Pool C -- 2015

[smedindy]

I think Emma is Donald Trump - a team is either YOOOOGE or terrible. And if a team betrays his pre-conceived notions they're terrible and the teams they play are terrible. And if a team from a conference not on the YOOOOOGE list even thinks about getting a Pool C bid, then to him they're Rosie O'Donnell.

[Bombers798891]

The haves are playing a different game than most of the division.

What was the last really significant upset anyone can remember? JHU over TMC in 2009? UMHB over UMU in 2004? Rowan over Wilkes 2006? Not really great options to choose from...

Curry over Ithaca in 2008 was pretty big. Ithaca was #12 in the D-3 Rankings and had just cleaned the clock of previously #7 Cortland State, on the road. But Ithaca was a team, that, at best, had a loss to Mount Union coming in the quarters.

But to the larger bolded point, this is kind of where I'm at now. It's not just that they're *better*. They're just playing a totally different game than everyone else.

In the 32-team playoff era, there have been 40 different semifinalist slots. Of those 40 spots, 35 of them have been filled by the seven teams: Mount, Whitewater, Linfield, MHB, Bethel, St. Thomas and Wesley. Three others were filled by teams (Wheaton, Rowan, Fisher) who did not play any of those teams until the semis.

This year, we're going to move our total to at least 37 of 44. It just doesn't change. And can we retire the stupid "It's up to those other teams to change things" mantra please? It's not that it isn't true, it's that it's irrelevant. This isn't Division I, where Mark Richt can get fired for, in a nutshell, not being as good as Nick Saban. ETP summed it up nicely a few pages back talking about JHU:

"What it would take to make that "second tier" program good enough to compete with the "first tier" programs is an institutional commitment that is unlikely to happen (and probably undesirable for the University as a whole) because the University would have to start to compromise things that should not be compromised."

There are a whole lot of schools that just do not care enough about competing with these powers in football to make the necessary institutional changes needed to do it. Sure, the power brokers may say the right things when quoted in a news story, because they're not total idiots. But we all know what's really going on.

Ithaca used to be a national power. And now, the front page of the student newspaper has a headline of "Win or lose, we still booze" in a story about what the Cortaca Jug really means to a majority of the campus. Do you think there's anyone at IC who has any power and really, truly cares that Mike Welch has been unable to keep Ithaca's program a national (or heck, even a regional power)?

[Ralph Turner]

+1Bombers and ExTP. Great Posts.

I went back to the expanded Pools era, 1999 - 2014.  64 slots.  The 2004 season seems like the beginning of recent history with Linfield, UMHB, MUC and ?Rowan? holding the 4 slots.  Look at the teams making the semis from 1998 to 2003.

"East" region -- Rowan 1999, 2001 and finally 2004.  No NJAC team until Wesley in 2015.

"East" region -- Widener in 2000 (Loser to MUC 70-30); RPI in 2003 (loser to champion St John's 38-10).

"East" region -- "Easternmost" #1 seed John Carroll in 2002 who lost the rematch with UMU.

"South" Region -- Bridgewater VA 2001 and 2003.

"South" Region -- Texas Sub-bracket teams     Trinity TX in 1999 and Stagg Bowl loser with a suspended starting QB in 2002; Hardin-Simmons 2000.  (The South Region has been basically UMHB or Wesley since 2004.)

North Region ---  Only UMU from 1999 to 2004!

West Region -- Stagg Champion PLU in 1999.
West Region -- St John's 2000- 2003.

(Thanks to Pat Coleman whose mental hard drive is getting so crammed full that he is beginning to write things down.)   http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index

Wow!  The East is gone!

[gordonmann]

True, though the lack of a national semifinalist from the East was an anomaly because of Wesley's inability to find a conference until recently. Wesley has been the dominant East team for years, whatever administrative region they were in.

The East and the South regions have boiled down to two teams for years now -- Wesley and Mary Hardin-Baylor. It's been a long time since anyone else in either region had a significant playoff run. Outside of those two teams, the regions have been equally incapable of producing elite teams.

The west is the strongest region. It's hard to gauge how good the North is on a whole beyond Mount Union, though I'd certainly slot them in front of the East and South.

[Bombers798891]

The East and the South regions have boiled down to two teams for years now -- Wesley and Mary Hardin-Baylor. It's been a long time since anyone else in either region had a significant playoff run. Outside of those two teams, the regions have been equally incapable of producing elite teams.

