FB: Region 4 fan poll

[USee]

Wally,

Thanks for running with this again. Your efforts are what allows us all to engage in the discussions, appreciate it again!

On Olivet I think ranking them 5 might be a bit high (obviously since I have them at 6) but not ranking them is equally questionable. There are enough common opponents with others in the poll that put them in the mix. I don't see anyway Olivet should be lower than RHIT as an example. Every piece of criteria says they are better than RHIT and the 2 RHIT losses are the worst losses on the board IMO. I had a hard time putting them at 10 but I ultimately did.

[Dr. Acula]

Wally,

Thanks for running with this again. Your efforts are what allows us all to engage in the discussions, appreciate it again!

On Olivet I think ranking them 5 might be a bit high (obviously since I have them at 6) but not ranking them is equally questionable. There are enough common opponents with others in the poll that put them in the mix. I don't see anyway Olivet should be lower than RHIT as an example. Every piece of criteria says they are better than RHIT and the 2 RHIT losses are the worst losses on the board IMO. I had a hard time putting them at 10 but I ultimately did.

I can't speak for the other person who left Olivet out, but I didn't rank them because I looked at their schedule and wondered who they beat that was really any good.  As Wally brought up earlier, some people are best wins guys and some are best losses guys.  I'm a wins guy.  Show me you can beat a good team.  I don't think they beat any.  And they definitely didn't beat anyone close to Wabash/DPU/TMC like Witt did. 

[wally_wabash]

Wally,

Thanks for running with this again. Your efforts are what allows us all to engage in the discussions, appreciate it again!

On Olivet I think ranking them 5 might be a bit high (obviously since I have them at 6) but not ranking them is equally questionable. There are enough common opponents with others in the poll that put them in the mix. I don't see anyway Olivet should be lower than RHIT as an example. Every piece of criteria says they are better than RHIT and the 2 RHIT losses are the worst losses on the board IMO. I had a hard time putting them at 10 but I ultimately did.

I can't speak for the other person who left Olivet out, but I didn't rank them because I looked at their schedule and wondered who they beat that was really any good.  As Wally brought up earlier, some people are best wins guys and some are best losses guys.  I'm a wins guy.  Show me you can beat a good team.  I don't think they beat any.  And they definitely didn't beat anyone close to Wabash/DPU/TMC like Witt did.

I'm the other with Olivet out, and basically for the same reason.  It kind of became a process of elimination for me.  Franklin beat Thomas More, who I think is really good (and Witt did as well which has second-hand effect on Witt's other opponents) and RHIT beat Franklin so those two kind of get tethered together for me.  Same kind of deal with the non-Witt NCAC's on my ballot- there's not a lot of separation there.  DPU won at Wabash at the last minute, Wabash won a nailbiter at Denison narrowly, and despite losing to both DPU and Wabash (grinding through those two games with a limited Canaan Gebele, btw) Denison beat Wittenberg.  And once I kind of identified those five, I needed something from Olivet to break through into that group and it just wasn't there.  The Comets had a postseason opportunity, but didn't show particularly well there either.  So against teams that live amongst the top 10 or so in their regions, Olivet was 0-2 having lost by 42 and 25...which just wasn't good enough for me. 

[USee]

I didn't put Olivet ahead of Witt. I don't feel like RHIT is in anyway "tethered" to Franklin. They have two other losses that decouple them from that analysis. Olivet beat Benedictine, Trine, Alma and Hope, all of which are as good (at least as a group if not individually) as a win over Denison. Olivet wasn't 0-2, they were 9-2. They also had a convincing win @Albion where Wabash was fortunate to win.

I think its a mistake to think of it as being a Wins "or" losses guy. That's a trap mentality. You have to look at both. It's just as flawed to say RHIT beat Franklin so they are "tethered" as it is to say they had 2 bad losses. Olivet beat everybody they played and their schedule was better than RHIT and several others in the top 10. They don't have a "signature win" but they have a group of wins that are better than most of the other teams "group wins".

I could make an argument that Depauw is ahead of Olivet on my ballot (good wins against Witt/Wabash bad loss to OWU) but no way I could see putting RHIT or Wabash ahead of them. RHIT with 2 bad losses and 1 quality win, Wabash with no real quality wins any better than Olivet's and 2 losses and the Comets had a group of wins over 7-3/6-4 teams and 2 losses that every team from 6-10 would have had as well. That was more consistent than anything I saw from the teams below them.

[wally_wabash]

This is an interesting construct:

Olivet beat everybody they played and their schedule was better than RHIT and several others in the top 10. They don't have a "signature win" but they have a group of wins that are better than most of the other teams "group wins".

and

the Comets had a group of wins over 7-3/6-4 teams and 2 losses that every team from 6-10 would have had as well. That was more consistent than anything I saw from the teams below them.

So you're saying that Olivet's schedule was stronger even though they won a bunch of games against average-ish teams that all of the teams you ranked behind them also would have won?  So even though Olivet's schedule was stronger, they've benefitted in your ballot essentially by virtue of not having to play anybody really tough (if you don't count the two times that they did play tough teams and caught unmerciful beatemdowns on both occasions). 

