D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: MRMIKESMITH on October 21, 2019, 03:03:33 PM

Title: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on October 21, 2019, 03:03:33 PM
I think it's about of good time to start talking about Pool C.

Top Pool C based on SOS (no more than 1 loss and above .500):

1. Bethel - .691
2. Redlands - .651
3. Wesley - .648
4. UW-Platteville - .620
5. Susquehanna - .606
6. UW-Oshkosh - .605
7. Randolph-Macon - .584
8. Texas Lutheran - .573
9.  Baldwin Wallace - .548
10. Hardin Simmons - .534
11. North Central (Ill.) - .526
12. Linfield - .525 
13. Berry - .512


This list does not include conference leaders that are currently undefeated and have yet to play their "toughest" or current opponent(s) that share similar conference records (i.e Olivet & WNE)






Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2019, 04:24:48 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on October 21, 2019, 03:03:33 PM
I think it's about of good time to start talking about Pool C.

Top Pool C based on SOS (no more than 1 loss and above .500):

1. Bethel - .691  , but have to beat the Tommies on 11/10.
2. Redlands - .651 can run the table and have a win over Linfield. Will root for Linfield over Whitworth
3. Wesley - .648  Montclair State (Saturday's opponent) is the hardest team that remains
4. UW-Platteville - .620  Must beat UW-Oshkosh on 11/02.
5. Susquehanna - .606  Can run the table and hopefully have "results versus regionally ranked" Mules and JHU.


6. UW-Oshkosh - .605   Has loss to Salisbury. Must play both UWL, UWP and UWW. Best hope is for Pool A.
7. Randolph-Macon - .584
8. Texas Lutheran - .573
9.  Baldwin Wallace - .548
10. Hardin Simmons - .534
11. North Central (Ill.) - .526
12. Linfield - .525 
13. Berry - .512


This list does not include conference leaders that are currently undefeated and have yet to play their "toughest" or current opponent(s) that share similar conference records (i.e Olivet & WNE)

Thanks for starting this.

You can almost draw the line at #5.

I think that JHU still remains in the South Region rankings to help Susquehanna.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on October 21, 2019, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2019, 04:24:48 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on October 21, 2019, 03:03:33 PM
I think it's about of good time to start talking about Pool C.

Top Pool C based on SOS (no more than 1 loss and above .500):

1. Bethel - .691  , but have to beat the Tommies on 11/10.
2. Redlands - .651 can run the table and have a win over Linfield. Will root for Linfield over Whitworth
3. Wesley - .648  Montclair State (Saturday's opponent) is the hardest team that remains
4. UW-Platteville - .620  Must beat UW-Oshkosh on 11/02.
5. Susquehanna - .606  Can run the table and hopefully have "results versus regionally ranked" Mules and JHU.


6. UW-Oshkosh - .605   Has loss to Salisbury. Must play both UWL, UWP and UWW. Best hope is for Pool A.
7. Randolph-Macon - .584
8. Texas Lutheran - .573
9.  Baldwin Wallace - .548
10. Hardin Simmons - .534
11. North Central (Ill.) - .526
12. Linfield - .525 
13. Berry - .512


This list does not include conference leaders that are currently undefeated and have yet to play their "toughest" or current opponent(s) that share similar conference records (i.e Olivet & WNE)

Thanks for starting this.

You can almost draw the line at #5.

I think that JHU still remains in the South Region rankings to help Susquehanna.

I have to believe either Union or Ithaca will be in this group as well.  One will be  10-0 (and league champ) the other will be 9-1
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 21, 2019, 04:59:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2019, 04:24:48 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on October 21, 2019, 03:03:33 PM
I think it's about of good time to start talking about Pool C.

Top Pool C based on SOS (no more than 1 loss and above .500):

1. Bethel - .691  , but have to beat the Tommies on 11/10.
2. Redlands - .651 can run the table and have a win over Linfield. Will root for Linfield over Whitworth
3. Wesley - .648  Montclair State (Saturday's opponent) is the hardest team that remains
4. UW-Platteville - .620  Must beat UW-Oshkosh on 11/02.
5. Susquehanna - .606  Can run the table and hopefully have "results versus regionally ranked" Mules and JHU.


6. UW-Oshkosh - .605   Has loss to Salisbury. Must play both UWL, UWP and UWW. Best hope is for Pool A.
7. Randolph-Macon - .584
8. Texas Lutheran - .573
9.  Baldwin Wallace - .548
10. Hardin Simmons - .534
11. North Central (Ill.) - .526
12. Linfield - .525 
13. Berry - .512


This list does not include conference leaders that are currently undefeated and have yet to play their "toughest" or current opponent(s) that share similar conference records (i.e Olivet & WNE)

Thanks for starting this.

You can almost draw the line at #5.

I think that JHU still remains in the South Region rankings to help Susquehanna.

problem is the process won't allow 4 west teams to the table at the same time. It's not as clear cut as picking the top 5 based on criteria. The order of the RAC's ranking matters a lot.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on October 21, 2019, 05:50:30 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 21, 2019, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2019, 04:24:48 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on October 21, 2019, 03:03:33 PM
I think it's about of good time to start talking about Pool C.

Top Pool C based on SOS (no more than 1 loss and above .500):

1. Bethel - .691  , but have to beat the Tommies on 11/10.
2. Redlands - .651 can run the table and have a win over Linfield. Will root for Linfield over Whitworth
3. Wesley - .648  Montclair State (Saturday's opponent) is the hardest team that remains
4. UW-Platteville - .620  Must beat UW-Oshkosh on 11/02.
5. Susquehanna - .606  Can run the table and hopefully have "results versus regionally ranked" Mules and JHU.


6. UW-Oshkosh - .605   Has loss to Salisbury. Must play both UWL, UWP and UWW. Best hope is for Pool A.
7. Randolph-Macon - .584
8. Texas Lutheran - .573
9.  Baldwin Wallace - .548
10. Hardin Simmons - .534
11. North Central (Ill.) - .526
12. Linfield - .525 
13. Berry - .512


This list does not include conference leaders that are currently undefeated and have yet to play their "toughest" or current opponent(s) that share similar conference records (i.e Olivet & WNE)

Thanks for starting this.

You can almost draw the line at #5.

I think that JHU still remains in the South Region rankings to help Susquehanna.

I have to believe either Union or Ithaca will be in this group as well.  One will be  10-0 (and league champ) the other will be 9-1

At the current time, Ithaca would be slotted at #9 with a .549 SOS, however if everything plays out based upon rankings, Hobart may end of regionally ranked at 8-2 at end of the year. Currently I think the East Region may end up:

1. Ithaca (10-0) (3-0)
2. Salisbury (9-0) (1-0)
3. Wesley (9-1) (2-1)
4. Cortland (9-1)(0-1)
5. Union (9-1) (1-1)
6. Delaware Valley (9-1)(1-1)
7. WPI  (10-0) (0-0)
8. Endicott (9-1) (0-1)
9. Hobart (8-2) (0-2)
10. Stevenson (8-2) (0-2)


Currently, Union has a .459 and that may not be enough considering the other regions.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2019, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: USee on October 21, 2019, 04:59:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2019, 04:24:48 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on October 21, 2019, 03:03:33 PM
I think it's about of good time to start talking about Pool C.

Top Pool C based on SOS (no more than 1 loss and above .500):

1. Bethel - .691  , but have to beat the Tommies on 11/10.
2. Redlands - .651 can run the table and have a win over Linfield. Will root for Linfield over Whitworth
3. Wesley - .648  Montclair State (Saturday's opponent) is the hardest team that remains
4. UW-Platteville - .620  Must beat UW-Oshkosh on 11/02.
5. Susquehanna - .606  Can run the table and hopefully have "results versus regionally ranked" Mules and JHU.


6. UW-Oshkosh - .605   Has loss to Salisbury. Must play both UWL, UWP and UWW. Best hope is for Pool A.
7. Randolph-Macon - .584
8. Texas Lutheran - .573
9.  Baldwin Wallace - .548
10. Hardin Simmons - .534
11. North Central (Ill.) - .526
12. Linfield - .525 
13. Berry - .512


This list does not include conference leaders that are currently undefeated and have yet to play their "toughest" or current opponent(s) that share similar conference records (i.e Olivet & WNE)

Thanks for starting this.

You can almost draw the line at #5.

I think that JHU still remains in the South Region rankings to help Susquehanna.

problem is the process won't allow 4 west teams to the table at the same time. It's not as clear cut as picking the top 5 based on criteria. The order of the RAC's ranking matters a lot.

In my best Titan Q form,

Round 1

N: BWC;  North Central
E: Wesley;  Union
S: Susquehanna; after that we have 2-loss Randy-Mac (JHU and Bridgewater), TLU (Hendrix and UMHB); HSU (TLU and UMHB)
W: Bethel 1 loss to SJU. Bethel comes off. Redlands up next. UWP/UWO winner is next

Round 2

N: BWC;  North Central
E: Wesley;  Union
S: Susquehanna; after that we have 2-loss Randy-Mac (JHU and Bridgewater), TLU (Hendrix and UMHB); HSU (TLU and UMHB)
W: Redlands up next & assuming that Linfield is regionally ranked. Redlands comes off.  UWP/UWO winner is next.

Round 3

N: BWC;  North Central
E: Wesley;  (Win over Del Valley who is reg ranked.) Wesley off.  Union
S: Susquehanna; after that we have 2-loss Randy-Mac (JHU and Bridgewater), TLU (Hendrix and UMHB); HSU (TLU and UMHB)
W: UWP/UWO winner is next.

Round 4

N: BWC;  North Central
E:  Union
S: Susquehanna; Susquehanna is off.  After that we have 2-loss Randy-Mac (JHU and Bridgewater), TLU (Hendrix and UMHB); HSU (TLU and UMHB)
W: UWP/UWO winner is next.  The winner of this game might have a 2-1 record against RR teams, i.e., loss to UWW, win over the other and maybe UWL.  UWP/UWO Loser is next or maybe NWC runner up, Whitworth/Linfield.


Round 5

N: BWC;  North Central
E:  Union
S: After that we have 2-loss Randy-Mac (JHU and Bridgewater), TLU (Hendrix and UMHB); HSU (TLU and UMHB)
W: UWP/UWO winner is next.  The winner of this game might have a 2-1 record against RR teams, i.e., loss to UWW, win over the other and maybe UWL.  UWP/ UWO winner comes off last. UWP/UWO Loser is left on the table or maybe NWC runner up, Whitworth/Linfield.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2019, 06:28:24 PM
I am projecting South Region Pool A bids to go to:

ASC -- UMHB
Centennial -- Muhlenberg
ODAC -- Bridgewater
Pres AC  -- CWRU
SAA -- Berry
USA South -- Averett
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 21, 2019, 07:00:30 PM
I might be wrong but I would be shocked NCC isn't the top ranked Pool C from North when the regional rankings come out. they will have a 1-1 RRO and their SOS is getting killed by CNU.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 21, 2019, 07:09:38 PM
I'm working on some Pool C stuff...will try to post what I think the RRs would look like through results of 10/19 a little later.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 21, 2019, 08:14:00 PM
Actually, I stand corrected. If IWU loses to NCC and wins out otherwise they end up 7-3 and borderline wrong side of the bubble to get ranked in the region which would leave NCC at 0-1 for RRO. That, bad the demise of CNU and the fluke loss to UWL by IWU may end up costing NCC huge come Pool C if there are a lot of 1 loss teams.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 21, 2019, 10:00:18 PM
Here's what I think is a reasonable look at what the regional rankings might look like if we saw them this week:

East:
1. Salisbury 5-0 overall, 0.566 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO
2. Ithaca 6-0, 0.549, 0-0
3. Cortland 6-0, 0.480, 0-0
4. Wesley 4-1, 0.648, 2-1
5. Union 6-0, 0.459, 0-0
6. Delaware Valley 6-1, 0.535, 0-1
7. Western Connecticut 6-0, 0.434, 0-0
8. WPI 6-0, 0.421, 0-0
9. Endicott 5-1, 0.441, 0-1
10. Brockport 5-1, 0.491, 0-0

The East is difficult to rank because a good number of the New England teams with zero or one loss have yet to play each other and thin that crowd out.  That logjam is preventing a team like Hobart from being ranked, which would be a helper to the other LL teams. 

North:
1. Mount Union 6-0, 0.531, 2-0
2. Wheaton 6-0, 0.655, 1-0
3. North Central 5-1, 0.526, 0-1
4. Baldwin-Wallace 5-1, 0.548, 1-1
5. John Carroll 5-1, 0.482, 0-1
6. Olivet 6-0, 0.520, 0-0
7. Hope 5-1, 0.489, 1-0
8. Aurora 5-1, 0.555, 0-1
9. MSJ 6-0, 0.366, 0-0
10. Heidelberg 5-1, 0.476, 0-1

So obviously these rankings are not going to hold four OAC teams through week 11, but we've still got h2h's with the top four in that league to go.  It's also unlikely that the NCAC is going to not be represented at all when we get to official rankings on 11/6, but for now I don't know how to square 5-1 Denison and OWU with the h2h loss to Wabash, who I'm not ranking here.

South:
1. UMHB 6-0, 0.371, 0-0
2. Muhlenberg 6-0, 0.623, 1-0
3. CWRU 6-0, 0.482, 0-0
4. Randolph-Macon 6-1, 0.584, 1-0
5. Susquehanna 5-1, 0.606, 0-1
6. Texas Lutheran 5-1, 0.573, 1-0
7. Hardin-Simmons 5-1, 0.534, 0-1
8. Bridgewater 6-0, 0.484, 0-0
9. Berry 6-1, 0.512, 0-0
10. Averett 5-1, 0.518, 0-1

I think the South region lays out in a pretty straightforward manner.  Yes, UMHB's metrics are gross.  Doesn't matter.  There's no way they aren't ranked #1 here.  I have Hopkins just out, which made me shuffle Susquehanna and RMC.  Which maybe I shouldn't do since that's a common opponent. 

West:
1. UW-Whitewater 5-0, 0.633, 1-0
2. St. John's 6-0, 0.580, 1-0
3. Chapman 5-0, 0.588, 2-0
4. Wartburg 7-0, 0.583, 0-0
5. Redlands 5-1, 0.651, 1-1
6. Bethel 5-1, 0.691, 0-1
7. UW-Oshkosh 5-1, 0.605, 0-1
8. Whitworth 4-1, 0.539, 0-1
9. Linfield 4-1, 0.525, 0-1
10. UW-Platteville 4-1, 0.620, 0-1

This is just going to be razor thin between UWW and SJU all the way to Selection Sunday.  Right now, with St. Thomas just out of these rankings, SJU doesn't quite have enough to overcome the large SOS difference, IMO.  The top two could certainly be reversed without controversy.  Through 11 games though, I do think the top ranked West team gets decided based on which league (MIAC or WIAC) can get a third team to stick into these rankings. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: desertcat1 on October 21, 2019, 10:57:05 PM
Nice job wally  :-*
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on October 22, 2019, 12:09:34 PM
East:
1. Salisbury 5-0 overall, 0.566 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO
2. Ithaca 6-0, 0.549, 0-0
3. Cortland 6-0, 0.480, 0-0
4. Wesley 4-1, 0.648, 2-1
5. Union 6-0, 0.459, 0-0
6. Delaware Valley 6-1, 0.535, 0-1
7. Western Connecticut 6-0, 0.434, 0-0
8. WPI 6-0, 0.421, 0-0
9. Endicott 5-1, 0.441, 0-1
10. Brockport 5-1, 0.491, 0-0

The East is difficult to rank because a good number of the New England teams with zero or one loss have yet to play each other and thin that crowd out.  That logjam is preventing a team like Hobart from being ranked, which would be a helper to the other LL teams.

I think you got this one exactly right.  In this case, Wesley would be the first option for pool C

North:
1. Mount Union 6-0, 0.531, 2-0
2. Wheaton 6-0, 0.655, 1-0
3. North Central 5-1, 0.526, 0-1
4. Baldwin-Wallace 5-1, 0.548, 1-1
5. John Carroll 5-1, 0.482, 0-1
6. Olivet 6-0, 0.520, 0-0
7. Hope 5-1, 0.489, 1-0
8. Aurora 5-1, 0.555, 0-1
9. MSJ 6-0, 0.366, 0-0
10. Heidelberg 5-1, 0.476, 0-1

So obviously these rankings are not going to hold four OAC teams through week 11, but we've still got h2h's with the top four in that league to go.  It's also unlikely that the NCAC is going to not be represented at all when we get to official rankings on 11/6, but for now I don't know how to square 5-1 Denison and OWU with the h2h loss to Wabash, who I'm not ranking here.

I agree with you here as well, that there are still too many variables, but i do think if Denison wins this week against Witt, that they will make the list.


South:
1. UMHB 6-0, 0.371, 0-0
2. Muhlenberg 6-0, 0.623, 1-0
3. CWRU 6-0, 0.482, 0-0
4. Randolph-Macon 6-1, 0.584, 1-0
5. Susquehanna 5-1, 0.606, 0-1
6. Texas Lutheran 5-1, 0.573, 1-0
7. Hardin-Simmons 5-1, 0.534, 0-1
8. Bridgewater 6-0, 0.484, 0-0
9. Berry 6-1, 0.512, 0-0
10. Averett 5-1, 0.518, 0-1

I think the South region lays out in a pretty straightforward manner.  Yes, UMHB's metrics are gross.  Doesn't matter.  There's no way they aren't ranked #1 here.  I have Hopkins just out, which made me shuffle Susquehanna and RMC.  Which maybe I shouldn't do since that's a common opponent.

I think you're right on the money here, but many more changes coming...me thinks

West:
1. UW-Whitewater 5-0, 0.633, 1-0
2. St. John's 6-0, 0.580, 1-0
3. Chapman 5-0, 0.588, 2-0
4. Wartburg 7-0, 0.583, 0-0
5. Redlands 5-1, 0.651, 1-1
6. Bethel 5-1, 0.691, 0-1
7. UW-Oshkosh 5-1, 0.605, 0-1
8. Whitworth 4-1, 0.539, 0-1
9. Linfield 4-1, 0.525, 0-1
10. UW-Platteville 4-1, 0.620, 0-1

This is just going to be razor thin between UWW and SJU all the way to Selection Sunday.  Right now, with St. Thomas just out of these rankings, SJU doesn't quite have enough to overcome the large SOS difference, IMO.  The top two could certainly be reversed without controversy.  Through 11 games though, I do think the top ranked West team gets decided based on which league (MIAC or WIAC) can get a third team to stick into these rankings.

Agree, agree , agree...so far,
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 22, 2019, 12:38:21 PM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 22, 2019, 12:09:34 PM
East:
I think you got this one exactly right.  In this case, Wesley would be the first option for pool C

Wesley looks great for Pool C currently.  They look less great if Endicott loses and doesn't get ranked.  Their SOS is great now, but will come down considerably over the last four weeks.  I think by the time we get to the end, it's going to be difficult to order Wesley/LL runner up/E8 runner up.  That could be a really tough trio to sort. 

Quote from: Captainred81 on October 22, 2019, 12:09:34 PM
North:

I agree with you here as well, that there are still too many variables, but i do think if Denison wins this week against Witt, that they will make the list.

If Denison gets ranked, does that drag Wabash up?  It almost has to.  Then who goes out?  There may be room for two NCACs once we get some more MIAA and OAC attrition. 

Quote from: Captainred81 on October 22, 2019, 12:09:34 PM
South:

I think you're right on the money here, but many more changes coming...me thinks

Yes, HSU and TLU both have UMHB games left.  Muhlenberg has Hopkins left and that's a game with a weird dynamic now that Muhlenberg has a cushion over Hopkins.  Have to keep an eye on Birmingham Southern now as well.  And then there's a big ODAC showdown still to come.  Definitely a lot left to do in the South.  What's strange though is that last year this region had three legitimate at-large teams and this year I'm not sure they have more than one.  And they may not have any if Susquehanna drops a game here in the last month. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 22, 2019, 01:41:28 PM
RE: West

1. UWW/SJU is gonna come down to the wire, hinging on how the rest of their leagues play out.
2. Wartburg still has to play a dangerous Central team and Coe, both have only 1 loss. The ARC could still cannibalize itself, making room for MIAC/WIAC's third team in the rankings.
3. Linfield v. Whitworth looms large, especially for Redlands.
4. Redlands v. Bethel. Does the committee favor SOS or RRO criteria. My gut says Bethel wins out (on the strength of it's own rep and the MIAC's) and Bethel is slotted above Redlands. At least initially. Bethel also has a much more difficult path ahead of it.
5. UWO: If they lose to UWW, and beat UWL and UWP, they will have effectively knocked the WIAC out of Pool C.

