Pool C -- 2015

[Bombers798891]

UMHB 45 SJF 23 still qualifies as a monkey-stomp.      

Haha well, so did Michigan State-Indiana. But the Spartans had a 31-26 lead and were facing a 3rd and 10 with less than 8 minutes to go. Games can get out of hand late.

[gordonmann]

Ha! +k  The wince is because there have been more seasons like that than truly good ones since 2003. I like to brag that I was the ultimate good luck charm as their only 4 playoff appearances occurred when I went to school there. 

Sounds like they need to give you a tuition-free, lifetime pass for any and all graduate studies, including online work at the pace of your choosing.

[Bombers798891]

Mary Hardin-Baylor was elite by my standards that year (2013) since they only lost by 1 to Whitewater.

Okay, so I wanted to highlight this, because this is exactly what I'm talking about, when I mention absurdly specific criteria. Look at what happens:

Since your own stated criteria for determining elite status is "Could they play Mount Union or Whitewater close in the 4th quarter" and MHB didn't play Whitewater or Mount Union in 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2014 then you can't really say they were elite those years.

(And no, you can't use prior results to predict how those games might have gone had they occurred. Wesley lost to Mount Union by 3 points in 2013 and then trailed them 70-0 the next season. St. John Fisher lost by 12 to Mount Union in 2006 and by 42 the next year. Prior results are not predictive)

So, by using your own criteria, you've now created a scenario where Mary Hardin Baylor cannot be considered an elite program in any of those five years. Just as a reminder, here were their final rankings each of those seasons

2014: 6th
2011: 5th
2010: 5th
2009: 7th
2006: 8th

Other teams who lose elite status:

Linfield 2011 (6th in final ranking) and 2012 (5th).
St. Thomas in 2010 (7th)
Bethel in 2013 (6th) and 2010 (6th)--they trailed Mount 34-7 heading into the 4th--and 2007 (4th)--Sorry, but a 62-14 loss falls just short of "competitive" I had to rewatch the game to make sure, but they just didn't look too good.

See what happens with criteria like this? We wind up removing almost everyone from elite status. It's like Joe Posnanski wrote about thinking the Hall of Fame is meant for guys like Willie Mays: You wind up with a Hall of Fame that's well, Willie Mays.

[wally_wabash]

At some point the transitive property of being elite -- A beat B who beat C who beat D -- breaks down. Otherwise William Paterson was also elite in 2011 because they beat Brockport who beat Kean who beat Wesley.

(And no, you can't use prior results to predict how those games might have gone had they occurred. Wesley lost to Mount Union by 3 points in 2013 and then trailed them 70-0 the next season. St. John Fisher lost by 12 to Mount Union in 2006 and by 42 the next year. Prior results are not predictive)

These are both such great points.  We spend the regular season going out of our way to not put too much emphasis on comparative scores, but when it's tournament time, comparative scores become almost dogmatic.  Within the same year or year-over-year...this becomes THE way that we measure and compare teams.   

[ExTartanPlayer]

(And no, you can't use prior results to predict how those games might have gone had they occurred. Wesley lost to Mount Union by 3 points in 2013 and then trailed them 70-0 the next season. St. John Fisher lost by 12 to Mount Union in 2006 and by 42 the next year. Prior results are not predictive)

A few excellent examples of why I'm so against the part of the Emma Playoff Proposal indicating that results from prior years should have any influence on a team's perceived strength as a Pool C candidate.  Wartburg this year is another.  Last year the Knights came very, very close to dethroning Whitewater.  This year they lost 45-13 to a Dubuque team that got wiped out by UWP and St. John's (twice!).  Teams change a lot from year to year.  Last year's team isn't this year's team.  Last year's team playing well against a "top tier" team has minimal value in predicting how well this year's team will do against a "top tier" team; similarly, last year's team playing poorly against a "top tier" team does not preclude this year's team from doing better in that same scenario.

