95 thoughts on “2010 Playoff Bracket is released – React here!”

1. And thank, Keith, for running the show again while I was on camera. Hope everyone downloads the bracket because I hear the on-screen display of the bracket didn’t give all the info we give.

2. Where IS everyone?

   Okay, it’s only 3:36.

   Here’s a little bit about who missed out, as promised:

   Rowan (9-1): Usually a one-loss NJAC team is a great bet to get in in Pool C — it worked for Montclair State — but for the second time since ’06 one got left out.

   This is the No. 33 team aka the last team on the board that didn’t get in. And basically they graded out the same as Montclair State, but the committee had to put MSU in first because of the 26-7 h2h result. And since I think MSU and Coe were the last two teams in, it means either Rowan never made it on the board to get discussed, or PLU and Redlands never did.

   The committee chair is also the Rowan AD. She had to step out of the Pool C conversation; and give the committee credit for avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest there and also for letting common sense prevail when the numbers slightly favored Rowan.

   more to come …

3. They put the seeds in the brackets this year. At least they came back to reality.

4. I can understand in the West bracket a 1st round Wartburg-Coe matchup was to be avoided, but moving Wartburg to #3 and Coe up to #7? Shouldn’t Wartburg be #2 and Coe #8 since UWW was moved out?

5. I agree with Keith that they nailed it. Finally! UWW as a 2 seed is the only thing I disagree with, and it’s baffling, but consistent with the regional rankings that have been released. I am excited by the possibility of both MU and UWW going on the road in the playoffs, although I hope Mt. has to stay home because they’re playing the 2 seed from the St. Thomas bracket.

   Is there a reason why the Wartburg game is at 2:00? That would be 1:00 local time.

6. YOU SHOULD BE FIRED! I hope the President of the University does that on Monday! How do you keep your own school that is more than deserving no to mention 9-1 team out of the mix? Riddle me that ? How you let mediocre teams in this tournament is obvious that you don’t want a quality team like Rowan in the tournament once again YOUR OWN SCHOOL !!!!!!! Where are we in grade school where we don’t wanna offend someone? How does a team that is ranked #2 in the East and 20th nationally not get in Montclair was Rowans’ 2nd game of the season and ALL teams were knoocking off the rust. Rowan obviously has proven itself this season. HOW DARE YOU do this to these young men ? Better yet RESIGN !!!!!

7. PLU (8-1): Had the impressive win against a regionally ranked team (Cal Lutheran) and the Willamette win was big too. Unfortunately, the .490 SoS figure hurt a lot. PLU also would have benefited by having

   35-7 loss to Linfield doesn’t help the anecdotal part, not when there are four-point and one-point losses to conference champions also on the board.

   I think the very point of Pool C is to reward those teams who were one play or one day away from being undefeated. Any other year PLU gets in.

   And before you ask, No I don’t think this had anything to do with West Coast bias. Pat didn’t project PLU in last night and I couldn’t find a way to bend it so they’d get in either. The only way would have been if Willamette had made the West Regional Rankings then they’d have had a 2-1 record vs. RROs, which no one had.

   But the West (region, not coast) is too loaded, because UST/Bethel, UWW, Coe/Wart/Central, Linfield CLU and Redlands all had to be regionally ranked as well. PLU makes 10.

   Redlands (8-1). These guys have the least to complain about because they were never truly in the discussion, and yet I feel for them as much as anyone because they get the short end of the stick a lot. On one hand, they are a 40-yard blocked FG attempt from being unbeaten; that’s exactly what Pool C is for. On the other, Redlands had zero wins over RRO and literally every other Pool C team except Bethel had one. Redlands had a good SoS at .518 (Bethel was .502) but I think the fact they played such a highly ranked St. Thomas team so close made them a common-sense pick, and the numbers weren’t too far out of whack.

   Redlands did schedule ETBU and Whitworth, but same as PLU, a 10th game could have put that SoS figure up where Hampden-Sydney’s was (.539) which is close to can’t-ignore territory, and plus HSC had a W over RRO Salisbury. One more game is one more opportunity for that W.