Key Games for West Pool C Candidates:
Bethel: @ Concordia, @ UST
Redlands: (just Linfield v. Whitworth result)
Linfield: @Whitworth
UWO: @UWL, @UWO, UWW (likely out of contention with UWW loss, but could reek havoc)
UWP: UWO
Central: Simpson, @Wartburg, Coe (not really a Pool C candidate, but how they finish could knock Wartburg into the discussion)
Whitworth: Linfield

Redlands is the most likely to win out. If Bethel wins out their resume with the UST win improves. WIAC could be a mess, though UWP appears the best Pool C candidate and has the clearest path. Keep an eye on the ARC, I think Central (and their QB) might be a dark horse Pool A.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bluestreak66 on October 22, 2019, 01:57:24 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 22, 2019, 01:41:28 PM
RE: West

1. UWW/SJU is gonna come down to the wire, hinging on how the rest of their leagues play out.
2. Wartburg still has to play a dangerous Central team and Coe, both have only 1 loss. The ARC could still cannibalize itself, making room for MIAC/WIAC's third team in the rankings.
3. Linfield v. Whitworth looms large, especially for Redlands.
4. Redlands v. Bethel. Does the committee favor SOS or RRO criteria. My gut says Bethel wins out (on the strength of it's own rep and the MIAC's) and Bethel is slotted above Redlands. At least initially. Bethel also has a much more difficult path ahead of it.
5. UWO: If they lose to UWW, and beat UWL and UWP, they will have effectively knocked the WIAC out of Pool C.


Key Games for West Pool C Candidates:
Bethel: @ Concordia, @ UST
Redlands: (just Linfield v. Whitworth result)
Linfield: @Whitworth
UWO: @UWL, @UWO, UWW (likely out of contention with UWW loss, but could reek havoc)
UWP: UWO
Central: Simpson, @Wartburg, Coe (not really a Pool C candidate, but how they finish could knock Wartburg into the discussion)
Whitworth: Linfield

Redlands is the most likely to win out. If Bethel wins out their resume with the UST win improves. WIAC could be a mess, though UWP appears the best Pool C candidate and has the clearest path. Keep an eye on the ARC, I think Central (and their QB) might be a dark horse Pool A.
Abosolutley agree on this point. In addition to UWO winning out (sans the UWW game) I could envision a world where most of the usual suspects for two bids get left out of pool c, if the following occur:
Bethel losing to St. Thomas
John Carroll losing to Heidleberg but beating Baldwin Wallace
North Central losing to IWU.
I would say those scenarios have at least a decent chance at happening, so we may see some unusual pool c representation this year!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 22, 2019, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 22, 2019, 06:40:14 PM
Is it farfetched to think UWO may get in with 2 losses, if those 2 losses are to Salisbury and UWW?

This is an interesting scenario, particularly if UWW and Salisbury both wind up #1 ranked teams in their regions.  It depends on where UWO ends up in the West rankings, but they would be a fascinating case for sure. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 22, 2019, 06:47:55 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 22, 2019, 06:40:14 PM
Is it farfetched to think UWO may get in with 2 losses, if those 2 losses are to Salisbury and UWW?

It's too early to say. It really depends on the quality of the other 1 loss Pool C candidates. If there is a lack of quality 1 loss teams, or just a lack of one loss teams it could happen. Right now we've listed 13 1 loss teams with a SOS over .500. Not all will finish that way, but we are also a long way from there being short of quality 1 loss teams. But stranger things have happened. And they'd have about the best resume possible for a two loss team.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on October 23, 2019, 03:42:42 PM
Round 5

N: BWC;  North Central
E:  Union
S: After that we have 2-loss Randy-Mac (JHU and Bridgewater), TLU (Hendrix and UMHB); HSU (TLU and UMHB)
W: UWP/UWO winner is next.  The winner of this game might have a 2-1 record against RR teams, i.e., loss to UWW, win over the other and maybe UWL.  UWP/ UWO winner comes off last. UWP/UWO Loser is left on the table or maybe NWC runner up, Whitworth/Linfield.

I like what you did up until this point.  I think the only chance for a WIAC team to earn Pool C is for UWP to win out and finish 9-1, or UWO to win (beat UWW) and win the Pool A which puts UWW in line for Pool C.

If these are the teams left for the final pool C  I would expect the committee to take NCC, unless BW is ranked higher.  Also, if Union's loss to Ithaca is by a few points, it could be them.  I don't think the committee takes a two loss team this year. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 25, 2019, 01:13:58 PM
With 4 weeks to play I would guess that #15 Hardin-Simmons is already playing an elimination game for themselves this weekend against #1 Mary Hardin-Baylor? Hard to believe their is any scenario where HSU could get in with 2 losses or am I missing something? 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 25, 2019, 01:15:26 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 25, 2019, 01:13:58 PM
With 4 weeks to play I would guess that #15 Hardin-Simmons is already playing an elimination game for themselves this weekend against #1 Mary Hardin-Baylor? Hard to believe their is any scenario where HSU could get in with 2 losses or am I missing something?

I tend to think so. Their 2 loss resume wouldn't stack up well against say, UWO's potential 2 loss resume.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2019, 01:25:24 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 25, 2019, 01:13:58 PM
With 4 weeks to play I would guess that #15 Hardin-Simmons is already playing an elimination game for themselves this weekend against #1 Mary Hardin-Baylor? Hard to believe their is any scenario where HSU could get in with 2 losses or am I missing something?

As is the case with any two-loss team, they kind of have to hope that the field comes back to them over the last few weeks of the season.  In Hardin-Simmons' case, you want to start with the South region and watch the scoreboard for those other 1-loss runners up to find a loss in the last few weeks. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 26, 2019, 04:41:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 25, 2019, 01:25:24 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 25, 2019, 01:13:58 PM
With 4 weeks to play I would guess that #15 Hardin-Simmons is already playing an elimination game for themselves this weekend against #1 Mary Hardin-Baylor? Hard to believe their is any scenario where HSU could get in with 2 losses or am I missing something?

As is the case with any two-loss team, they kind of have to hope that the field comes back to them over the last few weeks of the season.  In Hardin-Simmons' case, you want to start with the South region and watch the scoreboard for those other 1-loss runners up to find a loss in the last few weeks.
And I'm assuming they'd be stuck behind TLU assuming they both finish with 2 losses....
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: UfanBill on October 26, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
I thought the Crew stole one today. The play clock expired. In reality all those teams that are in Pool C contention dodged a bullet. It's very unlikely the ASC will get 2 bids now but if UMHB had lost... 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 27, 2019, 01:48:44 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on October 26, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
I thought the Crew stole one today. The play clock expired.

The video showed otherwise.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: UfanBill on October 27, 2019, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 27, 2019, 01:48:44 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on October 26, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
I thought the Crew stole one today. The play clock expired.

The video showed otherwise.

At the time I made this comment I had just watched the UMHB video with their announcing crew. I believe they said the play clock was running down, 9 seconds, and the Cru FG unit wasn't out there yet. Their comments and the subsequent reaction of the officials led me to believe the play clock probably had expired. All credit to UMHB and the kicker to get the kick off and make it.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 27, 2019, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: UfanBill on October 27, 2019, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 27, 2019, 01:48:44 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on October 26, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
I thought the Crew stole one today. The play clock expired.

The video showed otherwise.

At the time I made this comment I had just watched the UMHB video with their announcing crew. I believe they said the play clock was running down, 9 seconds, and the Cru FG unit wasn't out there yet. Their comments and the subsequent reaction of the officials led me to believe the play clock probably had expired. All credit to UMHB and the kicker to get the kick off and make it.

That's this one:
https://twitter.com/UMHB/status/1188237617462218752

It was fourth down and game clock was running and under 25. Play clock wasn't relevant in that situation.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 10:41:12 AM
UWO out of the running. UWP looking stronger for Pool C.

SJU knocked longshot St. Olaf out.

UMHB winning a squeaker keeps Pool C from falling into chaos.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 11:50:44 AM
I think the 5 Pool C teams as of today would be:

Redlands
UW Platteville
Wesley
Bethel
NCC

with other possibles:

Susquehanna
BW/John Carroll winner

If someone like UW Lacrosse pulls an upset of UWW then this whole thing becomes a dumpster fire pretty quickly. Still some tough games to be played and it could all work itself out but still shaping up to be some tough choices for Pool C.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 12:09:16 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 11:50:44 AM
I think the 5 Pool C teams as of today would be:

Redlands
UW Platteville
Wesley
Bethel
NCC

with other possibles:

Susquehanna
BW/John Carroll winner

If someone like UW Lacrosse pulls an upset of UWW then this whole thing becomes a dumpster fire pretty quickly. Still some tough games to be played and it could all work itself out but still shaping up to be some tough choices for Pool C.

The subtext to this post ... a ton rides on how the West Region ranks Redlands, UWP, and Bethel and by extension teams like UST, Linfield, UWL, etc (for RRO aspects of West Pool C candidates). Also a lot riding on how the North Region ranks NCC, BW, and John Carroll. Per usual, two very tough regions, with some good teams that will no doubt get left home.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on October 28, 2019, 12:46:22 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 11:50:44 AM
I think the 5 Pool C teams as of today would be:

Redlands
UW Platteville
Wesley
Bethel
NCC

with other possibles:

Susquehanna
BW/John Carroll winner

If someone like UW Lacrosse pulls an upset of UWW then this whole thing becomes a dumpster fire pretty quickly. Still some tough games to be played and it could all work itself out but still shaping up to be some tough choices for Pool C.

The Ithaca- Union game will have some bearing here as well.  If Union wins, then Ithaca wins out (beating a potentially undefeated Cortland), then IC certainly will be in the Pool C mix.  If Ithaca wins, it may be tougher for Union (their RRO may include Hobart only)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wm4 on October 28, 2019, 12:59:13 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 12:09:16 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 11:50:44 AM
I think the 5 Pool C teams as of today would be:

Redlands
UW Platteville
Wesley
Bethel
NCC

with other possibles:

Susquehanna
BW/John Carroll winner

If someone like UW Lacrosse pulls an upset of UWW then this whole thing becomes a dumpster fire pretty quickly. Still some tough games to be played and it could all work itself out but still shaping up to be some tough choices for Pool C.

The subtext to this post ... a ton rides on how the West Region ranks Redlands, UWP, and Bethel and by extension teams like UST, Linfield, UWL, etc (for RRO aspects of West Pool C candidates). Also a lot riding on how the North Region ranks NCC, BW, and John Carroll. Per usual, two very tough regions, with some good teams that will no doubt get left home.

This is shaping up to be a great last 3 weeks of the season.  The West will be a blast to watch and see how teams play on the field, but also how the RRO's play out a well.  Get your popcorn ready.  We've had some nice fireworks so far this year and I don't think they're done yet.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 01:09:15 PM
Absolutely.

And don't sleep on Gustavus Adolphus. Two losses and an SOS of 0.542.

But if GAC beats UST (lost a heartbreaker 14-13 in the final minute last year) and Bethel beats UST. GAC would have two losses, but only to top 10 SJU and Bethel, and it was competitive in both games. GAC getting Regionally Ranked would also be big for SJU and their 1 seed resume and Bethel and their Pool C.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 01:24:23 PM
Bethel is not gonna need GAC most likely. They are in if they win out. #1 seeds are going to be very interesting and down to the wire it would appear. Regardless, there are likely going to be some top teams playing each other early in the bracket this year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on October 28, 2019, 04:16:38 PM
I occasionally go back and look at past brackets to see how they shake out.  Here's the 2013 bracket.

https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/g/7/lu3r9gtmvhoo9s/football-bracket-2013.pdf

It seems as though Mount gets the nod as the East Region bracket, while Bethel got the north region, Whitewater got the west, and UMHB got the south.  It could happen this year as well, that Mount moves to the east, with SJU/UWW splitting the West and North and UMHB taking the south. 

Also, in 2015, it seems to be the same scenario, with mount in the East, Linfield in the west, St. Thomas in the North, and Oshksoh being South?
https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/u/m/flx1g4yytme2ni/2015-football-bracket.pdf

I would like to point out that every year except 2017 the runner-up in the OAC has received a bid to the playoffs, including 2015 8-2 Ohio Northern.  My point with this, is that I don't see John Carrol/BW winner getting left at home. 

So i have the first 3 pool C bids at
Redlands
JCU (Cuz I think they'll win)
Wesley

Each of these team will have multiple results against RRO and each will have (1) win (assumptions: BW is RR and the other win out)

The next 2 are going to interesting.  I think the favorites for those spots are Susquehanna, NCC, Bethel and UW-P.  Each of them will have a RR loass to the #1/#2 seed in their region, but none them will have a RR win.  It is possible that when Bethel plays STU, that they are ranked, but if Bethel wins it could knock STU out, thus they will not garner an RR win.  It is possible that Wash U is ranked and give NCC a win, and it possible that Johns Hopkins is ranked and gives Susque a win, lastly it is possible that UW-Lax is ranked and gives UW-P a win. 

If it happens that all them have 1 RR win, or none of them get an RR win, I think that UW-P and Bethel will get the bid..leaving the field at

Redlands
John Carroll
Wesley
Bethel
UW-P

Then I think you will have UMHB, Mount Union, St. Johns, and UWW as #1's. 


Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 04:26:20 PM
I think you can slot that JCU spot as "North #1" as that's where the battle will be. I think it would be hard to leave an OAC 1 loss team out but I also think NCC will be ranked ahead of both JCU and BW and so they will be on the board and will block the OAC runner up.

As for #1 seeds, there are going to be some incredible resumes. Among them may be Wheaton with the best SOS among the #1 seed candidates and a 2-0 RRO (if WashU is ranked). Now, St Johns has a top 10 SOS and will also have 2-0 record (theoretically). UWW might have the worst resume of the bunch. I know previous playoffs comes into the decision making, what I don't know is if it comes in as a tiebreaker or as a primary criteria. Others would know more than me.

Whats crazy is all of these outcomes are really going to hinge on how these RAC's arrange the bottom of their final Regional Rankings to affect RRO records.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 04:34:12 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 04:26:20 PM
I think you can slot that JCU spot as "North #1" as that's where the battle will be. I think it would be hard to leave an OAC 1 loss team out but I also think NCC will be ranked ahead of both JCU and BW and so they will be on the board and will block the OAC runner up.

As for #1 seeds, there are going to be some incredible resumes. Among them may be Wheaton with the best SOS among the #1 seed candidates and a 2-0 RRO (if WashU is ranked). Now, St Johns has a top 10 SOS and will also have 2-0 record (theoretically). UWW might have the worst resume of the bunch. I know previous playoffs comes into the decision making, what I don't know is if it comes in as a tiebreaker or as a primary criteria. Others would know more than me.

Whats crazy is all of these outcomes are really going to hinge on how these RAC's arrange the bottom of their final Regional Rankings to affect RRO records.

It's meant to be a way to break ties amongst undefeated teams...or as it is stated directly "When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated records in the primary criteria."

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 04:53:25 PM
So assume all top seed candidates have similar RRO records and the SOS are like this:

Wheaton  .644
St Johns  .597
Mt Union .571
UWW  .560
Muhl   .567
Ithaca .500
UMHB  .431

How would previous playoff consideration work here? Or is it ambiguous?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 04:53:25 PM
So assume all top seed candidates have similar RRO records and the SOS are like this:

Wheaton  .644
St Johns  .597
Mt Union .571
UWW  .560
Muhl   .567
Ithaca .500
UMHB  .431

How would previous playoff consideration work here? Or is it ambiguous?

UMHB is going to be the top seed in the tournament no matter what their SOS is.  This same thing came up a couple of years ago when Mount Union landed in Pool C and people freaked out about their SOS.  It was never going to prevent them from being selected and it won't prevent UMHB from hosting through the first four rounds of the tournament. 

The question as it pertains to #1 seeds probably comes down Ithaca/Salisbury, SJU, UWW, and Wheaton.  People are going to continue to dismiss the East region team because that's just what everybody does, but I would bet a shiny nickel that Ithaca or Salisbury are a top seed. 

Right this minute, Wheaton has a really nice profile, but that SOS has reached its high-water mark.  In three weeks, this is going to level out more. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 05:21:38 PM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 28, 2019, 04:16:38 PM

I would like to point out that every year except 2017 the runner-up in the OAC has received a bid to the playoffs, including 2015 8-2 Ohio Northern.  My point with this, is that I don't see John Carrol/BW winner getting left at home. 

So i have the first 3 pool C bids at
Redlands
JCU (Cuz I think they'll win)
Wesley

Each of these team will have multiple results against RRO and each will have (1) win (assumptions: BW is RR and the other win out)

The next 2 are going to interesting.  I think the favorites for those spots are Susquehanna, NCC, Bethel and UW-P.  Each of them will have a RR loass to the #1/#2 seed in their region, but none them will have a RR win.  It is possible that when Bethel plays STU, that they are ranked, but if Bethel wins it could knock STU out, thus they will not garner an RR win.  It is possible that Wash U is ranked and give NCC a win, and it possible that Johns Hopkins is ranked and gives Susque a win, lastly it is possible that UW-Lax is ranked and gives UW-P a win. 

If it happens that all them have 1 RR win, or none of them get an RR win, I think that UW-P and Bethel will get the bid..leaving the field at

Redlands
John Carroll
Wesley
Bethel
UW-P

Then I think you will have UMHB, Mount Union, St. Johns, and UWW as #1's.

This is my point about GAC v. UST. I think GAC has a legit shot to win this game, they matchup well and know they let it slip away last year. If GAC beats UST, I think they end up regionally ranked.

Even if GAC isn't regionally ranked. JCU's SOS numbers are hovering around the 50th percentile right now. Bethel's numbers are much stronger. If GAC is a RRO for Bethel, they are a lock. If GAC isn't, JCU would maybe be 1-1, but their SOS will still be considerably lower than Bethel.

Redlands is first off IMO.

The issue with how you're looking at this is that each region only gets one team on the board at a time. And the committee takes a fresh look.

For instance, say this is the the first round:
West: Redlands (Bethel - could swap them and Redlands, UWP, GAC)
North: NCC (JCU/BW,
East: Wesley (Union
South: Susquehana (followed by 2 loss teams)

Redlands is in with a monster SOS and positive RRO

Rd 2:

West: Bethel (UWP, GAC)
North: NCC (JCU/BW)
East: Wesley (Union)
South: Susquehana (followed by 2 loss teams)

Rd 2 Bethel is in with solid SOS and RRO

Rd 3:

West: UWP (GAC)
North: NCC (JCU/BW)
East: Wesley (Union)
South: Susquehana (followed by 2 loss teams)

And the pick is ... UWP, Wesley, NCC??

Not sure how the committee divides those three up. I listed them in order of current SOS, not knowing what Regional rankings will look like. My point is that it's possible JCU/BW never even get to the table. Or vice versa for NCC. It's possible all Pool C come from the West (though I'm not predicting this). Point being, there's a lot of competition for some very good one loss teams. And that's without factoring in chaos factor that we've seen take effect in the final weeks of the season before.

I've seen too many times where at this point in the year we've considered 2 loss teams all but dead in the water. Only to watch the field come back to them with upsets in the final weeks. Fun stuff ...
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 04:53:25 PM
So assume all top seed candidates have similar RRO records and the SOS are like this:

Wheaton  .644
St Johns  .597
Mt Union .571
UWW  .560
Muhl   .567
Ithaca .500
UMHB  .431

How would previous playoff consideration work here? Or is it ambiguous?

UMHB is going to be the top seed in the tournament no matter what their SOS is.  This same thing came up a couple of years ago when Mount Union landed in Pool C and people freaked out about their SOS.  It was never going to prevent them from being selected and it won't prevent UMHB from hosting through the first four rounds of the tournament. 

The question as it pertains to #1 seeds probably comes down Ithaca/Salisbury, SJU, UWW, and Wheaton.  People are going to continue to dismiss the East region team because that's just what everybody does, but I would bet a shiny nickel that Ithaca or Salisbury are a top seed. 

Right this minute, Wheaton has a really nice profile, but that SOS has reached its high-water mark.  In three weeks, this is going to level out more.