[USee]

This is an interesting construct:

Olivet beat everybody they played and their schedule was better than RHIT and several others in the top 10. They don't have a "signature win" but they have a group of wins that are better than most of the other teams "group wins".

and

the Comets had a group of wins over 7-3/6-4 teams and 2 losses that every team from 6-10 would have had as well. That was more consistent than anything I saw from the teams below them.

So you're saying that Olivet's schedule was stronger even though they won a bunch of games against average-ish teams that all of the teams you ranked behind them also would have won?  So even though Olivet's schedule was stronger, they've benefitted in your ballot essentially by virtue of not having to play anybody really tough (if you don't count the two times that they did play tough teams and caught unmerciful beatemdowns on both occasions).

I'm saying (and the SOS numbers agree) that their schedule was tougher than anyone behind them and they beat that schedule. Wabash didn't, RHIT didn't, Depauw didn't and Denison didn't. I have no idea if the teams behind Olivet would have done the same. There are 4 wins on Olivet's resume that are better than losing to OWU and Denison.

You didn't rank Olivet because they were 0-2 against John Carroll and STF. Who in the bottom half of the top ten was anything other than 0-2 against those two? Olivet was ranked 6th on my ballot because I think they are better than anyone below them and if they played them they would win.

[wally_wabash]

This is an interesting construct:

Olivet beat everybody they played and their schedule was better than RHIT and several others in the top 10. They don't have a "signature win" but they have a group of wins that are better than most of the other teams "group wins".

and

the Comets had a group of wins over 7-3/6-4 teams and 2 losses that every team from 6-10 would have had as well. That was more consistent than anything I saw from the teams below them.

So you're saying that Olivet's schedule was stronger even though they won a bunch of games against average-ish teams that all of the teams you ranked behind them also would have won?  So even though Olivet's schedule was stronger, they've benefitted in your ballot essentially by virtue of not having to play anybody really tough (if you don't count the two times that they did play tough teams and caught unmerciful beatemdowns on both occasions).

I'm saying (and the SOS numbers agree) that their schedule was tougher than anyone behind them and they beat that schedule. Wabash didn't, RHIT didn't, Depauw didn't and Denison didn't. I have no idea if the teams behind Olivet would have done the same. There are 4 wins on Olivet's resume that are better than losing to OWU and Denison.

You didn't rank Olivet because they were 0-2 against John Carroll and STF. Who in the bottom half of the top ten was anything other than 0-2 against those two? Olivet was ranked 6th on my ballot because I think they are better than anyone below them and if they played them they would win.

I didn't rank Olivet because I don't know who's actually good that they can beat and they had chances.  The teams that I have ranked ahead of Olivet on my ballot achieved something significant against at least one good team in 2016.  Olivet doesn't have that.  Olivet had two chances to differentiate themselves and they got squashed on both occasions. 

The Olivet quandary for me comes from the fact that they have nine wins that don't move any needle anywhere and two losses that indicate that they aren't close to playing top quartile regional ball.  Everybody that I have ranked ahead of them- Franklin, RHIT, Wabash, DePauw, Denison- they all verified their quality against top regional competition.  Could/would Olivet beat one of the NCAC runners up?  Maybe?  I don't think there are any results here that would say definitely yes. 

[USee]

And I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. I don't have any teams below Olivet that I could confidently say would beat the teams they played and every one of them would get pounded by the same two teams they did. Olivet beat every team they were favored to beat or were equal to and lost to the 2 teams they were double digit underdogs to. Wabash didn't do that, Depauw didn't do that, RHIT certainly didn't do that, not even Witt did that.

[Dr. Acula]

And I couldn't disagree more with your analysis.  I don't have any teams below Olivet that I could confidently say would beat the teams they played and every one of them would get pounded by the same two teams they did. Olivet beat every team they were favored to beat or were equal to and lost to the 2 teams they were double digit underdogs to. Wabash didn't do that, Depauw didn't do that, RHIT certainly didn't do that, not even Witt did that.

1)  I'm curious who OC played in those 9 games that you think could beat a good team.  I guess Hope would be the best bet?
2)  There is no chance that any of those NCAC teams gets beat by SJF by 6 TD's.  I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the NCAC teams beat SJF.

[wally_wabash]

And I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. I don't have any teams below Olivet that I could confidently say would beat the teams they played and every one of them would get pounded by the same two teams they did. Olivet beat every team they were favored to beat or were equal to and lost to the 2 teams they were double digit underdogs to. Wabash didn't do that, Depauw didn't do that, RHIT certainly didn't do that, not even Witt did that.

It's fair even if I disagree.  Like I said earlier, I think people can rank any of the teams beneath Witt in any order and it's not unreasonable.  Maybe you think we've been too high on the NCAC as a whole this year?  One person can see this year's NCAC as being more competitive at the top and another can look at the same results and say the top of the NCAC wasn't as good as it has been, hence the extra competition.  I'm not sure we really know which is right. 