   In the end, I think all three of these teams are Pool C locks in a weaker year.

   Tough, tough breaks guys.

   Also, I’ll have to post this later tonight or talk about it on the podcast, but the last four teams on the board, by region, I believe, would have to be Rowan, Wabash, Louisiana College>HSU and PLU>Redlands.

8. What about Wabash? They played solid yesterday in the Monon Bell Classic.

9. Rulesdabeach: The Rowan AD, the chair of the committee, cannot even be in the room when Rowan is on the board for discussion. Joy Solomen had no part in that discussion.

   Also, the part of your comment which I edited out was rude and uncalled for in an open forum.

10. I am really excited and disappointed in this bracket. Let’s talk about the negative. SOS is important sure, but the guys on the field have nothing to do with that! It is scheduled years ahead in some cases, by people who don’t play the games, and to make that the deciding factor in seeding is a bit sickening. It is too D1 for my tastes (Unbeaten Boise gets left out when 1 Loss SEC team gets in). How an unbeaten team ever gets seeded lower than a team that has lost will never make sense to me.

    Wartburg, Trine, and Wittenberg all have legitimate beefs should they lose in the first round this year. SOS should only matter with all other things being equal.

11. Keith – as an ODAC guy, I am surprised that you didn’t discuss the committee’s decision to seed Hampden-Sydney ahead of conference champion Washington and Lee in the south (Wesley) bracket. Yeah, W&L has two losses on the season, but both came in September and the Generals reeled off seven straight wins to close out the season, including an 11-point victory over HSC just two weeks ago. I find it baffling that HSC is given the luxury of hosting their first round game, while the ODAC champion is sent on the road to take on an undefeated Thomas More squad that was barely challenged during the regular season. It seems that the committee ignored both the regional rankings (W&L was ahead of HSC this week, though a weak opponent in Juniata may have changed the SOS) and also the head-to-head result between the two teams.

12. hamst64: The Division III cross country national championships are at Wartburg that morning, too. The time change is to allow for staffing to cover both.

13. Nice to look at pairings and seedings BUT if you don’t win the games, it really doesn’t matter. As to give me the easier opponent and hope others beat the better teams, could be a cheap way to win the National Championship. If that is the case, go back to voting. I love the playoffs.

14. I personally liked the teams left out of the bracket, except you could have a case for Pacific Lutheran getting in. I just can’t fathom the fact that Cortland State barely beat Ithaca got a #2 seed. The only reason the west keeps getting stronger is because the eastern states have such weak apponents. Space out the bracket and make it an equal field all around the nation, like ncaa basketball. The travel regulations are bad for football. It’s 2010 and these kids pay a lot for school, can’t they at least get a bracket worth paying for

15. Still confused how UMHB is #2 in the south. UMHB seems to get shafted almost every year by either who they play or where they play, and this looks no different to me.

16. Pat – thanks, I figured it was something like that. Just wanted to make sure it wasn’t a typo.

    Grant – we’re fortunate they pay for us to have a tournament this size at all. D3 football does not make money. We’re also fortunate that most of the teams are clustered in the northeast and midwest, which does allow for quite a bit of flexibility within the travel guidelines. It’s nice to see that North Central may have a chance to play Whitewater instead of Mt. Union this year.

    Additionally, it would have been nice, given that there was only one Texas team in the field, to send one of the west coast teams to UMHB, but that would mess up the seedings even more.

17. Rulesdabeach: You actually should be relieved. They did you a favor…now you won’t have to deal with the inevitable shame and despair you would have felt when Rowan made their normal run through the “loaded” East and then was drubbed by someone from the ______ (fill in the blank[north/south/west]) bracket. The Prez surely didn’t want to take the application hit that surely follows a 52-0 playoff loss.

    On another note…lots of speculation on why Cal Lu couldn’t host. Anybody know what the official reason? Was it the facility itself?

18. downtown48: Yes. They are knocking the stadium down this offseason to replace it. Demolition hasn’t started yet but the facility is not up to NCAA playoff standards.