The East has had non-Wesley teams in the top 10 in the final d3 polls every year from 2011-2014. Using playoff runs is stupid. Their deepest playoff runs end because they lose to the same teams that every other team in the country loses to. D-III football playoffs are nothing but 25 to 27 teams trying to avoid 5 to 7 teams (usually the names I mentioned above) as long as possible. 99% of East teams can't beat those teams, just like 98% of North, South, and West teams can't.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

I believe the term used was "elite".  There are plenty of good football teams each year in every region.  However, there have been only 2 elite teams in the South and East - Wesley and MHB.  Deep, competitive playoff runs are one of the only ways that we can view how competitive a team may be in a particular year.  Discounting playoff performance is a silly argument made by those whose teams can't seem to get into the Elite conversation.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

The East has had non-Wesley teams in the top 10 in the final d3 polls every year from 2011-2014. Using playoff runs is stupid.

And those Top 10 rankings for East teams has been a mystery considering how many of them were pounded in their playoff loss or lost to a team that got pounded. 

2014 is a great example - Hobart was ranked #9 in the final D3 poll even though they lost 41-13 to Wesley who made it to the semi's before losing to MUC 70-0 (I mean 21). 

[pg04]

"East" region -- "Easternmost" #1 seed John Carroll in 2002 who lost the rematch with UMU.

I couldn't let this go. I'm still upset about 2002, 13 years later  .

John Carroll was not the #1 seed. Rowan was. #4 seeded Brockport beat #5 seed Springfield in an icy/snowy/mucky game that ruined the Brockport field. They then won at Rowan in the round of 16 after Rowan got a bye (still in the days of 28 teams).

Brockport then played #7 seeded JCU (who had beaten #2 Hobart and #6 Muhlenberg) in the final 8 at a game that had to be hosted at the University of Rochester due to Brockport's field.

Brockport lost in overtime 16-10 - Brockport had a chance to win the game with a short field goal at the end of regulation but it was blocked. JCU had their extra point blocked in OT and Brockport made some excruciating play call on 4th and 1 in their part of overtime. Yes, I have very good memory of all this  because I was so hoping and looking forward to traveling to Alliance to call the game.

But I digress...

[Ralph Turner]

"East" region -- "Easternmost" #1 seed John Carroll in 2002 who lost the rematch with UMU.

I couldn't let this go. I'm still upset about 2002, 13 years later  .

John Carroll was not the #1 seed. Rowan was. #4 seeded Brockport beat #5 seed Springfield in an icy/snowy/mucky game that ruined the Brockport field. They then won at Rowan in the round of 16 after Rowan got a bye (still in the days of 28 teams).

Brockport then played #7 seeded JCU (who had beaten #2 Hobart and #6 Muhlenberg) in the final 8 at a game that had to be hosted at the University of Rochester due to Brockport's field.

Brockport lost in overtime 16-10 - Brockport had a chance to win the game with a short field goal at the end of regulation but it was blocked. JCU had their extra point blocked in OT and Brockport made some excruciating play call on 4th and 1 in their part of overtime. Yes, I have very good memory of all this  because I was so hoping and looking forward to traveling to Alliance to call the game.

But I digress...

My bad! 

Ooohh!  #7 in the East ran the table in the Region!  A Pool C bid from the North won the Region!

However, the memory still lingers! Very painful, I am sure!

[Pat Coleman]

Imagine if Tom Arth hadn't torn a knee ligament earlier in the season.

[pg04]

Brockport was down to their third QB in the playoffs. Darnley and the 2nd stringer got injured before the Rowan game. It was something to even get past the Profs. I think the score was 15-12. With their first round win against Springfield of 16-0, the defense was obviously the strength of those playoff Brockport teams.

[emma17]

Ex, you don't need to remind me of my stance and you surely don't need to continue dropping the Wesley issue.  I think we all, and I do mean all, have recognized how difficult it is to slot Wesley given their horrific performance against Mt Union last year.  I think most people would recognize we have to move beyond one game and look at the body of work.  Wesley at least has a body of work going for it.
And for what it's worth, my point doesn't rely on a close game with Wesley. 
My point is that NCC, UWP and TLU have all proven an ability to play with top tier teams, if you have examples of Whitworth or ONU or Muhlenberg, or Widener doing the same, please share.   

What exactly is TLU's body of work?  They played one close game with UMHB one time...in torrential rain...over two days.  Is there something else?  Because I don't think there's anything else.  And I thought we shouldn't be using just one game to make these judgments, right? 

Well, they also only lost by one touchdown to Hardin-Simmons earlier this year, and yeah, sure Hardin-Simmons got eliminated in the first round but they're definitely a "top tier" team that was just eliminated by "unfortunate bracketing."

To be sure I understand your point.  You feel Wheaton's loss in the second round and H-S's loss in the first round suggest they were only 2nd round and 1st round quality teams? 
Let's try this.  If Wheaton played Mt Union's playoff schedule would Wheaton be in the final 8?
If H-S played Mt Union's playoff schedule would they be in the final 8?


It's not the round in which a team loses, it's the team they lose to.  So yes, unfortunate bracketing is the term I'll stick with.   