I wouldn't be shocked by the East getting a #1 seed. But the thing in favor of both SJU and UWW is that they both get the trump card of prior years playoff results.

As you said, UMHB is a lock for a #1 seed. Mount is also getting a #1 seed. Book it.

Then you have Ithaca/Salisbury, SJU, and UWW. The latter will have favorable RRO, strong SOS numbers, and deeper previous playoff runs. This isn't a lock for the East. Nor should it be. You can make a very strong case that if SJU hadn't had to face UMHB so early, they could have been matching up in the Stagg Bowl.

Also, to my previous post, Wally's prediction coming later this week will no doubt be much more in depth and accurate. I just wanted to point out that there's no guarantee a conference like the MIAC, CCIW, or OAC is guaranteed their 1 loss runner up making the field. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:41:54 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 04:53:25 PM
So assume all top seed candidates have similar RRO records and the SOS are like this:

Wheaton  .644
St Johns  .597
Mt Union .571
UWW  .560
Muhl   .567
Ithaca .500
UMHB  .431

How would previous playoff consideration work here? Or is it ambiguous?

UMHB is going to be the top seed in the tournament no matter what their SOS is.  This same thing came up a couple of years ago when Mount Union landed in Pool C and people freaked out about their SOS.  It was never going to prevent them from being selected and it won't prevent UMHB from hosting through the first four rounds of the tournament. 

The question as it pertains to #1 seeds probably comes down Ithaca/Salisbury, SJU, UWW, and Wheaton.  People are going to continue to dismiss the East region team because that's just what everybody does, but I would bet a shiny nickel that Ithaca or Salisbury are a top seed. 

Right this minute, Wheaton has a really nice profile, but that SOS has reached its high-water mark.  In three weeks, this is going to level out more.

I wouldn't be shocked by the East getting a #1 seed. But the thing in favor of both SJU and UWW is that they both get the trump card of prior years playoff results.

As you said, UMHB is a lock for a #1 seed. Mount is also getting a #1 seed. Book it.

Then you have Ithaca/Salisbury, SJU, and UWW. The latter will have favorable RRO, strong SOS numbers, and deeper previous playoff runs. This isn't a lock for the East. Nor should it be. You can make a very strong case that if SJU hadn't had to face UMHB so early, they could have been matching up in the Stagg Bowl.

Also, to my previous post, Wally's prediction coming later this week will no doubt be much more in depth and accurate. I just wanted to point out that there's no guarantee a conference like the MIAC, CCIW, or OAC is guaranteed their 1 loss runner up making the field.

Wally has said, and I have no reason to believe he isn't correct, that previous playoff exp is a tie breaker, not a primary criteria. So if a team is clearly better on the criteria than StJU and UWW, it won't matter. Now what does "clearly better" mean? I have no clue. Obviously if they are all undefeated and that invokes the tie breaker then we can all stop talking about this now. But if SOS and RRO's are differentiators, then the story has yet to be told.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:45:47 PM
Wally,

Who are these "people" who dismiss the east region? And on what basis are they going to be rewarded with a top seed as if they are UMU or UMHB? If 4 teams are battling for 2 #1 seeds (StJ, UWW, Wheaton, Ithaca/Salisbury) are you suggesting its actually 3 teams battling for 1 spot for top 4, criteria be damned?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:45:47 PM
Wally,

Who are these "people" who dismiss the east region? And on what basis are they going to be rewarded with a top seed as if they are UMU or UMHB? If 4 teams are battling for 2 #1 seeds (StJ, UWW, Wheaton, Ithaca/Salisbury) are you suggesting its actually 3 teams battling for 1 spot for top 4, criteria be damned?

I believe the UMHB and UMU are top seeds as long as they don't lose.  Then I think the top seed in the West region is a certain #1. Then you have Wheaton, the #2 West team, and the #1 East team left for the last spot.  I believe that the East #1, so long as they have a 1.000 win pct, a decent SOS (not something like .450), and a one or two RRO wins would be selected. 

Surely you aren't suggesting that Mount Union and/or UMHB are not going to be top seeds in this tournament. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:55:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:45:47 PM
Wally,

Who are these "people" who dismiss the east region? And on what basis are they going to be rewarded with a top seed as if they are UMU or UMHB? If 4 teams are battling for 2 #1 seeds (StJ, UWW, Wheaton, Ithaca/Salisbury) are you suggesting its actually 3 teams battling for 1 spot for top 4, criteria be damned?

I believe the UMHB and UMU are top seeds as long as they don't lose.  Then I think the top seed in the West region is a certain #1. Then you have Wheaton, the #2 West team, and the #1 East team left for the last spot.  I believe that the East #1, so long as they have a 1.000 win pct, a decent SOS (not something like .450), and a one or two RRO wins would be selected. 

Surely you aren't suggesting that Mount Union and/or UMHB are not going to be top seeds in this tournament.

Of course not. I was just wondering why you think the East #1 would get the UMU/UMHB treatment over the others.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:45:47 PM
Wally,

Who are these "people" who dismiss the east region? And on what basis are they going to be rewarded with a top seed as if they are UMU or UMHB? If 4 teams are battling for 2 #1 seeds (StJ, UWW, Wheaton, Ithaca/Salisbury) are you suggesting its actually 3 teams battling for 1 spot for top 4, criteria be damned?

I believe the UMHB and UMU are top seeds as long as they don't lose.  Then I think the top seed in the West region is a certain #1. Then you have Wheaton, the #2 West team, and the #1 East team left for the last spot.  I believe that the East #1, so long as they have a 1.000 win pct, a decent SOS (not something like .450), and a one or two RRO wins would be selected. 

Surely you aren't suggesting that Mount Union and/or UMHB are not going to be top seeds in this tournament. 
UMHB and Mount are off the board in this exercise as the top 2 #1 seeds:

Team A: SOS .500; RRO 2-0 (no Playoffs in 2018)
Team B: SOS .560; RRO 2-0 (Deep Playoff run in 2018)
Team C: SOS .597; RRO 2-0 (Deep Playoff run in 2018)
Team D: SOS .644; RRO 1-0 (No Playoffs in 2018)

Team C gets 3rd #1 seed due to strong balance of SOS and RRO. And if it went to it, tie breaker criteria

Team A vs. Team B vs. Team D ... SOS favors Team D, but not RRO. RRO favors Team A and B, but Team A has the weakest SOS. Team's A and D didn't make the playoffs. (Keep in mind  SOS numbers will naturally narrow over the final weeks). Team B made a deep playoff run in 2018. Team A didn't make the field.

Team B gets the nod right?

Team A: Ithaca
Team B: UW-Whitewater
Team C: SJU
Team D: Wheaton

I guess the thing that bugs is that there's also no criteria that says, we need to make sure the East gets a team unless they have zero good options. But we seem to act like that's some sort of tie breaker.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 06:04:25 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:55:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:45:47 PM
Wally,

Who are these "people" who dismiss the east region? And on what basis are they going to be rewarded with a top seed as if they are UMU or UMHB? If 4 teams are battling for 2 #1 seeds (StJ, UWW, Wheaton, Ithaca/Salisbury) are you suggesting its actually 3 teams battling for 1 spot for top 4, criteria be damned?

I believe the UMHB and UMU are top seeds as long as they don't lose.  Then I think the top seed in the West region is a certain #1. Then you have Wheaton, the #2 West team, and the #1 East team left for the last spot.  I believe that the East #1, so long as they have a 1.000 win pct, a decent SOS (not something like .450), and a one or two RRO wins would be selected. 

Surely you aren't suggesting that Mount Union and/or UMHB are not going to be top seeds in this tournament.

Of course not. I was just wondering why you think the East #1 would get the UMU/UMHB treatment over the others.

Oh, sorry.  I do not think East 1 gets an auto waive through to a top seed.  There's a discussion to have there between East 1, West 2, and Wheaton.  I think East 1 will end up winning that vote, but it isn't a slam dunk. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 06:15:45 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 28, 2019, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 05:45:47 PM
Wally,

Who are these "people" who dismiss the east region? And on what basis are they going to be rewarded with a top seed as if they are UMU or UMHB? If 4 teams are battling for 2 #1 seeds (StJ, UWW, Wheaton, Ithaca/Salisbury) are you suggesting its actually 3 teams battling for 1 spot for top 4, criteria be damned?

I believe the UMHB and UMU are top seeds as long as they don't lose.  Then I think the top seed in the West region is a certain #1. Then you have Wheaton, the #2 West team, and the #1 East team left for the last spot.  I believe that the East #1, so long as they have a 1.000 win pct, a decent SOS (not something like .450), and a one or two RRO wins would be selected. 

Surely you aren't suggesting that Mount Union and/or UMHB are not going to be top seeds in this tournament. 
UMHB and Mount are off the board in this exercise as the top 2 #1 seeds:

Team A: SOS .500; RRO 2-0 (no Playoffs in 2018)
Team B: SOS .560; RRO 2-0 (Deep Playoff run in 2018)
Team C: SOS .597; RRO 2-0 (Deep Playoff run in 2018)
Team D: SOS .644; RRO 1-0 (No Playoffs in 2018)

Team C gets 3rd #1 seed due to strong balance of SOS and RRO. And if it went to it, tie breaker criteria

Team A vs. Team B vs. Team D ... SOS favors Team D, but not RRO. RRO favors Team A and B, but Team A has the weakest SOS. Team's A and D didn't make the playoffs. (Keep in mind  SOS numbers will naturally narrow over the final weeks). Team B made a deep playoff run in 2018. Team A didn't make the field.

Team B gets the nod right?

Team A: Ithaca
Team B: UW-Whitewater
Team C: SJU
Team D: Wheaton

I guess the thing that bugs is that there's also no criteria that says, we need to make sure the East gets a team unless they have zero good options. But we seem to act like that's some sort of tie breaker.

I agree. Another part of the problem is we are solving for incomplete data. As Wally notes, Wheaton's SOS will come down as they play 2 of 3 weakest teams in the league over the final  weeks so I expect them to be at or below St Johns and UWW (who will probably see an uptick in their SOS with their remaining schedule). Ithaca will get a serious uptick in their SOS and Salisbury will be flat to lower I think. I think a team like Wheaton's only chance at a 1 seed is to get that 2nd RRO (Hazzbeen, in your analysis above if they are 2-0 they are the pick) and have the best SOS of the field. I think I am starting to agree with Wally, certainly as it relates to Ithaca. If they are undefeated they will be a 1 seed. I don't think Salisbury will be though if they are the top East team. Then the battle for the remaining spot is StJ and UWW.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 06:23:12 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 06:15:45 PM
I think I am starting to agree with Wally, certainly as it relates to Ithaca. If they are undefeated they will be a 1 seed. I don't think Salisbury will be though if they are the top East team. Then the battle for the remaining spot is StJ and UWW.

Unfortunately, Salisbury has just 9 games and doesn't have a shot to either get another RRO opportunity or boost their SOS with that 10th game.  It's also unfortunate that the NJAC got beat up in the non-league part of their schedule because normally they'd get more help from their usually good conference.  Oshkosh, barring something unforeseen, is also not going to be a huge help which is too bad.  Salisbury probably deserves more credit than they'll end up getting for taking that game and then handling the Titans the way they did. 

Cortland has games left with Brockport and Ithaca as well and those are two massive, likely RRO opportunities for the Red Dragons.  They could be the top choice in the East if they can survive their last three games.  There's a lot of stuff to work out in the East. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on October 28, 2019, 08:15:31 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 06:23:12 PM
Quote from: USee on October 28, 2019, 06:15:45 PM
I think I am starting to agree with Wally, certainly as it relates to Ithaca. If they are undefeated they will be a 1 seed. I don't think Salisbury will be though if they are the top East team. Then the battle for the remaining spot is StJ and UWW.

Unfortunately, Salisbury has just 9 games
and doesn't have a shot to either get another RRO opportunity or boost their SOS with that 10th game.  It's also unfortunate that the NJAC got beat up in the non-league part of their schedule because normally they'd get more help from their usually good conference.  Oshkosh, barring something unforeseen, is also not going to be a huge help which is too bad.  Salisbury probably deserves more credit than they'll end up getting for taking that game and then handling the Titans the way they did. 

Cortland has games left with Brockport and Ithaca as well and those are two massive, likely RRO opportunities for the Red Dragons.  They could be the top choice in the East if they can survive their last three games.  There's a lot of stuff to work out in the East.

I heard there were many phone calls made around the South and East to North East, even D2 teams locally that didn't want to play Salisbury,  UW-Oshkosh and other WIAC schools were the only ones willing.  There were teams that decided to play less than 10 games, club or non-DIII teams.  I'm sure this was discussed with Pat when he interviewed Coach Wood earlier in the season. I'm hoping that we get at least two home games if we finish undefeated.  Regardless, I'm just excited that we have a chance in the playoffs. However, we have to beat CNU this weekend first,  one game at a time.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bleedpurple on October 28, 2019, 09:54:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 28, 2019, 10:11:55 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 28, 2019, 09:54:35 PM
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.

I hope not. The rule was put in place because of UWW. :)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 10:12:26 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 28, 2019, 09:54:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 28, 2019, 10:45:37 PM
Come on guys, Bleed is a changed man. He has seen the light. None of your fact repeating answers his question. Its a good question.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 11:12:34 PM
I don't recall UMHB's bad SOS getting this much attention last year.  What changed?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: repete on October 28, 2019, 11:23:10 PM
Wally ... can you expand on the Gulls "handling the Titans the way they did"? Watched some of that game and it seemed it could have gone either way ... unlike UWO's game last week.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 11:41:49 PM
Quote from: repete on October 28, 2019, 11:23:10 PM
Wally ... can you expand on the Gulls "handling the Titans the way they did"? Watched some of that game and it seemed it could have gone either way ... unlike UWO's game last week.

My impression was different, I guess.  I saw UWO take two quick drives into the red zone and not score.  Then Salisbury had the Titans on skates for the next 35 minutes or so, led 24-0 in the 4th before UWO rallied with not enough time left for it to really matter. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: repete on October 28, 2019, 11:51:18 PM
You saw more of that one so I'll defer. Saw the early UWO drives and final yardage, so figured it was closer. Thanks.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 12:13:57 AM
Quote from: repete on October 28, 2019, 11:51:18 PM
You saw more of that one so I'll defer. Saw the early UWO drives and final yardage, so figured it was closer. Thanks.

Yeah, after those two drives inside the 10 that produced zero points UWO had three first downs and seven punts on their next seven possessions and were down 24 points before they snapped out of it. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 12:24:28 AM
The way to early Baldini crystal ball says,

East Bracket

1.) Ithaca
2.) Salisbury
3.) Delaware Valley
4.) Cortland
5.) Wesley
6.) WPI
7.) Endicott
8.) Framington St.

North

1.) Mount Union
2.) Wheaton
3.) North Central
4.) Hope
5.) Hanover
6.) Aurora
7.) Wabash
8.) SUNY-Maritime

South

1.) UMHB
2.) Muhlenburg
3.) CWRU
4.) Chapman
5.) Linfield
6.) Berry
7.) Bridgewater
8.) Huntingdon

West

1.) St. John's
2.) UW-Whitewater
3.) Wartburg
4.) Bethel
5.) Redlands
6.) UW-Platteville
7.) Monmouth
8.) Martin Luther

The C's are Bethel, Redlands, North Central, Wesley and UW-Platteville. First round would have 4 flights with the likelihood of 1 or 2 flights in the 2nd round. The crystal ball is a bit on the dirty side and I may not of seen everything clearly, but that is what I think I saw anyways. Where did I go wrong? 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: ncc_fan on October 29, 2019, 02:37:19 AM
SUNY Maritime is in the East, and the OAC #2 (BW/JCU winner) will likely earn a spot in the top half of the North rankings.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on October 29, 2019, 07:51:43 AM
Linfield is West, not south
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 29, 2019, 08:08:23 AM
Quote from: jamtod on October 29, 2019, 07:51:43 AM
Linfield is West, not south

pretty sure this is his actual playoff bracket, not his regional rankings.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on October 29, 2019, 09:17:27 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 08:08:23 AM
Quote from: jamtod on October 29, 2019, 07:51:43 AM
Linfield is West, not south

pretty sure this is his actual playoff bracket, not his regional rankings.

That was my thought as well.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 08:08:23 AM
Quote from: jamtod on October 29, 2019, 07:51:43 AM
Linfield is West, not south

pretty sure this is his actual playoff bracket, not his regional rankings.

I guess I could of been more clear, this is a too early guess at the brackets and is not a stab at regional rankings.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 10:20:00 AM
Quote from: ncc_fan on October 29, 2019, 02:37:19 AM
SUNY Maritime is in the East, and the OAC #2 (BW/JCU winner) will likely earn a spot in the top half of the North rankings.

I do realize that the OAC #2 historically is a C pool pick, but this year I believe there is a good chance they are positioned behind North Central in the North rankings and that would put them in danger of be left on the table in the end.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 10:45:01 AM
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?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 10:45:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: tf37 on October 29, 2019, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 10:45:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on October 29, 2019, 11:30:13 AM
I agree on that note about UMHB.  2016, after Mount lost to JCU in week 11, i'm fairly sure they were the first team off the board for pool C.  Considering they went to the semi's that year and won all their games on the road, it was the right choice.  Likewise, this year if UMHB were to receive a pool C and not win the Pool A, I would expect to at least get to the quarters, if not semi's if not Stagg.

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 11:35:07 AM
Keep in mind with SOS numbers, almost all of the top Pool C candidates have their numbers coming down a bit since they finish with some of the poorer teams on their schedule. UWP will get a bump from UWO. Bethel will get a bump from UST. But in general, those numbers are coming back down a little.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 11:41:02 AM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 29, 2019, 11:30:13 AM
I agree on that note about UMHB.  2016, after Mount lost to JCU in week 11, i'm fairly sure they were the first team off the board for pool C.  Considering they went to the semi's that year and won all their games on the road, it was the right choice.  Likewise, this year if UMHB were to receive a pool C and not win the Pool A, I would expect to at least get to the quarters, if not semi's if not Stagg.

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year.

They were not.  Mount Union was ranked behind Wheaton and therefore couldn't have possibly been the first team selected.  The chair never tells us which order the teams were selected, but I believe in our mock selection that year Mount Union was the fourth team (out of six) in. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 11:45:36 AM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 29, 2019, 11:30:13 AM
I agree on that note about UMHB.  2016, after Mount lost to JCU in week 11, i'm fairly sure they were the first team off the board for pool C.  Considering they went to the semi's that year and won all their games on the road, it was the right choice.  Likewise, this year if UMHB were to receive a pool C and not win the Pool A, I would expect to at least get to the quarters, if not semi's if not Stagg.

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year.

Interesting point about Muhlenberg in the east bracket. Something I didn't give a thought to, but might be something to watch for. Like it.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 11:12:34 PM
I don't recall UMHB's bad SOS getting this much attention last year.  What changed?

I don't think anything changed. The question is the same. Whis is: Are the criteria  the rule until they aren't. The criteria are followed until they aren't, for whatever reason, good or bad. Taking Mt Union in Pool C in 2016 was the right choice. Making UMHB and Mt Union 1 seeds this year is the right choice, despite all the criteria saying otherwise. It's fair to wonder what other situations, some of which might be much less obvious, can and will arise that allow the criteria to be disregarded. Giving an east region team a 1 seed could be such a decision. I believe Ithaca, if they win out, will be every bit as deserving a 1 seed as any other team (their SOS will rise dramatically over the final 3 weeks and they will have at least 2 wins vs RRO's).

If UMHB were to lose to TLU and become a pool c candidate, they would be a bad candidate on the merits but will rightfully make it into the field. My observation (which I describe as such because it is a reality under the current system) is that the criteria matter, unless they don't and that can get a bit tricky under less obvious circumstances.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on October 29, 2019, 12:04:05 PM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 29, 2019, 11:30:13 AM

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year.

The playoff run is huge there.

I think a 10-0 IC is going to get two RR wins, Union and Cortland. Even Hobart might be in the mix at 8-2. Those games are also going to give their SOS a pretty massive boost.

I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. I think Muhlenberg is absolutely in that mix
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 12:13:55 PM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 11:12:34 PM
I don't recall UMHB's bad SOS getting this much attention last year.  What changed?