19. umhb2001: What are you confused about? UMHB has been behind Wesley in the regional polls (and the national ones, although those are not part of the selection process). Wesley has a better strength of schedule — in fact, best in Division III.

20. Thanks Pat! Wow, unlucky timing on the new stadium!

21. A couple quick replies; when work is over I can go more in depth.

    Obviously fans of the left out teams are mad/disappointed, as other fans would be if shoes were on other foot.

    Re: H-SC getting a home game, Those are decided with overall picture in mind, and W&L having lost to Averett AND Franklin & Marshall got them sent on the road despite the h2h with H-SC. It’s weird, there are times when h2h rules all, and it should, like in Montclair vs. Rowan, since all else was nearly equal. In W&L’s case I think they could have been seeded higher than H-SC off h2h alone, and they would have been with just one loss, or maybe even if it were one to a playoff team and another to an off-the-grid team.

    With two losses to non-playoff teams, I think getting sent on the road is a fair deal for W&L, though it still doesn’t add up with the win over H-SC, I admit.

    @Marsipp22 and the emphasis on SoS, great points and I agree for the most part. But I also think the committee is saying hey if you’d played Wabash non-conference instead of Bluffton or Manchester, you might be 9-1 instead of 10-0 too.

    It’s definitely peculiar that DePauw just got drubbed and has a common opponent with Witt and they’re at home and Witt isn’t. That’s probably a legit gripe, but DePauw’s .549-.440 SoS advantage over Witt is not just BCS-y stuff, it has real consequences here in D3. If teams think they can skate through the regular season to 10-0 without playing anyone non-conference that could really beat them, to ensure they get in, then teams start to schedule soft and they lose the true challenges and we fans lose the good September matchups.

    I applaud the committee for rewarding the teams with the most difficult schedules (at least by the SoS metric) and I think it does the entire Division a world of good in the long run.

    Re: West Coast Bias.
    Geographic location is simply the lowest common denominator between PLU and Redlands. PLU has the lowest SoS in Pool C at .490 though two teams got in at .493 with 1-1 records vs. RROs like PLU.

    Redlands simply didn’t beat anyone that was regionally ranked and placed up against the nine teams in contention for the six spots, that left them in a tough spot even though they had a .518 SoS.

    I think all nine teams had decent cases for a bid and in most years PLU, Rowan or Redlands is in easy.

    This year, the two West teams weren’t in in Pat’s final projection, and Pat loves all of D3 and has no reason for a West Coast bias.

    Certainly the West Coast can say well, our teams would have been better served by a 10th game, perhaps against each other, and because we couldn’t afford it/get it, we get left out … but the East Region fans are making the exact opposite argument, that because it’s so easy for teams to get games, one is bound to pick up a loss, and the emphasis on W-L record makes it hard to properly evaluate them.

    Long story short: There are only 32 spots, and the AQ is the only way you guarantee your way in. Everything else is open to interpretation.

    Nine teams for six spots, not counting Wabash or LC … Three HAD to be left out, one way or another.

22. I’ve been corrected on PLU, it was a 35-20 loss to Linfield.

    35-7 was the Linfield-Willamette score.

    Margin of victory is not technically criteria anyway so I might be confusing you by bringing it up. I feel like when things are close to even, a team like Bethel with only a 10-6 loss to St. Thomas, gets the benefit of the doubt.

23. To All

    I am certainly not an expert like Keith and Pat, but SoS and OSoS are hardly fair. UMHB, as I see it from limited info, can hardly schedule a strong non conference schedule. Location and team history keep us from being able to schedule strong teams. When you play on the east coast and have that many teams closer to you, you can obviously schedule tougher teams. This will most likely always inhibit UMHB. A conference’s SoS and OSoS seems to be a better idea, if that is even possible, when considering region placement.

24. Agree with @maripp2002. Something that players cannot control (SOS) should never trump something they can control (record).

25. this is a joke, but it’s not very funny. how the hell can UWW win the national title, bring a bunch of guys back, run the table and look good doing it and be practically the unanimous #1 pick in the D3 poll the whole season and be rated 5th in the country?

    the clowns who put this together are worse than the ones who do the division 1 basketball brackets.

