2019 Pool C

[Pat Coleman]

Just to add some chaos to the mix, IF TLU upsets UMHB on 11/9, what would be the argument for making UMHB a Pool C Bid?

I think defending National Champion is the beginning and end of the argument for UMHB as a Pool C.

Which was the same logic used when Mount lost to JCU back in 2016.

So winning a national title is an automatic bid for the next season?  That is a terrible precedent IMHO.  There has to be more objective criteria to give UMHB a pool C bid (if they lose to TLU) than "they won it last year".

For a 9-1 team? Yes, perhaps. I don't think this would be super controversial, either.

[Oline89]

Just to add some chaos to the mix, IF TLU upsets UMHB on 11/9, what would be the argument for making UMHB a Pool C Bid?

I think defending National Champion is the beginning and end of the argument for UMHB as a Pool C.

Which was the same logic used when Mount lost to JCU back in 2016.

So winning a national title is an automatic bid for the next season?  That is a terrible precedent IMHO.  There has to be more objective criteria to give UMHB a pool C bid (if they lose to TLU) than "they won it last year".

For a 9-1 team? Yes, perhaps. I don't think this would be super controversial, either.

Even if there are other 9-1 teams with better 2019 criteria (better SOS, wins against RRO, etc?)  Just questioning the objectivity, I agree that it makes a far better tournament to have last year's (and perennial dominant team) champ in the playoffs.   

[wally_wabash]

Bottom line, SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else in the playoffs.

There's reasonable debate to be had that SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else.  They never had a lead in the ballgame, for one.  Definitely enough uncertainty there that I wouldn't proclaim "bottom line..." on that.  And definitely not clear enough to start throwing St. John's extra seeding consideration for performing "better" than Mount Union. 

They would have been a hot knife through butter in the East last year.

This is some more speculation that we shouldn't just accept as fact.  There are good teams in the East region, you guys.  There really are.  Mount Union/UMHB level good teams?  Nope.  But you know who else has teams that are consistently THAT good?  Nobody.  Nobody else routinely competes with those teams either.  So I don't know that is just understood that SJU would have ripped their way through what you're calling the East region (assume this means the quadrant eventually won by Hopkins).  Certainly, they could have won three games in that quadrant.  But we shouldn't act as if it would have been three weeks of Martin Luthers and then the semis. 

[Baldini]

Bottom line, SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else in the playoffs.

There's reasonable debate to be had that SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else.  They never had a lead in the ballgame, for one.  Definitely enough uncertainty there that I wouldn't proclaim "bottom line..." on that.  And definitely not clear enough to start throwing St. John's extra seeding consideration for performing "better" than Mount Union. 

They would have been a hot knife through butter in the East last year.

This is some more speculation that we shouldn't just accept as fact.  There are good teams in the East region, you guys.  There really are.  Mount Union/UMHB level good teams?  Nope.  But you know who else has teams that are consistently THAT good?  Nobody.  Nobody else routinely competes with those teams either.  So I don't know that is just understood that SJU would have ripped their way through what you're calling the East region (assume this means the quadrant eventually won by Hopkins).  Certainly, they could have won three games in that quadrant.  But we shouldn't act as if it would have been three weeks of Martin Luthers and then the semis.

HEY,HEY,HEY easy with the Martin Luther reference. That Martin Luther team would run roughshod through the east, well the ECFC anyways. 

[hazzben]

I hear ya Wally. I do think SJU played UMHB the toughest, but even calling it a push with Mount, the point stands. They got a brutal draw. And with Erdmann playing hurt for part of the game, they came within a hair's breadth of victory.

And I also agree that there are quality teams in the "east" region. But time and again the top of that quadrant has come up short nationally. Part of the playoffs is that it is about attrition. Yes, teams can throw out "you have to beat the best to be the best" and that's true, to a point. But if you have to go through a murderers row to make the semi's, you are going to lose players. And I think history has shown that typically the easiest path to the Stagg has resided in the "east region." So having that #1 seed is a boon.

Last year, when the dust settled there wasn't a single East Region team in the Top 10. We just don't have the ability/funding to ensure a truly national playoffs (it sucks but it's reality). Flights force us into early round games we don't want. And we can't perfectly balance the Quadrant's the way we'd like. But it isn't impossible for us to achieve, as a starting point, a bracket where the #1 seeds are selected on criteria, without regard to geography. Maybe I'm off, but I think you start with the top 4 teams as #1 seeds, and then give into the limitations that exist when it comes to building the bracket.

And to clarify, I'm not saying Ithaca can't be a #1 or shouldn't be (I actually think they look really good). I just don't want it to be because, "well, they were an undefeated East team ranked #1 in their region, so they deserved to be a #1." If they are #1 worthy, so be it. But let it be decided on published criteria, and not an unwritten rule that says each region's top team gets a 1 seed. If Wheaton is one of the best 4 they shouldn't be penalized for being in Mount's region. I admit it's probably a lost cause though 

[Ithaca798891]

I think Wally and Hazzben are both right, to a degree.

It's frustrating when some people dismiss East region teams as paper tigers based on, it seems, the mere fact that they're the East region teams.

