Pool C -- 2011

[jam40jeff]

Of course, another way to keep IC out would have been if Wheaton had also jumped Case in those final rankings!

I have stated that I would have had no prolbem with Wheaton getting in over Case.

It's not the fact that Case didn't get in that I think is garbage, it's the fact that IC did get in.

[smedindy]

Garbage?

So having IC in the playoffs totally trashed the process and made this tournament illegitimate?

Pretty strong words there, especially towards a program that is celebrating their first appearance.

[wally_wabash]

Of course, another way to keep IC out would have been if Wheaton had also jumped Case in those final rankings!

I have stated that I would have had no prolbem with Wheaton getting in over Case.

It's not the fact that Case didn't get in that I think is garbage, it's the fact that IC did get in.

Make a case as for why CWRU deserved to go before IC.  Let me rebut your major arguments:

- Regional records alone are not enough to distinguish one team from another.  Secondary criteria are in play here.
- Getting whomped by a 9-1 league champion/playoff team is not as bad as losing to a 4-5 team, especially when you have zero quality wins to divert attention from such a bad loss.  At best for CWRU, it's a push. 

Of all the teams out there that don't get in because their schedules stink, CWRU is one of the very few that can actually control that..  IC plays a round robin in a 10 team league.  CWRU has three league games and 7 games that they can do whatever the heck they want with.  They chose to partner with the NCAC and play games close to home against a lot of bad teams.  That strategy didn't pay off this time around.  At the end of the day, all the Spartans had to do was not lose to a mediocre Rochester team.  That wasn't a big ask. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Make a case as for why CWRU deserved to go before IC.  Let me rebut your major arguments:

- Regional records alone are not enough to distinguish one team from another.  Secondary criteria are in play here.
- Getting whomped by a 9-1 league champion/playoff team is not as bad as losing to a 4-5 team, especially when you have zero quality wins to divert attention from such a bad loss.  At best for CWRU, it's a push. 

This, I completely agree with.  Even considering the relative weakness of the MWC, there's no real argument that CWRU did "more" to get in the field than IC.  The "regional" thing might hold up a little on paper, but it's ridiculous to keep plugging the 9-0 in-region record when (as wally has previously stated) a) CWRU and Rochy are BARELY over the distance limit for a "regional" game and b) CWRU shares a conference with Rochester IN EVERY SPORT except football.

CWRU has three league games and 7 games that they can do whatever the heck they want with.  They chose to partner with the NCAC and play games close to home against a lot of bad teams.   That strategy didn't pay off this time around.

This, I don't entirely agree with, as detailed in a previous post.  CWRU didn't play a schedule full of "terrible" teams so much as they played a whole bunch of "mediocre" teams.  Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I think it's a worthwhile distinction.  CWRU did beat six teams that finished .500 or better; the problem is, five of those teams finished right AT .500, and the only team that finished with a "winning" record was 6-4 WashU.

I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not, IN ANY WAY, think that a schedule with nine wins against "mediocre" competition and one loss to a 4-5 team is a playoff-worthy resume.  I'm just trying to point out, again, that CWRU's schedule is not loaded with completely AWFUL teams.

Side tangent: I don't think that the UAA schools were trying to game their way into impressive records by partnering with the NCAC.  I think they just wanted the scheduling stability of a couple of guaranteed close-to-home OOC games against schools with a similar academic profile.  While the NCAC and UAA schools have a different TYPE of academic "elitism" (liberal arts vs. research) both are comprised of pretty decent schools, which probably made the NCAC partnership more appealing to the UAA than a partnership with other conferences may have been.

At the end of the day, all the Spartans had to do was not lose to a mediocre Rochester team.  That wasn't a big ask.

This, again, I completely agree with.

[smedindy]

CWRU didn't choose - the UAA chose to partner with the NCAC.

But the alternative would have been perhaps a schedule of more creampuffs - or a schedule full of non D-3 teams.

[Pat Coleman]

Here's a Case schedule from before the UAA-NCAC arrangement. No non-D3 teams:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Case_Western_Reserve/2005/index

In fact, no non-D3 teams since we've been tracking schedules.

[smedindy]

That's was a conjecture Pat. I think scheduling may be harder now with more teams landed in conferences and conferences have tried to even themselves out.

In fact, it begs the question what the UAA will do, now since beginning in 2013 the NCAC will have just one non-conference game and it's weeks 1 and 2.