I don't think anything changed. The question is the same. Whis is: Are the criteria  the rule until they aren't. The criteria are followed until they aren't, for whatever reason, good or bad. Taking Mt Union in Pool C in 2016 was the right choice. Making UMHB and Mt Union 1 seeds this year is the right choice, despite all the criteria saying otherwise. It's fair to wonder what other situations, some of which might be much less obvious, can and will arise that allow the criteria to be disregarded. Giving an east region team a 1 seed could be such a decision. I believe Ithaca, if they win out, will be every bit as deserving a 1 seed as any other team (their SOS will rise dramatically over the final 3 weeks and they will have at least 2 wins vs RRO's).

If UMHB were to lose to TLU and become a pool c candidate, they would be a bad candidate on the merits but will rightfully make it into the field. My observation (which I describe as such because it is a reality under the current system) is that the criteria matter, unless they don't and that can get a bit tricky under less obvious circumstances.

I'm going to disagree that the criteria could or would be disregarded for UMHB or UMU and nobody else.  SOS is one criteria.  It isn't the only one. 

If UMHB loses to TLU, I think they would get in, but this scenario is a little different than 2016 Mount Union.  Mount Union DE-stroyed 9 opponents, then lost in the last 40 seconds to John Carroll.  UMHB losing to TLU would not be equivalent to losing to 2016 semifinalist John Carroll, and UMHB also hasn't been absolutely overwhelming everywhere else on their schedule (meh result vs. Belhaven, last week's Houdini job).  I do think UMHB would get in, but they'll have given committees more reason to consider alternatives than 2016 Mount Union did. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2019, 12:16:01 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 11:45:36 AM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 29, 2019, 11:30:13 AM
I agree on that note about UMHB.  2016, after Mount lost to JCU in week 11, i'm fairly sure they were the first team off the board for pool C.  Considering they went to the semi's that year and won all their games on the road, it was the right choice.  Likewise, this year if UMHB were to receive a pool C and not win the Pool A, I would expect to at least get to the quarters, if not semi's if not Stagg.

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year.

Interesting point about Muhlenberg in the east bracket. Something I didn't give a thought to, but might be something to watch for. Like it.
Bridgewater can bus to Allentown (Muhlenberg) but Berry is a plane flight to Cleveland.

I think that the Pod built around the South #2 seed needs some East Region teams.

I like Muhl hosting B'water and CWRU hosting Wesley. Then Muhl hosts CWRU/Wesley winner in round 2.

Then by the 3rd round, we can get some regional matchups.

It looks like the island teams will be their own bracket.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 12:20:57 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2019, 12:16:01 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 11:45:36 AM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 29, 2019, 11:30:13 AM
I agree on that note about UMHB.  2016, after Mount lost to JCU in week 11, i'm fairly sure they were the first team off the board for pool C.  Considering they went to the semi's that year and won all their games on the road, it was the right choice.  Likewise, this year if UMHB were to receive a pool C and not win the Pool A, I would expect to at least get to the quarters, if not semi's if not Stagg.

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year.

Interesting point about Muhlenberg in the east bracket. Something I didn't give a thought to, but might be something to watch for. Like it.
Bridgewater can bus to Allentown (Muhlenberg) but Berry is a plane flight to Cleveland.

I think that the Pod built around the South #2 seed needs some East Region teams.

I like Muhl hosting B'water and CWRU hosting Wesley. Then Muhl hosts CWRU/Wesley winner in round 2.

Then by the 3rd round, we can get some regional matchups.

It looks like the island teams will be their own bracket.

Those are very good points. What is typical number of first round flights most years?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: tf37 on October 29, 2019, 01:16:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 12:13:55 PM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 11:12:34 PM
I don't recall UMHB's bad SOS getting this much attention last year.  What changed?

I don't think anything changed. The question is the same. Whis is: Are the criteria  the rule until they aren't. The criteria are followed until they aren't, for whatever reason, good or bad. Taking Mt Union in Pool C in 2016 was the right choice. Making UMHB and Mt Union 1 seeds this year is the right choice, despite all the criteria saying otherwise. It's fair to wonder what other situations, some of which might be much less obvious, can and will arise that allow the criteria to be disregarded. Giving an east region team a 1 seed could be such a decision. I believe Ithaca, if they win out, will be every bit as deserving a 1 seed as any other team (their SOS will rise dramatically over the final 3 weeks and they will have at least 2 wins vs RRO's).

If UMHB were to lose to TLU and become a pool c candidate, they would be a bad candidate on the merits but will rightfully make it into the field. My observation (which I describe as such because it is a reality under the current system) is that the criteria matter, unless they don't and that can get a bit tricky under less obvious circumstances.

I'm going to disagree that the criteria could or would be disregarded for UMHB or UMU and nobody else.  SOS is one criteria.  It isn't the only one. 

If UMHB loses to TLU, I think they would get in, but this scenario is a little different than 2016 Mount Union.  Mount Union DE-stroyed 9 opponents, then lost in the last 40 seconds to John Carroll.  UMHB losing to TLU would not be equivalent to losing to 2016 semifinalist John Carroll, and UMHB also hasn't been absolutely overwhelming everywhere else on their schedule (meh result vs. Belhaven, last week's Houdini job).  I do think UMHB would get in, but they'll have given committees more reason to consider alternatives than 2016 Mount Union did.

Didn't think future outcomes were a criteria  ;)

JCU was in UWW's bracket and as such a semifinalist was not a given (they already had a loss and didn't exactly destroy people that year), just like we don't yet know where TLU will finish.

Although I do agree with your overall premise that UMHB has not look as impressive this year as Mount did in 2016.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 01:31:01 PM
I'd also argue, it's one thing for the defending champ to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a 1 seed. But comparing 2018 SJU v. 2018 Mount, the former played UMHB just a little tougher IMO. They just faced them two rounds earlier. Why does the runner up get automatically slotted in for a 1 seed? Is the tie-breaker simply "how far did you go" in the playoffs or is it a "look under the hood" about playoff results. SJU isn't in a bad spot when compared to UWW and Mount if it's the latter. Given the outcome against UMHB.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on October 29, 2019, 01:49:54 PM
Looking at the last three years, the way the brackets have been divided recently is as follows:

1. All the island teams (West Coast, Texas, Deep South) placed in one bracket with as many non-island teams as necessary to fill it out to 8.

2. The other 24 teams divided into three sections, east to west, with a few teams shifted as necessary to balance the brackets.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 01:31:01 PM
I'd also argue, it's one thing for the defending champ to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a 1 seed. But comparing 2018 SJU v. 2018 Mount, the former played UMHB just a little tougher IMO. They just faced them two rounds earlier. Why does the runner up get automatically slotted in for a 1 seed? Is the tie-breaker simply "how far did you go" in the playoffs or is it a "look under the hood" about playoff results. SJU isn't in a bad spot when compared to UWW and Mount if it's the latter. Given the outcome against UMHB.

The language is:
Quote
When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated records in the primary criteria, the NCAA Division III Football Committee can use a team's performance in the previous championship season as criterion.

So it doesn't specifically say "record in previous year's championship", which could certainly be interpreted and used as you suggest. 

I don't think the committee would reach into that specific criterion to put SJU on the top line. The other primary criteria are sufficient to figure out who should be the #1 seeds. 

I think it's also important to remember why that rule exists in the first place.  A defending champion went 10-0 the following year and got sent on the road for QF and SF games for no apparent reason.  Literally everybody agreed (at least everybody who is involved in making and approving selection and seeding criteria) that that was garbage and shouldn't be a thing that happens.  I don't think that rule exists to help #2 regionally ranked teams find back doors into top seeds. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:15:56 PM
OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in? 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: tf37 on October 29, 2019, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 10:45:01 AM
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".
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: DuffMan on October 29, 2019, 02:32:59 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:15:56 PM
OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

QuoteIn the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.
Source: WIAC Football Operating Code (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/wiacsports.com/documents/2019/6/17/201920WIACHandbook.pdf)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 01:31:01 PM
I'd also argue, it's one thing for the defending champ to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a 1 seed. But comparing 2018 SJU v. 2018 Mount, the former played UMHB just a little tougher IMO. They just faced them two rounds earlier. Why does the runner up get automatically slotted in for a 1 seed? Is the tie-breaker simply "how far did you go" in the playoffs or is it a "look under the hood" about playoff results. SJU isn't in a bad spot when compared to UWW and Mount if it's the latter. Given the outcome against UMHB.

The language is:
Quote
When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated records in the primary criteria, the NCAA Division III Football Committee can use a team's performance in the previous championship season as criterion.

So it doesn't specifically say "record in previous year's championship", which could certainly be interpreted and used as you suggest. 

I don't think the committee would reach into that specific criterion to put SJU on the top line. The other primary criteria are sufficient to figure out who should be the #1 seeds. 

I think it's also important to remember why that rule exists in the first place.  A defending champion went 10-0 the following year and got sent on the road for QF and SF games for no apparent reason.  Literally everybody agreed (at least everybody who is involved in making and approving selection and seeding criteria) that that was garbage and shouldn't be a thing that happens.  I don't think that rule exists to help #2 regionally ranked teams find back doors into top seeds.

I don't disagree Wally regarding UMHB. But my point is that Mount is not the reigning champ. Neither is UWW. Or Wheaton. Or SJU. Or Ithaca. But the discussion thus far has been that Mount automatically gets the other one. That's why I raise the question of criteria.

And I don't think an unbeaten SJU or UWW (whichever is ranked #2 in the West) is looking for a "backdoor" to the number one seed. I think they/we are saying, our region is constantly, year over year stacked. Can we get a fair shake at #1 seeds when we have multiple teams that are worthy. If there's a back door, IMO, it's Ithaca sitting atop the East as a foregone conclusion for a #1 seed. There's no criteria or tie breaker saying each region's #1 gets first dibs on the #1 seed unless they are a really bad candidate. But there is a tie breaker looking at previous seasons results. I'm not sure UWW or SJU are dogs to Wheaton, Mount, and Ithaca on primary criteria (unless we have back doors for teams that lost to UMHB later than others, and for teams sitting atop favorable regions). But if you factor in last seasons playoff results, all else being equal, Mount, UWW, and SJU come out looking better than Wheaton and Ithaca.

Bottom line, SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else in the playoffs. They would have been a hot knife through butter in the East last year. But Brockport at least had a prior years playoff result to fall back on for some sort of secondary criteria. Ithaca's primary numbers look good, but not appreciably better than Mount, UWW, SJU, and Wheaton.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2019, 02:43:06 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 02:33:35 PM


Bottom line, SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else in the playoffs. They would have been a hot knife through butter in the East last year. But Brockport at least had a prior years playoff result to fall back on for some sort of secondary criteria. Ithaca's primary numbers look good, but not appreciably better than Mount, UWW, SJU, and Wheaton.
Which is always my "bug-a-boo".  Look at the quality of the playoff teams west of the 88th longitude, roughly western Chicagoland.

However, it is difficult not to give a #1 bracket seed to an East Region team if they are undefeated.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: DuffMan on October 29, 2019, 02:32:59 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:15:56 PM
OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

QuoteIn the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.
Source: WIAC Football Operating Code (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/wiacsports.com/documents/2019/6/17/201920WIACHandbook.pdf)

Thanks DuffMan. I was think more along the lines of who would have the edge after the AQ go to. I believe that would make UW-La Crosse the AQ, does the put UW-WW in the drives seat in Pool C? Would that put UW-P on life support in Pool C?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 29, 2019, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: DuffMan on October 29, 2019, 02:32:59 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:15:56 PM
OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

QuoteIn the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.
Source: WIAC Football Operating Code (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/wiacsports.com/documents/2019/6/17/201920WIACHandbook.pdf)

Thanks DuffMan. I was think more along the lines of who would have the edge after the AQ go to. I believe that would make UW-La Crosse the AQ, does the put UW-WW in the drives seat in Pool C? Would that put UW-P on life support in Pool C?

As soon as you lift the Pool A out of that 3 way tie (in this case UWL) the other two are subject to where they are ranked in the region by the RAC for Pool C purposes. UWW would likely be higher due to the HTH.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 03:13:12 PM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: DuffMan on October 29, 2019, 02:32:59 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 02:15:56 PM
OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

QuoteIn the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.
Source: WIAC Football Operating Code (https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/wiacsports.com/documents/2019/6/17/201920WIACHandbook.pdf)

Thanks DuffMan. I was think more along the lines of who would have the edge after the AQ go to. I believe that would make UW-La Crosse the AQ, does the put UW-WW in the drives seat in Pool C? Would that put UW-P on life support in Pool C?

As soon as you lift the Pool A out of that 3 way tie (in this case UWL) the other two are subject to where they are ranked in the region by the RAC for Pool C purposes. UWW would likely be higher due to the HTH.

Probably a fairly damaging scenario for Platteville, It would place them behind Bethel, Redlands and Whitewater in the west alone. Would get to the table late in the process at best.   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2019, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: tf37 on October 29, 2019, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 10:45:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 03:31:03 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2019, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: tf37 on October 29, 2019, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on October 29, 2019, 10:45:01 AM
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.   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 04:09:17 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
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. 

Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
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. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 29, 2019, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 04:09:17 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
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. 

Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
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.  ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 04:36:39 PM
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 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on October 29, 2019, 04:54:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 05:40:02 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 04:36:39 PM
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. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on October 29, 2019, 05:47:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 29, 2019, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 05:40:02 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2019, 04:36:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: repete on October 29, 2019, 09:10:52 PM
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?

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2019, 10:02:46 PM
Quote from: repete on October 29, 2019, 09:10:52 PM
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
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: tf37 on October 29, 2019, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: repete on October 29, 2019, 09:10:52 PM
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 (https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bleedpurple on October 29, 2019, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 10:12:26 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 28, 2019, 09:54:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: repete on October 29, 2019, 11:41:53 PM
Quote from: tf37 on October 29, 2019, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: repete on October 29, 2019, 09:10:52 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2019, 11:47:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2019, 11:49:34 PM
My apologies to Albion, a venerable member of the Society of the Purple (along with UMU, UWW, UMHB, and Linfield).
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2019, 12:23:34 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 05:40:02 PM
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.

This is true, but I don't think we endure annual slander against the rest of the North region in the way that we do the East region.  What you're saying is, sort of, tangentially related.

In a way I think you're buttressing my point- that results against Mount Union shouldn't be the definitive measurement of an entire region's worth.  It's worth reiterating an earlier point: Mount Union is the outlier here, not everybody else. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2019, 12:34:58 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 29, 2019, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 10:12:26 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 28, 2019, 09:54:35 PM
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?

It's written in the handbook.  It isn't a secret, off the books thing that gets trotted out when convenient. 

In your hypothetical, I would hope that UW-P gets in.  They'd deserve it.  And I think the people on the conference call know that.  The criteria are there to guide discussion and ultimately selection, but the criteria aren't refined enough to be completely cut and dry.  If they were, we could probably just plug data into an algorithm, rank teams, and calculate the at-large selections and seedings. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 04:54:49 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2019, 12:23:34 AM
Quote from: USee on October 29, 2019, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2019, 05:40:02 PM
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.

This is true, but I don't think we endure annual slander against the rest of the North region in the way that we do the East region.  What you're saying is, sort of, tangentially related.

In a way I think you're buttressing my point- that results against Mount Union shouldn't be the definitive measurement of an entire region's worth.  It's worth reiterating an earlier point: Mount Union is the outlier here, not everybody else.
... and then in 2018, JHU hosts the "East Regional" and wins by 49, 31 and 23 points before losing to UMU by 8.

I do give the "East" credit for picking up Wesley and Salisbury out of the South Region, when Wesley and Salisbury joined the NJAC. Those were strong teams in the South Region, back in the day. Let's see when/if Wesley gets back up to the previous heights of success seen under Coach Drass.  They "won the East" in 2014, 2013 and 2012 when they were Independents.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bleedpurple on October 30, 2019, 09:10:34 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2019, 12:34:58 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 29, 2019, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2019, 10:12:26 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 28, 2019, 09:54:35 PM
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?

It's written in the handbook.  It isn't a secret, off the books thing that gets trotted out when convenient. 

In your hypothetical, I would hope that UW-P gets in.  They'd deserve it.  And I think the people on the conference call know that.  The criteria are there to guide discussion and ultimately selection, but the criteria aren't refined enough to be completely cut and dry.  If they were, we could probably just plug data into an algorithm, rank teams, and calculate the at-large selections and seedings.
I Agree 100% and I'm glad we don't use an algorithm. I am just fascinated and trying to figure out the process. I agree with Retagent (ouch) that it is great that we have a 32 team playoff system at all. I also don't consider those teams that are "snubbed" to be teams that are "robbed". I'm sure it really hurts to be left on the bubble. But at the same time, "Win your Conference".  I think the Pool A teams earned their way in (even if they are not among the Top 32).  If you land in Pool C, you land in a pool in which you have no control.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I don't. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 09:27:44 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out
Yes, because our "Boise State's" and our "Central Florida's" have a chance!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 09:39:13 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

Highly unlikely. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.
Or the 2004 UMHB team.  Went on the road in the 28-team bracket. I believe that Trinity was the #4 seed and HSU had gotten the bye. W&J was the #2 seed in the region. The Rankings are from D3football.com.

Quote1)  2004 UMHB -- (13-2) Did it Ginger Rogers style.  (Refers to the old joke, who was the better dancer...Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers?  Rogers did everything that Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.)  Was a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3.  Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road.  Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on October 30, 2019, 10:07:53 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix?

No, but the fact that none of the left behind Pool C candidates are legitimate Stagg Bowl contenders strikes me as a bug of Division III—the near complete absence of parity—rather than a positive feature of how the playoffs are constructed.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on October 30, 2019, 10:13:20 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I don't. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.

No breaking news here, but it is the same 3 teams that win almost (17/19) and those same 3 in the finals (30/38) since 2000.  It is way more interesting (and no coach will ever admit, but probaby more realistic goal) to track the Final Four teams.  When looking at these, the pool is a little more diverse, the East actually has a team 14/19 years....
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 30, 2019, 10:50:17 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I hope we are not ok saying that because only 3-4 teams are capable of winning the Stagg each year the process doesn't matter for the other 28? The process matters and I have the same question: Are the criteria relevant until they aren't? The current answer, which is that it's part art, part science, is ok.

The problem for teams, coaches and fans is the inconsistency on the art part of it. When a new committee rolls in every 2 years they interpret things differently than the previous group and we get different results from the process. That inconsistency causes missed expectations for teams and fans. The D3.com team is usually right on 30 or 31 of 32 teams every year and often pretty accurate in their bracketing. But when the guys at D3.com who look at it every year and know the criteria get surprised, that's not a consistent process.

To me it's not ok to say the process doesn't really matter because the last 3-4 teams can't win it all. That's the wrong approach. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 11:15:11 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I'm all for the Pool A system where conference champs get an auto-bid. Sure there are teams from the UMAC (et. al) that are going to lose by 50+ points in the first round. I'd rather have that than the wild west of the 60's NAIA system where there were hundreds of teams and a 4 team playoff, with loads of unbeaten teams left home. In the current system, if you win all your regular season games, you are gonna be in the playoffs. Pool C gives a pathway to very good teams from very good conferences another shot. In 2010 Bethel had a team that lost to UST in a great game. Made the playoffs, beat UST in the rematch and made a run to the Semi's (where they ran into the machine). The 2010 bracket was better because it had a Pool C team like Bethel in it. I wish we had more than 5 Pool C bids, but as has been stated, I'm grateful for the ones we do have.

But if the admission is that there are only a handful of teams capable of winning it all, within a system ensuring access to teams who's only real hope is to win a game or two, I'd like to see us committing to what we can accomplish...Not a perfectly balanced bracket in terms of strength, but one where the top 4 teams are given a region to anchor.

FWIW, I think last year there were 3 Stagg capable teams (UMHB, SJU, Mount), where if they were given a 1 seed they could have made a run to the final game (I.e. I think SJU v. Mount in the Semi's was a pick em last year). And this year I suspect there might be as many as 5-6 (UMHB, Mount, SJU, Wheaton, UWW, maybe Muhlenberg/Ithaca). Only 4 can get a 1 seed, but I'm all about saying let's make it the best 4 to the best of our ability.

To Ralph's point about Division IV ... part of me would love to see this. Some schools just have no desire to compete or would be more than happy play for "Bowl Game" matchups with regional teams. And I'd love to see our playoffs include the best 28-32 teams, what a tourney that would be. But I wonder how you fund something like that?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: repete on October 30, 2019, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 09:39:13 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 30, 2019, 08:44:00 AM
Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

Highly unlikely. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.
Or the 2004 UMHB team.  Went on the road in the 28-team bracket. I believe that Trinity was the #4 seed and HSU had gotten the bye. W&J was the #2 seed in the region. The Rankings are from D3football.com.

