FB: Region 4 fan poll

[USee]

well said Tartan.  with regard to Franklin, I agree that loss was considered a decent loss around labor day and now is starting to look worse and worse.  That was a game where inexperience on defense and QB coupled with 2-3 untimely turnovers cost the GRIZ a game they could have still won and would probably win today.  It is what it is.  All that said, barring some sort of meltdown, Franklin should end up 8-0 in the conference and 8-2 overall with one loss to Whitewater.  Probably be a 6-7 seed and hit the road somewhere (my take is Wabash/Witt winner or Wheaton or maybe a John Carroll).  Who knows.

It should be noted IWU is an example of a team that is dramatically different than it was. They lost their Frosh QB to Mono, they then inexplicably took their best defensive player and put him at QB. He had an emergency appendectomy the night before a game, their 3rd string kid played a game and a half and injured his knee and their 4th string qb just played in a one point loss to Elmhurst. So Franklin's loss was to a fairly different IWU team. I think since the opener its fair to say IWU's arrow has pointed down and Franklins has edged up. Two teams in two totally different places right now.

[GRIZ_BACKER]

well said Tartan.  with regard to Franklin, I agree that loss was considered a decent loss around labor day and now is starting to look worse and worse.  That was a game where inexperience on defense and QB coupled with 2-3 untimely turnovers cost the GRIZ a game they could have still won and would probably win today.  It is what it is.  All that said, barring some sort of meltdown, Franklin should end up 8-0 in the conference and 8-2 overall with one loss to Whitewater.  Probably be a 6-7 seed and hit the road somewhere (my take is Wabash/Witt winner or Wheaton or maybe a John Carroll).  Who knows.

It should be noted IWU is an example of a team that is dramatically different than it was. They lost their Frosh QB to Mono, they then inexplicably took their best defensive player and put him at QB. He had an emergency appendectomy the night before a game, their 3rd string kid played a game and a half and injured his knee and their 4th string qb just played in a one point loss to Elmhurst. So Franklin's loss was to a fairly different IWU team. I think since the opener its fair to say IWU's arrow has pointed down and Franklins has edged up. Two teams in two totally different places right now.

Wow.  Wasnt aware of all the bad luck the Titans have had to deal with. Good information and perspective.

[wally_wabash]

well said Tartan.  with regard to Franklin, I agree that loss was considered a decent loss around labor day and now is starting to look worse and worse.  That was a game where inexperience on defense and QB coupled with 2-3 untimely turnovers cost the GRIZ a game they could have still won and would probably win today.  It is what it is.  All that said, barring some sort of meltdown, Franklin should end up 8-0 in the conference and 8-2 overall with one loss to Whitewater.  Probably be a 6-7 seed and hit the road somewhere (my take is Wabash/Witt winner or Wheaton or maybe a John Carroll).  Who knows.

Maybe a trip back to Belton, TX., pull a UW-Lacrosse and play both the #1 and #2 teams in the country.

Trip to Belton would suggest Franklin will be an 8.  IMO there will be a couple teams that get in as a conference winner with no resume etc.  Franklin typically schedules a power team or two to beef up the quality of competition vs the HCAC slate.  My gut says Witt/Bash or Wheaton.  If John Carroll stands tough with Mount I can see them getting a 3.

We'd have to wait and see who all is in, but I think it would be odd for Franklin to fly to Texas for that first round game.  There are just too many teams close to Franklin for them to be on a plane in round 1.  Now, if we wind up with an odd man out situation, like we did with North Central did in 2012, then it's anybody's guess. With PLU not in the picture currently, we're going to wind up with Linfield, SCIAC champ, and UMHB as definite geographic orphans (unless TLU gets in in which case they'll get re-fed to UMHB) which could lend itself to some creative bracketing and a matchup or two that we didn't see coming. 

[smedindy]

Well, we kinda know that the SCIAC champ will be heading to Linfield, right? So that leaves the question is who is the grist for the UMHB mill. The RR's will tell. Maybe it's the USAC champ. It won't be Centre if they make it; I doubt if they send a 10-0 team there.

This is kind of an odd duck year. Wheaton has had closer-than-should-have wins over Coe (slipping down now), Kalamazoo, and Augie. If they win out, they're 10-0 but the committee has to look at the quality of those wins (not just the teams, but the margins), right? Say JCU and Mt. Union play a barn-burner. Would the seedings (NCAA be damned, I'll call it that) leap a 10-0 team to put the OAC runner-up at a 3?

