2016 Playoffs

Started by Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat, November 04, 2016, 03:41:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bleedpurple

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

On the other hand, obviously we all wish money were not a factor and the field would be bracketed appropriately.  Also, when it comes to Pool C teams, personally I would prefer a system that puts the best (most competitive) 6 teams in after the conference champions (although I guess my exception would be an undefeated non Pool A/B).  I think both the criteria and the process used to fill the Pool C spots is suspect at best.

smedindy

With so little data points between conferences, it's really hard to do a comparison, especially since many 10-team (or more) leagues play their non-conference game as their first game of the season. You really shouldn't penalize teams for playing their league schedule, especially since I think most all conferences are great fits for their institutions in location and degree of athletics importance.

I think many of us think we KNOW, but do we? (I mean, it's 90% probability that Platteville is better than Muhlenberg, but we can't be totally certain, and I'd be more cautious really before putting down money on it.)

But the OWP / OOWP thing isn't a real SOS. I'm sure with people like Logan Hansen around, we could get them a better one...

RtSLl3100

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 07, 2016, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

On the other hand, obviously we all wish money were not a factor and the field would be bracketed appropriately.  Also, when it comes to Pool C teams, personally I would prefer a system that puts the best (most competitive) 6 teams in after the conference champions (although I guess my exception would be an undefeated non Pool A/B).  I think both the criteria and the process used to fill the Pool C spots is suspect at best.
Centre was 10-0 2 years ago and left on the table..FYI. But well said

FCGrizzliesGrad

Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 07, 2016, 10:12:37 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 07, 2016, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

On the other hand, obviously we all wish money were not a factor and the field would be bracketed appropriately.  Also, when it comes to Pool C teams, personally I would prefer a system that puts the best (most competitive) 6 teams in after the conference champions (although I guess my exception would be an undefeated non Pool A/B).  I think both the criteria and the process used to fill the Pool C spots is suspect at best.
Centre was 10-0 2 years ago and left on the table..FYI. But well said
In 2014 Center was indeed 10-0 but they were in the playoffs and lost to John Carroll in the first round
Football picker extraordinaire
5 titles: CCIW, NJAC
4x: ODAC:S
3x: ASC, IIAC, MIAA:S, NACC:S, NCAC, OAC:P, Nat'l
2x: HCAC, MIAC, ODAC:P, WIAC
1x: Bracket, OAC:S

Basketball
2013 WIAC Pickem Co-champ
2015 Nat'l Pickem
2017: LEC and MIAA Pickem
2019: MIAA and WIAC Pickem

Soccer
2023: Mens Pickem

smedindy

I don't think we've had a non-NESCAC undefeated team miss the playoffs since the pool system was started.

RtSLl3100

My fault, some reason thought they were left out

wally_wabash

Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2016, 09:56:22 PM
But the OWP / OOWP thing isn't a real SOS. I'm sure with people like Logan Hansen around, we could get them a better one...

Logan has a good blog post on this topic, actually. 

Quote from: HansenRatings on October 19, 2016, 10:50:52 AM
As an aside, here's why the NCAA SoS metric is garbage.

Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2016, 10:28:45 PM
I don't think we've had a non-NESCAC undefeated team miss the playoffs since the pool system was started.

No, I think you have to go way, way back to when the field was really small and there were no AQs.  Certainly, in the current format, an undefeated team has not been left out, nor should they be. 

Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 07, 2016, 10:29:09 PM
My fault, some reason thought they were left out

There was cause for concern about Centre in 2014 when the last published regional rankings had Centre lingering far enough back that they probably would not have gotten in (indeed, my projection from that week had Centre not even making the at-large conversation).  Fortunately sanity prevailed in the final rankings and Centre was rightly in, even if they got thumped in Round 1. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

And applaud the nearly 20 + programs that have added D3 football to gain access to a conference's Pool A bid.

It is an achievable goal to win a conference championship against your peer institutions.

Less than 2% of D3 programs have won a National Championship in the 21st Century.

Ryan Stoppable

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.
Which would effectively abolish the AQs. To me, if you do that, it feels like you're making winning non-conference games (to build a strong resume) more important than winning conference games (to win an AQ), which is the opposite of how I feel it should be.

And actually, this year I think there will only be one AQ with 3+ losses, and usually there's at least a few. (Incidentally, if they take care of business next week, it will be my team! ;D)
Lakeland Muskies: Fear the Fish!

NCAA Appearances
Football: 17, 16, 15, 09, 05
MBB: 04
WBB: 17, 10, 06, 04, 02, 01, 99
Baseball: 03, 02 (College World Series)

ADL70

Hansen's citation of 2011 Illinois College is a bitter memory as they were presumably selected over 9-1 CWRU. I wonder what CWRU'S 2011 SoS would have been using his method?
SPARTANS...PREPARE FOR GLORY
HA-WOO, HA-WOO, HA-WOO
Think beyond the possible.
Compete, Win, Respect, Unite

HansenRatings

I have to agree that the current method of selecting teams is probably the best used by any division. NAIA has the Top 25 stipulation, but they have only about a third as many teams as DIII, so for a conference champion to be unranked, they have to be truly awful. DII doesn't have any AQ's, and some years half of the conferences in the country are left without a playoff team.

