D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[HOPEful]

I'll see your Muhlenberg (unranked) and Hardin Simmons (#10) and raise you a MHB (#1 at the time) and a UW-La Crosse (#9), with the only loss coming at St. John's (#6) as a kicker.

Fair point. But again, we're splitting hairs. And doesn't elevating UWW's resume only further strengthen my overall argument?

[02 Warhawk]

I'll see your Muhlenberg (unranked) and Hardin Simmons (#10) and raise you a MHB (#1 at the time) and a UW-La Crosse (#9), with the only loss coming at St. John's (#6) as a kicker.

Fair point. But again, we're splitting hairs. And doesn't elevating UWW's resume only further strengthen my overall argument?

But we're not "judging elite D3 teams based solely on their SOS years ago", i thought. I kid....

Head to head matchups holds the most water for me when filling out my poll, all though it's not a perfect science (but nothing is, really). Followed by who they played (good wins vs. good losses vs. bad losses, etc...)

[HOPEful]

Massey currently ranks them...

1. Mount
2. MHB
3. NC
4. UWW

Massey is just one rating system and certainly not without flaws. My only point by bringing it up is that it is a tangible, logic based algorithm that has Mount #1.

[HOPEful]

Head to head matchups holds the most water for me when filling out my poll, all though it's not a perfect science (but nothing is, really). Followed by who they played (good wins vs. good losses vs. bad losses, etc...)

I agree to a certain extent. Which is why, despite the losses, I still consider MHB and UWW firmly in my 1c and 1d positions.

A fourteen point loss to St. Johns falls somewhere between "good" and "bad" loss. Knowing they actually led 10-9 well into the third quarter moves it closer to a "good" loss, but you still have to take it into consideration when weighing them against the other three. It's a very inexact science. And a fun exercise on who values what most when trying to split hairs...

[02 Warhawk]

UWW sure looked bad against SJU. Tons of mistakes and quite literally gave them the game. But to start the season playing 3 top 10 teams (two of which were on the road), and go 2-1. Not sure if there's any team in the country who could have passed the eye test and looked good all three of those games.

[wally_wabash]

Giving North Central credit for anything they did last year seems like a silly leap for the next go-to criteria. By that logic, Mount has been in the Stagg Bowl 15 of the last 20 seasons. When I compare the elite teams, I go to the eye test before previous seasons. What jumps out? This season's Mount team just looks exceptionally fast on both sides of the ball, both compared to last season and other elite teams. So for now, I give them the edge. It's similar to D1 and Ohio State. They haven't beat anyone of note yet (Notre Dame was a fraud) and still national pundits seem to believe they're the only team out there capable of playing with Alabama and Georgia. Because their QB play, speed of their playmakers, etc. pass the eye test.

Not the first time I've seen a similar argument, and it may be true, but-

- Mount Union is always fast.  This seems to be a given.
- We've only seen Mount Union play against teams that were never, ever going to look like peers.  They're Billy Madison playing dodgeball at recess.  I don't know if Billy Madison is actually really good at dodgeball, or if he's just really good relative to six year olds that are 1/3 his size.   We've got several more weeks before Mount Union lines up against peers.  Until then, we're guessing (which is ok!). 

[smedindy]

This all comes out in the wash, anyway. Barring upsets we'll have the same debates going into the playoffs (and beyond).

Thing is we have a big clog at the top right now with very worthy teams that can all claim to be the best. And sometimes, the best loses a game.

[USee]

What is the legitimate rationale for UMU ranked above NCC? I am flummoxed.  NCC 2 straight wins over them in Alliance and two straight Stagg Bowls.  NCC with 16 or so returning starters and a much bigger win so far.  This defies logic.

UMU opponents have a combined record of 5-12 while NCC's opponents are 6-11.
One of NCC's wins came against then #11 Wheaton.

I am the individual who has Mount ahead of North Central currently, standing in defiance of logic.

Here's why...

As pointed out, their strength of schedules are similar, with a game against Wheaton favoring NC. However, I stopped judging elite D3 teams based solely on their SOS years ago. If I didn't, UWW would just be permanently my number 1 and MHB number 2.

