Pool C -- 2011

[Ron Boerger]

A couple years ago -- or was it last year -- they would have had to go to St. Thomas, but Bethel beat them.

UW-W has been on the road a few times, but UMU, like, never. Someone has to go to Alliance and beat them IMO.

Who was the last team to do that?  Was it UMHB something like 7-8 years ago?

[ExTartanPlayer]

Not only that (from 15 pages ago btw, I clicked on new posts and this is what I got), but how do you determine which conferences can win the whole thing?

There was a time Ithaca was the dominant program nationally, then the needle moved to Rowan and Mount Union, then UW-W joined the fray.

The 1994 champ was from the MIAA. Ten years later (and since) that was one of D-IIIs weakest conferences.

There was a time the SCIAC was thought to be so weak it didn't have a team in the playoffs from 1994 until it earned an AQ. Then Oxy went on the road and beat a MIAC champ the year after St. John's won it all from the MIAC. Now we've seen the SCIAC compete with beat North Central, Linfield and other championship-caliber programs.

There have been years when the SCAC and ODAC have sent teams to the Stagg Bowl, and other years when their champs have been drubbed in the first round.

The old 16-team system relied solely on the impressions of the regional advisory committees and shut the door on teams from a fairly decent conferences. The best example is Emory & Henry going 10-0 in 1998 but being behind Catholic, Western Maryland, Lycoming and Trinity -- the South Region powers of that era -- and not getting in. Three years later the ODAC champ was in the Stagg Bowl.

The great thing about this system is that it allows teams to define the strength of conferences through their play, not through opinions. We all think we know which teams/conferences will win in the postseason and which won't -- but isn't it better to know?

+1

This is why I've been angrily shaking my fist at some folks from the East Region that want to kick the NEFC and ECFC champs out of Pool A, or that are suggesting that conferences should have to win a certain number of games within a five-year window to keep their AQ.

Couldn't have said it any better, Keith.

[skunks_sidekick]

There have been three times in the last six years that Mount would have had to play a semi-final (or maybe even a regional final) game away from Alliance, but none of those teams ended up "holding serve", and Mount played a lower seed at home.  I believe the teams were Wabash (Capital beat them), Del Val (Rowan beat them), and then St. Thomas (Bethel beat them) last year. 

On another note, and this is coming late in the discussion, my only problem with Fisher getting into the play-offs is not that they were a two loss team, but more how bad they lost those two games.  I know it doesn't work this way (and probably shouldn't), but once the committee got down to a two loss team, let's compare the two loss teams out there, and not only look at who they beat, but look at how they lost.  Of course, that just enforces my argument that B-W deserved to be in as much if not more than Fisher.  I realize that the regional rankings don't support that premise, but I am just sayin'. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

On another note, and this is coming late in the discussion, my only problem with Fisher getting into the play-offs is not that they were a two loss team, but more how bad they lost those two games.  I know it doesn't work this way (and probably shouldn't), but once the committee got down to a two loss team, let's compare the two loss teams out there, and not only look at who they beat, but look at how they lost.  Of course, that just enforces my argument that B-W deserved to be in as much if not more than Fisher.  I realize that the regional rankings don't support that premise, but I am just sayin'.

I admit, this was a thought of mine as well.  It seemed to me that there were better two-loss teams available (Baldwin-Wallace, Montclair State, perhaps Cortland State).

I'm sure there was a reason for it; but I'm also "just sayin."

If UW-Oshkosh had managed to win out after the UWW game and finished 8-2 (with losses to UMU and UWW) and THEY had been left out in favor of SJF, then I would be a LOT angrier about this.

[jknezek]

On another note, and this is coming late in the discussion, my only problem with Fisher getting into the play-offs is not that they were a two loss team, but more how bad they lost those two games.  I know it doesn't work this way (and probably shouldn't), but once the committee got down to a two loss team, let's compare the two loss teams out there, and not only look at who they beat, but look at how they lost.  Of course, that just enforces my argument that B-W deserved to be in as much if not more than Fisher.  I realize that the regional rankings don't support that premise, but I am just sayin'.

