Pool C -- 2015

[wabndy]

OK Cru fans, I'll take the challenge.  What would a scenario look like that would place 6 other teams ahead of UMHB in the pool C race?

Below i'm projecting the final resume under these scenarios indicated below.  SOS is current as of today with an indicator as needed if it will rise or fall significantly in the next two weeks.

UMHB (9-1, 1-1 RRO, SOS .476 (and falling)) (lets also assume East Texas Baptist will not be RR at the end of the season).

6. Whitewater (8-1, 9-1, 1-1 RRO, SOS .538) is going to be in - maybe not first - but its gonna happen.  Lets move on.
5. Wheaton loses to North Central on Saturday by a little.  That gives North central the AQ and leaves both Wheaton and Illinois Wesleyan competitive in Pool C.  Illinois Wesleyan (9-1, 2-1 RRO, SOS .550)(and rising)).
4.  St. Johns (9-1, 2-1 RRO, SOS .569)
3. Wabash drops the bell game and gives DePauw the NCAC AQ. Hampden Sydney is regionally ranked  (9-1, 2-1 RRO, SOS 0.457 (will be above .500 at season end))
2. Platteville (8-2, 1-2 RRO, SOS .594 (and falling))
1. Wheaton (9-1, 1-1 RRO, SOS 0.472 (and rising))  See #5 above.

We can quibble about which order these are in.  Yes-  this would be on rare territory to give two conferences two Pool C bids but I think this is all definitely plausible.  The low SOS and only 1 RRO win could push UMHB to the bubble.  I think in this scenario you could fairly throw Platteville, Wheaton, and UMHB in a hat and pull two out of the three and not get much howling from the rest of the D3 football universe. 

[emma17]

Good point AO.
I think too that this discussion would be helped if we stopped using certain terms and concepts that only dramatize the situation.
For instance, "We're supposed to take for granted that umhb is still definitely better". No, it's not about knowing who is definately better, it's about choosing between a small number of teams that look worthy and then picking the team that is likely better.
And "We can't assume umhb is better than all of those teams just because of last year".  No, we aren't assuming umhb is better just because of last year. When we have to use subjectivity either way, it gives us greater confidence to select a team that has proven year after year after year that they will be competitive in the playoffs. The program has earned the benefit of the doubt. There are several Pool C candidates that simply don't give that sort of confidence.

If it's umhb or UWP, I'm going w umhb. I don't think it's a hard decision.
Pool C is tough. If UWP doesn't like it, then they should perform better in the playoffs and against UWO in the biggest game of the season. Until then, they and all other candidates should realize that all data points will be used to determine the 6 teams most likely to raise the competitive level of the playoffs.

[AO]

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.

I don't think you have to take anything for granted at this point in the season.  1 loss doesn't change how they performed in their first 7 games or dramatically change how I would predict them to perform in the future.  If they were previously predicted to beat Thomas More by 28, maybe now we think they only will win by 20.  When Wartburg lost to Dubuque we were saying for weeks that they weren't the same team.  Hardin-Simmons proved to me that they belonged in the top-ten moreso than MHB proving that they don't.

[wally_wabash]

If it's umhb or UWP, I'm going w umhb. I don't think it's a hard decision.

I think that's an incredibly hard decision.  UWP, frankly, has accomplished more this year than UMHB has. 

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.

I don't think you have to take anything for granted at this point in the season.  1 loss doesn't change how they performed in their first 7 games or dramatically change how I would predict them to perform in the future.  If they were previously predicted to beat Thomas More by 28, maybe now we think they only will win by 20.  When Wartburg lost to Dubuque we were saying for weeks that they weren't the same team.  Hardin-Simmons proved to me that they belonged in the top-ten moreso than MHB proving that they don't.

I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask. 

[RLW]

It appears that some people want the criteria changed every year to get their team into the playoffs with home field advantage every year.

[desertcat1]

It appears that some people want the criteria changed every year to get their team into the playoffs with home field advantage every year.

" candy N nuts"  =  "if's and butt"s"

[AO]

I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

Hardin-Simmons was really good before the Mary Hardin-Baylor game.  They weren't just undefeated, they were blowing teams out. You could have made a convincing argument before that game took place that Hardin-Simmons should be ranked right with MHB.   It wasn't a giant upset.

[Westside]

I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

I've got no horse in this race, and I can't really bring statistics to the table; but UMHB passes they eye test. I try to watch as many Top 25 D3 games as I can on the weekends, and they have been as impressive as anyone else in the country. They are faster, bigger, and more physical than most of the Top 25 teams. They are a team that is a great QB away from being the best team in the country (who isn't though, right?).

With that being said, a loss is a loss; and they will be sweating it out hoping for a bid. I just don't think it makes that much sense to question/doubt a team that wins their first 7 games by a 40 point average before losing a 3 point game on the road to an undefeated team.

[Bombers798891]

it gives us greater confidence to select a team that has proven year after year after year that they will be competitive in the playoffs.

