2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more

[SUADC]

Incidentally, last year Redlands and CLU both made the field and they did not match them in the first round.

Yeah--but they had to fly someone North and to Texas as well (I don't thing there was a driveable team for MHB).

maybe I didn't think it all the way thru............oh well I'll work on it.

Ha--neither did I--they could have driven someone to MHB and kept Redlands at CLU and flown someone to Linfield last year.....but last year they did use an extra flight.  But if you listen to Pats interview with the committe chair--it's pretty clear that they didn't like PLU to Linfield and LC to MHB but costs are a bigger factor this year.....

The chair also implied that cost played a role in determining which 8-2 team is flying to CLU.

I believe that former players and parents should put in a couple bucks for next year so that we don't have to worry about cost. We can make it happen.

[USee]

OK. I just listened to the interview with the committee Chair, Bankston, that Pat posted on the front page. It is very interesting. The most interesting thing I heard was that the process for voting for Pool C was different this year (and I think he said last year). In past years the debate on the call was very vocal and interactive and concluded with a verbal vote for the 4 teams at the table. This year the committee members voted secretly via computer so that no one knew who was voting for whom and their was no verbal interaction on the merits, or lack of, among the committee members. Pat, did I hear that right?

If this is indeed correct, this would seem to me to a major step backward in the process. Committee members are all different in their understanding of the criteria (If you use poster's here as a proxy for that intelligence I would say that is absolutely true) and a debate among the experienced and less-experienced members of the committee would seem quite valuable in shaping the balance of the field.

I hope I am wrong with what I heard.

[ITH radio]

we got a perhaps more detailed response regarding the brackets and how they attempted to seed the top 8 (1 and 2's) almost like a top 25 poll approach which was news to us as well.  the interview is up in the archive (inthehuddlle.com) if you want to check it out.  Bankston comes on about 60 mins into the show if you want to FF thru the LL specific talk.

[Pat Coleman]

OK. I just listened to the interview with the committee Chair, Bankston, that Pat posted on the front page. It is very interesting. The most interesting thing I heard was that the process for voting for Pool C was different this year (and I think he said last year). In past years the debate on the call was very vocal and interactive and concluded with a verbal vote for the 4 teams at the table. This year the committee members voted secretly via computer so that no one knew who was voting for whom and their was no verbal interaction on the merits, or lack of, among the committee members. Pat, did I hear that right?

Not quite - what I heard was that there was still a vocal discussion, but then a secret ballot, whereas in the past, there was discussion, and then a consensus was reached.

Brad specifically said that it remains an outspoken group and he doesn't think anyone kept their opinions to themselves. And yeah, the 1's and 2's thing is not new either -- just nobody on the football committee has been willing to talk about it in the past. But basketball fans have heard that about the basketball bracketing process.

[USee]

That makes me feel a little better. The secret ballot thing I am still not sure about.

[wally_wabash]

OK. I just listened to the interview with the committee Chair, Bankston, that Pat posted on the front page. It is very interesting. The most interesting thing I heard was that the process for voting for Pool C was different this year (and I think he said last year). In past years the debate on the call was very vocal and interactive and concluded with a verbal vote for the 4 teams at the table. This year the committee members voted secretly via computer so that no one knew who was voting for whom and their was no verbal interaction on the merits, or lack of, among the committee members. Pat, did I hear that right?

Not quite - what I heard was that there was still a vocal discussion, but then a secret ballot, whereas in the past, there was discussion, and then a consensus was reached.

Brad specifically said that it remains an outspoken group and he doesn't think anyone kept their opinions to themselves. And yeah, the 1's and 2's thing is not new either -- just nobody on the football committee has been willing to talk about it in the past. But basketball fans have heard that about the basketball bracketing process.