Giving North Central credit for anything they did last year seems like a silly leap for the next go-to criteria. By that logic, Mount has been in the Stagg Bowl 15 of the last 20 seasons. When I compare the elite teams, I go to the eye test before previous seasons. What jumps out? This season's Mount team just looks exceptionally fast on both sides of the ball, both compared to last season and other elite teams. So for now, I give them the edge. It's similar to D1 and Ohio State. They haven't beat anyone of note yet (Notre Dame was a fraud) and still national pundits seem to believe they're the only team out there capable of playing with Alabama and Georgia. Because their QB play, speed of their playmakers, etc. pass the eye test.

I have North Central number 2. Are you judging the best resume or simply who you think the best teams are? MHB lost at WW, but absolutely punished Muhlenberg and Hardin Simmons. Those two wins combine for the most impressive resume out of anyone, so how much do you punish them for a four point loss at Whitewater? Aren't we conditioned at this point to just assume the Stagg Bowl will be played by some combination of Mount, UWW, MHB, and NC? I prefer to think of the top four teams more like 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d... because you're really splitting hairs trying to figure out who "deserves" to be ranked higher.

I am a big fan of the eye test. But what trumps it, to me, are returning players. We aren't comparing legacies here when we talk about last year. We are comparing the actual same players, which is quite far from a "silly leap" and has nothing to do with 15-20 years of history. NCC has the same QB, 2 RB's and 4 of 5 OL that ran for 293 yds against Mt Union last year. NCC has 15 returning starters to UMU's 12 from last years contest. (UMU has same QB, 2 Ol, and a couple WR's and 7 defensive starters back). The eye test can't trump actual results from the same people in my mind. And my eye test doesn't see a lot of separation between these two programs so actual results from returning players gets me solidly over the hump.

Different Head Coach? Maybe. That's not a lot different than Dartt taking over at UMU last year and that got NCC sent to Alliance for the playoff game. Brad Spencer, like Dartt, is a long time assistant and alum at NCC Both teams lost a few studs. Both have reloaded. NCC has a starting corner who is a D1 transfer and is arguably better than Jake Beasely.

[Captainred81]

I'm a bullet point guy...

A)  What an awesome conversation.  This is why I love D3 and these boards.  (spending a part of my work day reading...LOL)
B)  Eye Test:  I just mentioned this on the OAC page.  Watching Mount this year is different than last year.  They are really, really fast and aggressive.  Wally Wabash is correct, they are always fast.  So is NCC and UMHB and UWW.  I watched NCC and Wheaton.  They dont look like the team that they were last year.  I cant quite tell with their offense, because Wheaton's D-Line is not the star studded line it was last year.  I remember watching that game last year and thinking HOLY $#!T...they're fast.  This year...mmm...not-so-much.  I whole heartedly admit that I'm biased for Mount. 
C)  History comes into play when you think that normally fast teams look fast.  All be it playing against some lesser opponents, btu still.  You can compare this years team to last years or other years and come up with a legit perspective.  IE:  Is this years UMU D as fast as the one that shut out UMHB in the Stagg?  I'm sure Mount did not play a top 10 team in the OOC game that year. 
D)  I totally appreciate the 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d options.  I think if each of these teams played each other 10 times, you might have each team be 5-5. 

[USee]

I'm a bullet point guy...

A)  What an awesome conversation.  This is why I love D3 and these boards.  (spending a part of my work day reading...LOL)
B)  Eye Test:  I just mentioned this on the OAC page.  Watching Mount this year is different than last year.  They are really, really fast and aggressive.  Wally Wabash is correct, they are always fast.  So is NCC and UMHB and UWW.  I watched NCC and Wheaton.  They dont look like the team that they were last year.  I cant quite tell with their offense, because Wheaton's D-Line is not the star studded line it was last year.  I remember watching that game last year and thinking HOLY $#!T...they're fast.  This year...mmm...not-so-much.  I whole heartedly admit that I'm biased for Mount. 
C)  History comes into play when you think that normally fast teams look fast.  All be it playing against some lesser opponents, btu still.  You can compare this years team to last years or other years and come up with a legit perspective.  IE:  Is this years UMU D as fast as the one that shut out UMHB in the Stagg?  I'm sure Mount did not play a top 10 team in the OOC game that year. 
D)  I totally appreciate the 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d options.  I think if each of these teams played each other 10 times, you might have each team be 5-5.