[DFWCrufan]

I have ot agree with Tartan in this. In 2014 UMHB faced TLU in the season and absolutley monkeystomped them 72-16 but when TLU earned a pool C slot and faced UMHB it was afar different game, of course it was a two day game postponed due to lighting but TLU had adjusted their game. This season we faced HSU in the season and after a seriously tight game UMHB lost. HSU recieved the Pool B bid and UMHB received the pool C and faced HSU in the first round, the game was very different. So as far as elite, I guess if your top ten consistantly I suppose you could somewhat say that.
I would classify it as the program as a whole. Are the coaching staffs putting stock in all three phases of the game? Do they put alot of stock in their recruiting and what is the atmosphere of the Athletic/ Football program. But let's also be honest, a program can have a really great year (MIT in 2014) and not so much the very next year. When I was on a coaching staff (Different sport but) the program was sort of listless, the head coach did not have a great perspective and vision and we were constantly a .500 team. Enter a new coach. and a different perpective and viola! a build up of a team in two years to move to the top two in conference. So for me, if the word Elite is going to be used, it has to be from the point of view of the program as a whole rather than season to season.

[gordonmann]

Bombers:

I don't think I said UMHB, Linfield or St. Thomas were elite every year. I never mentioned Bethel at all.

Before we go farther, I have to say that, honestly, you've thought way more about my criteria than I have. I concede that the criteria is too narrow to measure teams that don't play Mount Union or UW-Whitewater (except for that one year), though I personally doubt there's a team that lost to someone else but would've beaten Mount Union or UW-Whitewater if given the chance. I concede that's a very subjective criteria that may be overly influenced by the degree to which I consider those programs so far ahead of any other.

If you have another, better criteria for measuring whether a team or a program is elite -- and you probably do -- then I'm open to it. Seriously. I don't feel that passionately about my point of view that I'm unwilling to admit that it's maybe wrong.

At the risk of leaning too much on cliche, the nice thing about Division III football is the games themselves bear out whether teams are good enough to compete for a national championship. The games aren't always close or exciting, especially in the early rounds. That's where this discussion started days ago, or at least where I entered it.

[emma17]

(And no, you can't use prior results to predict how those games might have gone had they occurred. Wesley lost to Mount Union by 3 points in 2013 and then trailed them 70-0 the next season. St. John Fisher lost by 12 to Mount Union in 2006 and by 42 the next year. Prior results are not predictive)

A few excellent examples of why I'm so against the part of the Emma Playoff Proposal indicating that results from prior years should have any influence on a team's perceived strength as a Pool C candidate.  Wartburg this year is another.  Last year the Knights came very, very close to dethroning Whitewater.  This year they lost 45-13 to a Dubuque team that got wiped out by UWP and St. John's (twice!).  Teams change a lot from year to year.  Last year's team isn't this year's team.  Last year's team playing well against a "top tier" team has minimal value in predicting how well this year's team will do against a "top tier" team; similarly, last year's team playing poorly against a "top tier" team does not preclude this year's team from doing better in that same scenario.

You make it sound like prior history trumps current year. Wartburg's big loss this season left us with little reason to look at historical performance. Imo recent historical performance should be a piece of the puzzle, not the entire answer.
It's funny how many people have such distaste for using any part of recent performance, yet wasn't there a recent thread that spoke of chalk and cheese in the final 8- no upsets - and how common it is in D3 football?  That's because programs win.

[smedindy]

Teams win. Programs build teams each year. But it's a new team.

If programs win, Albion and Allegheny would still be playing due to their past success as a program.

[cover2]

IMO, there are only 2 elite programs/teams in D3...UWW and Mount.  They're the only 2 to have won any titles in the last 10 years qualifying them to be elite.  There are a handful of other great programs/teams but elite is a different level as far as I'm concerned. 

[emma17]

Teams win. Programs build teams each year. But it's a new team.

If programs win, Albion and Allegheny would still be playing due to their past success as a program.

I see it differently. When the program changes (in a negative way), teams lose.
People define elite differently, whether it's 2 or 4 or 6 teams, the fact is these teams are all the result of the strongest programs.

If a team wants the surest way to punch a Pool C ticket, beat or prove capable of beating the best programs.

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.   

This was actually a good question, and I wanted to come back to it.

You're looking at it the wrong way if you just say "If Team X got Team Y's draw they would have made..." because 31 teams could have advanced to Round 2 if they drew the 32nd-best team (probably Norwich this year), and similarly, at least 15 playoff teams probably could have made the quarters with Mount Union's draw...but as you stated, that doesn't mean those all would be top-8 teams.

So if you're trying to figure out whether HSU is a "first round" or "second round" or "quarterfinal" quality team, the better question is "Which teams that made the round of 16 would (Team X who lost in first round) have beaten?"