Quote1)  2004 UMHB -- (13-2) Did it Ginger Rogers style.  (Refers to the old joke, who was the better dancer...Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers?  Rogers did everything that Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.)  Was a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3.  Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road.  Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.

Or, I believe, the 2000 SJU team, MIAC runner-up to Bethel, which lost on a last-minute FG to Mt. Union.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 11:54:36 AM
And not to really stir the hive, maybe there's a middle ground to access and a more competitive playoff field.

What if we had a system where every conference maintains their Pool A bid provided they meet one of two criteria:
1. Their conference champion is undefeated (minimum of 8 D3 games).
2. A conference rep has won a playoff game in the past 10 years.

[Currently the bottom conferences from a playoff success perspective (https://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs) and with no wins are the NEWMAC, MASCAC, UMAC, NACC, SCIAC. Less competitive conferences who are safe due to at least one or two wins include ECFC, MWC, NEFC/CCC, ODAC, and USAC.]

If a conference doesn't meet one of the three criteria, their Pool A bid goes into the Pool C Bucket, increasing the number of available Pool C bids. And their conference champ is eligible for a Pool C bid.

So in this scenario, this year the MASCAC, UMAC, ECFC, and NACC bids goes to Pool C since the conferences have no wins in the last 10 years, and currently have no unbeaten conference champ. >> 9 Pool C Bids (at 9 bids Aurora might have a shot at Pool C).

NEWMAC and SCIAC champs are currently on pace for a bid since they are unbeaten.

The best teams from these conferences would still have access provided they remained unbeaten. It also prevents dilution of the playoff by keeping teams from the worst conferences with multiple losses out of the field. You could also amend this that if the conference champ from a winless postseason conference has a single loss, but it was to a Regionally Ranked opponent they retain their bid. This would allow teams to still schedule a competitive team in the non-con. Or a third criteria, champ gets in if ranked in the Top 10 of their region.

There will still be arguments about who didn't get the last Pool C bid. But it helps to strengthen the field, while still maintaining a clear path of access for the best conference champs from the worst conferences. It also makes early upsets for those conferences drastically more exciting, because now if WPI wins in Rd 1, they not only pulled off an upset, they just assured their entire conference access for the next 9 seasons. I'd be all for swapping out years where one of these conferences is putting forward a 2 or 3 loss team, and we are leaving home a 1 or 2 loss team from a much stronger league. We wouldn't be sweating NCC being left home or GAC (with a win over UST) suddenly has a more realistic shot at the field and could make the playoffs for the first time in decades. GAC is a good example of a team that could win a game or two, but is stuck in a league producing semi-final capable champs/runners up.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 11:55:19 AM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 11:15:11 AM
FWIW, I think last year there were 3 Stagg capable teams (UMHB, SJU, Mount), where if they were given a 1 seed they could have made a run to the final game (I.e. I think SJU v. Mount in the Semi's was a pick em last year). And this year I suspect there might be as many as 5-6 (UMHB, Mount, SJU, Wheaton, UWW, maybe Muhlenberg/Ithaca). Only 4 can get a 1 seed, but I'm all about saying let's make it the best 4 to the best of our ability.

5 or 6 teams to win the Stagg Bowl this year?? I would say MHB, Mount and SJU are the only ones I think realistically have a shot. With Wheaton and UWW having outside chances....at best. Other than those 5, I can't buy into any other teams to consider. The top tier is just too damn good to get upset by an Ithaca or Muhlenberg...it's been this way for awhile now with the same three teams winning the Stagg Bowl since in 2005. Unless there's another version of the 2005 Warhawks that plan on emerging into the top tier sometime soon.  ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 30, 2019, 12:01:39 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 11:54:36 AM
And not to really stir the hive, maybe there's a middle ground to access and a more competitive playoff field.

What if we had a system where every conference maintains their Pool A bid provided they meet one of two criteria:
1. Their conference champion is undefeated (minimum of 8 D3 games).
2. A conference rep has won a playoff game in the past 10 years.

[Currently the bottom conferences from a playoff success perspective (https://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs) and with no wins are the NEWMAC, MASCAC, UMAC, NACC, SCIAC. Less competitive conferences who are safe due to at least one or two wins include ECFC, MWC, NEFC/CCC, ODAC, and USAC.]

If a conference doesn't meet one of the three criteria, their Pool A bid goes into the Pool C Bucket, increasing the number of available Pool C bids. And their conference champ is eligible for a Pool C bid.

So in this scenario, this year the MASCAC, UMAC, ECFC, and NACC bids goes to Pool C since the conferences have no wins in the last 10 years, and currently have no unbeaten conference champ. >> 9 Pool C Bids (at 9 bids Aurora might have a shot at Pool C).

NEWMAC and SCIAC champs are currently on pace for a bid since they are unbeaten.

The best teams from these conferences would still have access provided they remained unbeaten. It also prevents dilution of the playoff by keeping teams from the worst conferences with multiple losses out of the field. You could also amend this that if the conference champ from a winless postseason conference has a single loss, but it was to a Regionally Ranked opponent they retain their bid. This would allow teams to still schedule a competitive team in the non-con. Or a third criteria, champ gets in if ranked in the Top 5 of their region.

There will still be arguments about who didn't get the last Pool C bid. But it helps to strengthen the field, while still maintaining a clear path of access for the best conference champs from the worst conferences. It also makes early upsets for those conferences drastically more exciting, because now if WPI wins in Rd 1, they not only pulled off an upset, they just assured their entire conference access for the next 9 seasons. I'd be all for swapping out years where one of these conferences is putting forward a 2 or 3 loss team, and we are leaving home a 1 or 2 loss team from a much stronger league. We wouldn't be sweating NCC being left home or GAC (with a win over UST) suddenly has a more realistic shot at the field and could make the playoffs for the first time in decades. GAC is a good example of a team that could win a game or two, but is stuck in a league producing semi-final capable champs/runners up.

You need to collaborate with Emma.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 12:12:54 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 11:55:19 AM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 11:15:11 AM
FWIW, I think last year there were 3 Stagg capable teams (UMHB, SJU, Mount), where if they were given a 1 seed they could have made a run to the final game (I.e. I think SJU v. Mount in the Semi's was a pick em last year). And this year I suspect there might be as many as 5-6 (UMHB, Mount, SJU, Wheaton, UWW, maybe Muhlenberg/Ithaca). Only 4 can get a 1 seed, but I'm all about saying let's make it the best 4 to the best of our ability.

5 or 6 teams to win the Stagg Bowl this year?? I would say MHB, Mount and SJU are the only ones I think realistically have a shot. With Wheaton and UWW having outside chances....at best. Other than those 5, I can't buy into any other teams to consider. The top tier is just too damn good to get upset by an Ithaca or Muhlenberg...it's been this way for awhile now with the same three teams winning the Stagg Bowl since in 2005. Unless there's another version of the 2005 Warhawks that plan on emerging into the top tier sometime soon.  ;)

Should have clarified. Capable of making it to the Stagg bowl, with the right matchups.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:36:33 PM
I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: repete on October 30, 2019, 12:48:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:36:33 PM
I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

Have liked this idea for years.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:36:33 PM
I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

I had the D2 process in the back of my mind as well Pat. Just not sure if they have as many conferences that have essentially no recent playoff success to speak of. I'd imagine their competitive balance (i.e. the gap between the playoff floor and ceiling) is a bit narrower year over year. At least from a conference standpoint.

Quote from: USee on October 30, 2019, 12:01:39 PM
You need to collaborate with Emma.

I'm not sure how to take that  ;D ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 01:10:27 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:36:33 PM
I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

I had the D2 process in the back of my mind as well Pat. Just not sure if they have as many conferences that have essentially no recent playoff success to speak of. I'd imagine their competitive balance (i.e. the gap between the playoff floor and ceiling) is a bit narrower year over year. At least from a conference standpoint.

Quote from: USee on October 30, 2019, 12:01:39 PM
You need to collaborate with Emma.

I'm not sure how to take that  ;D ;)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:36:33 PM
I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

hazzben, your answer may be found in question #9.

https://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs

The reason that I suggested D-IV that the "D-III" concept of participation could be modified to fit the "mission and vision" of a significant number of schools, and we could get to the 1:6.5 ratio that we have in other sports.

I really like that we have the opportunity for conferences below the Mendoza Line (mixed metaphor during the World Series) to make the playoffs.  That is a thrill for those players.

MWC           4   21   .160
CCC           4   22   .154
MIAA           3   19   .136
SCIAC   2   18   .100
ECFC           1   9   .100
NEWMAC   0   2   .000
MASCAC   0   5   .000
IBC *   0   8   .000
UMAC   0   8   .000
NACC   0   11   .000




We only seem to be 3-4 Pool C bids shy of getting truly worthy at-large schools for the playoffs, i.e. teams that could win a game or two. We have that balance in Hoops and Baseball.  Having 247 divided by 6.5 = 38 bids.

Who knows, perhaps the NESCAC would choose to participate in "D-IV".   :)

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

Fair point Pat. I think it's mitigated by a couple things:
1. Any time that conference has a team that is unbeaten they are in. So their best teams, most capable of a W and a better seed, will always see the dance, regardless of conference history.
2. I'd probably add the RRO criteria. So if the conf champ has a W against a RRO they are in. Or if their lone L is against a RRO, they are in.
3. I'd also advocate bringing back the "Once Ranked, Always Ranked" factor to the RRO.

So if you've got a SCIAC team sitting at 9-1, but their only loss is to the NWC champ, who is regionally ranked. They are in. Or if they are 9-1, but they have a W over an NWC team that was at some point ranked in the 7-10 range (where we expect the NWC 2nd place team to typically sit), they are in.

My only concern with just adopting the D2 rule is that ranking 20 teams per region is pretty onerous for the Regional Committees (I've listened in on a few of these calls in the past). Adding the extra criteria might alleviate the need for this. Effectively adding in probably 3-6 teams that are ranked each year per region. It also still encourages Non-con matchups for teams in the NWC/SCIAC without penalizing them if they drop that game.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: UfanBill on October 30, 2019, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

I like the earned access concept. I think hazzben's model provides access. Win all their games. If a team from one of the conferences that doesn't have tournament success has an undefeated season they earn a Pool A regardless. Nobody wants to deny a "once a decade" type team. A team that strong might reasonably also have some tournament success.   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on October 30, 2019, 01:35:35 PM
I think the NCAA needs to rethink the Pool A waiting period and grace period, and this season's ECFC is a walking example of why.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: repete on October 30, 2019, 01:45:26 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

Perhaps by pushing fringe teams to up their NC schedule?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on October 30, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
I might be in the minority here and I may get blasted for this, but I think the NCAA has got it right as it is. It is regressive thinking to take opportunity away from those at a disadvantage. The structure is the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that did not win their conferences. Simple enough. For those that call for a system of the top 32, but why the top 32? Several have stated here that 3-7 teams are the only ones that can win it all (and I agree), so why bother than with a round of 32, 16 or 8 for that matter? Just go to the D-1 format and have a final 4 and save a bunch of money.

After the first round of games, for the most part we are left with the best 16 teams and things will playout from there. All the real contenders still alive for their ultimate goal and those in the bottom 16 or so conferences have their memories of a lifetime. Life is about opportunity and a chance with hope and dreams, everyone deserves that chance regardless of how small that chance may be. IMHO     

   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bluestreak66 on October 30, 2019, 01:54:35 PM
I like Hazzben's idea. Maybe a slight caveat would be to bring back pool B in some capacity. I don't know how this would work, but maybe use the prior year's overall results (playoff performance, OOC record, ect.) and designate 4-6 conferences to be "Pool B" that year. Then, have 1 pool B bid for every 2 pool b designated conference. For example, if you choose 6, there would be 3 bids to go to those conference champions automatically, while the other 3 would bounce to pool c. This way, every team in every conference has access to the playoff, but you are creating 3 extra at large bids
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 01:57:46 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 30, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
I might be in the minority here and I may get blasted for this, but I think the NCAA has got it right as it is. It is regressive thinking to take opportunity away from those at a disadvantage. The structure is the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that did not win their conferences. Simple enough. For those that call for a system of the top 32, but why the top 32? Several have stated here that 3-7 teams are the only ones that can win it all (and I agree), so why bother than with a round of 32, 16 or 8 for that matter? Just go to the D-1 format and have a final 4 and save a bunch of money.

After the first round of games, for the most part we are left with the best 16 teams and things will playout from there. All the real contenders still alive for their ultimate goal and those in the bottom 16 or so conferences have their memories of a lifetime. Life is about opportunity and a chance with hope and dreams, everyone deserves that chance regardless of how small that chance may be. IMHO     



Even though I'm one that said only 2-3 teams have a realistic chance on winning the Stagg each year, I like the current format as it is as well. I think it's great accomplishment for a lower-conference team to compete in the tournament after winning their conference. It gives them to opportunity to practice one more week which further develops their players for next season.

For those that felt they were snubbed from a Pool C bid, well....play better next year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 02:06:59 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 30, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
I might be in the minority here and I may get blasted for this, but I think the NCAA has got it right as it is. It is regressive thinking to take opportunity away from those at a disadvantage. The structure is the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that did not win their conferences. Simple enough. For those that call for a system of the top 32, but why the top 32? Several have stated here that 3-7 teams are the only ones that can win it all (and I agree), so why bother than with a round of 32, 16 or 8 for that matter? Just go to the D-1 format and have a final 4 and save a bunch of money.

After the first round of games, for the most part we are left with the best 16 teams and things will playout from there. All the real contenders still alive for their ultimate goal and those in the bottom 16 or so conferences have their memories of a lifetime. Life is about opportunity and a chance with hope and dreams, everyone deserves that chance regardless of how small that chance may be. IMHO     


+1, baldini

Your sentiments reflect a large portion of D-III, especially the some-odd bottom 16 conference who are unlikely to move to the 3rd round. Here are records for the last 10 years.  The conferences with more than 10 losses had 2 bids one year.  The SAA, UMAC, NEWMAC and  MASCAC are "new" conferences

PAC   6   12   .333
SAA   3   6   .333
HCAC   3   10   .231
MIAA   3   10   .231
SCAC   1   4   .200
USAC   2   10   .167
ODAC   2   11   .154
MWC   2   11   .154
NEFC/CCC   2   12   .143
ECFC   1   9   .100
UAA   0   2   .000
NEWMAC   0   2   .000
MASCAC   0   4   .000
UMAC   0   8   .000
NACC   0   10   .000
SCIAC   0   11   .000
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 02:06:59 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 30, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
I might be in the minority here and I may get blasted for this, but I think the NCAA has got it right as it is. It is regressive thinking to take opportunity away from those at a disadvantage. The structure is the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that did not win their conferences. Simple enough. For those that call for a system of the top 32, but why the top 32? Several have stated here that 3-7 teams are the only ones that can win it all (and I agree), so why bother than with a round of 32, 16 or 8 for that matter? Just go to the D-1 format and have a final 4 and save a bunch of money.

After the first round of games, for the most part we are left with the best 16 teams and things will playout from there. All the real contenders still alive for their ultimate goal and those in the bottom 16 or so conferences have their memories of a lifetime. Life is about opportunity and a chance with hope and dreams, everyone deserves that chance regardless of how small that chance may be. IMHO     


+1, baldini

Your sentiments reflect a large portion of D-III, especially the some-odd bottom 16 conference who are unlikely to move to the 3rd round. Here are records for the last 10 years.  The conferences with more than 10 losses had 2 bids one year.  The SAA, UMAC, NEWMAC and  MASCAC are "new" conferences

PAC   6   12   .333
SAA   3   6   .333
HCAC   3   10   .231
MIAA   3   10   .231
SCAC   1   4   .200
USAC   2   10   .167
ODAC   2   11   .154
MWC   2   11   .154
NEFC/CCC   2   12   .143
ECFC   1   9   .100
UAA   0   2   .000
NEWMAC   0   2   .000
MASCAC   0   4   .000
UMAC   0   8   .000
NACC   0   10   .000
SCIAC   0   11   .000

How many of those are against Linfield? 9?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant.

And in one innocent sentence the entire argument of the last five pages has been distilled. If there are four or fewer teams with a realistic shot (as all reasonable opinion agrees), how can any of them be a number 2 seed?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 02:29:19 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant.

And in one innocent sentence the entire argument of the last five pages has been distilled. If there are four or fewer teams with a realistic shot (as all reasonable opinion agrees), how can any of them be a number 2 seed?

You know why....even though we don't agree with the logic.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on October 30, 2019, 02:37:57 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 09:26:46 AM
Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant.

And in one innocent sentence the entire argument of the last five pages has been distilled. If there are four or fewer teams with a realistic shot (as all reasonable opinion agrees), how can any of them be a number 2 seed?

I feel like there has to be some objective criteria in determining seeds, beyond "Come on, we all know Ithaca isn't winning a Stagg Bowl"

I'm not necessarily even advocating for IC with that point. I just feel like your statement is a little to reliant on the eye test (even if, ultimately, you'll be proven right.)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 02:39:16 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

Fair point Pat. I think it's mitigated by a couple things:
1. Any time that conference has a team that is unbeaten they are in. So their best teams, most capable of a W and a better seed, will always see the dance, regardless of conference history.
2. I'd probably add the RRO criteria. So if the conf champ has a W against a RRO they are in. Or if their lone L is against a RRO, they are in.
3. I'd also advocate bringing back the "Once Ranked, Always Ranked" factor to the RRO.

So if you've got a SCIAC team sitting at 9-1, but their only loss is to the NWC champ, who is regionally ranked. They are in. Or if they are 9-1, but they have a W over an NWC team that was at some point ranked in the 7-10 range (where we expect the NWC 2nd place team to typically sit), they are in.

My only concern with just adopting the D2 rule is that ranking 20 teams per region is pretty onerous for the Regional Committees (I've listened in on a few of these calls in the past). Adding the extra criteria might alleviate the need for this. Effectively adding in probably 3-6 teams that are ranked each year per region. It also still encourages Non-con matchups for teams in the NWC/SCIAC without penalizing them if they drop that game.

Sounds good. Someone would have to make the effort and apply this model to the last five years to see if it makes a difference or not, though.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 02:20:26 PM


How many of those are against Linfield? 9?
4 Linfield
4 UMHB

One each for the Tommies, North Central and Whitworth

Actually the conference is very balanced; 5 different conference champs in the last 7 years
2009 CLU vs Linfield
2010 CLU vs Linfield
2011 CLU vs Linfield
        Redlands vs UMHB
2012 CLU vs North Central
2013 Redlands vs UMHB
2014 Chapman vs Linfield
2015 LaVerne vs Tommies
2016 Redlands vs UMHB
2017 Chapman vs UMHB
2018 CMS vs Whitworth
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on October 30, 2019, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: Baldini on October 30, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
I might be in the minority here and I may get blasted for this, but I think the NCAA has got it right as it is. It is regressive thinking to take opportunity away from those at a disadvantage. The structure is the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that did not win their conferences. Simple enough.

Again, I feel like it's "simple enough" now because the lack of parity in the sport renders those at-large teams mostly moot for the national title conversation.

That doesn't mean a 27-5 split is the best way to go forward (if we ever return to a world where the best 2-3 teams aren't light years ahead of everyone else).
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on October 30, 2019, 03:39:15 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on October 30, 2019, 02:37:57 PM
I feel like there has to be some objective criteria in determining seeds, beyond "Come on, we all know Ithaca isn't winning a Stagg Bowl"

I'm not necessarily even advocating for IC with that point. I just feel like your statement is a little to reliant on the eye test (even if, ultimately, you'll be proven right.)
The objective criteria they use with seeding/bracketing is geography.  They will certainly try to give the best teams better seeds, but if they have too many teams that can't bus to Mount, we're going to get a more regional bracket.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on October 30, 2019, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 01:57:46 PM

For those that felt they were snubbed from a Pool C bid, well....play better next year.

