Pool C -- 2011

[smedindy]

RR is one of the primary criteria, not the sole criteria.

[Ralph Turner]

Pool C:  3 wins. 3 losses
at Wabash 38, Illinois College 20
SJF 23  at JHU 12.
at Centre 51 HSC 41
Monmouth 33, at IWU 27, 3OT
at UMHB 34,  Redlands 13
McMurry 25, at Trinity TX  16

[Ralph Turner]

Round #1  9 inter-region games  (Record in round 1 in parenthesis)

East Region hosting    (2-1)

CNU (S) at Kean

South Region hosting      (2-3)

Hobart (E) at Wesley
SJF (E) at JHU
Redlands (W) at UMHB

North Region hosting          (3-2)

Thomas More (S) at Franklin
Monmouth (W) at IWU
Dubuque (W) at North Central
Illinois College (W) at Wabash

West Region hosting          (2-3)

Albion (N) at UWW

[ADL70]

Pat and Ralph,

I guess you didn't see reply #555

My bad, split infinitive.

[Ralph Turner]

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.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

+1!  

Great minds on the same channel.

[hazzben]

Pool C:  3 wins. 3 losses
at Wabash 38, Illinois College 20
SJF 23  at JHU 12.
at Centre 51 HSC 41
Monmouth 33, at IWU 27, 3OT
at UMHB 34,  Redlands 13
McMurry 25, at Trinity TX  16

None of these results strike me as major surprises. IWU losing at home after being up 17 - 0 ended up unexpected but before the game I thought that one could go either way. The other results seemed like the Pool C team did what I thought they would given their opponent.

[USee]

IWU losing at home to an MWC team will not help the CCIW's case of being a top conference. That's a bad loss for the CCIW and IWU.

[smedindy]

No, the CCIW still will be looked upon as a top-tier conference. They were playing an experienced playoff team with a fifth-year senior QB and a chip on their shoulder.

[USee]

Doesn't matter. IWU was 2 TD's better on paper and 5 TO's later they are watching the rest of the playoffs. The CCIW has lost 3 games in the last 16 years to conferences other than the OAC/WIAC (22-3). Yesterday was the 4th loss (22-4 now)>

[jam40jeff]

RR is one of the primary criteria, not the sole criteria.

I know, but Pat's post seemed to ignore the fact that it is part of the criteria at all.

[smedindy]

2 TDs on paper? Whose paper?

This was a 4/5 matchup. Massey power rankings were 23 for IWU and 42 for Monmouth. Not 2 TDs away. I think the consensus was that this would be a close one.

[USee]

My paper. If IWU turns it over half as much as they did (which was still far more than their season average) IWU wins by 14. they didn't, Monmouth got the turnovers and they are on to the next round. IWU had a rookie QB in his first playoff game.  4 picks and a fumble going in to score. The game shouldn't  have been close but it was.

[smedindy]

Doesn't mean that the CCIW will be looked down upon. And give Monmouth credit, please. They won the game.

[Ralph Turner]

I look at the Monmouth score as certification that the Midwest Conference champion is a "threat" in the 4/5 game, and possibly in the 3/6 game, where the middle of the bracket is flat and homogenous.

[Pat Coleman]

RR is one of the primary criteria, not the sole criteria.

I know, but Pat's post seemed to ignore the fact that it is part of the criteria at all.

When you get that far down in the football playoff decision-making process, the secondary criteria and overall record against Division III teams is more important than regional record.