I admit, this was a thought of mine as well.  It seemed to me that there were better two-loss teams available (Baldwin-Wallace, Montclair State, perhaps Cortland State).

I'm sure there was a reason for it; but I'm also "just sayin."

If UW-Oshkosh had managed to win out after the UWW game and finished 8-2 (with losses to UMU and UWW) and THEY had been left out in favor of SJF, then I would be a LOT angrier about this.

Remember how it works people. The regional committee has to nominate a team. It's not which 8-2 team is best, it's which 8-2 team was nominated and against what other teams. The committee probably did not compare SJF to B-W, as B-W probably never made the table. The East Region took a risk by nominating an 8-2 team over a 9-1 team at some point in the process. Given the history of 8-2 teams, that means either they had a very good idea the national committee was breaking tradition, or they took a huge risk of blocking a team with what could only be considered a historically better chance of making the field.

If the other regions didn't show the same gumption, or didn't feel that it was worth a try, that is their fault for not nominating the team. Stop trying to compare if SJF deserved to get in over B-W, it's not the issue unless they were on the table at the same time. I'm thinking it was more likely SJF up against CWRU, so its not the national committee's fault that it wasn't an option to include B-W. And, to be honest, if that is what happened, the East Region had a very good strategy given the common opponent result.

Now you could argue about Montclair or Cortland, since its the same region, but the regional rankings already showed what was going to happen there and they didn't have a common opponent advantage over another team on the board. Add SJF's SOS to the common opponent, and it was conceivable that SJF would go ahead of CWRU. Given the West and South already had 2 C bids, it is reasonable to believe the committee would look elsewhere for another team. Put it all together, and you have to respect the strategy used by the East Region Committee to get that 8-2 team into the field. Very, very astute.

Think of the regional committee's as a challenge to get the most of your region's teams into the field. The East Region played a very good game to get SJF in.

[smedindy]

Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.

Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

[smedindy]

Just for grins I looked up the Massey Ratings:

1-loss teams:

Illinois College - Power 71, Schedule 153
Case - Power 75, Schedule 177
Endicott - Power 66, Schedule 186

Peas in a pod. Good teams playing lesser schedules.

2-loss contenders:

SJF - Power 21, Schedule 39
Wheaton - Power 17, Schedule 38
BSC - Power 51, Schedule 93
B-W - Power 62, Schedule 115
Heidelberg (!) - Power 56, Schedule 111
St. Olaf - Power 54, Schedule 92

It definitely looks like Wheaton was the one deserving team left out. According to Massey the other two loss teams weren't that far away from the one-loss teams.

But again, Case blocking Wheaton is ultimately a better problem to have than a potential issue of a 10-0 team not getting to the table.

[USee]

on the STJF v Case, the podcast mentioned the common opponent (Rochester) whom STJf beat handily and represented CWRU only loss. Big factor there. Wheaton would have matched up well v STJF if they had made it to the table (1-2 v RRO vs 0-2).

I'd like to see the Pool C's get compared by the national committee (those on the RR) regardless of positioning. This simple change would modify the current structure. The current structure keeps 2 loss teams behind 1 loss teams that potentially aren't as good. The procedure may take time but would be a good modification.

[smedindy]

Maybe, but someone is always going to complain that they're team 33.

[jknezek]

In the first 10 conferences listed on the D3 page, I count 9 2 loss teams. There are 26 eligible conferences plus the "B" teams, so you are talking about 25 teams in any given year. Too many to compare. Still better off leaving things up to the Regional Committees to put their best teams forward until they come off the board. I will say with the inclusion of SJF, the other regional committees may be more willing to put a strong 2 loss on the board than a weak 1. But if you look at this year, only the North had that problem. There wasn't a 2 loss south team better than Centre (the presumed 2nd candidate) and the same out West.

