Pool C -- 2012

[K-Mack]

Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)

[AO]

Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)

Get rid of the wins over regionally ranked teams criteria altogether.  Bridgewater doesn't deserve double credit for playing/beating Endicott.    The good wins are already reflected in the SOS.  Your boost for beating other good teams will be reflected in the regional rankings when you get ranked ahead of the other team despite maybe having the same record. 

[speedybigboy]

Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)

My comments were intended to put more weight on SOS and less on RRO.  To use them together.  It seemed that Wally_Wabash was putting to much weight on RRO in his projection.  Using SOS should help negate the effect of wins in a weak region being treated equally to wins in a strong region.  At least that's what I was trying to say. 

[HScoach]

The inherent problem with the SoS is that it's simply a mathematical calculation of wins & losses, not the STRENGTH of the opponents.  It's a reasonable tool to help evaluate teams across the country that don't play, but it isn't the end all.   All 8-2 records are not the same. Do you honestly think 8-2 Carroll playing in the MWC is just as strong as 8-2 UW-Platteville playing in the WIAC? 

And the number of teams in your conference GREATLY impacts your final SoS number.  A conference like the CCIW which plays 3 non-conference games has a much greatly opportunity to improve their collective SoS.  Whereas the OAC gets only one non-conference game which is why Mount's SoS is always right around .500

Don't get me wrong, the SoS is great tool.  It just isn't the most important or fail safe measuring stick.  I think regionally ranked is a better gauge, though I think they waited too long to do it this season.

[smedindy]

Heidelberg's SOS was 168 against the VAUNTED OAC. Yeesh.

You want to compare Heidelberg's 1 loss to OWU? Berg gave the #1 team in the country their closest game, closer than AQ Franklin. OWU's loss was 28-0 to 2 loss Wabash.

OWU's SOS at .483 to Berg's .471 isn't a huge difference against the equally VAUNTED NCAC.

I wasn't vaunting the NCAC. Just saying the OAC wasn't all that this year in the SOS calculations. a 5-5 non-conference record isn't what I expected from them.

[wally_wabash]

Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)

My comments were intended to put more weight on SOS and less on RRO.  To use them together.  It seemed that Wally_Wabash was putting to much weight on RRO in his projection.  Using SOS should help negate the effect of wins in a weak region being treated equally to wins in a strong region.  At least that's what I was trying to say.

RRO wins do carry a ton of weight with me.  A LOT.  The credit you get just for showing to a game agaisnt regionally ranked teams (all of whom will have very good records) shows up in the SOS math.  What really separates teams out here on the bubble, for me at least, is whether or not you actually BEAT one of those teams.  Just playing good teams doesn't necessarily make a team worth of invitation, in my view.  Beating good teams does though, especially when other teams in the same comparison group have not done so. 

[AO]

The inherent problem with the SoS is that it's simply a mathematical calculation of wins & losses, not the STRENGTH of the opponents.  It's a reasonable tool to help evaluate teams across the country that don't play, but it isn't the end all.   All 8-2 records are not the same. Do you honestly think 8-2 Carroll playing in the MWC is just as strong as 8-2 UW-Platteville playing in the WIAC? 

And the number of teams in your conference GREATLY impacts your final SoS number.  A conference like the CCIW which plays 3 non-conference games has a much greatly opportunity to improve their collective SoS.  Whereas the OAC gets only one non-conference game which is why Mount's SoS is always right around .500

Don't get me wrong, the SoS is great tool.  It just isn't the most important or fail safe measuring stick.  I think regionally ranked is a better gauge, though I think they waited too long to do it this season.

Regionally ranked wins are a terrible gauge as not all regions are created equal.  Don't give the committee the excuse of a regionally ranked win to put someone in who doesn't deserve to be there by the other criteria.  Make those who would vote for Bridgewater look into their entire schedule and make an argument.  You start with the stated numbers for Bridgewater, Platteville, Wheaton and Concordia, but then you've got to make a subjective adjustment based upon actual football knowledge of what went into the number.  The gap between Bridgewater and Concordia is great to begin with, but when we compare the entire schedule game by game rather than just the 1 or 2 games against "regionally ranked opponents" it's no contest.

[smedindy]

How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really? You can only play the teams on your schedule and the teams around you. By not including RR wins as a criteria, we could get a self-perpetuating "C" pool that no one can break through, and that's just not right.

[AO]

How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really?

Just because Bridgewater doesn't play anyone of the caliber of the the West teams, doesn't mean no knowledge of their football ability exists. 

[pg04]

I agree with both points actually. While there should be some knowledge of the prior performance and Bridgewater probably isn't nearly on par with most of the rest of the field, you can't get in a situation where you are picking the same teams/conferences -- I think "self perpetuating" as Wally calls it. There has to be better balance. Where that is, I'm not sure.

[HScoach]

Which is exactly why the AQ's are the key to what we do here.  These "lesser" teams have an avenue into the playoffs where they get the opportunity on the field to prove they aren't really lesser after all.  Once you lose a game, then all bets are off and it becomes a crap shoot.  We all have our opinion on which criteria should be selectively applied to what teams in which region, and we'd all like to see the "best" Pool C teams make it, but with such little inter-regional play in D3 it's impossible to KNOW which teams are the best or more deserving.  We might have a really high understanding, but until the games are played we don't know for sure.  And just because a team or conference has recently struggled in the playoffs, that doesn't guarantee this season's representative will also be weak.  Many here might not remember, but there was a time not too long ago where the WIAC was considered a likely one & done conference.   It also hasn't been too long since the entire 16 team field was a popularity contest with no defined path to the playoffs.

Things change in time.   Maybe this is the year someone else steps up.  Maybe not.

[smedindy]

How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really?

Just because Bridgewater doesn't play anyone of the caliber of the the West teams, doesn't mean no knowledge of their football ability exists.

Right, but you can't just it on 'gut' or 'tradition'. You have to have criteria and use the same criteria. Otherwise, again, no one has a chance to prove or disprove themselves, and then no one gets a chance that isn't 'proven' because they haven't proved themselves.

It seems we have the same argument every year with teams that seem stronger but don't get it - they pick on the little guys in D-3 that got in through no fault of their own. That's seemingly contra to what I think D-3 should be about.

[AO]

I agree with both points actually. While there should be some knowledge of the prior performance and Bridgewater probably isn't nearly on par with most of the rest of the field, you can't get in a situation where you are picking the same teams/conferences -- I think "self perpetuating" as Wally calls it. There has to be better balance. Where that is, I'm not sure.

We could call it "affirmative football action".   If a team isn't good enough, just keep putting them out there in the hopes that they will improve.  Don't give them an incentive to schedule tougher opponents.  Make sure the good teams rethink their currently difficult schedules.

[pg04]

I know it was like multiple years ago but the NEFC got 2 teams in and both won their first round matchup. I wonder if that has gotten them (still) some credibility. While most of us who focus on the East Region know that they are a step down from the other conferences, I almost wonder if that year continues the perception that the NEFC does actually have some chance.

[smedindy]

What, you want teams from the NEFC to fly around everywhere to play the WIAC or SCIAC? They have very limited travel budgets as it is! Be sensible - this is D3 and you tend to play teams in your neighborhood. Add to that many teams have fairly locked in conference schedules without a lot of flexibility and you grab games when you can.

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.

So tell me, please, how teams with limited travel budgets and limited non-conference opportunities can all fill their schedules with elite non-conference games where those 'elite' also have the same budget and schedule limitations....