we feel sorry for teams from tough leagues who play tough non-league games and lose them?  Doesn't that already tell us they're not among the best teams in the country?  If Wesley, UWP, and Wheaton all make the quarterfinals this year...that just means North Central lost to three teams that made the quarters.  Why should they be rewarded for that?  There have to be winners and losers, guys!

Really, the argument here is just a different version of everyone-gets-a-trophy.  The people arguing to shut the lesser conferences out of the playoffs altogther decry the current system which allows those guys a place at the table, because they want to replace them with guys from their own league who have already lost.  But that devalues the regular-season games in their own league.  Why should Wheaton bust their asses to beat North Central in the regular season if NCC is just going to get a life preserver and show up in the playoffs anyway?

I take a slightly different tack here: rather than arguing for a system where we would change the bar for playoff inclusion to stipulate a team's ranking, I would prefer that we had a playoff of only conference champions.  I would be completely fine if it was a prerequisite to win your league before competing for the national championship.  I tolerate Pool C because it makes sense to have a round number provided by the 32-team bracket, so I can live with throwing a second chance to a couple of especially good teams who didn't win their league.  But that's just what it is - a second chance - and it's funny to see people arguing on behalf of these teams who scheduled tough games and lost them, because darn it guys, life is hard!

[ExTartanPlayer]

There's one other important point I really want to get out there.

I've read a couple times that the current system doesn't incentivize scheduling tough non league games.  That's only true if you look at this through the lens of Pool C, where a team with losses in those games probably sits at a disadvantage.

However, that ignores the fact that AQ's guarantee a team who schedules a loses a tough non league game still have a path to the playoffs.  NCC's losses to UWP and Wesley do not preclude playoff berth, it just means they have to win their conference.

So the Pool A system does make it plenty viable to schedule tough non league games, even if you lose them. It guarantees that you'll still have a chance when conference play kicks off. And we don't talk about that enough - we just focus on "what a shame poor North Central scheduled those tough games and lost them, now they probably can't get a Pool C."  We have people criticizing the fact that AQ's allow teams from "weak conferences" into the tournament while ignoring that the very same AQ system is what keeps North Central alive after those two non-league losses.

[USee]

I agree with much of this but be careful exTartan you are close to skewing data to fit your thesis as much as the other side has done. 

Part of being in a tough conference is having parity so that the bottom half is tough enough to make the top half play hard and this prepares them for the playoffs. The WIAC is a possible example here. UWW almost loses to 3-7 UWRF and then wins the title.  MT Union for years had their toughest games w OAC #2 while winning titles. Wheaton lost 2 games in 2008 and made the semis as a pool C. 

Also, the second round may or may not be a good benchmark.  Lately the committee has spread around the teams so that may be a better indication.  But for many years the North teams played Mt Union in round 2 at the latest.  The CCIW has actually sent 7 of their 8 teams to the playoffs in the AQ era. 

The fact that one league has sent more than 2 teams to the quarters in ten years doesn't necessarily mean anything other than you have to widen the sample set.  How many teams from a league have made the playoffs at all? How many have won at least one game? How far have pool C teams gone vs their pool A counterparts.  These are some questions I have and haven't had time to look at the data. 

I have no axe to grind on this.  I am not a big believer in league superiority but I do know the pile of such from the south hurt themselves this year by scheduling up. Some beleive the short term pain will result in title runs. We will see

[ExTartanPlayer]

Also, the second round may or may not be a good benchmark.  Lately the committee has spread around the teams so that may be a better indication.  But for many years the North teams played Mt Union in round 2 at the latest.  The CCIW has actually sent 7 of their 8 teams to the playoffs in the AQ era. 

I agree with this entirely - but walla walla wildcat has a problem with teams who can't get "past round 1 or round 2" apparently, so I wanted to see if any leagues actually were sending a couple different teams that deep.  And the answer is no, not really, which goes back to wally's point that most of the "tough" leagues actually have 1 or 2 teams making deep playoff runs, not a bunch.