[wally_wabash]

Well, we kinda know that the SCIAC champ will be heading to Linfield, right? So that leaves the question is who is the grist for the UMHB mill. The RR's will tell. Maybe it's the USAC champ. It won't be Centre if they make it; I doubt if they send a 10-0 team there.

This is kind of an odd duck year. Wheaton has had closer-than-should-have wins over Coe (slipping down now), Kalamazoo, and Augie. If they win out, they're 10-0 but the committee has to look at the quality of those wins (not just the teams, but the margins), right? Say JCU and Mt. Union play a barn-burner. Would the seedings (NCAA be damned, I'll call it that) leap a 10-0 team to put the OAC runner-up at a 3?

I can't see a scenario where 10-0 Wheaton would be or should be seeded lower than an OAC runner up, whoever it might be.  That doesn't preclude Wheaton being a very severe home underdog should they play the OAC runner up at some point during the tournament, but not losing should matter.  Conference championships should matter. 

As for the Linfield/SCIAC/UMHB situation, yes, the easy and lazy way out is to just send the SCIAC champion up to Oregon.  But they don't have to do that if UMHB is also orphaned, particularly if the SCIAC champion is Chapman and they can avoid a regular season rematch with Chapman and Linfield.  In that scenario, I'd like to see the committee send Chapman to UMHB, and then somebody else out to Linfield.  You're going to have two (at least) flights anyway in this situation.  Now, the whole thing gets fouled up if TLU makes the field. Then they'll go to UMHB, SCIAC champ to Linfield, and we can probably-almost-assuredly have a single flight first round, which the NCAA (they of the $50 million legal bill courtesy Team O'Bannon) will probably love.  Conspirators might even say that's a good reason to include TLU in the field.   

[D3MAFAN]

With all this playoff "seed" talk, it makes it more interesting what this "Historic" college football playoff our brethren of D1-FBS are talking about and how they select their Top 4 teams. It would be interesting how DIII would select the best 4.

[wally_wabash]

With all this playoff "seed" talk, it makes it more interesting what this "Historic" college football playoff our brethren of D1-FBS are talking about and how they select their Top 4 teams. It would be interesting how DIII would select the best 4.

We pick the best 4 by having teams play three regional rounds in a single elimination format, until one team is left as regional champion.  It's a system that has worked remarkably well for decades. 

[New Tradition]

With all this playoff "seed" talk, it makes it more interesting what this "Historic" college football playoff our brethren of D1-FBS are talking about and how they select their Top 4 teams. It would be interesting how DIII would select the best 4.

We pick the best 4 by having teams play three regional rounds in a single elimination format, until one team is left as regional champion.  It's a system that has worked remarkably well for decades.

AMEN!

[D3MAFAN]

With all this playoff "seed" talk, it makes it more interesting what this "Historic" college football playoff our brethren of D1-FBS are talking about and how they select their Top 4 teams. It would be interesting how DIII would select the best 4.

We pick the best 4 by having teams play three regional rounds in a single elimination format, until one team is left as regional champion.  It's a system that has worked remarkably well for decades.

AMEN!

Yes, a system that works very well. Only if D1-FBS can get over those t.v. contracts and realize that by having the same system would generate just as much revenue, probably more.

[ExTartanPlayer]

With all this playoff "seed" talk, it makes it more interesting what this "Historic" college football playoff our brethren of D1-FBS are talking about and how they select their Top 4 teams. It would be interesting how DIII would select the best 4.

We pick the best 4 by having teams play three regional rounds in a single elimination format, until one team is left as regional champion.  It's a system that has worked remarkably well for decades.

AMEN!

Yes, a system that works very well. Only if D1-FBS can get over those t.v. contracts and realize that by having the same system would generate just as much revenue, probably more.

I've presented both of these ideas before, somewhere, that would preserve "guaranteed access" for all AQ champs and still get the little guys involved somehow, which could quite easily be implemented in FBS.