[USee]

And I couldn't disagree more with your analysis.  I don't have any teams below Olivet that I could confidently say would beat the teams they played and every one of them would get pounded by the same two teams they did. Olivet beat every team they were favored to beat or were equal to and lost to the 2 teams they were double digit underdogs to. Wabash didn't do that, Depauw didn't do that, RHIT certainly didn't do that, not even Witt did that.

1)  I'm curious who OC played in those 9 games that you think could beat a good team.  I guess Hope would be the best bet?
2)  There is no chance that any of those NCAC teams gets beat by SJF by 6 TD's.  I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the NCAC teams beat SJF.

So now Olivet's opponents are on trial? I think you just need to look at the SOS of the relative teams that takes all that into account. Which of the teams in the bottom half of the top ten would have beaten JCU or STJF? Depauw lost to OWU at home by 22, Wabash was lucky to beat 1-9 Albion in OT and beat 2 teams with winning records, Denison beat 2 teams with winning records. You don't think any of those teams could lose badly @STJF and JCU? 

Did you ever actually watch Olivet play? I saw every team in the top 12-15 play at least 2x. How many games did you watch?

If you guys want to split hairs about Olivet being ranked 6,7,8, that's fine but not ranking them at all when their numbers are significantly better than any of those other bottom half teams is where I disagree. 

[USee]

And I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. I don't have any teams below Olivet that I could confidently say would beat the teams they played and every one of them would get pounded by the same two teams they did. Olivet beat every team they were favored to beat or were equal to and lost to the 2 teams they were double digit underdogs to. Wabash didn't do that, Depauw didn't do that, RHIT certainly didn't do that, not even Witt did that.

It's fair even if I disagree.  Like I said earlier, I think people can rank any of the teams beneath Witt in any order and it's not unreasonable.  Maybe you think we've been too high on the NCAC as a whole this year?  One person can see this year's NCAC as being more competitive at the top and another can look at the same results and say the top of the NCAC wasn't as good as it has been, hence the extra competition.  I'm not sure we really know which is right.

That's the crux. I have watched a lot of NCAC football in the past several years and Wabash was not nearly as good this year as they were the past 2 years. I think Denison has a good run and everyone thinks the NCAC is better because 4 teams are beating each other. I am not so sure the top didn't come back to the pack a little. I am decidedly not an Olivet apologist but I do think they are a top 10 team in the region this year compared to everyone else I watched.

[wally_wabash]

So now Olivet's opponents are on trial? I think you just need to look at the SOS of the relative teams that takes all that into account.

The SOS thing is tricky because I don't think we have a particularly good way to measure it and compare teams from leagues that play four non-league games to teams that play just one.  The NCAA's SOS is hot garbage and borderline useless.  Or is at least badly misnamed.  I know some of the other computer models also rank Olivet's schedule higher than the other teams in this conversation (thought not nearly as wide a margin as the NCAA's vapid system), but how much of that is buttressed by the MIAA's strong record vs. the NACC?  There are some real quality opponents in that MIAA non-league schedule that help a lot (Wheaton, Wabash, UW-SP, Monmouth, SJF) but the MIAA squads lost those games pretty badly (yes, Wabash vs. Albion excluded).  I think there's a bit of fool's gold there in the MIAA's SOS figures...largely noncompetitive vs. the very strong teams, lots of wins against the NACC and other sub-150 teams.  All of which is to say that while the SOS math tells us that there is a huge gulf between the schedule Olivet played and the schedule the NCACs or HCACs played, I'm not convinced that Olivet actually played a schedule all that different in overall difficulty than Wabash/DPU/Denison/Franklin/RHIT.  SOS is just a hard thing to clarify with so many teams, so few games, and so few points of intersection. 

[Dr. Acula]

So now Olivet's opponents are on trial? I think you just need to look at the SOS of the relative teams that takes all that into account. Which of the teams in the bottom half of the top ten would have beaten JCU or STJF? Depauw lost to OWU at home by 22, Wabash was lucky to beat 1-9 Albion in OT and beat 2 teams with winning records, Denison beat 2 teams with winning records. You don't think any of those teams could lose badly @STJF and JCU? 

Did you ever actually watch Olivet play? I saw every team in the top 12-15 play at least 2x. How many games did you watch?

If you guys want to split hairs about Olivet being ranked 6,7,8, that's fine but not ranking them at all when their numbers are significantly better than any of those other bottom half teams is where I disagree.

Now?  In my first post on OC I questioned their opponents.  That's what I meant when I said they didn't beat anyone good.  I didn't think that was really very controversial. 

Conservatively I'd say I watched 40 games in total.  I watched OC twice.  Unfortunately one of those two was against JCU where they looked like they were comparable to Heidelberg.  Very similar games.  And no, I am not saying Berg is as good as OC.  OC is clearly better.  OC faced JCU much later in the year when they were playing their best.  That was just the game it reminded me of.     

 

[smedindy]

I think Witt, Wabash, DPU and Denison would be 7-10 point favorites against Olivet. I think OWU would be a pick 'em.

The pillow fight between the bottom of the NCAC and the bottom of the MIAA would be interesting.