Except that a "team" isn't a constant. It's comprised of a group of individuals who change from year to year, in countless ways. Some players leave, some players join, some players get better, some players get worse. And you're competing with 200+ teams who have all done the same.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

I've got no horse in this race, and I can't really bring statistics to the table; but UMHB passes they eye test. I try to watch as many Top 25 D3 games as I can on the weekends, and they have been as impressive as anyone else in the country. They are faster, bigger, and more physical than most of the Top 25 teams. They are a team that is a great QB away from being the best team in the country (who isn't though, right?).

With that being said, a loss is a loss; and they will be sweating it out hoping for a bid. I just don't think it makes that much sense to question/doubt a team that wins their first 7 games by a 40 point average before losing a 3 point game on the road to an undefeated team.

I understand the first part of your post, so I'm certainly not refuting UMHB's quality or doubting that they're a very good team. 

I'm just responding to the bolded part: this is how almost every serious Pool C team's resume looks.  "We blew out most of the teams on our schedule, and we only lost one close game to our conference champion (or we lost two close games, one to our conference champion plus another to a really good team)! How can we be left out of the playoffs?"  That's the deal.  Life is hard.  If you want to avoid the Magic Box Select-O-Matic that is Pool C, win all of your games.

[AO]

I understand the first part of your post, so I'm certainly not refuting UMHB's quality or doubting that they're a very good team. 

I'm just responding to the bolded part: this is how almost every serious Pool C team's resume looks.  "We blew out most of the teams on our schedule, and we only lost one close game to our conference champion (or we lost two close games, one to our conference champion plus another to a really good team)! How can we be left out of the playoffs?"  That's the deal.  Life is hard.  If you want to avoid the Magic Box Select-O-Matic that is Pool C, win all of your games.

Good time to point out that I'm not basing any of my arguments for MHB on the playoff selection criteria.  Long live limited at-large bids which creates more meaningful regular season games!

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

Until proven otherwise I am going to grade programs and conferences based on how they have done in the playoffs over the past 5 years.  There may be good teams that come up every few years because of a strong senior class or a very good transfer (HSC with the QB who came over from the SEC as an example).  But there are a very few good programs that deserve the respect of everyone in D3 until they show on the field in successive seasons that things are trending down. 

These programs are Mount Union, Whitewater, MHB, Wesley, and Linfield.  There are 4 conferences where the winner deserves the same level of respect - CCIW, WIAC, OAC, and MIAC - teams from these conferences have been very competitive in the playoffs especially the conference winner.

I have a very hard time giving any team from the East a Pool C bid no matter their record because frankly the region has been terrible in the playoffs (outside of Wesley).  Until the East AQ teams consistently both go deep AND be competitive in each round they should be limited to the AQ only.

Regional Rankings as a metric seem to be worthless given how weak is the East combined with how many D3 programs are in the area.  Too much room for the East Coast bias come selection time.

The same can be said for using Strength of Schedule.  Put the conference champ of any East conference in the MIAC and they are going to finish #2 at best (except for Wesley).  We can't compare SOS when it is obvious that the teams in one region are simply not as good as the other regions.  (Obvious in terms of Top 25 rankings, preseason rankings by D3 experts, and past playoff results.

[AO]

it gives us greater confidence to select a team that has proven year after year after year that they will be competitive in the playoffs.

Except that a "team" isn't a constant. It's comprised of a group of individuals who change from year to year, in countless ways. Some players leave, some players join, some players get better, some players get worse. And you're competing with 200+ teams who have all done the same.

This is true in the NFL maybe, but here in D3 we seem to have a remarkable stability among the top teams.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I have a very hard time giving any team from the East a Pool C bid no matter their record because frankly the region has been terrible in the playoffs (outside of Wesley).  Until the East AQ teams consistently both go deep AND be competitive in each round they should be limited to the AQ only.

LOL.  Here, let me show you how one of those matchups went when an East Pool C team played an OAC Pool C team in the first round.  At the OAC team's place, no less.  A week after the OAC team lost by 8 points to Mount Union.

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2013/boxscores/20131123_4kt8.xml

[Westside]

I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

I've got no horse in this race, and I can't really bring statistics to the table; but UMHB passes they eye test. I try to watch as many Top 25 D3 games as I can on the weekends, and they have been as impressive as anyone else in the country. They are faster, bigger, and more physical than most of the Top 25 teams. They are a team that is a great QB away from being the best team in the country (who isn't though, right?).

With that being said, a loss is a loss; and they will be sweating it out hoping for a bid. I just don't think it makes that much sense to question/doubt a team that wins their first 7 games by a 40 point average before losing a 3 point game on the road to an undefeated team.

I understand the first part of your post, so I'm certainly not refuting UMHB's quality or doubting that they're a very good team. 

I'm just responding to the bolded part: this is how almost every serious Pool C team's resume looks.  "We blew out most of the teams on our schedule, and we only lost one close game to our conference champion (or we lost two close games, one to our conference champion plus another to a really good team)! How can we be left out of the playoffs?"  That's the deal.  Life is hard.  If you want to avoid the Magic Box Select-O-Matic that is Pool C, win all of your games.

That is pretty much what I said. I agree with you completely. I was just stating that the "maybe they aren't who we thought they were" part was wrong.