While I like computer model to try to figure out which teams are probably better, I'm a huge believer in letting the teams decide by their play on the field. Give every team a path to the playoffs, have established criteria for selection, and let the resumes speak for themselves. Yeah, if there's a consensus among more advanced models that UW-Platteville is better than Muhlenberg, we probably have a pretty good idea who would win in a matchup, but we also know that there's going to be at least two teams in the field who have already proven on the field that they're better than UW-Platteville.

I have a friend who coaches HS in South Dakota, which uses some sort of "Quality of Wins Index" as their first criteria for playoff selection. My friends team had two losses, and a 3-loss team who they had beaten H2H got in ahead of them. Simply relying on spreadsheets to do your selections for you is more likely to have baffling results like this.

(I have slightly tweaked my SOS numbers since that post, and CWRU would have had an SOS of 0.470 with an NCAA SOS of 0.481, Ill. Col. is at 0.343/0.493)
Follow me on Twitter. I post fun graphs sometimes. @LogHanRatings

D3MAFAN

I shared this on the ER Playoff discussion board. I think that we should have an extra week with the top seeds having a bye-week. I think we should increase from 7 to 8 teams for automatic bid. However, I think 1st round games should be paid by the schools and the 1st round should definitely be under a certain mileage. If a school doesn't want to pay for the 1st round, they forfeit. Although I think schools would be less likely more than ever to schedule OOC games outside of their region, this process would award top teams and teams that schedule strong OOC games.

wally_wabash

Quote from: D3MAFAN on November 08, 2016, 09:48:27 AM
I shared this on the ER Playoff discussion board. I think that we should have an extra week with the top seeds having a bye-week. I think we should increase from 7 to 8 teams for automatic bid. However, I think 1st round games should be paid by the schools and the 1st round should definitely be under a certain mileage. If a school doesn't want to pay for the 1st round, they forfeit. Although I think schools would be less likely more than ever to schedule OOC games outside of their region, this process would award top teams and teams that schedule strong OOC games.

Pay to play is pretty offensive, isn't it?  You can play for a national championship if you can buy your way in?  Hard pass. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 07, 2016, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

Absolutely.  The AQ is one of the best things about the D3 playoffs for exactly this reason: every single team starts the season with a path to the playoffs (and, in theory, the title).  Sure, actually winning the national title is a pipe dream for all but about 5 schools, but that's no reason to exclude everyone else from the playoffs entirely, and most can at least dream of winning a game before they run into a buzzsaw.  Every alternative system or modification proposed has one or more things that I dislike far more than the current Pool A system:

- teams must be ranked in the top 25 or in the regional rankings to get an AQ bid: I think we all recognize the subjectivity inherent in either of these options.  It's hard to pin down a good "top 25" poll to use, and the simple fact is that there's not nearly enough inter-regional play in Division III to have a meaningful idea how to rank, say, Case Western versus Redlands versus Hobart versus Frostburg State as the season draws to a close.  The top 25 is a fun exercise and we all enjoy reading it, but if those last handful of spots became crucial to the playoff selection process you'd start to see some funky voting behavior, methinks.  If a team like Redlands (likely to win the SCIAC) sits in the others-receiving-votes section behind Case Western and Frostburg State, it's not like we really have any data to support that; there are zero common opponents and probably not even any two-degrees-of-separation results.  It's a complete guess, and I'm completely uncomfortable with the idea that a league champion teetering on the edge of the top 25 could be left out because we just can't figure out whether to rank them ahead of teams with absolutely no common data.

And while the RR's are already part of the Pool C process, requiring an RR to get an AQ seems like it would encourage further monkey business around the bottom of the rankings.  Take this week's justifiably controversial ranking of Northwestern (Minn) in the West RR's.  The committee would now, in the back of their minds at least, know that the decision of whether to rank Northwestern or a strong runner-up from a different league has profound implications for both AQ (does the UMAC champ actually get a bid?) and the at-large picture (by giving or not giving an RRO result to one of the teams at the top jockeying for position in overall seeding).  Instead of focusing on just ranking the teams, they would know for certain that their decision to rank or not rank Northwestern in the final RR's would determine Northwestern's playoff fate.  Not a big fan of that becoming part of the regional committee's responsibility.

- minimum number of losses: my biggest problem with this is that it would discourage teams in those lesser leagues from playing up.  We've seen a nice trend from the MIAA recently where teams like Albion and Adrian have been willing to step up a class and play teams like Wabash, St. John Fisher, UW-Stevens Point, some other WIAC and CCIW teams.  As one of the more evenly-matched leagues in D3, the MIAA also tends to have some league-play carnage (seriously, check out the standings from one year to the next...) and occasionally ends up with a champion that's carrying one or two losses in league play.  If they know that being 6-4 or 7-3 is a disqualifier for receiving an auto-bid, doesn't that turn them back into filling the schedule with other creampuffs to make sure that they finish at least 8-2 or 9-1 should they win the league.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

smedindy

Quote from: D3MAFAN on November 08, 2016, 09:48:27 AM
I shared this on the ER Playoff discussion board. I think that we should have an extra week with the top seeds having a bye-week. I think we should increase from 7 to 8 teams for automatic bid. However, I think 1st round games should be paid by the schools and the 1st round should definitely be under a certain mileage. If a school doesn't want to pay for the 1st round, they forfeit. Although I think schools would be less likely more than ever to schedule OOC games outside of their region, this process would award top teams and teams that schedule strong OOC games.

Some schools are stretched on budgets already, and an extra travel day would kill them.