Pool C -- 2015

[02 Warhawk]

They were playing completely different schedules, so of course they were doing things that were different.  I'm more impressed by wins over Trinity (TX) and Texas Lutheran than I am by wins over anybody in the centennial conference. It's not that Johns Hopkins has done anything wrong, I just don't have any reason to expect them to break into the top-ten or 2nd tier based upon their results this season.

Why?

Agreed.  I'm not sure what we're basing the superiority of Trinity and TLU to other teams in the CC or MAC or whatever other league we're disparaging today on.  I mean TLU did play an oddly close game with 2014 UMHB (not the same as 2015 UMHB) that was played through rain and over two days.  So that's definitely representative of normal.  BTW, TLU only got that extra shot at UMHB last year because -and I hope we all remember this because it was tremendous- Louisiana College's coach lost his mind at the end of their game with TLU last year and blew the game for his team. 

Remember this:


It looks like we superimposed a coach onto a spot on the field that coaches shouldn't be on.  But no.  That actually happened and it's a foul and TLU got a playoff game because of it.

I bet the refs from the Miami/Duke game wouldn't have called that a penalty. 

[wabndy]

Oh, I fully agree that it's a single cherry-picked example.  But he's painted with an extremely broad brush that the East region's been terrible in the playoffs while also granting the OAC an official Golden Ticket...and that's pretty silly considering that it was only two years ago that we watched one of those teams from the terrible East region win a road playoff game at a team from the OAC.  I'm not offering this as definitive proof of any region being better than any other region, or any conference being better than any other conference...in fact, that's exactly the point I am arguing against.  We can't just say "This Region is better than That Region" or "This Conference is better than That Conference" - because there's a very recent example that directly contradicts his chosen definition of the haves and have-nots.

Yes, there are exceptions to everything. But looking at the past 10, 20, 30 years of the playoffs, there's a trend on which regions/conferences do the best in the playoffs. I think you can say which conferences are stronger...Pat and Keith do it every year in Kickoff. I don't think anyone knows D3 better than those two.

Fun stuff...nothing like time in the office with some good 'ole Pool C talk. 

Of course you can say it.  Where it gets a little crazy is doing what some people seem to be suggesting and amending the pool C criteria to include the phrase "East Region need not apply"

[ExTartanPlayer]

Oh, I fully agree that it's a single cherry-picked example.  But he's painted with an extremely broad brush that the East region's been terrible in the playoffs while also granting the OAC an official Golden Ticket...and that's pretty silly considering that it was only two years ago that we watched one of those teams from the terrible East region win a road playoff game at a team from the OAC.  I'm not offering this as definitive proof of any region being better than any other region, or any conference being better than any other conference...in fact, that's exactly the point I am arguing against.  We can't just say "This Region is better than That Region" or "This Conference is better than That Conference" - because there's a very recent example that directly contradicts his chosen definition of the haves and have-nots.

Yes, there are exceptions to everything. But looking at the past 10, 20, 30 years of the playoffs, there's a trend on which regions/conferences do the best in the playoffs. I think you can say which conferences are stronger...Pat and Keith do it every year in Kickoff. I don't think anyone knows D3 better than those two.

Fun stuff...nothing like time in the office with some good 'ole Pool C talk. 

Of course you can say it.  Where it gets a little crazy is doing what some people seem to be suggesting and amending the pool C criteria to include the phrase "East Region need not apply"

Co-sign.  Was basically just typing this myself.  You can say that a region or conference is better, sure, and I probably should have thought that sentence through a little more.  But I would prefer that not be extended to walla walla's extreme of "the East Region is never deserving of Pool C bids" - especially not when there's a very recent example of an East Pool C selection beating a walla walla approved OAC representative.

[02 Warhawk]

Oh, I fully agree that it's a single cherry-picked example.  But he's painted with an extremely broad brush that the East region's been terrible in the playoffs while also granting the OAC an official Golden Ticket...and that's pretty silly considering that it was only two years ago that we watched one of those teams from the terrible East region win a road playoff game at a team from the OAC.  I'm not offering this as definitive proof of any region being better than any other region, or any conference being better than any other conference...in fact, that's exactly the point I am arguing against.  We can't just say "This Region is better than That Region" or "This Conference is better than That Conference" - because there's a very recent example that directly contradicts his chosen definition of the haves and have-nots.

Yes, there are exceptions to everything. But looking at the past 10, 20, 30 years of the playoffs, there's a trend on which regions/conferences do the best in the playoffs. I think you can say which conferences are stronger...Pat and Keith do it every year in Kickoff. I don't think anyone knows D3 better than those two.

Fun stuff...nothing like time in the office with some good 'ole Pool C talk. 

Of course you can say it.  Where it gets a little crazy is doing what some people seem to be suggesting and amending the pool C criteria to include the phrase "East Region need not apply"

I did say I don't completely agree with Walla. That's a little too extreme for me even.

[AO]

They were playing completely different schedules, so of course they were doing things that were different.  I'm more impressed by wins over Trinity (TX) and Texas Lutheran than I am by wins over anybody in the centennial conference. It's not that Johns Hopkins has done anything wrong, I just don't have any reason to expect them to break into the top-ten or 2nd tier based upon their results this season.