8-team playoff

Pool A: five champions from AQ conferences
Pool B: highest-ranked champion from non-AQ conference
Pool C: two at-large bids (determined however they like)

16-team playoff

Automatic bids to every conference champion (11? I think there are 11 FBS conferences)
Remaining (5?) bids available for at-large selection

I love the eight-team idea, but I'm sure that various SEC and big-conference apologists would blanch at the thought of leaving out a potentially-really-good 10-2 or 11-1 team from their superconference.  Which is dumb, because (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/college-football-rankings-fairness/):

"MLB is the most recent major league to expand its playoffs, moving from eight to 10 playoff teams. Proponents of expansion point out that baseball still has the fewest playoff teams of any professional sport, and that more playoff teams is, of course, a fairer way of doing business. Having playoff teams blunts the issues raised by imbalanced schedules and economic and competitive disparities. What's really blunted, though, is not only the competitive imbalances built into the sport, but also the importance of the entire season itself.

The common cry has long been that good teams deserve a chance to win it all, that a 103-win team like the 1993 San Francisco Giants, which lost out on the final day of the season to the 104-win Atlanta Braves, should have a chance to play for the championship. But of course, the Giants did have a chance to win it all. They had 162 games' worth of chances. That was baseball, and the exclusivity of its playoff separated it from the others. What supporters of playoff expansion see as increased competition is actually the creation of a less competitive, lower-stakes environment in which teams not actually worthy of champion status are often awarded it. Why does a team that had 162 contests in which to finish above its competitors get another try after failing to do so? The real answer is: because it makes for more (and more exciting) TV."

Now, college football teams don't have 162 chances, they have 10-14 depending on which division they play in, etc.  But I still happen to agree with this point.  As much as we speculate about Pool C, I like the exclusivity of it because it makes a conference championship really mean something, and I think that would be a cool feature of the eight-team playoff idea: winning your conference would be a huge effing deal again.

[USee]

There is no way a 10-0 Wheaton is anything lower than a 3 seed unless they move them to a bracket that has 3 undefeated teams. And at #3 the Thunder would be more than happy to travel to Wabash in round 2 and see if a dominating 8 pt win over Coe or a 50 pt win over Oberlin is more important. I am also certain they would love to host the OAC runner up. But if all holds you would maybe see

Mt Union
Wabash
Wheaton
JCU

This would be a 1-4, 2-3 matchup for round 2. I wouldn't call this likely since the #1 in this bracket could be UWW and could end up being Wabash if everything falls right. Wheaton has gone west before too. Lots of football left.

[smedindy]

Bubble Team - "Why did you pick TLU instead of us?"
NCAA - Blame the O'Bannon decision!

[wally_wabash]

There is no way a 10-0 Wheaton is anything lower than a 3 seed unless they move them to a bracket that has 3 undefeated teams. And at #3 the Thunder would be more than happy to travel to Wabash in round 2 and see if a dominating 8 pt win over Coe or a 50 pt win over Oberlin is more important.

60-point win over Oberlin.  Let's keep our facts straight.   

The answer to the question though is that neither of those results are important in a game that happens in the tournament.  Doesn't matter at all.  Also irrelevant- wins, losses, and margins against North Central or Wittenberg or Hampden-Sydney or any other team these two teams played in weeks 1-11.  The deck gets reset every Saturday in the postseason. 

I am also certain they would love to host the OAC runner up. But if all holds you would maybe see

Mt Union
Wabash
Wheaton
JCU

This would be a 1-4, 2-3 matchup for round 2. I wouldn't call this likely since the #1 in this bracket could be UWW and could end up being Wabash if everything falls right. Wheaton has gone west before too. Lots of football left.

With the way they build brackets now, I would be surprised to see more than two of those four grouped together in the same quadrant.  Lot of different things you can do within 500 miles of all of those schools. 

[hazzben]

Which is dumb, because (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/college-football-rankings-fairness/):

"MLB is the most recent major league to expand its playoffs, moving from eight to 10 playoff teams. Proponents of expansion point out that baseball still has the fewest playoff teams of any professional sport, and that more playoff teams is, of course, a fairer way of doing business. Having playoff teams blunts the issues raised by imbalanced schedules and economic and competitive disparities. What's really blunted, though, is not only the competitive imbalances built into the sport, but also the importance of the entire season itself.

The common cry has long been that good teams deserve a chance to win it all, that a 103-win team like the 1993 San Francisco Giants, which lost out on the final day of the season to the 104-win Atlanta Braves, should have a chance to play for the championship. But of course, the Giants did have a chance to win it all. They had 162 games' worth of chances. That was baseball, and the exclusivity of its playoff separated it from the others. What supporters of playoff expansion see as increased competition is actually the creation of a less competitive, lower-stakes environment in which teams not actually worthy of champion status are often awarded it. Why does a team that had 162 contests in which to finish above its competitors get another try after failing to do so? The real answer is: because it makes for more (and more exciting) TV."