FWIW: I knew that CCIW stat and always found it a (generally) impressive statement about league depth.  But, and this is really key, if a league perceived as a lesser one does that (let's take the MIAA: Adrian, Albion, Trine, Olivet, Hope, and Alma have all won the league since 2004, or 6 of the 7 current members) they don't get any credit for it.  CCIW has sent 7/8 teams to the playoffs, but only 2 have advanced to the quarters.  MIAA has sent 6/7 to the playoffs, and 0 have advanced to the quarters.

walla walla's position this entire discussion is that "the CCIW" (or any tough league of choice) is better than "the MIAA" (or any other league that doesn't get the golden pass) and that teams from "weak conferences" should not be able to get into the playoffs - but is that really true, or is it just that "the CCIW" has a couple of programs who have gone deep in the playoffs while the MIAA has none (to date)?  And if that's the case, doesn't that suggest we should be looking at the teams individually, not just blindly slotting in "CCIW leader" into the top 10 because 2 CCIW teams have made it to that hallowed ground at some point?

[ExTartanPlayer]

How many teams from a league have made the playoffs at all? How many have won at least one game? How far have pool C teams gone vs their pool A counterparts.

I think these are really the important questions.  Really, the 2 strongest suggestions that a league has multiple playoff-caliber teams would be:

1) Multiple different teams winning playoff games.  Not just getting to the playoffs - like I said, the MIAA has had 6 of its 7 members win the AQ in the last couple of years and nobody is giving them any credit here.  I would like to look at the CCIW teams and see how many of the others won at least one playoff game.

2) Better yet, playoff wins by their Pool C entrants.  This really would bring home the bacon, right?  Getting the second banana from your league into in the second and third round of the playoffs shows that you truly have multiple top-20-caliber programs, not just that you can cycle through different league champions.  And that's where I was kind of surprised; I know that the WIAC has only gotten 2 Pool C entrants in that time frame, but one lost in the first round (against 8-2 Wartburg at home, no less!) and the other lost by 28 in the second round.  If the WIAC had 3 or more top-15 programs every year, wouldn't the WIAC runners-up who do get in through Pool C be distinguishing themselves a little more?  I didn't have time to look through this for every league, but the early-2000's OAC is probably the only time a league had a strong and consistent presence in Pool C that always won a game or two.

[jknezek]

The ODAC has sent 6 of the 7 teams that have been in the conference since '99 to the playoffs. Only Guilford has never been (and Shenandoah, but they've only completed 3 seasons in the ODAC). I wouldn't count the ODAC as a power conference but just one that has had good balance. I'm not sure this is the right measure as well.

Catholic (99), E&H (00), Bridgewater (00-05), W&L (06,10,12), RMC (08), H-SC (07,09,10,11,13,14)

[ExTartanPlayer]

One proposal that I would be willing to entertain: Pool C bids can only come from leagues that have won playoff games "recently" (say, the last four years), while maintaining the full AQ structure of a Pool A bid for every qualifying league.  That would ensure every team still has playoff access (and each league still has a chance to win / earn itself continued Pool C access if they win a game in a 4-year period), but it would generally steer the C bids to teams from (theoretically) tougher leagues.  Then we would start to see the really good leagues usually getting their second team in while avoiding this ugly debate about whether the system is unfair to teams that play in good leagues.

This system still has problems but I actually think it would do a little better job of funneling the "good conference" teams into Pool C while still preserving access for all.  And a league would always have the chance to win its Pool C access back by winning a playoff game, which is important.  As long as your conference champ occasionally wins a playoff game, you can make the case that your league is capable of producing more than one playoff entrant.  But if your conference champ never wins a playoff game, while I still think you deserve the Pool A bid so everyone has access, I'm fine with taking the league out of Pool C.

[Bombers798891]

One proposal that I would be willing to entertain: Pool C bids can only come from leagues that have won playoff games "recently"

What happens if a team switches conferences the year after winning a playoff game? Which conference gets credit?

If the WIAC had 3 or more top-15 programs every year, wouldn't the WIAC runners-up who do get in through Pool C be distinguishing themselves a little more?  I didn't have time to look through this for every league, but the early-2000's OAC is probably the only time a league had a strong and consistent presence in Pool C that always won a game or two.