But you know, that's what happens when you don't beat elite teams from other regions.

I was thinking about this wrt to IC getting a #1 seed. Obviously, I want that to happen, because it means more home games. But ultimately, IC is IC regardless of seed. They have the same strengths and weaknesses. Either that's good enough to take down a UWW/SJU-type team, or it isn't. Alfred showed us that much in 2016 against Mount Union.

It used to bug me, but now I'm just of the mindset that the East needs to have a team handle its business.

[wally_wabash]

I hear ya Wally. I do think SJU played UMHB the toughest, but even calling it a push with Mount, the point stands. They got a brutal draw. And with Erdmann playing hurt for part of the game, they came within a hair's breadth of victory.

And I also agree that there are quality teams in the "east" region. But time and again the top of that quadrant has come up short nationally. Part of the playoffs is that it is about attrition. Yes, teams can throw out "you have to beat the best to be the best" and that's true, to a point. But if you have to go through a murderers row to make the semi's, you are going to lose players. And I think history has shown that typically the easiest path to the Stagg has resided in the "east region." So having that #1 seed is a boon.

Last year, when the dust settled there wasn't a single East Region team in the Top 10. We just don't have the ability/funding to ensure a truly national playoffs (it sucks but it's reality). Flights force us into early round games we don't want. And we can't perfectly balance the Quadrant's the way we'd like. But it isn't impossible for us to achieve, as a starting point, a bracket where the #1 seeds are selected on criteria, without regard to geography. Maybe I'm off, but I think you start with the top 4 teams as #1 seeds, and then give into the limitations that exist when it comes to building the bracket.

And to clarify, I'm not saying Ithaca can't be a #1 or shouldn't be (I actually think they look really good). I just don't want it to be because, "well, they were an undefeated East team ranked #1 in their region, so they deserved to be a #1." If they are #1 worthy, so be it. But let it be decided on published criteria, and not an unwritten rule that says each region's top team gets a 1 seed. If Wheaton is one of the best 4 they shouldn't be penalized for being in Mount's region. I admit it's probably a lost cause though

The thing is that if SJU gets a top seed, they aren't all of a sudden going be in a quadrant with 7 East region teams.  You're going to wind up with Mount Union top-lining a quadrant that is East heavy, and SJU is still going to have play Martin Luther and then some pretty good West region teams after that.  SJU's geography is NEVER going to get them away from all of the big bads for very long.  They are going to bump into UWW or UMHB or Linfield (if they ever find another Sam Riddle) sooner rather than later.

And then, if history is an indicator, we'll have to endure whinging about how Mount Union got the easy path to the finals because they squashed a bunch of East region teams.  And the East region slander will be perpetuated because they can't ever beat Mount Union.  It's a vicious cycle.  BTW, Mount Union is the outlier in that equation, not the top teams in the East region.  It's really not fair to them to have to meet Mount Union's standard or else be garbage.  There's middle ground there. 

[jamtod]

I don't think anyone is advocating for SJU to get the East bracket, just that they have a good case for a #1 seed

That said, it's not as if Mount Union is the only team to knock off the easts top competitor.

[USee]

I hear ya Wally. I do think SJU played UMHB the toughest, but even calling it a push with Mount, the point stands. They got a brutal draw. And with Erdmann playing hurt for part of the game, they came within a hair's breadth of victory.

And I also agree that there are quality teams in the "east" region. But time and again the top of that quadrant has come up short nationally. Part of the playoffs is that it is about attrition. Yes, teams can throw out "you have to beat the best to be the best" and that's true, to a point. But if you have to go through a murderers row to make the semi's, you are going to lose players. And I think history has shown that typically the easiest path to the Stagg has resided in the "east region." So having that #1 seed is a boon.

Last year, when the dust settled there wasn't a single East Region team in the Top 10. We just don't have the ability/funding to ensure a truly national playoffs (it sucks but it's reality). Flights force us into early round games we don't want. And we can't perfectly balance the Quadrant's the way we'd like. But it isn't impossible for us to achieve, as a starting point, a bracket where the #1 seeds are selected on criteria, without regard to geography. Maybe I'm off, but I think you start with the top 4 teams as #1 seeds, and then give into the limitations that exist when it comes to building the bracket.

And to clarify, I'm not saying Ithaca can't be a #1 or shouldn't be (I actually think they look really good). I just don't want it to be because, "well, they were an undefeated East team ranked #1 in their region, so they deserved to be a #1." If they are #1 worthy, so be it. But let it be decided on published criteria, and not an unwritten rule that says each region's top team gets a 1 seed. If Wheaton is one of the best 4 they shouldn't be penalized for being in Mount's region. I admit it's probably a lost cause though

The thing is that if SJU gets a top seed, they aren't all of a sudden going be in a quadrant with 7 East region teams.  You're going to wind up with Mount Union top-lining a quadrant that is East heavy, and SJU is still going to have play Martin Luther and then some pretty good West region teams after that.  SJU's geography is NEVER going to get them away from all of the big bads for very long.  They are going to bump into UWW or UMHB or Linfield (if they ever find another Sam Riddle) sooner rather than later.

