Playoffs 2013

[02 Warhawk]

I agree. My strong guess is:

UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel

Then your assumption is that Linfield was #6 and North Central was #5?  That's where I have trouble with this.  Also, Bethel's SOS jumped to 0.574, while UWW saw its SOS drop to 0.537.  They both had similar records vs. RROs.  Even if UWW went 3-0 while Bethel went 2-0 vs. RROs, that would've forced a criteria tie, meaning results in 2012 playoffs would've become the tiebreaker.  Bethel went 1-1, while UWW went 0-0.  Bethel should've been ahead of UWW when all of this is considered.  In addition, the SOSs of Linfield and North Central were in an order that would suggest Linfield should've been ahead of North Central.  My guess is that it was 1) UMU, 2) MHB, 3) BTH, 4) UWW, 5) LIN, 6) NCC, 7) HOB, 8) JHU, but the desire to keep UMU and UWW at opposite ends of the brackets made them swap the 3/6 pairing with the 4/5 (these numbers being the placement of the Top 8 teams they assigned to those teams).

I don't think it really matters where Bethel and UWW are ranked in comparison to each other. If they face each other in the playoffs, the game will be played on a neutral location anyway. Bethel is ranked ahead of NCC, but behind UMU...that's really all that matters to Bethel at this point.

[MonroviaCat]

Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games.   It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year.   Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....

1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant.  This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).

2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit."  What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.

3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.

I'm a Linfield fan and I agree with all of your points ExTartan.  I already called GT out on the NWC board but he's just complaining about something we all knew was going to (and by the criteria used, should) happen. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games.   It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year.   Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....

1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant.  This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).

2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit."  What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.

3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.

I'm a Linfield fan and I agree with all of your points ExTartan.  I already called GT out on the NWC board but he's just complaining about something we all knew was going to (and by the criteria used, should) happen.

Thanks MonroviaCat.  FYI, lest you get the wrong impression, I have no qualms with a mantra like EXPECT TO WIN, I just found it humorous that a previous exchange had a Linfield fan poking fun at a lesser program for not having this balls-out, we'll-take-on-anyone-anywhere attitude...and then a different Linfield fan complains about them having to go on the road in the playoffs despite having lost just one regular season game in five years (although several of the top-10-caliber programs can make a similar boast).  I have nothing but respect for the Linfield program, although I've never come into contact with it firsthand, it seems like one of the "coolest" programs in D3 and I hope to catch them in a playoff game in this neck of the woods someday.

[smedindy]

Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.

[hazzben]

I agree. My strong guess is:

UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel

Then your assumption is that Linfield was #6 and North Central was #5?  That's where I have trouble with this.  Also, Bethel's SOS jumped to 0.574, while UWW saw its SOS drop to 0.537.  They both had similar records vs. RROs.  Even if UWW went 3-0 while Bethel went 2-0 vs. RROs, that would've forced a criteria tie, meaning results in 2012 playoffs would've become the tiebreaker.  Bethel went 1-1, while UWW went 0-0.  Bethel should've been ahead of UWW when all of this is considered.  In addition, the SOSs of Linfield and North Central were in an order that would suggest Linfield should've been ahead of North Central.  My guess is that it was 1) UMU, 2) MHB, 3) BTH, 4) UWW, 5) LIN, 6) NCC, 7) HOB, 8) JHU, but the desire to keep UMU and UWW at opposite ends of the brackets made them swap the 3/6 pairing with the 4/5 (these numbers being the placement of the Top 8 teams they assigned to those teams).

Yeah, I found it strange how they seemed to get lined up. And this might explain how it happened. Bottom line, either way Bethel was on the road for the Semis (provided they win their first 3 and no on got upset opposite them).

Hard to complain though, when your team got a 1 seed! At this point, I could care less which 1 they got. Now just hoping we play up to our billing.

[MonroviaCat]

Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games.   It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year.   Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....

1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant.  This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).

2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit."  What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.

3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.

I'm a Linfield fan and I agree with all of your points ExTartan.  I already called GT out on the NWC board but he's just complaining about something we all knew was going to (and by the criteria used, should) happen.

Thanks MonroviaCat.  FYI, lest you get the wrong impression, I have no qualms with a mantra like EXPECT TO WIN, I just found it humorous that a previous exchange had a Linfield fan poking fun at a lesser program for not having this balls-out, we'll-take-on-anyone-anywhere attitude...and then a different Linfield fan complains about them having to go on the road in the playoffs despite having lost just one regular season game in five years (although several of the top-10-caliber programs can make a similar boast).  I have nothing but respect for the Linfield program, although I've never come into contact with it firsthand, it seems like one of the "coolest" programs in D3 and I hope to catch them in a playoff game in this neck of the woods someday.

Yeah--like any program there are a lot of different opinions and personalities that support it.  I'm sure I've complained about seedings and matchups in the past (or like most people about the continual string of first round rematches for the Cats) but I think the bracket is pretty darn appropriate this year, again, based on the criteria used.