Seems like this is an argument we could apply to a 4/5-loss ECFC team a heck of a lot easier than we can to a 9-1 team
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 04:20:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2019, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 02:20:26 PM


How many of those are against Linfield? 9?
4 Linfield
4 UMHB

One each for the Tommies, North Central and Whitworth

Actually the conference is very balanced; 5 different conference champs in the last 7 years
2009 CLU vs Linfield
2010 CLU vs Linfield
2011 CLU vs Linfield
        Redlands vs UMHB
2012 CLU vs North Central
2013 Redlands vs UMHB
2014 Chapman vs Linfield
2015 LaVerne vs Tommies
2016 Redlands vs UMHB
2017 Chapman vs UMHB
2018 CMS vs Whitworth

The SCIAC for the most part is covered by my model. If their champ is undefeated, they are in. If their champ's only loss came to a NWC champ in the non-con (who would almost assuredly be ranked in the West), they are in. If the SCIAC champ lost a game in conference, but beat a ranked NWC team (or someone else), they are in. All of that failing, at 9-1 they with no RRO, they could still rely on SOS and the potential of one of the Pool C bids.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 04:21:57 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 02:39:16 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

Fair point Pat. I think it's mitigated by a couple things:
1. Any time that conference has a team that is unbeaten they are in. So their best teams, most capable of a W and a better seed, will always see the dance, regardless of conference history.
2. I'd probably add the RRO criteria. So if the conf champ has a W against a RRO they are in. Or if their lone L is against a RRO, they are in.
3. I'd also advocate bringing back the "Once Ranked, Always Ranked" factor to the RRO.

So if you've got a SCIAC team sitting at 9-1, but their only loss is to the NWC champ, who is regionally ranked. They are in. Or if they are 9-1, but they have a W over an NWC team that was at some point ranked in the 7-10 range (where we expect the NWC 2nd place team to typically sit), they are in.

My only concern with just adopting the D2 rule is that ranking 20 teams per region is pretty onerous for the Regional Committees (I've listened in on a few of these calls in the past). Adding the extra criteria might alleviate the need for this. Effectively adding in probably 3-6 teams that are ranked each year per region. It also still encourages Non-con matchups for teams in the NWC/SCIAC without penalizing them if they drop that game.

Sounds good. Someone would have to make the effort and apply this model to the last five years to see if it makes a difference or not, though.

Having built the model, I now nominate Oz to prove it's validity. Aka, you asked for proof, I take that as you volunteering to provide said proof. Aka, at 10,000+ posts, clearly you have more time than me  8-) ;D ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 04:24:36 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on October 30, 2019, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 01:57:46 PM

For those that felt they were snubbed from a Pool C bid, well....play better next year.

Seems like this is an argument we could apply to a 4/5-loss ECFC team a heck of a lot easier than we can to a 9-1 team

Except that the Division III philosophy references championship access, and you would be expressly counteracting that philosophy by disenfranchising an entire conference.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 04:38:36 PM
For another example. Aurora is currently sitting atop the NACC standings. Not unbeaten, but they are covered on multiple fronts (which is great since they are having a great year and an improving team). 1 - Their only loss is to Hope, who is likely to be a RRO. 2 - They are likely to be ranked in the Top 10 of the North region. So Aurora would be covered twice and in the field.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 04:59:38 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 04:21:57 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 02:39:16 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 30, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

Fair point Pat. I think it's mitigated by a couple things:
1. Any time that conference has a team that is unbeaten they are in. So their best teams, most capable of a W and a better seed, will always see the dance, regardless of conference history.
2. I'd probably add the RRO criteria. So if the conf champ has a W against a RRO they are in. Or if their lone L is against a RRO, they are in.
3. I'd also advocate bringing back the "Once Ranked, Always Ranked" factor to the RRO.

So if you've got a SCIAC team sitting at 9-1, but their only loss is to the NWC champ, who is regionally ranked. They are in. Or if they are 9-1, but they have a W over an NWC team that was at some point ranked in the 7-10 range (where we expect the NWC 2nd place team to typically sit), they are in.

My only concern with just adopting the D2 rule is that ranking 20 teams per region is pretty onerous for the Regional Committees (I've listened in on a few of these calls in the past). Adding the extra criteria might alleviate the need for this. Effectively adding in probably 3-6 teams that are ranked each year per region. It also still encourages Non-con matchups for teams in the NWC/SCIAC without penalizing them if they drop that game.

Sounds good. Someone would have to make the effort and apply this model to the last five years to see if it makes a difference or not, though.

Having built the model, I now nominate Oz to prove it's validity. Aka, you asked for proof, I take that as you volunteering to provide said proof. Aka, at 10,000+ posts, clearly you have more time than me  8-) ;D ;)

I can touch-type. I'm just more productive. ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2019, 07:15:49 PM
Nope. Win your league and you're in. That's your job one. Don't need 'extra' access for those that didn't win their league. They had their chance.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on October 30, 2019, 07:38:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2019, 07:15:49 PM
Nope. Win your league and you're in. That's your job one. Don't need 'extra' access for those that didn't win their league. They had their chance.
Step 1. Kick out the team that's won the league 6 of the last 9 years.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2019, 08:01:06 PM
Quote from: jamtod on October 30, 2019, 07:38:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2019, 07:15:49 PM
Nope. Win your league and you're in. That's your job one. Don't need 'extra' access for those that didn't win their league. They had their chance.
Step 1. Kick out the team that's won the league 6 of the last 9 years.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit!

I see you know the Pool A gnomes. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 08:14:11 PM
Quote from: jamtod on October 30, 2019, 07:38:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2019, 07:15:49 PM
Nope. Win your league and you're in. That's your job one. Don't need 'extra' access for those that didn't win their league. They had their chance.
Step 1. Kick out the team that's won the league 6 of the last 9 years.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit!

Step 0. Identify the team who can no longer buy their way to the top. Proceed with step 1.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on October 31, 2019, 12:14:16 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on October 30, 2019, 08:14:11 PM
Quote from: jamtod on October 30, 2019, 07:38:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2019, 07:15:49 PM
Nope. Win your league and you're in. That's your job one. Don't need 'extra' access for those that didn't win their league. They had their chance.
Step 1. Kick out the team that's won the league 6 of the last 9 years.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit!

Step 0. Identify the team who can no longer buy their way to the top. Proceed with step 1.

Step 0.25 - Educate others on fundraising, endowments, and priorities based on a strategic plan and a plan to maintain enrollment through the upcoming dip in HS graduates.
Step 0.33 - Compare scores between lesser lights in other leagues and the traditional powers.
Step 0.5 - Idenfity the sour grape fan bases and root against them fervently, even if they want their daughter in MN to go to St. Ben's.
Step 0.75 - Use Denison as a case in point - growing a football program without compromising high academic standards and traditional rivals.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on October 31, 2019, 12:25:19 AM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on October 30, 2019, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 30, 2019, 01:57:46 PM

For those that felt they were snubbed from a Pool C bid, well....play better next year.

Seems like this is an argument we could apply to a 4/5-loss ECFC team a heck of a lot easier than we can to a 9-1 team

Nope. They had their chance, and why punish a conference champ so the have-conferences can deny a bid to a have-not.

32 teams is a perfect number, along with a 10-game schedule, for D3. No byes. Teams are encouraged to join conferences by the pool system as well (and the min. requirement for teams) which eases scheduling and allows for most teams to have entirely D3 schedules. (Some don't, I know, and that happens).

I don't want to deny a team that won their league and played a tough non-conference game or two a route to the playoffs even if they are 8-0, 8-2 or something like that.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: DuffMan on October 31, 2019, 08:48:16 AM
Quote from: jamtod on October 30, 2019, 07:38:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2019, 07:15:49 PM
Nope. Win your league and you're in. That's your job one. Don't need 'extra' access for those that didn't win their league. They had their chance.
Step 1. Kick out the team that's won the league 6 of the last 9 1 of the last 3 years.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit!

Fixed that for you.  Let's not live in the past.  :P
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2019, 10:37:14 AM
Let's not live in the past -- followed by a massive footer of items from the past. :)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: DuffMan on October 31, 2019, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2019, 10:37:14 AM
Let's not live in the past -- followed by a massive footer of items from the past. :)

Pat, you're just full of zingers this week!!!  :P
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on October 31, 2019, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2019, 10:37:14 AM
Let's not live in the past -- followed by a massive footer of items from the past. :)

The beautiful irony would have been alive and well even without the footer.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on October 31, 2019, 11:43:25 AM
I for one appreciate the way the system is set up now.  Everyone keeps saying that there are teams left at home who could win one or two games, but who would those games be against if the MASCAC winner, or NACC or ECFC or SCIAC winners were not invited to the dance?  St. Thomas could certainly beat Aurora of Gallaudet, they might even be able to beat Wartburg. 

Hypothetically,  lets say we leave Aurora out this year because of past performance(or whatever) and St. Thomas gets in, instead.  Now we match St. Thomas up with Wheaton in the first round, instead of matching up Wheaton with Aurora.  Let's say Wheaton beats St. Thomas.  35-24.  St. Thomas goes home.  Is that better than allowing Aurora to match up against Wheaton just because we think that score would more lopsided, like 45-3?  In this case, St. Thomas gets rewarded for going 7-3 and finishing 3rd in their power conference, based on previous year's results, and Aurora get penalized for having the best season that it has had in a while. 

I think it's not right.  The only way these additional pool C team win 1-2 games is if they get the right match up.  Which would be against the pool A bids from less competitive conferences. 

matching Hobart up against Mount in the first round because we think Hobart would beat the ECFC winner is silly.  The out come is still the same.

***Disclaimer*** Everything in this post is hypothetical.  Replace teams or conference with whomever you think would fit.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on October 31, 2019, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: Captainred81 on October 31, 2019, 11:43:25 AM
I for one appreciate the way the system is set up now.  Everyone keeps saying that there are teams left at home who could win one or two games, but who would those games be against if the MASCAC winner, or NACC or ECFC or SCIAC winners were not invited to the dance?  St. Thomas could certainly beat Aurora of Gallaudet, they might even be able to beat Wartburg. 

Hypothetically,  lets say we leave Aurora out this year because of past performance(or whatever) and St. Thomas gets in, instead.  Now we match St. Thomas up with Wheaton in the first round, instead of matching up Wheaton with Aurora.  Let's say Wheaton beats St. Thomas.  35-24.  St. Thomas goes home.  Is that better than allowing Aurora to match up against Wheaton just because we think that score would more lopsided, like 45-3?  In this case, St. Thomas gets rewarded for going 7-3 and finishing 3rd in their power conference, based on previous year's results, and Aurora get penalized for having the best season that it has had in a while. 

I think it's not right.  The only way these additional pool C team win 1-2 games is if they get the right match up.  Which would be against the pool A bids from less competitive conferences.

matching Hobart up against Mount in the first round because we think Hobart would beat the ECFC winner is silly.  The out come is still the same.

***Disclaimer*** Everything in this post is hypothetical.  Replace teams or conference with whomever you think would fit.

This argument makes the most sense to me from what has been said lately about the whole process. I have been pondering just how to say something similar and you beat me to the punch. Perhaps I am too fatalistic in my approach to life, but under the current system (which by the way, to me, doesn't seem to be broken) if you don't win your conference - it sucks to be you. Now your fate is in someone else's hands. That's not how I live my life, or at least I think I don't - that is, in the hands of another person.

But back to the discussion, as CR81 has so eloquently put it, switching out who gets beat in the first couple of rounds is just a shell game. Any team that makes it to the final 8 teams standing is a good team that season. Those that lost in earlier rounds can always point back to what "could have happened" if the ball bounced their way. I'd rather it be a conference champ muttering those words, than a really strong third place team from another conference.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 31, 2019, 12:11:27 PM
Pat and Wally have posted their Mock Regional Rankings on the front page and its a great read. Really well done. Using that data, the current  Pool C picture is interesting (it will change dramatically):

East:
Salisbury 6-0, .524, 1-0
Ithaca 7-0, .500, 0-0
Cortland 7-0, .469, 0-0
Wesley 5-1, .626, 2-1 +
Delaware Valley 7-1, .545, 0-1
Union 7-0, .450, 0-0
Western New England 6-0, .502, 0-0 -
WPI 7-0, .425, 0-0
Endicott 6-1, .456, 0-1
Brockport 6-1, .497, 0-0

North:
Mount Union 7-0, .571, 2-0
Wheaton 7-0, .644, 2-0
Hope 6-1, .548, 2-0
North Central 6-1, .536, 1-1
Baldwin Wallace 6-1, .511, 0-1
Aurora 6-1, .516, 0-1
John Carroll 6-1, .489, 0-1
Olivet 6-1, .528, 0-1
Washington U. 5-2, .573, 0-2
Wabash 5-2, .523, 1-0

South:
UMHB 7-0, .431, 1-0
Muhlenberg 7-0, .567, 1-0
Texas Lutheran 5-1, .570, 1-1
Susquehanna 6-1, .601, 0-1
Case Western Reserve 7-0, .477, 0-0
Bridgewater 7-0, .478, 0-0
Hardin-Simmons 5-2, .565, 0-2
Randolph-Macon 6-1, .566, 0-0
Berry 7-1, .491, 1-0
Hendrix 4-2, .603, 1-1 +

West:
St. John's 7-0, .597, 2-0
UW-Whitewater 6-0, .560, 1-0
Chapman 6-0, .522, 1-0
Wartburg 7-0, .559, 0-0
Redlands 6-1, .653 1-1
UW-Platteville 5-1, .634, 1-1
Bethel 6-1, .615, 1-1
Linfield 5-1, .501, 0-1
UW-La Crosse 5-1, .559, 0-1 -
Gustavus Adolphus 5-2, .542, 0-2



Obviously in the East Ithaca still has to play Cortland and Union  so that picture could change a lot. Right now Wesley is the top Pool C bid. In the North you have NCC and the BW/JCU winner. South has Susquehanna (and if UMHB loses to TLU its chaos there). The West is most interesting because D3.com has Bethel as the 3rd potential Pool C and that's a precarious position to be with only 5 spots.

The Pool C table would be stacked like this:
Wesley, Union/Cortland/WNE
NCC, JCU/BW
Susquehanna, RMU
Redlands, UWP, Bethel

This Pool C situation looks brutal this year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
Quote from: USee on October 31, 2019, 12:11:27 PM
The Pool C table would be stacked like this:
Wesley, Union/Cortland/WNE
NCC, JCU/BW
Susquehanna, RMU
Redlands, UWP, Bethel

This Pool C situation looks brutal this year.

In the east, I think Union, with a loss, is probably not a Pool C contender.  They'll get SOS help, but without an RRO win, I think they're on the wrong side of the bubble.  WNE is in a similar position- if they lose to Endicott it's hard to see where they have profile points to get one of the five golden tickets.  I think your two legitimate C candidates in the East are Wesley and then either 9-1 Ithaca (loss to Union, win vs. Cortland) or 9-1 Cortland (loss to Brockport, win vs. Ithaca). 

In the South you've got Susquehanna and then Bridgewater if they lose to RMC.  RMC will not be a C contender if they lose the ODAC.  If Birmingham-Southern runs out the string and gets the SAA AQ, Berry may be the South's next best at-large option when we get to selection Sunday. 

And you're right, the West is, per usual, loaded with great runners up.  Bethel and Platteville have significant challenges left, though so that may thin itself out before we get to the end. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 31, 2019, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
Quote from: USee on October 31, 2019, 12:11:27 PM
The Pool C table would be stacked like this:
Wesley, Union/Cortland/WNE
NCC, JCU/BW
Susquehanna, RMU
Redlands, UWP, Bethel

This Pool C situation looks brutal this year.


In the east, I think Union, with a loss, is probably not a Pool C contender.  They'll get SOS help, but without an RRO win, I think they're on the wrong side of the bubble.  WNE is in a similar position- if they lose to Endicott it's hard to see where they have profile points to get one of the five golden tickets.  I think your two legitimate C candidates in the East are Wesley and then either 9-1 Ithaca (loss to Union, win vs. Cortland) or 9-1 Cortland (loss to Brockport, win vs. Ithaca). 

In the South you've got Susquehanna and then Bridgewater if they lose to RMC.  RMC will not be a C contender if they lose the ODAC.  If Birmingham-Southern runs out the string and gets the SAA AQ, Berry may be the South's next best at-large option when we get to selection Sunday. 

And you're right, the West is, per usual, loaded with great runners up.  Bethel and Platteville have significant challenges left, though so that may thin itself out before we get to the end.

You are right that this could sort itself out over the next few weeks. It also could go from bad to worse if some of the front runners lose and fall into Pool C.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on October 31, 2019, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2019, 12:25:19 AM

They had their chance. I don't want to deny a team that won their league and played a tough non-conference game or two a route to the playoffs even if they are 8-0, 8-2 or something like that.

Yes, a 9-1 team had a chance to win their league. A 6-4 conference winner that isn't regionally ranked (to use Pat's example), had a chance to not lose four games. Deciding which missed chances we want to consider disqualifying for the playoffs is what the fun of this debate is. Obviously, a lot of people prefer the current setup, which is fine. But it's not our only option
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2019, 02:01:56 PM
Quote from: USee on October 31, 2019, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
Quote from: USee on October 31, 2019, 12:11:27 PM
The Pool C table would be stacked like this:
Wesley, Union/Cortland/WNE
NCC, JCU/BW
Susquehanna, RMU
Redlands, UWP, Bethel

This Pool C situation looks brutal this year.


In the east, I think Union, with a loss, is probably not a Pool C contender.  They'll get SOS help, but without an RRO win, I think they're on the wrong side of the bubble.  WNE is in a similar position- if they lose to Endicott it's hard to see where they have profile points to get one of the five golden tickets.  I think your two legitimate C candidates in the East are Wesley and then either 9-1 Ithaca (loss to Union, win vs. Cortland) or 9-1 Cortland (loss to Brockport, win vs. Ithaca). 

In the South you've got Susquehanna and then Bridgewater if they lose to RMC.  RMC will not be a C contender if they lose the ODAC.  If Birmingham-Southern runs out the string and gets the SAA AQ, Berry may be the South's next best at-large option when we get to selection Sunday. 

And you're right, the West is, per usual, loaded with great runners up.  Bethel and Platteville have significant challenges left, though so that may thin itself out before we get to the end.

You are right that this could sort itself out over the next few weeks. It also could go from bad to worse if some of the front runners lose and fall into Pool C.

Indeed.  Some teams that aren't in the barn quite yet:
- Whitewater has some toughies left
- Chapman's last real test is going to be this weekend when they visit P-P.  The Sagehens have a fantastic talent at QB, so you can't count them out.  If they can get any kind of defense at all, they could upend, and possibly torpedo, the SCIAC. 
- Wartburg has a test or two before they get in the clubhouse
- And of course I don't think we can take UMHB's winning out for granted either
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on October 31, 2019, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on October 31, 2019, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2019, 12:25:19 AM

They had their chance. I don't want to deny a team that won their league and played a tough non-conference game or two a route to the playoffs even if they are 8-0, 8-2 or something like that.

Yes, a 9-1 team had a chance to win their league. A 6-4 conference winner that isn't regionally ranked (to use Pat's example), had a chance to not lose four games. Deciding which missed chances we want to consider disqualifying for the playoffs is what the fun of this debate is. Obviously, a lot of people prefer the current setup, which is fine. But it's not our only option

One of the main parts of the D3 philosophy is championship access.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 31, 2019, 06:38:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2019, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on October 31, 2019, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2019, 12:25:19 AM

They had their chance. I don't want to deny a team that won their league and played a tough non-conference game or two a route to the playoffs even if they are 8-0, 8-2 or something like that.

Yes, a 9-1 team had a chance to win their league. A 6-4 conference winner that isn't regionally ranked (to use Pat's example), had a chance to not lose four games. Deciding which missed chances we want to consider disqualifying for the playoffs is what the fun of this debate is. Obviously, a lot of people prefer the current setup, which is fine. But it's not our only option

One of the main parts of the D3 philosophy is championship access.

I like to think of my system as "earned access" ... aka, if you are unbeaten or lost to a regionally ranked opponent or are regionally ranked or beat a regionally ranked opponent, you earned your access. I understand perspectives differ given the conferences we are used to. But I wonder how your perspective might different if your team wasn't within one of the middling conferences and played in, say the CCIW, OAC, MIAC, or WIAC. How many pool A bids does Wabash earn over the last 20 years in one of those leagues?

