Pool C -- 2014

[ExTartanPlayer]

No the wins over PLU and Willamette did not "look good" except for their effect on SOS. 

I know you think that nobody plays good football outside the MIAC and the Purple Powers, but this statement is ridiculous.  Like, really ridiculous.

As of week 10 - which is the statement here - Willamette was 5-3 with a win over Linfield.  You know, the Linfield team that's been in the quarterfinals the last two years and owns a H2H win over the SCIAC champion this year?  Beating the team that just beat them "looks good" at that time.

As of week 10 - PLU was 6-2, only losses to Linfield and Pacific.  Combining the last two years, Pacific is the only team to beat PLU other than Linfield. 

If those wins don't "look good" to you, it's because nothing short of a win against a MIAC opponent will please you (which is probably about where you're coming from, anyway).  But, dude, they play football in other parts of the country, too.

[AO]

No the wins over PLU and Willamette did not "look good" except for their effect on SOS. 

I know you think that nobody plays good football outside the MIAC and the Purple Powers, but this statement is ridiculous.  Like, really ridiculous.

As of week 10 - which is the statement here - Willamette was 5-3 with a win over Linfield.  You know, the Linfield team that's been in the quarterfinals the last two years and owns a H2H win over the SCIAC champion this year?  Beating the team that just beat them "looks good" at that time.

As of week 10 - PLU was 6-2, only losses to Linfield and Pacific.  Combining the last two years, Pacific is the only team to beat PLU other than Linfield. 

If those wins don't "look good" to you, it's because nothing short of a win against a MIAC opponent will please you (which is probably about where you're coming from, anyway).  But, dude, they play football in other parts of the country, too.

That's great for the fan poll but they're not regionally ranked.  I've advocated many times to rank all the teams in a region so that wins against #10 don't look so much better than wins against #11, but under the current criteria they do.  The only benefit you get is possible common opponent results and SOS boost.

[wally_wabash]

I believe our mock West ranking at the bottom was UWO/Bethel/St. Thomas/UW-P.  That order makes some sense.  Now, if the West committee dumped UW-P completely and placed C-M (completely defensible position, btw), then you can start to shuffle some of the other things like St. Thomas and UWO.  I'm about 98% sure that's how that happened. 

[smedindy]

Who vaulted in to replace Pacific, though?

[d-train]

Who vaulted in to replace Pacific, though?

C-M (I think).  And to Wally above, they don't have to dump UW-P completely to have C-M there.  This site's mock west rankings (on Sat. night) appeared to include Redlands at #9...but I'm not sure I'd include them.  I'd place them closer to #12, but probably haven't looked closely enough at the SOS numbers.
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/final-playoff-projection

[smedindy]

Wally said they could have dumped UW-P for C-M, so i think C-M wasn't in their mocks. Maybe I misread it.

[d-train]

Wally said they could have dumped UW-P for C-M, so i think C-M wasn't in their mocks. Maybe I misread it.

Ah, so you are asking about this site's mock rankings (Wally helped on those?)? If so, those had Redlands (9), UW-P (10), and no C-M.  I'd say Redlands would be the 'vaulter' in that scenario. 

My personal rankings would have C-M and UW-P above Redlands.  But I see now that's not what you were asking...and (of course) we don't know exactly what the West or national commitee did. 

[smedindy]

Oh, he didn't mention Redlands in his post up there.

[d-train]

Oh, he didn't mention Redlands in his post up there.

They are listed here:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/final-playoff-projection

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

AQ/B/C

I like Pat's proposal of using and expanded Regional Rankings but I'd limit it to 12-15 at most.  Somehow the AQ conferences that are not competitive in the playoffs need to improve their on-field product or risk not being invited. The conference AD's can get together and make a decision to work towards becoming more competitive in football on a national level.  Or run the risk of having their conference champ not be invited to the postseason.

I'll revisit this after this weekend's results.  I'll look at the last 5 years of playoff results plus this year.  My guess is that we'll have more fuel for limiting the number of AQs to conferences that put competitive products on the field.

I was glad to read that of the 32 available spots there are looking to be 6 at large bids each year for at least the next few years.  IMO the #2 teams from the MIAC, WIAC, and NWC are usually deserving of an at large bid.  I'm sure there are others conferences as well but am not familiar with them.

[smedindy]

You know, maybe these schools are happy where they are athletically and academically and are not going to spend money to try to be a Whitewater. Or they don't have the budget; many state schools in the East do not and can't travel much because of budget issues. Or they need to focus on the 15+ OTHER sports they have programs for. The world does not revolve around football.  Yet they want to be part of a playoff process because that's what D3 is.

We should never put an artificial limit on AQs, lest we return to the 90's where teams were left out for purely political reasons and undefeated teams were left home. That cannot and should not happen again. PERIOD.

[Pat Coleman]

Smed, I think your equating having 24 or 25 or so conference champions in the field with the previous playoff system is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. This isn't some slippery slope.

[emma17]

Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.

[Ron Boerger]

Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.

This is rather uncalled for.   Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

+1 Ron