26. Someone asked, though I think on the Post Patterns thread and not here, what UW-W could have done to get a 1 seed.

    Basically, the answer is not schedule two NAIA teams. Which is a tough answer, because I’m sure UW-W looked for D3 games and would have played anyone that wanted a piece of them.

    The realities being what they are, though — and @umhb2001, this answer should work for you, and for the PLU/Redlands fans too — the committee is placed in the position of basically having to punish another team that WAS able to get those games as a way to compensate for whatever reason other teams can’t get that 10th game or all D3 games or tough games within its region (although UMHB has been able to schedule CNU, UWW and NWC teams, so I’m not sure I buy that UMHB can’t do it).

    The committee very easily could have just made UWW a 1 and North Central a 2 and no one would have batted an eye … but instead of trying to do what was easiest, they tried to do what was most fair, and I applaud them for that. If two of the top seeds are basically already given out, then Wesley, UST, NC and UMHB didn’t really have a chance in getting one of four, just one of two.

    FWIW.

27. A previous poster asked “What about Wabash?” I’m disappointed the Little Giants didn’t make the playoffs, but not nearly as much as with their loss to WUSTL. That game may well have kept them from being seeded above the NCAC champions.

28. On a related note – because I don’t know how this was decided and haven’t seen any comments/speculation, do you know the criteria the NCAA used to seed the top 4 teams in each of the 4 brackets. Did it come down to SOS or something else? Could it have been something else like national ranking? In the first couple of weeks of the post season one would tend to think that it wouldn’t matter much, provided the top teams aren’t surprised. But as the season grinds down to a close those rankings become a little more important because they dictate who goes where. Could it have been something like travel constraints that determined the top 4 seeds? Finally, If you had to rank the remaining 32 teams left for the year, how would you rank them before the playoffs begin? Ie, is the number 4 seed in the south ahead or behind the number 4 seed in the east, etc?

29. @buddy,
    I explained it above. The SoS figure was worst, by a lot, among the six teams in contention for a 1.

    That said I really wouldn’t worry about it, it plays right into your hands. A team that could be expected to coast back to Salem now has a reason to get PO’d two weeks prior, and North Central (IFFFFF they even get through; they were the No. 1 in ’08 and lost in Round 2) is near enough that UWW can go to Bendetti-Wehrli and be chanting Pound the Rock.

    I’m not saying I would have made them a 2 if I were on the committee, but I am saying this makes the tournament more compelling.

30. art76, good questions. I have to address them later because I really need to work, but I would love to.

    The No. 1s are ranked after the 32 are picked at the beginning of the seeding process, using the same criteria used to evaluate Pool C candidates … overall record, SoS, results vs. regionally ranked opponents, results vs. in-region teams, etc.

    In the most recent ATN at the bottom there’s a link to the handbook with the exact wording.

31. I don’t know how people are so upset over using SOS and OSOS as part of a rating system for teams. The fact that they are scheduled years before playing is almost irrelevant in D3. Everyone knows who the good teams are. The teams that are in the mix for the playoffs are usually there every year. Schools know well ahead of time whether or not they scheduled a quality team…

    The only team that hasn’t been addressed for not making the playoffs is Wabash..

    I have to say I’m with d3ftball59. Looking at the teams left, I feel that Wabash got snubbed. They are the only team that was in the Pool C discussion with 2-1 record over RR opponents. Wabash scheduled Depauw (9-1), Chicago (8-2), and Wash U. (7-3) for their non-conference games. They also have a history of winning several games in the playoffs. Any feedback as to why they didn’t get in?

32. And now that I’ve said that, it would be interesting to have your guys input on on how each of the 4 teams in each of the 8 rankings/seedings would fare stacked up against each other using the “normal criteria” that the NCAA takes into account for filling up the post season brackets. That would give us fans out here that don’t have the opportunity to see as many games as you guys do during the year some insight into how teams stack up against one another at this point in the season.