[jam40jeff]

Here's a Case schedule from before the UAA-NCAC arrangement. No non-D3 teams:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Case_Western_Reserve/2005/index

In fact, no non-D3 teams since we've been tracking schedules.

That the schedule is almost the same as after the agreement (7 games against UAA and NCAC teams instead of the 8 today)?  Why not enter an agreement to ensure those other teams don't decide to screw you over one year?

[jam40jeff]

Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.

[jam40jeff]

At the end of the day, all the Spartans had to do was not lose to a mediocre Rochester team.  That wasn't a big ask.

Would it make you feel better if I left Case out of it completely and said I think Wheaton should have gotten in over IC?

[Pat Coleman]

Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.

Same overall record, similar SOS (IC's slightly higher), IC 0-1 against regionally ranked teams and Case 0-0. That's how.

0-0 is not better than 0-1. It's better to have played and lost than never to have played at all.

[wally_wabash]

CWRU has three league games and 7 games that they can do whatever the heck they want with.  They chose to partner with the NCAC and play games close to home against a lot of bad teams.   That strategy didn't pay off this time around.

This, I don't entirely agree with, as detailed in a previous post.  CWRU didn't play a schedule full of "terrible" teams so much as they played a whole bunch of "mediocre" teams.  Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I think it's a worthwhile distinction.  CWRU did beat six teams that finished .500 or better; the problem is, five of those teams finished right AT .500, and the only team that finished with a "winning" record was 6-4 WashU.

I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not, IN ANY WAY, think that a schedule with nine wins against "mediocre" competition and one loss to a 4-5 team is a playoff-worthy resume.  I'm just trying to point out, again, that CWRU's schedule is not loaded with completely AWFUL teams.

Side tangent: I don't think that the UAA schools were trying to game their way into impressive records by partnering with the NCAC.  I think they just wanted the scheduling stability of a couple of guaranteed close-to-home OOC games against schools with a similar academic profile.  While the NCAC and UAA schools have a different TYPE of academic "elitism" (liberal arts vs. research) both are comprised of pretty decent schools, which probably made the NCAC partnership more appealing to the UAA than a partnership with other conferences may have been.

I may be overstating it a bit, but I'm just trying to not sugar coat what's going on in the NCAC right now.  12 years ago when Wabash got into the league Witt was a monster, Allegheny was really really good, OWU was good, and Wooster was better than average.  The rest of the league is basically a wash with what they are now.  Fast forward to today and OWU has fallen off the cliff, Allegheny has taken serious steps backward, and Wooster hasn't been a serious contender since Tony Sutton left after 2004.  Wabash and Witt are good teams, the rest of the league is average at best right now, and we've got 2-3 teams that are bad.  These are just facts.  When it comes to the CWRU schedule, we can say that they have wins over several mediocre teams (Allegheny, Wooster, Chicago, WashU), but the reality is that you don't get any national juice from beating those teams right now.  There are an awful lot of teams out there that can go 10-0 against that schedule. 

And also to clarify, I'm not suggesting that CWRU and their UAA brethren entered into the agreement with the NCAC as a way to load up a schedule with games they can win and post gaudy records.  That's been a nice benefit over the last four years, but that was certainly not the objective.  The objective was to find a way to get ten game schedules, which gets tricky in October when the rest of the region is playing a league schedule.  They got the games, but they aren't strong games and there isn't much wiggle room come selection time if you slip up.  That's not anybody's fault, that's just the way it is. 

[HScoach]

^ best post of this entire debate.

[Ralph Turner]

Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.

Same overall record, similar SOS (IC's slightly higher), IC 0-1 against regionally ranked teams and Case 0-0. That's how.

0-0 is not better than 0-1.


"'Tis better to have played and lost
Than never to have played at all."  Canto 27. In memoriam: an ode to the 2011 NCAA D-III Selection Committee

Alfred Lord Tennyson could not have said it better.   

[jam40jeff]

Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.

Same overall record, similar SOS (IC's slightly higher), IC 0-1 against regionally ranked teams and Case 0-0. That's how.

0-0 is not better than 0-1. It's better to have played and lost than never to have played at all.

What about the regional record?  The first criterion in the list.  Yes, I agree that in this instance, the non-region game tells us something about Case, but you can't just pick and choose which criteria you want to ignore.  If you want to follow the criteria, you have to take into account that Case's regional record was 9-0.  If you want to throw the criteria out the window because you think you can make a better selection subjectively, then Wheaton is the obvious choice.