[emma17]

Ex, you don't need to remind me of my stance and you surely don't need to continue dropping the Wesley issue.  I think we all, and I do mean all, have recognized how difficult it is to slot Wesley given their horrific performance against Mt Union last year.  I think most people would recognize we have to move beyond one game and look at the body of work.  Wesley at least has a body of work going for it.
And for what it's worth, my point doesn't rely on a close game with Wesley. 
My point is that NCC, UWP and TLU have all proven an ability to play with top tier teams, if you have examples of Whitworth or ONU or Muhlenberg, or Widener doing the same, please share.   

What exactly is TLU's body of work?  They played one close game with UMHB one time...in torrential rain...over two days.  Is there something else?  Because I don't think there's anything else.  And I thought we shouldn't be using just one game to make these judgments, right? 

I think most people would recognize we have to move beyond one game and look at the body of work. 

Oh yes.  Right.

We can disagree without your attitude can't we?
It's like you think you caught me in something here.  I think TLU played their schedule tougher than Whitworth did.  Whether you like the fashion in which they did it or not, TLU they took UMHB to the brink last year.  They then played H-S very tough, losing in the last 25 seconds of the game this year.  In their game vs UMHB, they lost by 28, but were within 2 scores in the fourth quarter.  They beat 7-3 East Texas Baptist, and they are ranked 17 in the country by D3 Football.  I'll take 3 and 1/2 games of evidence there.  What you got for Whitworth?  I'll help you, in the regular season they were down to their conference champion by 35 points early in the fourth. They did beat La Verne.   

[ExTartanPlayer]

It's like you think you caught me in something here.  I think TLU played their schedule tougher than Whitworth did.  Whether you like the fashion in which they did it or not, TLU they took UMHB to the brink last year.  They then played H-S very tough, losing in the last 25 seconds of the game this year.  In their game vs UMHB, they lost by 28, but were within 2 scores in the fourth quarter.  They beat 7-3 East Texas Baptist, and they are ranked 17 in the country by D3 Football.  I'll take 3 and 1/2 games of evidence there.  What you got for Whitworth?  I'll help you, in the regular season they were down to their conference champion by 35 points early in the fourth. They did beat La Verne.

I love it when you move the goalposts on what counts as a result against a good team.

What's so special about TLU beating 7-3 East Texas Baptist?  ETBU has a 27-point loss to 4-6 McMurry (the proud carriers of a loss to Sul Ross State!) and lost 67-20 to UMHB.  Sure, ETBU is an OK team, but when did they become relevant in this thing about proving that you can play with and/or beat other "top tier" or "recognized strong" teams?  Whitworth beat 8-2 playoff team and conference champion La Verne in a game they led 39-0 at halftime and outgained La Verne by 255 yards.  If we're really parsing apart the quality of results here, doesn't an outright demolition of a team that won its league count more than a competitive shootout win (to use one of your own things about what a competitive game - please note that ETBU was within 2 touchdowns of TLU in the fourth quarter, ergo this game was a competitive one!) against a 7-3 ETBU team?

That, more than anything, is what confuses me about this discussion - the moving-goalpost, arbitrary decision of what constitutes a game's worth of evidence.  Now you're going to bring up TLU beating ETBU?  I thought this was about who had "proven the ability to play with top tier teams" (direct quote of yours).  Why is a win over a 7-3 ETBU team relevant to this discussion?  Why is that more noteworthy than Whitworth's win over La Verne, which was a) more dominant and b) actually came against a team that won its league and made the tournament?  If Whitworth putting the torch to La Verne is just a throwaway, not-really-relevant result in the scheme of "proving an ability to play with top tier teams" then so is TLU beating ETBU.

The other baked-in assumption in your argument is that all of the "top tier" teams are equal.  Like, TLU playing close against HSU and maybe-kinda-sorta-close-for-45-minutes against UMHB is better than getting blown out by Linfield.  The problem is, Linfield is not equal to UMHB/HSU.  Linfield is currently ranked #2 and getting six first-place votes.  UMHB and HSU finished the year ranked #12 and #13.  So the fact that TLU played HSU and UMHB "competitively" while Whitworth got blown out by Linfield looks a little different when you put it as "TLU played #12 and #13 closer than Whitworth played #2."

I am 6 feet tall.  If I (TLU) stand next to someone who's 6'4" (HSU) and someone who's 6'5" (UMHB) I lost to them by 4 inches and 5 inches.

Joe is 6 feet tall.  If he (Whitworth) stands next to someone who's 6'8" (Linfield) he lost to them by 8 inches.

Am I more competitive when it comes to height?  Or did I just stand next to pretty tall guys who weren't quite as tall as the tallest guys?

[Bombers798891]

Discounting playoff performance is a silly argument made by those whose teams can't seem to get into the Elite conversation.

Acting like being one of the last 8 teams standing and finishing in the Top 10 nationally out of 200+ teams doesn't make you an elite team is just absurd.