7 of 12 returning starters on Mount's defense. We know these guys and their speed. It's not a mystery. It's not speculation about whether they are the team that shut out UMHB. It is actually the same guys who gave up 293 yds rushing vs NCC. Speed doesn't matter when a team runs it down your throat 51 times for 5.7 yds per rush. Same Offensive line and RBs, same Defense. #definitionofinsanity

[HOPEful]

I am a big fan of the eye test. But what trumps it, to me, are returning players. We aren't comparing legacies here when we talk about last year. We are comparing the actual same players, which is quite far from a "silly leap" and has nothing to do with 15-20 years of history...

You're comparing one team's result against another team from a previous year based on a majority of those players returning. That's just a convoluted way of saying head-to-head and justifying the time between meetings. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be considered or hold value. I'm just saying it shouldn't be exhibit A. It's a new season. And even the same returning players have had an off-season and year to reflect, grow, develop, etc. Even assuming replaying that game last year the following weekend would have produced the exact same results would be arrogant on the part of North Central.

Last year I picked North Central to win it all in my bracket. Then I watched Aphonso Thomas and Kyle King have their way with them. By your logic, since those same players are back for MHB, and I've seen them dismantle the NC defense, obviously I should have them ahead of North Central in my rankings, right?

North Central is a very, very, good team. They could win it all this year and I wouldn't be surprised. I have them as my #2 team in the country, or as I already said, my 1b. I just think right now Mount looks a little faster, and therefore, better. And I don't think my reasoning defies logic, is based on solely intangibles, or is #definitionofinsanity. 

[USee]

I am not suggesting players don't grow or games played with the same players will yield the exact result. But my reasoning is based on some pretty factual data. North Central runs it on everybody and ran it down Mt Unions throat. 293 yards worth. What does increased speed have to do with that? While I think the result could certainly be different, with both teams playing at a high level, and NCC with a much better result this year than anything UMU has produced, the head to head with most of the same players isn't such a "silly leap" is it? And if UMHB hadn't lost to UWW, they would certainly be ranked ahead of NCC and UMU right? So we can only compare undefeated teams. I just wasn't sure people who were voting (in the D3.com poll and the fan poll) actually understood the nature of the beat down last year in Alliance and who each team has returning. If they (and you) do, and choose to base their opinion on subjective measures, so be it. Pat gave his reasons on the podcast for UMU at #1 and that's totally cool. Keith has them #6 and has reasons for it, which is fine as well. I was more interested in peoples reasoning for the fan poll.

I haven't seen enough Mt Union this year to have an opinion and I don't vote in any polls. I have seen a lot of NCC this year (too much unfortunately) and while I am not convinced they have what it takes this year to win it all, I do believe at this point, based on what we have seen, they should be #1 in the polls (and they are).

[Ralph Turner]

If UMHB had held off UWW before 14,213 fans at the Perk, and considering the Muhlenberg and HSU scores, might we be talking about how The Cru is building a dynasty?

(LOL, 14,213 fans might be the over/under number of the number of fans to watch a regular season's worth of games for the average D3 player, i.e., the cumulative attendance for 10 games in a season!)

[D3fanboy]

Muhlenberg stinks and aren't we all still waiting for HSU's first big win...ever

[Ralph Turner]

Muhlenberg stinks and aren't we all still waiting for HSU's first big win...ever

I think that Muhlenberg is headed to 6-3 in the Centennial this year. That is no-slouch conference.
As for HSU's big win, I feel sorry for the Cowboys. The head coach called 160 schools for a game.
So, he goes to Platteville and does something no one else has done since 2005; shut out the Pioneers.

The Cowboy win over UW-P (41-0) was of Oshkoshian proportions (46-7).