Pool C -- 2015

[wally_wabash]

From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable. 

[minni]

From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

[crufootball]

From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

What year was HSU burned by the Pool C?

[minni]

From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

What year was HSU burned by the Pool C?

Same year UMHB was burned by the pool C 2002.  Three way championship between UMHB, HSU, and ETBU.

[wabndy]

As we patiently wait out regional rankings and welcome our Cru friends to PoolCland, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at past history of the 36 team playoff field to see the types of teams who actually in Pool C can rest reasonably comfortably.

1. Undefeated Pool B teams (Looking at you 2014 Centre) Although we never really knew if Centre got in last year in Pool B or C, the penultimate regional rankings had them ranked third in Pool B heavy South.  I don't remember in the modern era (with the introduction of the AQ in 1999) a partial round robin conference ever having two undefeated teams - but if it did happen i'm sure it would be a near complete lock for Pool C.

2. 9-1 teams with at least a 1-1 RRO record and a loss to a purple power.  Otherwise traditionally (and this is the year that breaks the tradition) known as the OAC's second automatic bid.  Given this crazy football year, I'm going to go ahead and assume that this also applies if you ARE a purple power in Pool C.

3. 9-1 teams at least 1 legitimate RRO win (I'm defining legitimate as being one not against a 9th or 10th ranked team in a decimated region).  I'd probably also add a > .500 SOS to this criteria but there is plenty of history for sub .500 SOS teams getting in with this resume.Have I left any out?

Same year UMHB was burned by the pool C 2002.  Three way championship between UMHB, HSU, and ETBU.

For what its worth - in 2002 we had a 28 team field. The top four tournament seeds got first round byes. Lots of people were getting burned by Pool C as conferences quickly consolidated to gain enough football playing members to get into Pool A.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

Bingo.  Every fan wants to believe that their team is the only one in Pool C that had it hard.  Almost every team that makes it into the Pool C discussion is one of the following:

a) 9-1 with only loss to an undefeated conference champion (often a close loss)
b) 8-2 with loss to undefeated conference champion + (insert very good non-conference opponent here)
c) 8-2 with losses to two very good conference opponents + one very good non-league win

Life in Pool C is hard.  "We only lost 1-2 close games to really good teams" doesn't guarantee you a playoff berth because Pool C usually has a dozen of those.  If you're in Pool C, you've left it up to the playoff genies.  If you want to make the playoffs for stone-cold-dead-lock-100-percent-sure, win'em all.

[wally_wabash]

1. Undefeated Pool B teams (Looking at you 2014 Centre) Although we never really knew if Centre got in last year in Pool B or C, the penultimate regional rankings had them ranked third in Pool B heavy South. 

I believe the committee chair did in fact disclose that Centre went in through Pool C.  The difference is negligible other than the indirect confession that the South had stuck to their guns and ranked TLU above Centre despite Centre having gone undefeated and TLU having lost by a zillion to UMHB. 

[emma17]

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

Bingo.  Every fan wants to believe that their team is the only one in Pool C that had it hard.  Almost every team that makes it into the Pool C discussion is one of the following:

a) 9-1 with only loss to an undefeated conference champion (often a close loss)
b) 8-2 with loss to undefeated conference champion + (insert very good non-conference opponent here)
c) 8-2 with losses to two very good conference opponents + one very good non-league win

Life in Pool C is hard.  "We only lost 1-2 close games to really good teams" doesn't guarantee you a playoff berth because Pool C usually has a dozen of those.  If you're in Pool C, you've left it up to the playoff genies.  If you want to make the playoffs for stone-cold-dead-lock-100-percent-sure, win'em all.

Ex, I'd be surprised if the bolded was true for fans on this site (but agree probably true for those not on this site).  I believe most D3 fans on this site get it.  In fact, that's one of the reasons Pool C is uncomfortable.  There can be a chasm between the teams that the committee feels "deserve" to get in based on the current criteria used and teams many fans believe "deserve" to get in because they would likely provide better competition based on recent past performance.  IMO, a UMHB fan is entirely justified in thinking Pool C selection should be the latter.   

[Bombers798891]

Head to head MHB is going to beat - Thomas More, John's Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25.

I see you're using this argument again, where you just say something is true, provide no actual evidence for the claim (because there isn't any) and we're just supposed to accept it because it's so obvious.

[wally_wabash]

There can be a chasm between the teams that the committee feels "deserve" to get in based on the current criteria used and teams many fans believe "deserve" to get in because they would likely provide better competition based on recent past performance.  IMO, a UMHB fan is entirely justified in thinking Pool C selection should be the latter.

What has 2015 UMHB done that tells us they are one of the best 6 non-qualifiers?   I'm not arguing for or against UMHB right now- I'll wait until Wednesday for that.  But if we do the blind resume thing that the TV people love to do (you'll see it during any lengthy play stoppage in FBS games from now until the first week of December), UMHB doesn't look all that special.  If I had to guess right now I'd say they probably project in, but that profile is sort of fragile. 

[crufootball]

From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

What year was HSU burned by the Pool C?

Same year UMHB was burned by the pool C 2002.  Three way championship between UMHB, HSU, and ETBU.

That year I wouldn't blame Pool C, just the fact that there are no good ways to break up a 3 way tie for 1st place. Once that was determined to be ETBU, HSU did have 2 losses that year which is usually a death nail in Pool C land.

