D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[bluestreak66]

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.

You're forgetting the OAC.
Mount Union (2005-2014)
Capital (2005, 2006)
John Carroll (2014)

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

Love the conversation!

Since this is the Top 25 I'd like to steer back to that.  The Top 25 should be just that.. the top 25 teams in D3 football.  In my opinion the strength of a particular team can be based upon this season's results, head to head match-ups and Strength of Schedule PLUS historical precedence for both that team and its success in the playoffs (or that of its conference members). 

For example, this year's Linfield Wildcat's team is 4-0 with a single win over a team that was ranked (Chapman) at the time of the game.  If we were to judge Linfield only by the criteria of teams that it has played it doesn't have an impressive resume.  However, if we look at how the program has done in the playoffs over the past 5 years we see that it has lost 5 close games (2 in the 2nd round, 2 in the third round, and 1 in the semis).  The teams to which they have lost have gone on to win it all twice and make the semis twice (I believe).  Add that program history to the players returning I am comfortable that Linfield is a Top 5 team.

This same argument can be made for UWW, MUC, Wesley, MHB and I don't think there is much argument about what have been the Top 5 programs over the past 5 years. 

Since UWO beat UWW I like placing them at #5.  Until shown otherwise the WIAC winner is a tough out (UWO, the only other WIAC winner in the past 5 years, made it to the semis).

#7 Wheaton - Given the strength of the conference and its playoff results for the conference I am OK with this ranking.. we'll know much more about them in a few weeks

#8 Wartburg - they are undefeated, I don't know if they have played anyone good this year (although Central has been good).. but it seems that their honeymoon in ranking due to their 4 point loss to UWW has dwindled

#9 St Thomas - Beat a highly ranked St Johns teams that granted seems to have QB issues, have handled everyone relatively easily on their schedule, and are two season removed from a 5 year stretch where they won 2 playoff games each year

It is after this that things get fuzzy for me...

#10 Wabash - What do I know about Wabash... nothing except how they have done in the playoffs (and Wittenberg) over the past 5 years.  And it isn't impressive at all... 1 good win... 1 good loss... and a lot of bad losses.  However, people that are in the know seem to be very confident that this years Wabash team is very good and deserving of their ranking. 

Probably more to the point, how would Wabash compete against other possible candidates for the #10 ranking?  Probably well.

#11 - Johns Hopkins - Frankly I don't understand this unless this years team brought back a ton of talent from 2014.  The 2014 team lost a close one to Hobart who got smacked by Wesley who ...well.. we know what happened to them... Now the 2013 version lost a close one to Wesley but the 2012 version got smacked by MUC in Round 2.  I'd definitely put them behind UWP and St Johns and North Central at this point.

#12 - Thomas More - Again, I know nothing about Thomas More.  The only thing that I can see is that the winner of their conference in 2014, W&J, had a playoff loss to MUC 67-0. (and Thomas More lost to W&J by 23 points..). And the PAC is 12-18 in the playoffs.  I'd definitely place UWP, St Johns and North Central ahead of Thomas More.  Frankly they seem to be at best a Top 15-25 team until they show it in the playoffs (or a team from their conference).

#13 UWP - Should be ranked a bit higher given that their only loss was by 10 to the then #1
#14 St Johns - Should be ranked higher but are probably fine here as long as they are having QB issues
#15 Hardin Simmons - They were down for a long time but really good for an even longer period.  We'll know if they are for real after MHB

#16 W&J - not a chance that they are better than North Central.  Granted they are only 2 points higher so that is almost reflected.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

There have been a lot of "" or italics regarding "weak conferences" so I thought I'd repost some earlier calculating that I did.  If you take the D3Football.com team rankings (which are done by the experts of D3) and find an average for each conference this is what you get (rankings from 2013-14-15):

WIAC   49   AQ Meaning that the 8 teams in the WIAC averaged out to 49 in rank
E8           69   AQ
MIAC   77   AQ
CCIW   81   AQ
OAC           87   AQ
NJAC   90   AQ
CC           97   AQ
IIAC           97   AQ
ODAC   99   AQ
MAC          105   AQ
NWC          105   AQ
LL          108   AQ
ASC          111   AQ
PAC          122   AQ
SAA          122   NA
SCAC   126   NA
USAC   126   AQ
MIAA   127   AQ
NCAC   131   AQ
SCIAC   133   AQ
NESCAC   137   NA
HCAC   154   AQ
MWC   156   AQ
NEFC   163   AQ
MASCAC   167   NA
NACC   167   AQ
ECFC   194   AQ
UMAC   212   AQ

When you put together the score for each conference it becomes readily apparent that there are a lot of AQ conferences that are bad/weak. I don't think we need to pretend that there are not conferences where the football is simply not good (and in my opinion undeserving of an AQ). Conferences with rankings greater than 150 should not receive AQs and definitely should not receive Pool C... Ever. Teams that made it thru their weak conference with a single league loss should stay home.

[HSCTiger74]

There are a lot of bad/weak conferences that get AQs based on rankings done by D3 experts.  I don't think we need to pretend that there are not conferences where the football is simply not good (and in my opinion undeserving of an AQ).

   This is the point to bear in mind. Why do you find it so surprising that some people disagree?

[desertcat1]

There are a lot of bad/weak conferences that get AQs based on rankings done by D3 experts.  I don't think we need to pretend that there are not conferences where the football is simply not good (and in my opinion undeserving of an AQ).

  This is the point to bear in mind. Why do you find it so surprising that some people disagree?