Why?

Because I believe those teams are faster, stronger, more talented and more skilled?  Again, we're talking subjective criteria here.  No common opponents and very few common opponents of opponents.

Exactly and before last week who had HSU in that 2nd tier in the top 10?  Not many ... I doubt there were many in the fan polls who had them in the Top 10. 

Further, to Wallys point:  What if this is the one season in 15 where MHB just isn't the monster they usually are? 

Since they were 13th, I'd guess at least a couple voters had them that high.  You'd have to ask Pat.

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.

Really?

Tell me, how's Darius Wilson doing for MHB this year? LiDarral Bailey, he was amazing, so he's still great, right? How are those WRs doing? You know,  Geoff Myles, Caleb Moore, Jon Ross?

What about that amazing offensive line?  I assume the law firm of Duncan, Holt, Cantu, Booker, and Ostos is keeping Bailey upright?

Let's not forget the defense. Javics Jones still a terror? Brodrick Crain? Silvio Diaz? They still doing well for the Cru?

Please provide me with the updates on those players.

Stability in terms of strength over the years, not player retention.  There is parity in the vast middle of D3, but it's very hard to become an elite program.  The programs that are there have tended to stay there.

[Bombers798891]

I think you can say which conferences are stronger...Pat and Keith do it every year in Kickoff. I don't think anyone knows D3 better than those two.

You mean the kickoff that had two East Region conferences in the Top 5 at both preseason and midseason?

[ExTartanPlayer]

I think you can say which conferences are stronger...Pat and Keith do it every year in Kickoff. I don't think anyone knows D3 better than those two.

You mean the kickoff that had two East Region conferences in the Top 5 at both preseason and midseason?

Anxiously awaiting walla walla's response here.

[Bombers798891]

Stability in terms of strength over the years, not player retention.  There is parity in the vast middle of D3, but it's very hard to become an elite program.  The programs that are there have tended to stay there.

The point is, the players that made MHB great in 2012 aren't here in 2015. So why should their accomplishments still be relevant?

[AO]

I think you can say which conferences are stronger...Pat and Keith do it every year in Kickoff. I don't think anyone knows D3 better than those two.

You mean the kickoff that had two East Region conferences in the Top 5 at both preseason and midseason?

Anxiously awaiting walla walla's response here.

I think they were giving a little too much preference to parity in those rankings.  If they had a conference challenge and your top four teams beat the other conferences' top four teams, would you be that bothered if the worst teams in your conference didn't fare as well?

[AO]

Stability in terms of strength over the years, not player retention.  There is parity in the vast middle of D3, but it's very hard to become an elite program.  The programs that are there have tended to stay there.

The point is, the players that made MHB great in 2012 aren't here in 2015. So why should their accomplishments still be relevant?

They're not, yet they're still really great this year.  This is my point.

[Westside]

Stability in terms of strength over the years, not player retention.  There is parity in the vast middle of D3, but it's very hard to become an elite program.  The programs that are there have tended to stay there.

The point is, the players that made MHB great in 2012 aren't here in 2015. So why should their accomplishments still be relevant?

To be fair, the players from last year's team are still there (well 13 starters and 51 returning players), so should their accomplishments be relevant? I agree you can't just accept past results as a fact for future and current teams, but there has to be some overlap.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Stability in terms of strength over the years, not player retention.  There is parity in the vast middle of D3, but it's very hard to become an elite program.  The programs that are there have tended to stay there.

The point is, the players that made MHB great in 2012 aren't here in 2015. So why should their accomplishments still be relevant?

They're not, yet they're still really great this year.  This is my point.

Are you sure?  We keep going in circles on this.  What if they're not actually "still really great" this year?

[AO]

Stability in terms of strength over the years, not player retention.  There is parity in the vast middle of D3, but it's very hard to become an elite program.  The programs that are there have tended to stay there.

The point is, the players that made MHB great in 2012 aren't here in 2015. So why should their accomplishments still be relevant?

They're not, yet they're still really great this year.  This is my point.

Are you sure?  We keep going in circles on this.  What if they're not actually "still really great" this year?

Based on all available evidence, they're great.  How is that a circle?  Massey has them 9th.

[02 Warhawk]

I think you can say which conferences are stronger...Pat and Keith do it every year in Kickoff. I don't think anyone knows D3 better than those two.

You mean the kickoff that had two East Region conferences in the Top 5 at both preseason and midseason?

Yes, that's the one.

And looking at the top 10, the number of East Region conferences holds steady at two.

[02 Warhawk]

Stability in terms of strength over the years, not player retention.  There is parity in the vast middle of D3, but it's very hard to become an elite program.  The programs that are there have tended to stay there.

The point is, the players that made MHB great in 2012 aren't here in 2015. So why should their accomplishments still be relevant?

They're not, yet they're still really great this year.  This is my point.

Are you sure?  We keep going in circles on this.  What if they're not actually "still really great" this year?

Based on all available evidence, they're great.  How is that a circle?  Massey has them 9th.

Not bad considering there's 236 schools behind them