Pool C -- 2012

[hazzben]

That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE.

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

[emma17]

Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
North Central 14
Wheaton 17
Wittenberg 19
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21

Yeah, it's a game changer.

Love ya Art, but that's not a game-changer. That includes teams that any of us could see were right there.

The discussion, perhaps, should be about what Pool C should stand for. I've always thought of it as a reprieve for teams who would have won their conferences if not for one play or, occasionally, one bad game. BSC and Waynesburg fit that mold (OWU not so much because they didn't face Witt, which is another convo entirely)

The polls leave out Rowan ... which is a whole other discussion on how polling is done and the value in it.

There should be a clear path to the bids that we all can follow. We have that now, we just don't have perfection when you get to the bubble. Adding more subjectivity and secret reasoning is only going to increase the confusion, not solve it.

Would I liked to see C-M and UW-P in? Heck yeah, but we'd be talking about someone else's snub if it had gone down that way. Nature of the bubble.

How do we define "best" to get the 7 best teams in?

I agree.  One unfortunate bounce, or decision as in C-M's case, shouldn't be a death sentence the playoffs if you're a good team from a solid conference.  I also believe that Pool C should always have a spot for a 1-loss team that is unfortunately stuck behind a juggernaut in conference.  Ala H'Berg this season.

Coach I agree with your statement that I bolded, but I think it is somewhat contradictory to what K-Mack is saying.  IMO Pool C is not necessarily for the team that could have won its conference but for one bad whatever, it's for the best remaining seven (this year) teams that will enhance the level of competition in the playoffs.  Improving the level of competition was a stated goal in the interview I heard. 
If Pool C was the home for teams that could have won their conference "if only", then it is highly unlikely the goal of improving the level of playoff competition would be achieved.  There wasn't an "if only" play or game for Platteville or H-Berg or C-M or Bethel or LA-College, yet it seems most if not all on these boards believe they are the teams that achieve the goal of enhancing the level of competition. 

[K-Mack]

That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE.

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

I'd be flattered.
I'd do it.
I've never been invited, of course.
And I probably would have lobbied hard for Concordia-Moorhead. Would have liked to see UW-P too but not sure how they could have been wedged in.

[K-Mack]

I think I got on somebody and said BSC was an acceptable acronym.

Yeah, it's a U now. 

http://www.bsubears.com/sports/fball/index

[K-Mack]

Fairly typical results for Pool C teams (2-5). Bethel and Elmhurst won. Heidelberg had a huge lead, Bridgewater State was tied at halftime. Rowan trailed 10-9 until late Salisbury TD. PLU had the ball down, 27-24, in the final minute at Linfield.

Only LC was outplayed from the outset. And if UMHB goes on to win the whole thing, that won't look nearly as bad.

I thought Pool C did okay. You?

[HScoach]

I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

[roocru]

I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

If the brackets were true seeds and geography was not part of the brackets, I think you would see that.

[umhb2001]

Your implication, AO, is also like past implications that some teams and leagues 'dodge' games. There are myriad factors in developing a schedule and as discussed before, a 'tough' schedule for three years down the road may not pan out for several reasons.

You're trying to reason with a dude who has a negative 884 karma.

That's basically what the karma figures are for, man, to save you the trouble.

Where is the "Like" button for this? Nice KMack!

[hazzben]

I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

Hey, if Mount wants to give up that seasons 'Christopher Newport' in the future to a Pool C team, go right ahead 

Most of these Pool C losses were to pretty strong Pool A teams (Top 25 rank): @UMHB (2), @Linfield (3), @Widener (9), @Coe (10), @Salisbury (11) & Wittenberg (24)

[Mr. Ypsi]

I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

Hey, if Mount wants to give up that seasons 'Christopher Newport' in the future to a Pool C team, go right ahead 

Most of these Pool C losses were to pretty strong Pool A teams (Top 25 rank): @UMHB (2), @Linfield (3), @Widener (9), @Coe (10), @Salisbury (11) & Wittenberg (24)

A pool C (Elmhurst) beat Coe.  But you got the other 5 (out of 5) correct!

[Pat Coleman]

Pool C's weren't exactly given a lot of home games. And the NCAA made one head-scratcher decision on Pool C to boot.

Generally, when the NCAA picks a weak-scheduled 1-loss team that we leave out of our projection, that team gets bounced the first weekend.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pool C's weren't exactly given a lot of home games. And the NCAA made one head-scratcher decision on Pool C to boot.

Generally, when the NCAA picks a weak-scheduled 1-loss team that we leave out of our projection, that team gets bounced the first weekend.

i.e., ONE (and Heidi lost).

The two Pool C wins (Elmhurst and Bethel) were both on the road.

[wesleydad]

since pool c is a second chance for teams who have been beaten at least once already a 2 - 5 record does not surprise me.  the teams that they lost to with the exception of wittenberg were likely the favorite in the game.  bethel and elmhurst beat two AQ's that i believe many felt were beatable, at least when you look at the pick ems.  coe and chicago-concordia had questions about how strong they were in the team capsules.  looking at the results, pool c could have been 0 - 7.  i think it shows that the perception of some conferences as weaker or stronger is starting to be less definitive as the top teams in most conferences can compete with the second best team in other conferences.

[lakeshore]

That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE.

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

I'd be flattered.
I'd do it.
I've never been invited, of course.
And I probably would have lobbied hard for Concordia-Moorhead. Would have liked to see UW-P too but not sure how they could have been wedged in.

Or arguably the best team in the CCIW and one of the hottest teams in the nation over the last month of the regular season in Wheaton.  I know KM chose them in his first pool C mock.  Would have been fun to watch them make a run.

[wally_wabash]

That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE.

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

I'd be flattered.
I'd do it.
I've never been invited, of course.
And I probably would have lobbied hard for Concordia-Moorhead. Would have liked to see UW-P too but not sure how they could have been wedged in.

Or arguably the best team in the CCIW and one of the hottest teams in the nation over the last month of the regular season in Wheaton.  I know KM chose them in his first pool C mock.  Would have been fun to watch them make a run.

I don't think Wheaton was even on the table.  The moral of the story is, as always, don't lose twice.  Or don't schedule elective games with Luther.  But mostly don't lose twice.