For HSU (eliminated in the first round), looking at the teams who made the round of 16, I think Albright is the only lock where I'd say "HSU is definitely better" than they are.  I think they're a toss-up against teams like Cortland State, Wesley, Johns Hopkins, Thomas More but I don't think you can say that they're definitely better than any of those teams.

Then, for Wheaton (eliminated in the second round): who is still playing in the round of 8 that they're clearly better than?  I don't think there are any obvious weak sisters left.  Maybe Wheaton is better than Wabash?  Maybe Wesley?  Possible.  Wheaton might be the sixth or seventh best team in the country.  They're a borderline-quarterfinal team, sure.  That's about where it ends.

As for how this relates to the original point re: a team like TLU...so let's assume UMHB is the 7th best team in the country and HSU is the 12th best.  Playing a 48-20 game that was within two scores in the fourth quarter against #7 and losing by a touchdown to #12 is a fine season, but why is that Pool C material?  Because they proved they can play a close game against a team that might have made the second round with the right draw and only kinda got killed by a quarterfinalist?

[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.   

This was actually a good question, and I wanted to come back to it.

You're looking at it the wrong way if you just say "If Team X got Team Y's draw they would have made..." because 31 teams could have advanced to Round 2 if they drew the 32nd-best team (probably Norwich this year), and similarly, at least 15 playoff teams probably could have made the quarters with Mount Union's draw...but as you stated, that doesn't mean those all would be top-8 teams.

So if you're trying to figure out whether HSU is a "first round" or "second round" or "quarterfinal" quality team, the better question is "Which teams that made the round of 16 would (Team X who lost in first round) have beaten?"

For HSU (eliminated in the first round), looking at the teams who made the round of 16, I think Albright is the only lock where I'd say "HSU is definitely better" than they are.  I think they're a toss-up against teams like Cortland State, Wesley, Johns Hopkins, Thomas More but I don't think you can say that they're definitely better than any of those teams.

Then, for Wheaton (eliminated in the second round): who is still playing in the round of 8 that they're clearly better than?  I don't think there are any obvious weak sisters left.  Maybe Wheaton is better than Wabash?  Maybe Wesley?  Possible.  Wheaton might be the sixth or seventh best team in the country.  They're a borderline-quarterfinal team, sure.  That's about where it ends.

As for how this relates to the original point re: a team like TLU...so let's assume UMHB is the 7th best team in the country and HSU is the 12th best.  Playing a 48-20 game that was within two scores in the fourth quarter against #7 and losing by a touchdown to #12 is a fine season, but why is that Pool C material?  Because they proved they can play a close game against a team that might have made the second round with the right draw and only kinda got killed by a quarterfinalist?

Wally asked:  "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 replied that TLU played UMHB super tough in the playoffs last year, they led H-S with 25 seconds left in the game, they did lose by 28 to UMHB but I give them half credit for being within 2 scores early in the fourth quarter and they beat ETB a 7-3 team that beat H-S.  I believe this is a significantly better body of work than Whitworth's.

No need to make it any more complicated than that.  If you think Whitworth had a better body of work that indicated they would be a tougher playoff opponent than TLU, that's your opinion.
   

[smedindy]

How does 2014 TLU have anything to do with the analysis of the 2015 TLU squad?

Is W&L's 10-0 regular season diminished by their lackluster 2014?

[wally_wabash]

I think you're reaching to say that TLU beating ETBU who beat Hardin-Simmons (and also lost to McMurry btw which is really relevant and conspicuously ignored here) is something that ought to serve as evidence that they should have been part of the 32.

Does TLU grade out better than Whitworth?  Maybe.  Kind of a coin toss for me, frankly.  But more to the point- I don't think either of those teams needed to be in the 32, so I also don't really care whether Whitworth was better than TLU or not. 

And to your point that TLU would have been more likely to win a game against one of the big boys- I mean, no.  Just no.  They weren't beating Linfield or UMHB or any of the other top teams.  They weren't going to be "more likely" to beat any of those teams either.  Zero percent chance for Whitworth.  Zero percent chance for TLU.  And Hardin-Simmons doesn't count in that group yet because they haven't been relevant in 7-8 years.  We don't know if Hardin-Simmons is a legit player again or if they kind of caught lightning in a bottle this year (like, Buffalo State in 2012 maybe).