33. How did St. Thomas get ranked so high? Who did they beat? They ran away from scheduling WIAC teams after a couple years of getting hammered by them in non conference games. Why reward their cowardice?

34. “The committee very easily could have just made UWW a 1 and North Central a 2 and no one would have batted an eye … but instead of trying to do what was easiest, they tried to do what was most fair, and I applaud them for that.

    Considering you have stated that Whitewater (and voted) was number 1 overall, I’m curious how you can consider that fair. When teams and conferences offer their schedules up to all schools (despite success)equally then we can cavalierly call this nonsense fair.

35. I started talking about 2 loss teams on a previous thread and Keith responded and was going to respond a little further when he had the time. I am a new comer to all of this, really only paying attention for the past 2 years or so. I live in Louisiana and am constantly agonizing over the miserable BCS and my beloved tigers. I have always wanted a playoff system and now that my son plays d3 football I am getting a taste of this particular format. The BCS system is fraught with error and finds itself dealing with continuous controversy over the top 5 or 6 teams and ultimately who is playing for the national championship. The problem with the system in d3 is that multiple top 20 teams and perhaps even some top 10 teams are left out of the playoffs because of the multiple conference winners. BTW I understand I am probably saying nothing original and really am asking for opinions from those of you far more knowledgeable about this then I. I guess I am concerned with the Benecdictines of the world getting a playoff slot over Rowan, Wabash,pacific Lutheran etc etc, . I forgot who Benecdictine was playing first while typing this but I would bet the score will be 45 to 0 before half. I have nothing against Benedictine, I just wonder if d3 football is best served by this? Has there ever been ideas put out there about perhaps at least putting some qualifiers on the weak conference champions. Perhaps requiring that they must have standards set for both strength of schedule and w/l to qualify for an automatic bid. Am I being Naieve or harsh in thinking this way? I again apologize if this has all been discussed ad nauseum and I am just a Johnnie come lately.

    One other quick question. I am curious for some scouting reports on Coe? How do the experts think the match up with Wheaton. on paper it looks like a good game. Thanks in advance.

36. Call me paranoid, especially since Keith acts like there are seeds to this bracket, but do we need to be concerned at all that on NCAA’s site it does not list the seeds on the PDF or interactive bracket when it does on the DII bracket?

37. Cru: “Acts like?” The NCAA gave us the seeds on the record and ESPN aired them. They are official. If the NCAA.com people want to display an incomplete bracket, I guess that’s their loss. I think we did a little more reporting than NCAA.com did!

38. Thanks Pat, I know I am paranoid but for some odd reason I have grown to distrust the NCAA.

39. Chicago should be in! They beat two of the seven teams in pool b. They deserved to make it. Schedule strenght is arbitrary until week 11. At. Norbert makes it out of a conference that is equivelent to playing in Div 4.

40. trainer – The short answer is, it’s a fundamental tennet of how NCAA Championships work in all sports, in all divisions. Every conference gets a bid. Why should a conference that pays their dues and operates within the rules of the NCAA be denied a bid? Who should decide with conferences are “worthy” and by what criteria? Every other championship operated by the NCAA has this fundamental pillar. Why is Division III football so unique that they should be an exception to this rule?

41. There are 28 teams in Pool B, not seven.

42. Wittfann: Wheaton can’t control playing a strong schedule, either. But they performed better than Wittenberg did.

    To borrow what Keith already said: The committee may be telling Wittenberg that if it had played North Central, it also would have been 9-1.

43. Keith mentioned PLU vs. Redlands — remember that there’s a common opponent in here too, and PLU beat Cal Lutheran while Redlands lost to Cal Lu.

44. @Pat Coleman, Using that logic, then the committee is also saying that had Whitewater played North Central, Whitewater would be 9-1 too. That is WAY too big an assumption for the committee to be making.

45. I wonder how the NCAA explains the inconsistency of UMU leapfrogging NCC last week in the rankings after NCC beat the #1 seed yet this week they leave UWW as a 2 seed and #5 overall. Those two things are very inconsistent in my view.

