Pool C -- 2015

[wally_wabash]

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.

To my knowledge, Massey doesn't watch a single game.  And Massey thinks Amherst is #4.  So there's that. 

The whole point here is that UMHB lost a game which throws into question all of the things that we generally just give them a pass on.  That's what happens when you lose.  You catch more scrutiny.  People look at who you played and who you beat.  People start to look at your QB efficiency and wonder if that's really top tier stuff.  All of the freebies that these teams get as long as they are undefeated go away as soon as they get beat.    That's the deal. 

I also want to make another point.  I'm not beating this drum because I think UMHB is bad or that the WIAC is bad or the MIAC is bad.  Thee teams and leagues are obviously great.  I think you can scoop up all of that history and have a really interesting conversation about legacies.  I just don't think that conversation goes hand in hand with at-large selection of any current season.  They're totally separate topics. 

[jknezek]

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

Massey has Johns Hopkins at 5. One spot in front of Wesley. UWW is 9 and Oshkosh is 10. UMHB is 11 and HSU is 12. Is Massey really the evidence you want to go with?

[02 Warhawk]

Isn't Massey strictly based on computer rankings? It kills me they have NESCAC so high.

[wabndy]

I also want to make another point.  I'm not beating this drum because I think UMHB is bad or that the WIAC is bad or the MIAC is bad.  Thee teams and leagues are obviously great.  I think you can scoop up all of that history and have a really interesting conversation about legacies.  I just don't think that conversation goes hand in hand with at-large selection of any current season.  They're totally separate topics. 

At least today's discussion has been civil. I'll just leave this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3L5aDO_uF8

[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?

Yes, that's the one.

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

Which, coincidentally, is the same number the North has. So are we banning them from Pool C bids too?

[jknezek]

Isn't Massey strictly based on computer rankings? It kills me they have NESCAC so high.

Regardless of whether you believe Massey or not, the only way to take it remotely serious is to exclude the NESCAC schools. The data doesn't exist and if he was as smart as he wishes his model was, he'd remove them.

[wally_wabash]

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.

Which, coincidentally, is the same number the North has. So are we banning them from Pool C bids too?

If Wheaton beats IWU on Saturday, we might be doing just that even if we don't say so out loud. 

[crufootball]

Massey may not be perfect or watch any games but they do have 18 of the same Top 25 teams that D3football.com has. In fact one could argue that since it is a computer model they strip out more of the bias than any real voter.

[smedindy]

Isn't Massey strictly based on computer rankings? It kills me they have NESCAC so high.

Regardless of whether you believe Massey or not, the only way to take it remotely serious is to exclude the NESCAC schools. The data doesn't exist and if he was as smart as he wishes his model was, he'd remove them.

Since the NESCAC doesn't play anyone outside of their fifedom, he normalizes the NESCAC at the middle of ALL football playing schools and ranks them from there. He used to put them in their own rankings - don't know why he doesn't anymore. So I just gloss over them. Besides you want to probably look at the rating points and then the range of where someone is.

[smedindy]

If I recall, UMHB lost a second round game last year. East region weakling Hobart won their second round game. Widener, who must be weak because they are an East team, won their second round game. So, um, Walla, you gonna take THOSE results into account in your little book?

Not every playoff win is equal either. Not every head to head game is equal either. Weather, matchups, injuries, all of it makes it hard to do the transitive "A beat B - B beat C - so A will beat C" when we've seen TIME and AGAIN A beat B who beat C who beat A.

The point being is the normally four of the best teams make the final four and usually the best two teams make it to Stagg.

[emma17]

If I recall, UMHB lost a second round game last year. East region weakling Hobart won their second round game. Widener, who must be weak because they are an East team, won their second round game. So, um, Walla, you gonna take THOSE results into account in your little book?

Not every playoff win is equal either. Not every head to head game is equal either. Weather, matchups, injuries, all of it makes it hard to do the transitive "A beat B - B beat C - so A will beat C" when we've seen TIME and AGAIN A beat B who beat C who beat A.

The point being is the normally four of the best teams make the final four and usually the best two teams make it to Stagg.

Huh?  Umhb losing to Linfield is a discredit to them?
Doesn't Widener get smoked everytime they meet a top team?

[AO]

If I recall, UMHB lost a second round game last year. East region weakling Hobart won their second round game. Widener, who must be weak because they are an East team, won their second round game. So, um, Walla, you gonna take THOSE results into account in your little book?

Not every playoff win is equal either. Not every head to head game is equal either. Weather, matchups, injuries, all of it makes it hard to do the transitive "A beat B - B beat C - so A will beat C" when we've seen TIME and AGAIN A beat B who beat C who beat A.

The point being is the normally four of the best teams make the final four and usually the best two teams make it to Stagg.

the biggest problem with counting playoff wins as the real comparison between regions is we don't have a true national tournament.  Winning two playoff games in the East is much different than doing it in the West.   

Massey will tell a better national picture at the end of the year once we do get those quarterfinals and semifinals pitting region against region.  As of now it's still a good way of ranking teams within each geographical region.   So Mary Hardin Baylor is great in the South among those two or three conferences and Johns Hopkins is great in the Centennial and the conferences that play the Centennial..

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

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

Then in Round 2 St John Fisher managed to only lose by 3 touchdowns to MHB... who then lost by a point to UWW who then destroyed MUC 52-14 in the national championship game... so I'm not sure what you are trying to say?  Other than maybe this is the one recent example where a Pool C team from the East won a playoff game against a team from what is considered a good conference? Though the playoff results would indicate that was a down year for the OAC..

[wally_wabash]

If I recall, UMHB lost a second round game last year. East region weakling Hobart won their second round game. Widener, who must be weak because they are an East team, won their second round game. So, um, Walla, you gonna take THOSE results into account in your little book?

Not every playoff win is equal either. Not every head to head game is equal either. Weather, matchups, injuries, all of it makes it hard to do the transitive "A beat B - B beat C - so A will beat C" when we've seen TIME and AGAIN A beat B who beat C who beat A.

The point being is the normally four of the best teams make the final four and usually the best two teams make it to Stagg.

the biggest problem with counting playoff wins as the real comparison between regions is we don't have a true national tournament.  Winning two playoff games in the East is much different than doing it in the West.   

Massey will tell a better national picture at the end of the year once we do get those quarterfinals and semifinals pitting region against region.  As of now it's still a good way of ranking teams within each geographical region.   So Mary Hardin Baylor is great in the South among those two or three conferences and Johns Hopkins is great in the Centennial and the conferences that play the Centennial..

Hopkins and the CC are also South.

[smedindy]

If I recall, UMHB lost a second round game last year. East region weakling Hobart won their second round game. Widener, who must be weak because they are an East team, won their second round game. So, um, Walla, you gonna take THOSE results into account in your little book?

Not every playoff win is equal either. Not every head to head game is equal either. Weather, matchups, injuries, all of it makes it hard to do the transitive "A beat B - B beat C - so A will beat C" when we've seen TIME and AGAIN A beat B who beat C who beat A.

The point being is the normally four of the best teams make the final four and usually the best two teams make it to Stagg.

Huh?  Umhb losing to Linfield is a discredit to them?
Doesn't Widener get smoked everytime they meet a top team?

Playoff results was the (ludicrous) criteria - not the opponent.