If you are looking for a reason why a North 2 loss team sat behind a weak 1 loss Case and never made the board... it's because the North Committee probably believed the national committee would follow history and pick 1 loss teams over 2 loss teams. A very good assumption that this year was proven wrong. Next year they might put a 2 loss team up. Although I'm wondering if it was the National Committee making a statement, or the common opponent and SOS of SJF that was so unbelievably in favor of SJF that they felt limited in their choices.

I could easily justify SJF as a one off based on specific circumstances and next year we will be back to seeing a 1 loss preference. If that's the case, as I've said repeatedly, kudos to the East Region Committee for spotting the discrepancy and playing an outstanding hand.

[USee]

I am not complaining just making an observation. Of course #33 will complain but that doesn't mean we should push to improve the process where it is clearly lacking. Wheaton didn't deserve to get in and I have been clear about that. I don't think STJF deserved to get in any more than Wheaton either and a better process may have eliminated an inefficiency that previously existed. The inconsistency of having STJF jump a 1 loss team while Wheaton did not is fixable.

I actually think the process of comparing StJF to Case was a great example of getting that right (the common opponent criteria). I think we have a better field than we have in the past because of the process this year. That doesn't mean it can't get better.

[USee]

We have seen the regional committees play the "stronger team" hand before. In 2008 Wheaton sat behind 2 loss Wooster in the RR and Wheaton was #32 into the field instead of Wooster. Obviously in the final, unseen, RR Wheaton jumped Wooster and that could only have happened if they thought Wheaton was a stronger team at the national table than Wooster. Wheaton proved them right by going to the quarterfinals that year. I like the system the way it is and I have no beef with my team not making it. I am making the observation that the regional committees are making decisions arbitrarily that affect the national field. If we can make that more efficient, we should try.

[hickory_cornhusker]

In the first 10 conferences listed on the D3 page, I count 9 2 loss teams. There are 26 eligible conferences plus the "B" teams, so you are talking about 25 teams in any given year. Too many to compare. Still better off leaving things up to the Regional Committees to put their best teams forward until they come off the board. I will say with the inclusion of SJF, the other regional committees may be more willing to put a strong 2 loss on the board than a weak 1. But if you look at this year, only the North had that problem. There wasn't a 2 loss south team better than Centre (the presumed 2nd candidate) and the same out West.

If you are looking for a reason why a North 2 loss team sat behind a weak 1 loss Case and never made the board... it's because the North Committee probably believed the national committee would follow history and pick 1 loss teams over 2 loss teams. A very good assumption that this year was proven wrong. Next year they might put a 2 loss team up. Although I'm wondering if it was the National Committee making a statement, or the common opponent and SOS of SJF that was so unbelievably in favor of SJF that they felt limited in their choices.

I could easily justify SJF as a one off based on specific circumstances and next year we will be back to seeing a 1 loss preference. If that's the case, as I've said repeatedly, kudos to the East Region Committee for spotting the discrepancy and playing an outstanding hand.

I have often wondered why football couldn't go to 2 teams per region on the table at a time for selection into the playoffs. That is only 8 teams and just about every other sport needs to compare 8 teams against each other. Same rules as now except each region always needs 2 schools on the table instead of one.

[USee]

That could be a good solution. I think you have to limit the teams at the table but 4 seems too narrow. Another option is to take all the regionally ranked Pool C teams. That wouldn't always be a big number. May not be more than 8.

[Ralph Turner]

A couple years ago -- or was it last year -- they would have had to go to St. Thomas, but Bethel beat them.

UW-W has been on the road a few times, but UMU, like, never. Someone has to go to Alliance and beat them IMO.

Who was the last team to do that?  Was it UMHB something like 7-8 years ago?

Yeah, in a snowstorm and coming from behind to do it.

(And in Belton TX, even 3 snow flakes qualifies as a snow storm!    )