[/b

www,
boy do i have some az  ocean front property for you to buy.    that kind of  thinking got me in a world of hurt with plu too ?   (past history)

not current input only.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

The facts are that there are a lot of bad conferences with AQs. My opinion is that their champions are not automatically worthy of an AQ. There are some good teams in those conferences.

[HSCTiger74]

The facts are that there are a lot of bad conferences with AQs. My opinion is that their champions are not automatically worthy of an AQ. There are some good teams in those conferences.

   I wasn't as clear as I should have been before, but I wasn't disputing your first point. Obviously some conferences have a greater pool of talent than others so the quality of football will be better in those conferences. And your opinion about AQs is as worthy of consideration as anyone else's. But you have to be mindful that there are those who disagree with that opinion and as long as you keep bringing it up you're going to get pushback.

[wally_wabash]

There have been a lot of "" or italics regarding "weak conferences" so I thought I'd repost some earlier calculating that I did.  If you take the D3Football.com team rankings (which are done by the experts of D3) and find an average for each conference this is what you get (rankings from 2013-14-15):

The problems with this are:
1) these are preseason rankings, made before any team plays any games
2) the teams aren't in the right order.  Really bad teams from "good" leagues get way overvalued in these rankings, bad teams from "bad" leagues get undervalued (classic confirmation bias, really) when the reality is that those bad teams are probably a lot closer to one another than the rankings suggest
3) you're assuming that the scale is perfectly graduated...that the difference between 1 and 2 is the same as the difference between 50 and 51 is the same as the difference between 200 and 201.  It isn't, so it really isn't as simple as averaging numbers.   

There's more nuance to this, I think.  And the solution, unfortunately, is hard to attain because the size of the division is so massive and there are only so many hours in a day- we just can't know all there is to know about all of the teams. 

[SaintsFAN]

#12 - Thomas More - Again, I know nothing about Thomas More.  The only thing that I can see is that the winner of their conference in 2014, W&J, had a playoff loss to MUC 67-0. (and Thomas More lost to W&J by 23 points..). And the PAC is 12-18 in the playoffs.  I'd definitely place UWP, St Johns and North Central ahead of Thomas More.  Frankly they seem to be at best a Top 15-25 team until they show it in the playoffs (or a team from their conference).

The danger in ranking a team you don't know much about is frankly not knowing what you don't know.  For instance a one possession game at W&J turned into a blowout after TMC lost their QB at the end of the third quarter in 2014 - how many teams in the top 25 could survive that, on the road in a game of that magnitude?  I definitely feel Thomas More must prove themselves to be a contender in the tournament this year, though and having seen the top teams like MHB, UMU, Wheaton and Wesley in person, I definitely feel like the 2015 TMC team has reached the level where they CAN prove themselves.  We'll have to wait and see. 

[Ron Boerger]

There are a lot of bad/weak conferences that get AQs based on rankings done by D3 experts.  I don't think we need to pretend that there are not conferences where the football is simply not good (and in my opinion undeserving of an AQ).

Say what?

Conferences get AQs based on rules set by the NCAA.    Period. 

[ADL70]

There are a lot of bad/weak conferences that get AQs based on rankings done by D3 experts.  I don't think we need to pretend that there are not conferences where the football is simply not good (and in my opinion undeserving of an AQ).

Say what?

Conferences get AQs based on rules set by the NCAA.    Period.

Giving benefit of doubt, I think he meant  "based on rankings done by D3 experts." to modify the first clause, not to say the d3 experts allocate AQs. 

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

Sorry about that guys.. In rereading what I wrote I can see the confusion. I've edited it... We all know that AQs are awarded for winning a league title. My point is that there are a lot of very weak conferences who receive AQs and sometimes Pool C bids.

With the size of D3 football I don't want to get to a place where we only have AQs or maybe 2-3 at large bids. There needs to be some way to keep the playoffs from becoming "everybody gets a ribbon" for winning a conference when the team would have struggled to be .500 in 50% of the leagues out there. 

[wally_wabash]

Sorry about that guys.. In rereading what I wrote I can see the confusion. I've edited it... We all know that AQs are awarded for winning a league title. My point is that there are a lot of very weak conferences who receive AQs and sometimes Pool C bids.

With the size of D3 football I don't want to get to a place where we only have AQs or maybe 2-3 at large bids. There needs to be some way to keep the playoffs from becoming "everybody gets a ribbon" for winning a conference when the team would have struggled to be .500 in 50% of the leagues out there.

This isn't a participation trophy thing. I think you're trying to mix issues that aren't miscible.

[jknezek]

I think it's more apparent that "everyone gets a ribbon" when you take a team that choked away their conference and give them another shot at winning a championship. Second best, but we want them to get the ribbon so give them another go at it, right?

As long as there are 2 or 3 C slots I don't have a problem with the tournament. Strange things might happen to a team or two over the course of a season, but strange things don't happen to 3 or 4 national title contenders in the same season. Especially when only 2 teams have won the national title in the last 10 seasons. We don't really have 3 or 4 national title contenders so what are the odds they are choking away their opportunity?

Seriously, we have 2 teams that win, and maybe 3 more with a shot if the chips fall right. Do you really think more than half of those teams are going to blow it in conference season and not get a bid? No. So there are plenty of Cs to go around right now, and even with half as many there still would be enough to get everyone in the door with a legit shot who had a single bad game.

[Ralph Turner]

+1! Wally Wabash for the very proper use of a good D-3 word, miscible!