46. I’ll answer whatever I can, from the top on down.

    @footballdaddy, 3:51 p.m. re: Wartburg being No. 3 in Westish bracket.

    My guess is Wheaton got the higher seed based largely on .573 SoS (the whole CCIW going 22-2 out of conference this year had an impact, even though some of it was against NathCon, etc.) against Wartburg’s .494.

    In this case, the way to interpret it is more like UW-Whitewater and less like Trine/Witt/SUNY-Maritime. Wartburg scheduled a playoff team non-conference and did all it could by going 10-0, Wheaton just happened to be in the CCIW which has a monster year. Certainly it’s fair to ask (or interpret) the SoS emphasis as “would Wartburg 10-0 if it had Wheaton’s schedule.”

    That’s for you guys to debate.

    The impact here is a little different than UW-W as the Knights would have to go on the road in Round 2, potentially, though neither W is a given in Round 1.

47. For wittfan, the committee is saying that if Whitewater had played St. Thomas they would be 9-1. They moved Whitewater from that region where they were second just as they moved Wheaton to the West Region because they were second in the North Region. Either way the assumption is ridiculous. As a NCC fan I was as shocked, as many here, that the top two seeds were not Whitewater and Mount Union. Although we make fun of the BCS, using polls such as D3 and AFCA would make sense and end this nonsense.

48. @kitchensink, it’s not “right,” but it’s “fair” if that makes any sense.

    Put yourself in North Central’s shoes. If the committee is going to give top seeds to Mount Union and UW-Whitewater automatically for going 10-0, then a North Region team is more or less blocked from getting a No. 1 no matter if it goes 10-0 as well.

    A very important distinction for both Wheaton and North Central that I have failed to mention so far is that Illinois Wesleyan (7-3) probably made the North’s last set of regional rankings, as Pat projected.

    That would give North Central a 2-0 record vs. regionally ranked opponents, which I don’t think anyone but Wesley (Del Val, Salisbury) could match. Probably played a big role, along with the SoS, despite the common opponents and the fact we all know UW-W is No. 1 until someone dethrones them.

    So again, how could it be fair? Well, how is it fair that 10-0 North Central has basically no chance to get a 1 if UWW and UMU go 10-0 also? At least this way they were judged by same criteria and North Central had better SoS and more wins vs. RROs, both by virtue of being in the CCIW during a good year, though.

    They also had a common opponent, UWEC, with UWW winning 45-0 and North Central only winning 20-6.

    Me personally I think it adds intrigue, and it’s nothing to freak out about. UWW will be able to bring a thousand or two thousand fans to the Chicago area for a potential matchup, and if they are the nation’s best team — and right now I believe they are — they’ll go on the road and earn it.

    Maybe this is just me as a former player speaking, but I honestly don’t see that big a distinction between home and road games. When you’re “in” the game, you often tune the crowd out, and sometimes the road trip is beneficial as it gets you into a football-only environment for 36 or 48 hours before the game.

    I think this is only going to tick UWW off anyway, and to steal a phrase, my guess is D-III ain’t gonna like them when they angry.

    You guys will definitely want to catch tomorrow’s podcast. Pat and I will break it all down for you in plain English.

49. @usee 8:49 … very perceptive observation. Those two things are inconsistent.

    Re: me not freaking out about UWW as a 2 seed, I would have seen it as more of a debacle of they were a 1 seed on the same side as Mount Union, i.e. set to meet in the semis.

    Asking UMU and UWW to win on the road in the semis is nothing that Wesley, Linfield, UMHB, St. John’s et. al. aren’t asked to do on a normal basis and although I probably would have made sure they were both 1s if I were on the committee, I’m okay with them where they are because the path to the Stagg Bowl is consistent with what it is for many of the teams over the years; opponents get increasingly tough, might have to win some on the road (which UWW has done before)

    Conversely, I wonder if LK even knows how to rent a bus for a game between the end of the regular season and the annual Wednesday night departure for Salem.

50. I have a question about Mount. We have never heard another word about Lattimore. Any word on that situation