Playoffs -- 2015

[USee]

Bleed

I am interested to know what specifically is different about UWW than it was 6 weeks ago? All teams transform over a season in some way, sometimes dramatically.  How is UWW different?

[Ralph Turner]

Huntingdon fans headed to Belton TX

Gasoline at the QT off I-20 exit 501 in Terrell TX (State Hwy 34) is selling for $1.439 a gallon.
If you take the Texas Hwy 31 shortcut thru Tyler TX, we have gas about $1.689 range.

Safe travels.

[K-Mack]

In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

Cap overall losses at 2 or 3.

[Ralph Turner]

I  think that we are safe at 26 Pool A bids plus one Pool B for the shuffling in the East Region, giving 5 at large.   Even with Pat Coleman's projection, I think that the East Region consolidates so we have 27 Pool A bids and no Pool B bids.

http://www.d3football.com/notables/2015/11/the-race-to-seven

I cannot believe that the NESCAC will join the playoffs.

The SCAC as a potential Pool A conference is off the table.

The UAA teams seem to like how they can fit into their regional neighbors and compete very effectively.  That should spark some life into those programs.  (Wandering mind... Does U Chicago affilate to become the 10th football school in the CCIW when Carroll returns?  Would Wash U go to the Midwest Conference to make the 12th when Carroll leaves?)

FTFY - pcole

[wally_wabash]

Ralph- WashU is in the CCIW in 2017 or 2018.  Chicago is the mystery team at the moment, but there must have been a plan in the works for them to leave the SAA so quickly. My guess is the MWC but the HCAC is a possibility. Maybe MIAA.

[Pat Coleman]

MWC makes the most sense, with the conference losing Carroll. But been taking their time about it, apparently.

[Ralph Turner]

Wally, thank you. +1!

[Ralph Turner]

A boatload of us are tied for 26th place in the D3Challenge. I guess the Cortland win over Salisbury was the miss for most of us.

I should be impressed with the 25 who predicted the Cortland win (but there were probably 20 Red Dragon faithful playing the Challenge.  :-)  )

I will stick with my Challenge picks.  There are three game where I see the road team having a very good chance to win, UWW, Wesley and TMC.

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

A boatload of us are tied for 26th place in the D3Challenge. I guess the Cortland win over Salisbury was the miss for most of us.

I should be impressed with the 25 who predicted the Cortland win (but there were probably 20 Red Dragon faithful playing the Challenge.  :-)  )

I will stick with my Challenge picks.  There are three game where I see the road team having a very good chance to win, UWW, Wesley and TMC.

I missed the ONU win.

[bleedpurple]

Bleed

I am interested to know what specifically is different about UWW than it was 6 weeks ago? All teams transform over a season in some way, sometimes dramatically.  How is UWW different?

Fair question. I will do my best to answer it. 

1. The coaches have now had a full season to figure out the true strengths and weaknesses of this roster.  I think this is a natural curve that will take place with any staff. UW-W coaches understandably leaned into last year's staff approach. The 2015 team has now created their own identity based on the talent of the players and the personality of the coaches.
2.  They have finally become consistently healthy. Offensively, the injured linemen and tight-end were a problem when they played UW-O on 10/10. They are now healthier. While still missing two starters, they have now played long enough for the "new group" to develop a cohesiveness among them. The "back-ups" are playing excellent football and the offensive line appears to be peaking.
3. Chris Nelson is gaining more confidence and getting better every week. 10/10 was only his third competitive start. He is now more comfortable going through his progression patiently.  His rapport with OC Smith has developed to a very high level.  On 10/10, he had two starting wide receivers and a starting tight end out. These were newer injuries and he didn't yet have a rapport with some of the others. Now one of the receivers are back in the line up and Nelson has had more time with the entire group.He's had an excellent year, completing over 70% of his WIAC passes with only two interceptions.
4.  The offensive philosophy changed from patiently pounding the rock until the other team wears down to pounding the rock with the intent of doing very bad things to the opponent from the get-go. As a result, their confidence level is much higher and they are playing with an edge.
5.  The defensive front seven's level of play is sick. Significantly stronger than last year IMO because of substantial player development. It's obvious in watching them that there are very special players in that group.
6. The development of the running back position. Starting the year,UW-W had a "three headed monster" at running back. At UW-O, two of the three did not play due to injury and the backups were two freshmen with very little experience. Now Nick Patterson is back and both freshmen have gained experienced and are playing well.
7. Marcus Hudson and Canton Larson have emerged as big play threats. Hudson is a dominant wide-receiver and the athletic Larson is making big plays from several different positions on the field.

In short, they got the Jimmy and Joes. Now the coaches have learned their strengths well and having them playing with confidence and an edge.

[wesleydad]

So after it is all said and done all #1 seeds make the 1/4's and either 2 or 3's are the others.  Nothing much changes year after year.  Oshkosh is proving the WIAC is strong as some have stated.  UMHB, Wesley, and UWW keep winning despite season loses.  The 1/4's look to be interesting.  The WIAC rematch and the Linfield/UMHB rematch from last year a likely the better 2 games.  Hopefully Wesley will show up and make a game of it.  Wabash may be in trouble against what looks like a strong St. Thomas team.  This week should be fun.

[Ralph Turner]

Playoffs update

Upper left bracket

Purple vs Wabash Red


Lower Left bracket

Purple vs purple



Upper Right Bracket

Purple vs Wesley Navy blue



Lower Right Bracket


Purple vs Oshkosh Black Yellow

[edward de vere]

HS Coach predicts an Oshkosh win by 35 points.

Oshkosh wins by 35 points.

Nobody likes a showoff.  I'm just sayin'.

[Mr. Ypsi]

In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

Cap overall losses at 2 or 3.

Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.  (SOS is supposed to do that, but it is clearly inadequate to the task, besides being a seriously flawed stat in it's own right.)

I'll leave the previous paragraph, but now realize you were talking more about AQ teams than B/C teams (where there has always been de facto a 2-loss limit).  A 2-loss limit would clearly be unfair to balanced conferences with several good teams (E8, ODAC, etc., immediately spring to mind) where even one OOC loss might eliminate the champion from the tourney.  Even 3 might be iffy, though certainly open to discussion.  But I could certainly entertain the possibility of a 4+ loss conference champion losing the AQ for that season for the conference.  (In fact, for the 4+ scenario, I think I would support it even with the current number of B/C teams! )

[AO]

Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.  (SOS is supposed to do that, but it is clearly inadequate to the task, besides being a seriously flawed stat in it's own right.)

"Results against regionally ranked teams" takes care of NCC.  The North RAC and national committee could have put NCC in front of Ohio Northern using that criteria, but they clearly didn't think as much of Platteville as we did.  Maybe if NCC had played Oshkosh or St. Thomas, the extra loss wouldn't have hurt as much.