It's easy to say "win your league if you want to make the playoffs," when the bar for winning your league is lower (in several cases significantly so) than it is for half of the division.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on October 31, 2019, 06:52:18 PM
To answer my own question ... when would Wabash's best teams have earned a Pool A bid in the top 4-5 leagues:

2015: Nope ... Crushed by UST (MIAC Pool A) 38-7
2011: Maybe ... beat a one loss North Central team (CCIW Pool A) by one at home, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)
2007: Nope ... lost in regular season to a rival, crushed by UWW (WIAC A)
2005: Nope ... lost to Capital (2 loss OAC runner up) at home
2002: Probably not ... got a very weak team rd 1, a team they'd already beaten in the regular season rd 2, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)

Spitballing, but removing the OAC (since Mount is an outlier), I'm saying there's maybe one Pool A appearance if Wabash played in the MIAC, CCIW, or WIAC. Their best bet was probably 2011. And even there they only beat NCC by 1 at home. The point of the tougher leagues is that they'd have to play 2-4 opponents of that quality to win the league every year.

Suddenly more Pool C access might mean that Wabash gets a few shots at the playoffs if they played in a better league and didn't get to navigate one where 80-90% of their games are against very weak teams.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2019, 08:00:01 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 31, 2019, 06:52:18 PM
To answer my own question ... when would Wabash's best teams have earned a Pool A bid in the top 4-5 leagues:

2015: Nope ... Crushed by UST (MIAC Pool A) 38-7
2011: Maybe ... beat a one loss North Central team (CCIW Pool A) by one at home, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)
2007: Nope ... lost in regular season to a rival, crushed by UWW (WIAC A)
2005: Nope ... lost to Capital (2 loss OAC runner up) at home
2002: Probably not ... got a very weak team rd 1, a team they'd already beaten in the regular season rd 2, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)

Spitballing, but removing the OAC (since Mount is an outlier), I'm saying there's maybe one Pool A appearance if Wabash played in the MIAC, CCIW, or WIAC. Their best bet was probably 2011. And even there they only beat NCC by 1 at home. The point of the tougher leagues is that they'd have to play 2-4 opponents of that quality to win the league every year.

Suddenly more Pool C access might mean that Wabash gets a few shots at the playoffs if they played in a better league and didn't get to navigate one where 80-90% of their games are against very weak teams.

So, do you think that presidents of 37 36 football schools in these four leagues are going to ever convince the other 210 or so presidents of football sponsoring institutions to sign away their tournament access so that the third and fourth place teams from these leagues can participate in the postseason?  And that's just half the division.  Lump in the other half that doesn't sponsor football.  They've all got to go along with it also.  What are the chances that this, or any version of this, is even remotely feasible? 

Also, swiping at Wabash's 2011 win "only by 1 at home" against North Central is weaksauce.  Beating a CCIW champion in the playoffs is never a thing that should be marginalized that way.  Absolutely terrible take, man. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on October 31, 2019, 08:17:59 PM
Hell hath no fury like a Wabash alum scorned. 

Hazz, peace be with you man.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 12:22:17 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2019, 08:00:01 PM

Also, swiping at Wabash's 2011 win "only by 1 at home" against North Central is weaksauce.  Beating a CCIW champion in the playoffs is never a thing that should be marginalized that way.  Absolutely terrible take, man.

I'm not denigrating the CCIW. I'm noting that this wasn't one of their stronger Pool A reps. It wasn't an unbeaten CCIW champ. It was a North Central team that entered the postseason with a loss (to Redlands, the SCIAC's eventual Pool C rep). And you had them at home. And you won by one point.

It's still a playoff win. It's not a rip on the CCIW or North Central to recognize that wasn't North Central's best Pool A team, or the CCIW's. But the point still stands, even that year Wabash probably isn't likely to have been favored in any power conference. E.g. I don't think Wabash beats UST (a pickem against St. Olaf or Bethel) or UWW (a pickem against UWO or UWP) and we know they lost to Mount.

I'm also not saying it's likely it ever gets voted into existence. But that's in part because there is a whole swath of teams with a far easier path to the postseason than other schools who like keeping their path to the postseason as unencumbered as possible. On the flip side, if Wabash was in GAC or St. Olaf's shoes, they would probably feel differently about how many Pool C bids there were. Or be less likely to throw out the "weaksauce take" of "just win your conference and you're in." Winning the CCIW, MIAC, OAC, and WIAC is just a wee bit harder every. single. year. than winning the NCAC.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: UfanBill on November 01, 2019, 01:27:58 AM
It's not likely the 27A, 5C setup is going to change much. With that, deserving teams are going to be left out while other "less deserving" conference champs fill the field. We have a very familiar model to follow that would rectify much of that and it comes from the NCAA itself.

How about play in games. March Madness has used play in games successfully for years now. Teams that are low seeds get an opportunity to play another low seed and with that a chance to actually win a tourney game before being fed to the top seeds. Logistically it's probably a nightmare but it's worth a discussion.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 01:39:02 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 12:22:17 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2019, 08:00:01 PM

Also, swiping at Wabash's 2011 win "only by 1 at home" against North Central is weaksauce.  Beating a CCIW champion in the playoffs is never a thing that should be marginalized that way.  Absolutely terrible take, man.

I'm not denigrating the CCIW. I'm noting that this wasn't one of their stronger Pool A reps. It wasn't an unbeaten CCIW champ. It was a North Central team that entered the postseason with a loss (to Redlands, the SCIAC's eventual Pool C rep). And you had them at home. And you won by one point.

It doesn't matter what you think or don't think of the CCIW- although you did anoint them as one of your four power conferences that all of the division's lessers should sacrifice their postseason access to.  It's a bad take because it's incredibly unsporting to retroactively dump on a pretty monumental moment in a program's history.  What your brief review of 2011 W/L records doesn't tell you, is that 2011 North Central absolutely had the goods to go to Alliance and give Mount Union the business.  Except they didn't get there because Wabash stopped them.  North Central, despite their loss to Redlands, was ranked #6 entering the tournament.  Is the #6 ranked team, not one of the CCIW's best?  One of the nation's best?! Something lesser than what we're generally used to?  It isn't.  That team was excellent, and you're out of line to assume that they weren't simply because they weren't 10-0 and then use that logic to marginalize a tremendous program moment for Wabash. 

Conference membership is about a heck of a lot more than access to the football tournament.  Wabash isn't in the NCAC because it offers the path of least resistance to the playoffs.  If that's what they wanted, they'd have hung out in the HCAC and ruled that roost for two decades.  But I find this:

Quote from: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 12:22:17 AM
I'm also not saying it's likely it ever gets voted into existence. But that's in part because there is a whole swath of teams with a far easier path to the postseason than other schools who like keeping their path to the postseason as unencumbered as possible. On the flip side, if Wabash was in GAC or St. Olaf's shoes, they would probably feel differently about how many Pool C bids there were. Or be less likely to throw out the "weaksauce take" of "just win your conference and you're in." Winning the CCIW, MIAC, OAC, and WIAC is just a wee bit harder every. single. year. than winning the NCAC.

absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

Wabash has been on the wrong side of Pool C a few times.  I haven't ever felt like it was unfair that a 7-3 or 6-4 league champion got to play in Week 12 and 9-1 Wabash didn't. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: OzJohnnie on November 01, 2019, 02:01:00 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 01:39:02 AM
absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

That made me spit my coffee.  That was the Tommie media campaign's message immediately after the event, yes, but that wasn't the reason.  Anti-competitive behaviour in recruiting across all sports, competitive philosophy on the football field, institutional appropriateness for an association of liberal arts colleges.  Those were the reasons.  Football was the flashpoint, yes, but the reasons were far more substantial.

The Tommies were going inside five years anyways. They just wanted to step on their conference partners a little more to make the jump easier.

BU and SJU were their only friends, by the way, but eventually gave in when the rest of the conference said they would rather blow the whole thing up than retain UST as a member.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 09:39:10 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on November 01, 2019, 02:01:00 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 01:39:02 AM
absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

BU and SJU were their only friends, by the way, but eventually gave in when the rest of the conference said they would rather blow the whole thing up than retain UST as a member.

Ummm, swing and miss Wally. Bethel's coaches and players and SID and AD are on record with multiple local media outlets about being totally against the ouster. SJU and Bethel, as Oz mentioned, wanted UST to stay. But ya know, democracy and all  ;)

I'm not trying to dump on 2011 Wabash. It was a very good team that made a very nice run in the playoffs and ran into Mount. But the bottom line is that you and yours tend to trumpet the "just win your league" argument to teams that have a much more difficult path to Pool A than you do. And yeah, you might not complain about a 9-1 Wabash team getting left out, but most seasons that 9-1 team is not the same as a 9-1 CCIW, MIAC, or WIAC team because of the difficulty of teams they face on the whole (that 1 loss WIAC school has faced 5+ opponents who are good to great on the year). That's not to say a 9-1 Wabash team isn't good or at times better than a 9-1 rep from one of those conferences. I realize you won't admit it, but I'm unmoved from the notion that "just win your league" is a little rich from teams from weaker leagues.

To use an analogy ... Everyone has to jump over a bar to get into the playoffs. A few teams get access to the playoffs because they just nicked the bar and it fell off. A few of those teams also don't make the field. What people fail to realize is the bar is set at different levels. Some teams are jumping over a 5 ft bar, some 6ft, some 7 ft. And if your bar/league is of the 5ft variety, don't wag a finger at the teams having to clear a 7 ft bar and saying "should have jumped a little higher, you had your chance."

And just to clarify, my system is not about making it so teams that aren't from power leagues can't make the playoffs. It's about trying to ensure that a 3+ loss team from a weak league doesn't unnecessarily dilute the field. I realize we disagree on how access should happen, and that's fine. I just think there's a middle ground.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: WW on November 01, 2019, 11:15:59 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on November 01, 2019, 01:27:58 AM
It's not likely the 27A, 5C setup is going to change much. With that, deserving teams are going to be left out while other "less deserving" conference champs fill the field. We have a very familiar model to follow that would rectify much of that and it comes from the NCAA itself.

How about play in games. March Madness has used play in games successfully for years now. Teams that are low seeds get an opportunity to play another low seed and with that a chance to actually win a tourney game before being fed to the top seeds. Logistically it's probably a nightmare but it's worth a discussion.

Heyyyyy I like this. Give two play-in games to each region, following the D1 basketball model. Lets use the West as an example. One play-in game for what would be pool C runner-ups, for sake of argument let's say it's LaCrosse and Gustavus Adolphus, which both appear presently on the outside looking in. One play-in game involving two lowest-ranked pool A teams. Lets say that's the UMAC champ vs the MWC champ. Winner of that one then gets fed to UWW or SJU, which they would've been devoured by anyway, but at least they get a competitive game reward before that happens. And in the case of the pool C entries, I think you're opening up the field to two potential Stagg Bowl candidates, no, not favorites to get there, but good teams with a puncher's chance.

Only downside is you're adding a week to the season, and the NCAA probably doesn't want to do that
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on November 01, 2019, 02:01:00 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 01:39:02 AM
absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

That made me spit my coffee.  That was the Tommie media campaign's message immediately after the event, yes, but that wasn't the reason.  Anti-competitive behaviour in recruiting across all sports, competitive philosophy on the football field, institutional appropriateness for an association of liberal arts colleges.  Those were the reasons.  Football was the flashpoint, yes, but the reasons were far more substantial.

The Tommies were going inside five years anyways. They just wanted to step on their conference partners a little more to make the jump easier.

BU and SJU were their only friends, by the way, but eventually gave in when the rest of the conference said they would rather blow the whole thing up than retain UST as a member.

I understand that there were reasons beyond football for what the MIAC did- indeed, I'm not even sure football was the principle reason.  Which illustrates my point that D3 schools cluster in conferences with their institutional peers for 10,000 reasons other than football.  In the MIAC, school presidents decided St. Thomas was no longer a peer (not sure I disagree, tbh), and used athletics as the lever to get them out. 

With that said, that's a pretty poor backdrop from which hazzben to launch y'all-aren't-worthy grenades at (who he thinks are) the division's lessers. 

Quote from: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 09:39:10 AM

To use an analogy ... Everyone has to jump over a bar to get into the playoffs. A few teams get access to the playoffs because they just nicked the bar and it fell off. A few of those teams also don't make the field. What people fail to realize is the bar is set at different levels. Some teams are jumping over a 5 ft bar, some 6ft, some 7 ft. And if your bar/league is of the 5ft variety, don't wag a finger at the teams having to clear a 7 ft bar and saying "should have jumped a little higher, you had your chance."

Absolutely nobody doesn't realize this.  There is not perfect parity amongst the Division's 27 football conferences- this isn't revelatory.  Unlike track and field, to use your own analogy, there isn't a universal minimum qualifying standard for the championship tournament.  The automatic qualifying standard, agreed upon legislatively by the Division, is to be a conference champion.  I agree that there could be less finger wagging and more sympathy for teams buried behind national elites in certain leagues, but I don't think it's reason to blow up the divisional philosophy for championship access.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
About play-in games and the logistics -- there's a ton of issues with adding a week all the way around. We can't really start a week earlier because it's a burden to house all of those student-athletes on campus for an additional week before classes start. We don't want to go a week later because of the holidays. We don't want to go after Jan. 1 because of the expense, and because there are still some two-sport athletes (and even if there aren't, we don't want to make it impossible). We can't play games more than once every seven days.

In addition, there is a hard cap by legislative vote on the football playoffs at 32 teams.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: retagent on November 01, 2019, 12:33:22 PM

Quote from: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 09:39:10 AM


I agree that there could be less finger wagging and more sympathy for teams buried behind national elites in certain leagues, but I don't think it's reason to blow up the divisional philosophy for championship access.

Blow up? Or tweak?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: retagent on November 01, 2019, 12:35:15 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 01, 2019, 12:33:22 PM

Quote from: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 09:39:10 AM


I agree that there could be less finger wagging and more sympathy for teams buried behind national elites in certain leagues, but I don't think it's reason to blow up the divisional philosophy for championship access.

Blow up? Or tweak?

Actually, the quote I was addressing was from Wally Wabash. I just screwed up when deleting a lot of unwanted verbiage and am too lazy to go back and correct.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 01, 2019, 12:33:22 PM

Quote from: hazzben on November 01, 2019, 09:39:10 AM


I agree that there could be less finger wagging and more sympathy for teams buried behind national elites in certain leagues, but I don't think it's reason to blow up the divisional philosophy for championship access.

Blow up? Or tweak?

Semantics, right?  If the endgame for hazzben's tweaks is to take tournament access away from conferences that don't meet an arbitrary standard and redistribute them to conferences that have good teams that the tournament isn't big enough to accommodate, then you're circumventing the whole point of the automatic qualifying process that we've had for 20 years. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2019, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
In addition, there is a hard cap by legislative vote on the football playoffs at 32 teams.
What happens if somewhere down the road (would take a bunch more teams joining and probably some musical chairs creating a new conference or two) we end up with 30 pool A and 2 pool C? 32/0? 33/-1? I'm sure it'd be a slow climb to get to that point so there'd be time to address it before it's an emergency but at what point would it need to be dealt with?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 01, 2019, 01:06:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PMIn addition, there is a hard cap by legislative vote on the football playoffs at 32 teams.

To add on to this point, if that cap didn't exist, the field size would be 36 per the standard D3 rule of one spot for every 6.5 teams.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: WW on November 01, 2019, 01:07:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
About play-in games and the logistics -- there's a ton of issues with adding a week all the way around. We can't really start a week earlier because it's a burden to house all of those student-athletes on campus for an additional week before classes start. We don't want to go a week later because of the holidays. We don't want to go after Jan. 1 because of the expense, and because there are still some two-sport athletes (and even if there aren't, we don't want to make it impossible). We can't play games more than once every seven days.

In addition, there is a hard cap by legislative vote on the football playoffs at 32 teams.

Well, you could just take the early game start out of their camp time and give up the scrimmage. That way there's no extra week of housing student-athletes. Or give up the bye week. And going a week later only affects two teams. The holidays are when they are, but all the D1s playing bowl games figure a way around that.

THAT said, I realize there would be some violation of general D3 principles by doing any of the above. And the rewards of a D1 bowl game will surely cover the costs of an extra week of housing, whereas the rewards of the Stagg Bowl are considerably less likely to do so. And you'll probably get some blowback from the Poulan Weedeaters of the world, whose bowl sponsorship that holiday week is probably secured with an offer of TV time exclusivity.

So while play-in games might make for a better tournament, I guess I'm not really an advocate.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on November 01, 2019, 01:09:03 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2019, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
In addition, there is a hard cap by legislative vote on the football playoffs at 32 teams.
What happens if somewhere down the road (would take a bunch more teams joining and probably some musical chairs creating a new conference or two) we end up with 30 pool A and 2 pool C? 32/0? 33/-1? I'm sure it'd be a slow climb to get to that point so there'd be time to address it before it's an emergency but at what point would it need to be dealt with?
32/0 would be the ideal system.  Every conference game would be a playoff game. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: AO on November 01, 2019, 01:09:03 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2019, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
In addition, there is a hard cap by legislative vote on the football playoffs at 32 teams.
What happens if somewhere down the road (would take a bunch more teams joining and probably some musical chairs creating a new conference or two) we end up with 30 pool A and 2 pool C? 32/0? 33/-1? I'm sure it'd be a slow climb to get to that point so there'd be time to address it before it's an emergency but at what point would it need to be dealt with?
32/0 would be the ideal system.  Every conference game would be a playoff game.

Totally agree.  A conference championship being a prerequisite for a national championship makes all of the sense. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on November 01, 2019, 01:46:31 PM

Quote from: AO on November 01, 2019, 01:09:03 PM

32/0 would be the ideal system.  Every conference game would be a playoff game.

I'd be interested to see what would happen to OOC games in that scenario. Do good teams seek each other out, because there's less to lose?

Heck, maybe there's no reason to even have OOC games in that case. Given what we know about the physical toll the game takes on players, the small rosters some schools deal with, and the budget concerns a lot of schools are dealing with, perhaps, if the other games have no bearing on the postseason, it makes sense to get rid of them.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: DuffMan on November 01, 2019, 02:07:32 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
A conference championship being a prerequisite for a national championship makes all of the sense.

Don't tell the '99 Lutes.  :o
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 01, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
It would be interesting to see a breakdown on where people when to school and their desire to alter the current playoff system or not. Objectivity may well be squid a bit on this topic because of bias and selfish wants for their personal interests.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2019, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 01, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
It would be interesting to see a breakdown on where people when to school and their desire to alter the current playoff system or not. Objectivity may well be squid a bit on this topic because of bias and selfish wants for their personal interests.
I'm somewhat unbiased because the HCAC isn't getting a pool C unless the field expands waaaaay more than it ever will. My personal thought is around 10 pool C spots is just right. I would rather have a couple too many teams in than a couple too few.
There's always going to be complaints from the first team out no matter where you draw the line, but how valid their complaints are depends on where the line is drawn. #5 FBS football team has a much louder complaint than the #69 D1 basketball team.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2019, 02:55:44 PM
Here's a crazy idea that will never happen but at least it's an idea :)

What if the field was expanded to where it should be based on the ratio (which would add 4 teams right now). The "play-in" games would create a 3 team pod with the "play-in" participants playing a single half one day, with the winner playing the host the next day in the 1st round proper. It could be played Fri night/Sat night, Fri night/Sunday or Sat/Sun. Ideally have the pool C teams participate in these games wherever geographically feasible.

It's not any more ridiculous than how the OT rules are ::)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2019, 03:45:26 PM
Whoa ... a mini-game, like hockey?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 02, 2019, 04:38:32 PM
Does Ithaca now slide behind Wesley in the regional rankings? Might be a dangerous spot to be for them? Must win out from here for any chance for a bid I would think.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 02, 2019, 04:48:54 PM
Biggest news for Pool C today is that the WIAC is probably a one bid league this year?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Barring upsets in the last two weeks, are the #1 seeds now UMU, UMHB, UWW, ... and Wheaton?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 02, 2019, 05:34:23 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Barring upsets in the last two weeks, are the #1 seeds now UMU, UMHB, UWW, ... and Wheaton?

Ithaca, Muhlenberg?

A true East team maybe?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2019, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 02, 2019, 05:34:23 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Barring upsets in the last two weeks, are the #1 seeds now UMU, UMHB, UWW, ... and Wheaton?

Ithaca, Muhlenberg?

A true East team maybe?
Ithica lost.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 02, 2019, 07:00:05 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2019, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 02, 2019, 05:34:23 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Barring upsets in the last two weeks, are the #1 seeds now UMU, UMHB, UWW, ... and Wheaton?