Yeah, but there's something awesome about teams like this years Royals making a run.

That said, I think a 16 team playoff is about the perfect ratio (very similar to the D3 ratio). But in the FBS/DI world, no way are they gonna invite all 10 conference champs (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that mentality, mind you. It just is what it is).

I think they're on a trajectory towards 8, then 16. They are gonna see the money to be made. The biggest arguments against a playoff were tradition of the bowls and the sanctity of the regular season. We've clearly seen this year, there has been no dilution to the regular season. In fact, I'd argue it has raised the stakes. Instead of just 4 or 5 teams (and their fans) at this point of the season feeling like they have a shot at the title, there are 15+ teams/fan bases. The excitement level hasn't diminished for the top 4 or 5 teams, but it has spread to many more. That's good for college football.

I'd propose a realistic 16 team playoff criteria along these lines:
5 Champs from the Power 5
5 highest ranked (according to a metric/poll of their choosing) champs from Little 5 & IND*
6 At Large Bids

*Because they would be loathe to award bids to 'underserving teams' I'm guessing you'd need a caveat. 5 highest ranked champs/IND, provided they are in the Top 25. Any bids left over shift to the at large category. This allows a higher degree of access, but also weeds out weak sisters that big time CFB doesn't want to put on TV (aka, games that won't make money).

So last year, those 5 bids would go to 2 teams: UCF (AAC), Fresno State (MtWest). No bids for Bowling Green (3 losses), Rice (3 losses), Louisiana-Lafayette (4 losses), Notre Dame (4 losses), Navy (4 losses).  One loss teams like Northern Illinois (who would have gotten a bid if they hadn't blown it against Bowling Green in the conf title game) and Louisville (lost AAC to UCF) would be relegated to competing for the at large bids.

Which leaves 9 at large bids for the most deserving (however they determine them).

It provides access for quality, competitive Little 5 teams. UCF in particular could have made some noise last year (they took down Baylor in the bowl). And the Networks/Big 5 still get their ratings and lots of really good teams that fell short of conference titles.

P.S. sorry for highjacking your board. You may now return to debating who should ranked 8-10 in the North Region 

[USee]

There is no way a 10-0 Wheaton is anything lower than a 3 seed unless they move them to a bracket that has 3 undefeated teams. And at #3 the Thunder would be more than happy to travel to Wabash in round 2 and see if a dominating 8 pt win over Coe or a 50 pt win over Oberlin is more important.

60-point win over Oberlin.  Let's keep our facts straight.   

The answer to the question though is that neither of those results are important in a game that happens in the tournament.  Doesn't matter at all.  Also irrelevant- wins, losses, and margins against North Central or Wittenberg or Hampden-Sydney or any other team these two teams played in weeks 1-11.  The deck gets reset every Saturday in the postseason. 

I am also certain they would love to host the OAC runner up. But if all holds you would maybe see

Mt Union
Wabash
Wheaton
JCU

This would be a 1-4, 2-3 matchup for round 2. I wouldn't call this likely since the #1 in this bracket could be UWW and could end up being Wabash if everything falls right. Wheaton has gone west before too. Lots of football left.

With the way they build brackets now, I would be surprised to see more than two of those four grouped together in the same quadrant.  Lot of different things you can do within 500 miles of all of those schools.

Totally agree WW.

Honestly, before this year I never fully empathized with the Wabash (or NCAC) faithful on the "They didn't play anybody" win train. Now we are making stuff up like "closer-than-should-have-been" wins and it's hitting me how difficult it can be to judge teams in different leagues prior to playoffs. These rankings and such are really very subjective (even with the "objective" criteria) and the teams playing the best come November usually prevail, regardless of what happened in September.

As an apologist for Wheaton I am really pleased with where they are given the fact they graduated 29 seniors and had no experience at QB coming in to this season. IWU was in the same boat (32 seniors last year, no QB experience). The Wheaton team is playing really well at the right time of the year. If they don't finish the deal with Elmhurst, IWU and Carthage these last 3 weeks it will be meaningless.

The good news is their SOS went up 14 spots after the NCC game! The bad news is they are still 187th, the lowest undefeated team's SOS in the country. (Widener is 177th and UWW 164th)