[wartknight]

I agree. My strong guess is:

UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel

Then your assumption is that Linfield was #6 and North Central was #5?  That's where I have trouble with this.  Also, Bethel's SOS jumped to 0.574, while UWW saw its SOS drop to 0.537.  They both had similar records vs. RROs.  Even if UWW went 3-0 while Bethel went 2-0 vs. RROs, that would've forced a criteria tie, meaning results in 2012 playoffs would've become the tiebreaker.  Bethel went 1-1, while UWW went 0-0.  Bethel should've been ahead of UWW when all of this is considered.  In addition, the SOSs of Linfield and North Central were in an order that would suggest Linfield should've been ahead of North Central.  My guess is that it was 1) UMU, 2) MHB, 3) BTH, 4) UWW, 5) LIN, 6) NCC, 7) HOB, 8) JHU, but the desire to keep UMU and UWW at opposite ends of the brackets made them swap the 3/6 pairing with the 4/5 (these numbers being the placement of the Top 8 teams they assigned to those teams).

Yeah, I found it strange how they seemed to get lined up. And this might explain how it happened. Bottom line, either way Bethel was on the road for the Semis (provided they win their first 3 and no on got upset opposite them).

Hard to complain though, when your team got a 1 seed! At this point, I could care less which 1 they got. Now just hoping we play up to our billing.

+k HB
Some of the "wine" out there was leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

[K-Mack]

I know I'm probably being way too impatient but do we have an ETA on the playoff capsules yet?

My favorite reads come playoff time!

They're my favorite too, that's why I'm impatient. Don't kill me Pat! 

Anybody want to help!?!?

[K-Mack]

Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games.   It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year.   Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....

1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant.  This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).

2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit."  What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.

3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.

BRA-vo.

Someone should hire this guy to write for Kickoff.

[K-Mack]

Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.

That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.

[smedindy]

Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.

That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.

Some, but not a lot especially if the conference is pretty loaded with conference games and there's not a lot of wiggle room.

[Ralph Turner]

Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.

That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.

Unfortunately, the ASC is an "isolated" conference.  It's OOWP will always be around .500.

I feel sorry for TLU. They played every D-3 school within a 500 mile radius of the campus except UMHB.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.

That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.

Unfortunately, the ASC is an "isolated" conference.  It's OOWP will always be around .500.

I feel sorry for TLU. They played every D-3 school within a 500 mile radius of the campus except UMHB.

Now, now, let's not feel too sorry for pool ol' Texas Lutheran.

TLU pulled out of the ASC, but this year they still played a whole bunch of the ASC schools, making it pretty darn tootin' clear that they wanted to steer clear of UMHB...which is perfectly fine if your goal is to build your program through other means than playing the best team within a 500-mile radius.  I may sound flippant with that statement, but I'm really not - that is an acceptable move, in my mind...but by doing so you also forfeit any real right to complain if your at-large resume doesn't quite stack up.  What sense does it make to reward a team for dropping its hardest game with a playoff berth?  To use a ridiculous example, what if Heidelberg leaves the OAC, plays the entire OAC except for Mount Union, replaces Mount Union with Hiram and goes 9-1 with a loss to OAC runner-up John Carroll but never plays Mount - are we arguing that team's playoff case?  Or what if Pacific Lutheran withdraws from the NWC so they don't have to play Linfield, replaces them with an NAIA game or two, goes 8-1 with a loss to, say, Whitworth - are you feeling sorry for them?  The PLU example is probably more germane since that's another set of schools isolated from the rest of D3.

TLU had Pool A access.  They chose to give that up and then played every team in the conference they just left except for the one guaranteed loss.  If you do that, you have absolutely zero margin for error.  Undefeated TLU gets my sympathy.  8-1 TLU with a loss does not, especially not a loss to Hardin-Simmons (Ralph, I know you love to talk up how good those ASC teams are, and they sure can score, but HSU wasn't some hard-luck-gee-willikers-they-were-a-good-team-that-didn't-get-the-breaks-this-year team).  HSU went 3-6 against Division III opponents and got just plain obliterated by the three best teams they played.  Would a lot of teams get obliterated by UMHB, Linfield, and Willamette?  Yes...but if you want TLU to be a playoff team, you have to acknowledge that they lost by 30 points to a team that is NOT a good team this year.  A dangerous team, maybe, but not a GOOD team.

Here's another take: if TLU had been in the ASC this year and played the same exact schedule plus UMHB - which is basically what they would have had to do, right? - they would have lost to UMHB, been 8-2 and probably would never have sniffed the board in Pool C, much less been a serious candidate for inclusion.  They may not even have been regionally ranked, and they certainly would not have been ranked ahead of Thomas More.

[smedindy]

Your rant would have made sense had not TLU pulled out of the ASC in every sport - and there is more to a conference than football (or even athletics).

[Ralph Turner]

Your rant would have made sense had not TLU pulled out of the ASC in every sport - and there is more to a conference than football (or even athletics).

Thanks for the comments, Tartan and smed.

My continuing "rant" is that SOS is a difficult issue for isolated schools.  WashUStL has the about 30-50 schools within a 500 mile radius.  We know how easy it is for Wesley football (or the old Chapman Baseball) to rack up fantastic SOS numbers.  TLU played every D-3 school within 590 miles, except UMHB!  There is no one else to play!  As for TLU moving to the SCAC, it was a good move for the TLU administration. Their mission and vision is closer to the private schools in the SCAC as currently constructed than the ASC.  I applaud their move. (The ASC is just different without founding members McMurry, Mississippi College and Austin College.)  The discussions now in the ASC have to revolve about what to do with the loss of the AQ.  I do not see any other ASC schools adding football, and the ASC loses the AQ in 2 years if they do not add an affiliate in that time.

I thought that Wesley deserved it.  I will follow Framingham State to see how well they do in the playoffs. I thought that they were the 4th or 5th best team in Pool B, with Millsaps and/or TLU being #3.