Yeah, but that gets into the whole "who did they play?" thing. Losing on the road to a top-15 team you had to play because you were a Pool C doesn't mean you're also not a top-15 caliber program.

[ExTartanPlayer]

One proposal that I would be willing to entertain: Pool C bids can only come from leagues that have won playoff games "recently"

What happens if a team switches conferences the year after winning a playoff game? Which conference gets credit?

Tough one, and I don't have the answer for sure.  But I think it's a possibility that could at least be discussed, right?  I don't think it would be so bad if it stayed with the conference.

If the WIAC had 3 or more top-15 programs every year, wouldn't the WIAC runners-up who do get in through Pool C be distinguishing themselves a little more?  I didn't have time to look through this for every league, but the early-2000's OAC is probably the only time a league had a strong and consistent presence in Pool C that always won a game or two.

Yeah, but that gets into the whole "who did they play?" thing. Losing on the road to a top-15 team you had to play because you were a Pool C doesn't mean you're also not a top-15 caliber program.

I agree, but that's not what actually happened with the WIAC teams I looked up.

2008 Stevens Point lost at home against an 8-2 Wartburg team (before Wartburg was the almost-slayed-UWW dragon that they're perceived to be now).

2013 Platteville crushed Wisconsin Lutheran in the first round, then lost by 28 at North Central.  This is tough because NCC did make the semifinals that year.

My point was just that if the WIAC's 2nd and 3rd teams could just be penciled into the top 10...like this...

#1 UWW Until proven otherwise
#2 MUC Wish they would have tougher playoff games prior to the semi's or finals (excluding conference rematches where teams know each other)
#3/4/5/6 Linfield/UMHB/Wesley/MIAC winner/leader
#7 CCIW winner/leader which is Wheaton
#8 Wartburg
#9 WIAC #2 or MIAC #2
#10 WIAC #2 or MIAC #2
#11 WIAC # 3 or MIAC #3
#12 MIAC #3

...one would think that the "WIAC #2" would actually advance when it's in the playoffs.  We have very little data to work with here, but the little data we do have doesn't show "WIAC #2" running roughshod over the rest of the nation.

[Mr. Ypsi]

One proposal that I would be willing to entertain: Pool C bids can only come from leagues that have won playoff games "recently" (say, the last four years), while maintaining the full AQ structure of a Pool A bid for every qualifying league.  That would ensure every team still has playoff access (and each league still has a chance to win / earn itself continued Pool C access if they win a game in a 4-year period), but it would generally steer the C bids to teams from (theoretically) tougher leagues.  Then we would start to see the really good leagues usually getting their second team in while avoiding this ugly debate about whether the system is unfair to teams that play in good leagues.

This system still has problems but I actually think it would do a little better job of funneling the "good conference" teams into Pool C while still preserving access for all.  And a league would always have the chance to win its Pool C access back by winning a playoff game, which is important.  As long as your conference champ occasionally wins a playoff game, you can make the case that your league is capable of producing more than one playoff entrant.  But if your conference champ never wins a playoff game, while I still think you deserve the Pool A bid so everyone has access, I'm fine with taking the league out of Pool C.

I haven't checked the Pool C records to be sure, but I think this is already de facto the reality.  For at least half the d3 conferences you just know that the runner-up has zero chance at a Pool C.

While things have improved in the past 4-5 years, the CCIW would have gotten a whole lot more teams to the semis if round two didn't mean UMU or (some years, when they still did geographical groupings and UMU was shipped East) UWW was the opponent.  I believe we are talking teams that are legitimately tier two or three (and therefore to WWW, power conferences), not those imaginary teams that actually beat UMU or UWW!   (From 2001-2010, CCIW teams were 0-11 against UMU and UWW; 19-4 against everyone else, and two of those losses were against the Rocky Pentello Capital teams that just might have been the second best teams in d3 but couldn't get past conference-mate UMU.)

[wartknight]

Not that it will change the argument much since it is UWW, but in 2008 Wartburg beat the AQ USP. UWW went in as a pool C & was beaten by Mt in the Stagg.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out wartknight...I was just on autopilot and assuming UWW was always the Pool A, just looking for "other" WIAC teams. Had forgotten that SP beat Whitewater that year and went in as Pool A.