And yes emma17 that is how I feel, I am not naive in thinking the other 20 something teams that have 1 loss are not feeling the same way UMHB feels right now. However I would argue that given the playoff structure we have, which gives out an automatic way to get into the playoffs for 95% of teams, the at-large bids should be for teams that are going to make the field the most competitive possible. To that end I am not saying that just because a traditional power lost they deserve a second chance through Pool C, but if you want to tell me that there are 6 better teams than UMHB that don't have automatic bids than I would be happy to have a polite disagreement with you.

[ExTartanPlayer]

What has 2015 UMHB done that tells us they are one of the best 6 non-qualifiers?

This right here has consistently been the primary source of disagreement: the use of past years' information to inform present years' rankings and playoff decisions.

The unsaid piece of walla walla's argument ("Head to head MHB is going Thomas More, Johns Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25") is that he "knows" this because UMHB has been better than those teams on the national stage in 2014, 2013, and 2012.  It has to be based on past evidence; as Bombers points out, there is no possible way to know this based on 2015 game results (there are no direct matchups and zero common opponents between the teams).  We're just supposed to take it for granted that UMHB is still definitely better than those teams because results from the last few years would tell us that.  But you know what else?  Results from 2014, 2013, and 2012 would have told us that UMHB was better than Hardin-Simmons.  How'd that work out?

emma has been consistent in this message: that results from the last two or three seasons should come into play in determining the Pool C slots.  That's the sticking point for the two sides of this argument.  My strongest opposition is basically...well, the game that just happened is a good place to start.  We can't assume that MHB is better than all of those other teams just because last year!  Earlier this year, a Wartburg team that nearly took down Whitewater got utterly obliterated to the tune of 45-13 by a Dubuque team carrying two blowout non-league losses.  This stuff happens all the time.  Teams change from year to year.  2014 results shouldn't have any impact on 2015 playoff teams.

[AO]

What has 2015 UMHB done that tells us they are one of the best 6 non-qualifiers?

This right here has consistently been the primary source of disagreement: the use of past years' information to inform present years' rankings and playoff decisions.

The unsaid piece of walla walla's argument ("Head to head MHB is going Thomas More, Johns Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25") is that he "knows" this because UMHB has been better than those teams on the national stage in 2014, 2013, and 2012.  It has to be based on past evidence; as Bombers points out, there is no possible way to know this based on 2015 game results (there are no direct matchups and zero common opponents between the teams).  We're just supposed to take it for granted that UMHB is still definitely better than those teams because results from the last few years would tell us that.  But you know what else?  Results from 2014, 2013, and 2012 would have told us that UMHB was better than Hardin-Simmons.  How'd that work out?

emma has been consistent in this message: that results from the last two or three seasons should come into play in determining the Pool C slots.  That's the sticking point for the two sides of this argument.  My strongest opposition is basically...well, the game that just happened is a good place to start.  We can't assume that MHB is better than all of those other teams just because last year!  Earlier this year, a Wartburg team that nearly took down Whitewater got utterly obliterated to the tune of 45-13 by a Dubuque team carrying two blowout non-league losses.  This stuff happens all the time.  Teams change from year to year.  2014 results shouldn't have any impact on 2015 playoff teams.

You're taking it a little too far.  We don't need common opponents to make a good guess about the strength of teams.  It's not a good or "fair" way to select at-large teams, but surely we can use subjective insight to see that Mary Hardin-Baylor has better athletes on the field.  Thomas More doesn't have any common opponents with Western Kentucky, but we can still guess who would win.  Kind of a pointless argument as the games won't take place, but I'm certain most people would pick the Crusaders.

[USee]

An interesting case study for all the energy going into pool C discussions is my own team, The Wheaton Thunder.   Right now they are ranked in the top 10, undefeated with one good win, pretty decent playoff history and facing another top 25 team this week that, with a win, would clinch the AQ for them.   Just wine the game! If they win they have an outside shot at a #1 seed or at least a couple home playoff games.  If they lose (on the road to a top 25 team) they face the real possibility of not being selected as a 9-1 team in the pool C process.  At a minimum they would be a bubble team.  How can that be you ask? A weak SOS, they would be behind IWU in the cue, and as a result would likely get to the table later.  We will know more after Wednesday and Wally does a tremendous job projecting the candidates, but from where I sit I have to agree w Ex-Tartan if Wheaton loses Saturday they deserve whatever hand is dealt at the table of the Pool C sharks.

[wally_wabash]

You're taking it a little too far.  We don't need common opponents to make a good guess about the strength of teams.  It's not a good or "fair" way to select at-large teams, but surely we can use subjective insight to see that Mary Hardin-Baylor has better athletes on the field.  Thomas More doesn't have any common opponents with Western Kentucky, but we can still guess who would win.  Kind of a pointless argument as the games won't take place, but I'm certain most people would pick the Crusaders.

If UMHB has better athletes, why did they lose?  I'm not saying they do or don't.  I'm saying that as soon as they lose, everything that we take for granted about UMHB (or UWW as well this year) goes up in flames.  Maybe this year UMHB (or UWW) aren't the same teams that they've been recently?  I think that's a fair question to ask when a team loses.  Unless of course they lose to Western Kentucky.