And then, if history is an indicator, we'll have to endure whinging about how Mount Union got the easy path to the finals because they squashed a bunch of East region teams.  And the East region slander will be perpetuated because they can't ever beat Mount Union.  It's a vicious cycle.  BTW, Mount Union is the outlier in that equation, not the top teams in the East region.  It's really not fair to them to have to meet Mount Union's standard or else be garbage.  There's middle ground there.

Wally,

Your argument is more true for the North #2 for the past 20 years. Every year they get Mt Union and don't have a path to the Quarters or semis. Wait a couple of times Mt Union gets sent east....but then we get UWW. There are good teams in the North besides Mt Union....I promise. Its a much more compelling argument than the occasional East snub.

[repete]

No doubt there are some other very good North teams, including this season. Got a feeling it could be a great tournament. Still, it's beyond pie in the sky to hope for balanced brackets.

Since we're talking history: Since MUC (now UMU) won its first Stagg, how many other programs from the North have won the walnut and bronze?

How many from the East? The West?

[Ralph Turner]

No doubt there are some other very good North teams, including this season. Got a feeling it could be a great tournament. Still, it's beyond pie in the sky to hope for balanced brackets.

Since we're talking history: Since MUC (now UMU) won its first Stagg, how many other programs from the North have won the walnut and bronze?

How many from the East? The West?

Since MUC/UMU won in 1996,

West: PLU 1999, SJU 2003, Linfield 2004, UWW 6 times
South: UMHB 1+
East: None

[tf37]

No doubt there are some other very good North teams, including this season. Got a feeling it could be a great tournament. Still, it's beyond pie in the sky to hope for balanced brackets.

Since we're talking history: Since MUC (now UMU) won its first Stagg, how many other programs from the North have won the walnut and bronze?

How many from the East? The West?

Or you can find it all here https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index

[bleedpurple]

I find this discussion fascinating every year. Every year we break down the criteria and make the arguments. Try to anticipate how the committees will choose to split the hairs.  But, without a rule to support it, the committee takes the previous years' Stagg Bowl participants and gives them the Top two seeds as long as they are undefeated. I don't have a particular problem with that. But I would like to hear the rationale because people who are so adamant about criteria later in the process seem to have zero problem with criteria being thrown out the window at the top of the process.

UMHB is a completely different team this year without KJ and Markeith Miller, no? They have played one decent, not great, team and barely won. They beat 1-6  Belhaven by 10 with no weather mitigation. The NCAA seem to be sticklers for the criteria. Why don't they change the criteria for the top "seeds" or follow the criteria that's  in place?

Anyone who is a stickler regarding the criteria and has no problem with "looking the other way" at UMHB's pathetic SOS, I'd love to hear your reasoning. I'm not even sure I disagree, but I am not comfortable with the inconsistency.

They added the ability to consider the previous year's championship so that we wouldn't repeat the injustice done to UWW  in 2010.  It's literally the UWW rule.

Trust me. I remember and I get it. I guess I wish they would codify it. Otherwise it feels like USee is right. It matters unless it doesn't. And maybe that's OK, if it's really clear that level of subjectivity by the committee is perfectly acceptable. For example, let's say UW-P ends the season at 9-1 and are in second place in the WIAC. The rest of the WIAC cannibalizes each other and no opponent other than UW-W is regionally ranked. Criteria-wise, not so good.  But UW-P went 9-1 as part of the strongest conference in the country. Is that a "no brainer", we aren't going to leave them out because the criteria doesn't serve us well? Or is that a case, too bad UW-P, this other 9-1 team played a bunch of teams between 100 and 150th best in the country but a couple snuck into the bottom of a different region's rankings so you are out?  And I guess my ultimate question is, are we OK either way because there's no right answer?

[repete]

No doubt there are some other very good North teams, including this season. Got a feeling it could be a great tournament. Still, it's beyond pie in the sky to hope for balanced brackets.

Since we're talking history: Since MUC (now UMU) won its first Stagg, how many other programs from the North have won the walnut and bronze?

How many from the East? The West?

Or you can find it all here https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index

Actually, I knew before i asked. And while RT started at 1996, you can add UW-LaCrosse (west) and Albion (north) to the list since MUC's 1993 title.

Helps explain why the "West" bracket is often so stacked and if you want to make a small step toward balancing the brackets, that might be a good place to start.

[Ralph Turner]

bleedpurple, for almost as long as this website has been going, and as long as we have watched the debates about the last at large team to be selected, we have accepted the debates and the angst of the last team selected and the teams left on the table.

A few seasons ago, Linfield adopted the motto, "Leave no doubt".

I am just glad we have the playoff as it is now.

We would have more "wailing and gnashing of teeth" if we had 8 or 9 Pool C bids, so let's enjoy the 5 that we have.

I would prefer our moving to a Division IV for those programs and conferences that like a "shorter season" or a different emphasis, if I could get another 4 to 8 post-season bids. (Maybe 8 playoff bids for one group of schools who might want to settle the season in 14 weeks, and another group of bids, maybe 28 to 30, for those who don't mind the 16 week season.) Alas, that is a discussion for another board.