That's the part that that bugs me a little bit.  In a D1 basketball situation where they are picking some 30 teams, I get the ballotting process.  It would take forever to get consensus on that many picks.  But here where we're dealing with seven picks it sure would feel better if we knew that there was 8/8 or 7/8 agreement there.  As it sits now, one team could have support of just three committee members and be selected.  I think we could probably do better...at least get a majority if not a consensus. 

And then how much does it affect the process when 1/8th of the committee has to recuse himself? 

I was blown away by Bankston's candor during your interview.  A lot of really frank, transparent talk there about the process.  What's good, what's not good, etc.  The question and answer about the inconsistencies between the rankings put out by the four RACs were spot on.  I think they've really got to try and get the regional committees on something close to the same page in the future. 

[Pat Coleman]

I was blown away by Bankston's candor during your interview. A lot of really frank, transparent talk there about the process.  What's good, what's not good, etc.  The question and answer about the inconsistencies between the rankings put out by the four RACs were spot on.  I think they've really got to try and get the regional committees on something close to the same page in the future.

So was I. I've known Brad since 1995, though, and he has never struck me as someone who would bob and weave to duck questions. I thought this was really useful for fans and I hope they listen.

[jmw73]

I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

[Pat Coleman]

It would be Wesley, barring something unusual happening this weekend.

[K-Mack]

But if you listen to Pats interview with the committe chair--it's pretty clear that they didn't like PLU to Linfield and LC to MHB but costs are a bigger factor this year..

Heard the rest of the interview today, and it was very insightful, and Brad was pretty clear about that.

I stand corrected, re: the first round matchups, I suppose.

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

Do we have a justification of the Mt. Union/UMHB pairing in the bracket from the committee? I would be curious to hear it. I'm not saying certain other conferences which are represented on the other side aren't good; but the way it seemed those 2 teams were playing would be the best showcase for the final game IMHO.

Just because d3football has MTU/UMHB #1 -#2, that does not mean at all they are the best two teams and would be the best final game.  Heck, UMHB gives up a TON of points to be ranked #2.  I'm suprised every week by that single #1 vote they get.  I see very little separating the top 6 teams.

Larry Kehres.

[K-Mack]

I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.

Indeed. Once you get pat the first round...everyone kinda has the "short end of the stick" if one applies the above logic. A marginal team might luck their way into a winnable first-round game (I speak from personal experience, and my friend Keith was there to witness firsthand), but Cinderella slippers tend not to last long in the D-3 playoffs. You can only go maybe two rounds before Mount, Lingield, UMHB, Wesley or someone of that ilk appears on the other sideline.

[K-Mack]

I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.

Indeed. Once you get pat the first round...everyone kinda has the "short end of the stick" if one applies the above logic. A marginal team might luck their way into a winnable first-round game (I speak from personal experience, and my friend Keith was there to witness firsthand), but Cinderella slippers tend not to last long in the D-3 playoffs. You can only go maybe two rounds before Mount, Lingield, UMHB, Wesley or someone of that ilk appears on the other sideline.

I'd forgotten what happened that next week. Looked it up ... sorry.

at Wesley 37, Carnegie Mellon 0

The first round or two showcases some cool matchups that we'd rarely get to see between very good teams within their regions, be it Carnegie-Mellon vs. Millsaps or Hobart/W&L this year. Then Rds. 3-4 (and occasionally 2, like when Linfield played at Wesley last year) is when we see truly elite teams pick the other ones off, and then there's Salem.

The original poster's point was good, in one sense: The road to Salem can be tough. IMO, that's exactly how it should be.

[ExTartanPlayer]

You just HAD to post the score, didn't you?  Trust me, I remembered it well...

I was beaten to the tune of 15 tackles and a few sacks that day by future NFL camp invitee Bryan Robinson. On the bright side, I think I might have tripped him once or twice by accident.

Back to the topic at hand: I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement and you're right that it may have been the Cortland fan's real point.  EVERY team's potential road looks that hard from the round of 16 on. Nobody fakes their way all the way to the national semifinals.