Ithaca, Muhlenberg?

A true East team maybe?
Ithica lost.

Oh snap. Very interesting day in D3 before the regional rankings come out.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2019, 07:26:40 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
Barring upsets in the last two weeks, are the #1 seeds now UMU, UMHB, UWW, ... and Wheaton?

Pretty big day for Salisbury in the race for a #1 seed as well.  Oshkosh wins, their chief competition for the top ranking in the East (Ithaca and Cortland) both lose. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 02, 2019, 07:55:23 PM
With the carnage in the West, could be a small chance Monmouth sneaks into the bottom of the RR, which would be big for Wheaton. The Thunder look like they will be battling Salisbury for the final #1 seed. There will be a sizable SOS difference between the two (both will come down over the next 2 weeks) and Wheaton is now 2-0 vs RRO with Salibury 1-0. Oshkosh winning helps them and if the Titans pull off a massive upset in week 11, they would likely appear in the final west rankings which would be huge for Salisbury.

Things are heating up.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 02, 2019, 09:08:57 PM
(This isn't technically about Pool C, but it has a bearing on it...)

Rundown of the Pool A races with two weeks to go:

ARC: Wartburg can clinch next week by beating Central; Central can clinch by winning out.
ASC: Winner of Texas Lutheran at Mary Hardin–Baylor next week will clinch.
Centennial: Muhlenberg has it as long as they don't lose out.
CCIW: Wheaton has it as long as they don't lose out.
CCC: Western New England has it as long as they don't lose out.
ECFC: SUNY Maritime has CLINCHED.
Empire 8: Brockport has it as long as they don't lose out.
HCAC: Winner of Hanover at Rose–Hulman next week will clinch.
Liberty: Union has CLINCHED.
MASCAC: Framingham State can clinch next week by beating Bridgewater State; Bridgewater State can clinch by winning out.
MIAA: Hope has it as long as they don't lose out.
MAC: Delaware Valley has CLINCHED.
MWC: Monmouth has clinched the South and will meet the winner of next week's St. Norbert at Lake Forest game for the title.
MIAC: St. John's can clinch next week with a win; a loss opens the door for Bethel and St. Thomas.
NEWMAC: MIT gets it if they win out; WPI needs MIT to lose; Springfield needs WPI to lose.
NJAC: Salisbury has it as long as they don't lose out.
NCAC: Wabash gets it if they win out; Denison needs Wabash to lose. Could get complicated.
NACC: Aurora has it as long as they don't lose out.
NWC: Linfield can clinch next week by beating Whitworth; Whitworth can clinch by winning out.
OAC: Mount Union has it as long as they don't lose out.
ODAC: Winner of Randolph–Macon at Bridgewater next week will clinch.
PAC: Case Western Reserve has it as long as they don't lose out.
SAA: Birmingham–Southern gets it if they win out; Berry needs Birmingham–Southern to lose; Trinity needs Berry to lose.
SCIAC: Chapman has it as long as they don't lose out.
UMAC: Martin Luther has it as long as they don't lose out.
USA South: Huntingdon has it as long as they don't lose out.
WIAC: UW Whitewater gets it if they beat UW Oshkosh in two weeks; UW Oshkosh gets it if they win out.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2019, 09:19:14 PM
Confirmed Del Val has clinched.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 02, 2019, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: USee on November 02, 2019, 07:55:23 PM
With the carnage in the West, could be a small chance Monmouth sneaks into the bottom of the RR, which would be big for Wheaton. The Thunder look like they will be battling Salisbury for the final #1 seed. There will be a sizable SOS difference between the two (both will come down over the next 2 weeks) and Wheaton is now 2-0 vs RRO with Salibury 1-0. Oshkosh winning helps them and if the Titans pull off a massive upset in week 11, they would likely appear in the final west rankings which would be huge for Salisbury.

Things are heating up.

The bottom of the West will be interesting for sure. Central beating Wartburg would shake things up. GAC beating UST would as well. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2019, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 02, 2019, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: USee on November 02, 2019, 07:55:23 PM
With the carnage in the West, could be a small chance Monmouth sneaks into the bottom of the RR, which would be big for Wheaton. The Thunder look like they will be battling Salisbury for the final #1 seed. There will be a sizable SOS difference between the two (both will come down over the next 2 weeks) and Wheaton is now 2-0 vs RRO with Salibury 1-0. Oshkosh winning helps them and if the Titans pull off a massive upset in week 11, they would likely appear in the final west rankings which would be huge for Salisbury.

Things are heating up.

The bottom of the West will be interesting for sure. Central beating Wartburg would shake things up. GAC beating UST would as well.
I would even argue that Pacific beating Puget sound has an impact--with Plateville losing, there is a chance that UPS (had they won) sneaks into the rankings which would help Redlands  (though Platteville's loss helps Redlands anyway)...
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 03, 2019, 10:52:46 AM
Quote from: USee on November 02, 2019, 07:55:23 PM
With the carnage in the West, could be a small chance Monmouth sneaks into the bottom of the RR, which would be big for Wheaton. The Thunder look like they will be battling Salisbury for the final #1 seed. There will be a sizable SOS difference between the two (both will come down over the next 2 weeks) and Wheaton is now 2-0 vs RRO with Salibury 1-0. Oshkosh winning helps them and if the Titans pull off a massive upset in week 11, they would likely appear in the final west rankings which would be huge for Salisbury.

Things are heating up.

If UWO beats UWW in week 11, UWW drops from the conversation for a 1 seed and Salisbury and Wheaton would likely join UMHB and UMU as 1 seeds. If UWW wins out, UWO probably (big if here) doesn't stay ranked with 3 losses and Salisbury ends up 1-0 vs RRO. Wheaton will be 2-0 if WashU stays ranked and a chance at 3-0 if Monmouth, with 2 losses, sneaks into the bottom of the West. The other team in the weeds here is Muhlenberg but their SOS and RRO results will be significantly behind Wheaton and Salisbury while they would have a playoff appearance from last year that the other two won't have. It would all come down to what the committee values as criteria. Lots of room for subjective results here.

On the Pool C front, Cortland and Ithaca's losses muddies the water as they are both now a 1 loss team in the Pool C discussion. They play each other in week 11 so one will be out and the other in for the discussion purposes. Susquehana, Wesley, Bethel, NCC, Redlands and OAC #2 are the other 6 teams currently in the mix for 5 spots. If TLU upsets MHB that adds another.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 03, 2019, 02:11:05 PM
GAC v. UST this Saturday is big for Wheaton, SJU, and Bethel. If GAC wins they would be a 2 loss team with losses only to RRO. Definitely above Monmouth. Also a boost to SJU and Bethel's resume. A UST win means they might be ranked at the bottom of the West, especially if they pulled off the W against Bethel. At which point both UST and Bethel have two losses and may be above Monmouth.

I think Wheaton is a worthy 1 seed. But not sure how likely getting Monmouth as another RRO is for them. Also need to hope Central doesn't beat Wartburg. Since they'd both get ranked with one loss, where at two losses Central is borderline.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
If Pomona had beat Chapman last night and Taken the pool A (assuming finish in 3 way tie), it would have been fascinating to see what the committee did with Chapman and Redlands (each would have been 1 loss with wins over RRO).  Could have created a scenario where the SCIAC could have potentially had 3 playoff teams....alas, Pomona fell short. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 03, 2019, 04:40:36 PM
Monmouth is a curious case.  On the one hand, #1 SOS! How great is that, right?!  Monmouth's SOS is bolstered by Grinnell's decision to not play the full season.  Not only does Monmouth not have to take Grinnell's likely 0-10 record in their SOS, they don't even have to take Grinnell's 0-3 as their scheduled game was never played.  They were noncompetitive in their two games against ranked teams.  I'm not sure I would be voting them in the top 10 of the West region, but certainly yesterday's carnage gets them in the conversation. 

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
If Pomona had beat Chapman last night and Taken the pool A (assuming finish in 3 way tie), it would have been fascinating to see what the committee did with Chapman and Redlands (each would have been 1 loss with wins over RRO).  Could have created a scenario where the SCIAC could have potentially had 3 playoff teams....alas, Pomona fell short. 

I think Pomona beating Chapman and maybe claiming that conference's auto bid (I'm not sure anybody has confirmed this would have been the case) would have been much more likely to turn the SCIAC into a one bid league than it would have a three bid league. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2019, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2019, 04:40:36 PM
Monmouth is a curious case.  On the one hand, #1 SOS! How great is that, right?!  Monmouth's SOS is bolstered by Grinnell's decision to not play the full season.  Not only does Monmouth not have to take Grinnell's likely 0-10 record in their SOS, they don't even have to take Grinnell's 0-3 as their scheduled game was never played.  They were noncompetitive in their two games against ranked teams.  I'm not sure I would be voting them in the top 10 of the West region, but certainly yesterday's carnage gets them in the conversation. 

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
If Pomona had beat Chapman last night and Taken the pool A (assuming finish in 3 way tie), it would have been fascinating to see what the committee did with Chapman and Redlands (each would have been 1 loss with wins over RRO).  Could have created a scenario where the SCIAC could have potentially had 3 playoff teams....alas, Pomona fell short. 

I think Pomona beating Chapman and maybe claiming that conference's auto bid (I'm not sure anybody has confirmed this would have been the case) would have been much more likely to turn the SCIAC into a one bid league than it would have a three bid league.
perhaps....but it would have been intriguing...especially if St. Thomas were to knock of Bethel.....
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 03, 2019, 08:55:19 PM
Just for curiosity's sake, what is the highest ranked team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll to not be selected by the committee as an at-large team in the 32-team playoff era?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 03, 2019, 09:13:37 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 03, 2019, 08:55:19 PM
Just for curiosity's sake, what is the highest ranked team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll to not be selected by the committee as an at-large team in the 32-team playoff era?

2018 - #15 St. Thomas
2017 - #21 Concordia-Moorhead
2016 - #24 St. Lawrence
2015 - #14 UW-Platteville
2014 - #15 North Central
2013 - #11 UW-Oshkosh
2012 - #13 UW-Platteville
2011 - #12 Cal Lutheran
2010 - #20 Pacific Lutheran
2009 - #13 Ohio Northern

That is the past 10 years, someone else will need to dig deeper.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:25:57 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 03, 2019, 09:13:37 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 03, 2019, 08:55:19 PM
Just for curiosity's sake, what is the highest ranked team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll to not be selected by the committee as an at-large team in the 32-team playoff era?

2018 - #15 St. Thomas
2017 - #21 Concordia-Moorhead
2016 - #24 St. Lawrence
2015 - #14 UW-Platteville
2014 - #15 North Central
2013 - #11 UW-Oshkosh
2012 - #13 UW-Platteville
2011 - #12 Cal Lutheran
2010 - #20 Pacific Lutheran
2009 - #13 Ohio Northern

That is the past 10 years, someone else will need to dig deeper.

Interesting that 8 of the 10 are Western teams.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 10:41:46 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:25:57 AM
Interesting that 8 of the 10 are Western teams.

I don't read that as a snub of the West. Without doing the deep dive, it typically speaks to two things:
1) the quality of the Pool C candidates the West does get in (i.e. there are probably 2 or even three teams that made it before said West team got left out).
2) the Depth of the West, where good ranked teams get left home because they've picked up a second loss running a gauntlet schedule.

IMO teams outside the Top 15 aren't as egregious, since it usually gets a little dicey trying to slot teams past that point. Those top 15 teams could probably do some damage for a few rounds.

The other side of this exercise is wondering which teams would have been left out of Pool C if these teams had been selected. I'm guessing you'd have a similar list of ranked teams, and most years, probably a touch higher in the rankings.

How about this question (with no one in particular in mind) ... Who would people argue is the best 1 loss team not to get a Pool C bid? The previous list is populated with mostly 2 loss teams from top conferences.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 11:26:25 AM
Just for fun (coming off of a couple of upsets this week), let's imagine some Pool C chaos.

1. UST beats GAC. Then beats Bethel. All 3 now have two second loss, but UST's UWEC loss is most glaring. - very possible
2. Ithaca gets upset by RPI. Then beats Corland in Cortaca Jug, giving both 2 losses. - former unlikely, latter very possible
3. IWU channels it's preseason aspirations and upsets North Central, giving NCC a second loss. - very unlikely
4. Wartburg beats Central, knocking the Dutch out. - likely
5. Heidelberg upsets JCU. JCU beats Baldwin Wallace. Both now 2 loss teams. - former unlikely, latter very possible
6. Linfield beats Whitworth, Pirates are out. - likely
7. Stevenson beats Wilkes, putting both at 2 losses. - very possible
8. Trinity beats Berry, knocking them from Pool A and Trinity & Birm So winner gets Pool A. - very possible Trinity already beat Berry.
9. Bridgewater beats Randolph-Macon, two losses for R-M. - likely
10. CWRU beats Carnegie Mellon, two losses for CM. - likely
11. UMHB beats TLU, giving TLU two losses - very likely
12. UWO loses to UWW, three losses - very likely
13. UWP drops one to UWRF or UWSP, getting a third loss. - not likely

Susquehana, Redlands, and Wesley look very good to win out.

No way do all of these things play out, and many of these results we are expecting. But it shows how much a few upsets can swing things either way, killing off a likely Pool C candidate or throwing another team into contention.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wm4 on November 04, 2019, 12:04:28 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 11:26:25 AM
Just for fun (coming off of a couple of upsets this week), let's imagine some Pool C chaos.

1. UST beats GAC. Then beats Bethel. All 3 now have two second loss, but UST's UWEC loss is most glaring. - very possible


No way do all of these things play out, and many of these results we are expecting. But it shows how much a few upsets can swing things either way, killing off a likely Pool C candidate or throwing another team into contention.

GAC would have 3 losses.  And UST's wins would be better than Bethel's, not to mention beating Bethel head to head.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: wm4 on November 04, 2019, 12:04:28 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 11:26:25 AM
Just for fun (coming off of a couple of upsets this week), let's imagine some Pool C chaos.

1. UST beats GAC. Then beats Bethel. All 3 now have two second loss, but UST's UWEC loss is most glaring. - very possible


No way do all of these things play out, and many of these results we are expecting. But it shows how much a few upsets can swing things either way, killing off a likely Pool C candidate or throwing another team into contention.

GAC would have 3 losses.  And UST's wins would be better than Bethel's, not to mention beating Bethel head to head.

Good catch. more chaotic scenario is GAC beating UST and UST beating Bethel. With Bethel and GAC sitting with 2 losses and UST with 3. Bethel would own the H2H.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 04, 2019, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 11:26:25 AM
Just for fun (coming off of a couple of upsets this week), let's imagine some Pool C chaos.

8. Trinity beats Berry, knocking them from Pool A and Trinity & Birm So winner gets Pool A. - very possible


Except Trinity already played Berry (and lost).   If Trinity beats B-SC this weekend Berry gets the A, otherwise B-SC gets it (barring very unexpected losses by either Berry or B-SC the rest of the way).
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 04, 2019, 02:09:04 PM
Berg beating JCU isn't a long shot.  Berg should have beaten BW and this version of JCU is lacking offensive firepower to blow Berg away.  I'd favor JCU by 7 to 10, but Berg vs JCU should be a good game. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 03:29:07 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 04, 2019, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 11:26:25 AM
Just for fun (coming off of a couple of upsets this week), let's imagine some Pool C chaos.

8. Trinity beats Berry, knocking them from Pool A and Trinity & Birm So winner gets Pool A. - very possible


Except Trinity already played Berry (and lost).   If Trinity beats B-SC this weekend Berry gets the A, otherwise B-SC gets it (barring very unexpected losses by either Berry or B-SC the rest of the way).

Good catch Ron. Not sure where I crossed my wires on that one.

@HSCoach. I actually had that as possible initially and then thought I was maybe overhyping H-berg and backed off. Defer to your OAC expertise there.

Bottom line, there's A LOT that is still in play these final two weeks.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 04, 2019, 03:47:34 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 03:29:07 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 04, 2019, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 11:26:25 AM
Just for fun (coming off of a couple of upsets this week), let's imagine some Pool C chaos.

8. Trinity beats Berry, knocking them from Pool A and Trinity & Birm So winner gets Pool A. - very possible


Except Trinity already played Berry (and lost).   If Trinity beats B-SC this weekend Berry gets the A, otherwise B-SC gets it (barring very unexpected losses by either Berry or B-SC the rest of the way).

Good catch Ron. Not sure where I crossed my wires on that one.

@HSCoach. I actually had that as possible initially and then thought I was maybe overhyping H-berg and backed off. Defer to your OAC expertise there.

Bottom line, there's A LOT that is still in play these final two weeks.
You can also defer to my JCU expertise. I'm actually expecting Berg to win that game. They've been better over the course of the year (hanging tough with Mount, having an easier time against the OAC dreads, ect.) Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I think that there is a very good chance the OAC doesn't have a 1 loss runner up this year
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on November 04, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
You all seem to have a better grasp on this than me, so I'll ask: What's IC's path to a Pool C bid, assuming Wesley doesn't get upset? What one-loss teams do you think the Bombers' need to lose?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 04, 2019, 05:14:22 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 04, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
You all seem to have a better grasp on this than me, so I'll ask: What's IC's path to a Pool C bid, assuming Wesley doesn't get upset? What one-loss teams do you think the Bombers' need to lose?

List of Top 1 Loss Pool C Candidates by SOS (In Parenthesis)

1. Redlands 7-1 (.620) - should win out
2. Wesley 6-1 (.577) - should win out
3. Susquehanna   7-1 (.565) - should win out
4. Randolph-Macon 7-1 (.553) - plays Bridgewater
5. Bethel 7-1 (.540) - Plays UST
6. Ithaca 7-1 (.520) - plays Cortland
7. Texas Lutheran 7-1 (.515) - plays UMHB
8. Baldwin Wallace 7-1 (.504) - Plays one loss JCU final game
9. Cortland 7-1 (.504) - plays Ithaca
10. North Central 7-1 (.496) - plays IWU

I'm assuming Ithaca is still taken above any two loss teams. You also don't want Central to upset currently unbeaten Wartburg (SOS .577)

Assuming the top 3 win out, you want Randolph-Macon, Bethel, TLU, Central, and probably Baldwin Wallace and North Central to lose. Assuming TLU loses to UMHB, you want at least 3 of the remaining 4 the teams just listed to lose. R-M, TLU are likely to lose but upset happen. Baldwin Wallace and Bethel could go either way. North Central should win. Cortland is your problem  :)

IMO you probably get selected before Baldwin Wallace and North Central. Wally and others can weigh in if this seems off or I forgot someone. Also, keep in mind this doesn't include RRO, since we don't have a clear picture of that. It's possible the East Region Committee Ranks Ithaca above Wesley and then it's probably beat Cortland and you're sitting pretty.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: WW on November 04, 2019, 05:33:09 PM
Appears quite unlikely that a 2-loss team gets a sniff.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 04, 2019, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 04, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
You all seem to have a better grasp on this than me, so I'll ask: What's IC's path to a Pool C bid, assuming Wesley doesn't get upset? What one-loss teams do you think the Bombers' need to lose?

I'm not sure Ithaca is in a "needs help" situation.  The one that would immediately help, obviously, is Wesley.  But I think there's a chance Ithaca could wind up ahead of Wesley in the final RRs and be the first at-large choice available in the East region even if Wesley doesn't lose another game. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on November 04, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2019, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 04, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
You all seem to have a better grasp on this than me, so I'll ask: What's IC's path to a Pool C bid, assuming Wesley doesn't get upset? What one-loss teams do you think the Bombers' need to lose?

I'm not sure Ithaca is in a "needs help" situation.  The one that would immediately help, obviously, is Wesley.  But I think there's a chance Ithaca could wind up ahead of Wesley in the final RRs and be the first at-large choice available in the East region even if Wesley doesn't lose another game.

Don't you think Ithaca's SOS goes up with games against Cortland and RPI, while Wesley's probably drops?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 04, 2019, 06:05:55 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on November 04, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2019, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 04, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
You all seem to have a better grasp on this than me, so I'll ask: What's IC's path to a Pool C bid, assuming Wesley doesn't get upset? What one-loss teams do you think the Bombers' need to lose?

I'm not sure Ithaca is in a "needs help" situation.  The one that would immediately help, obviously, is Wesley.  But I think there's a chance Ithaca could wind up ahead of Wesley in the final RRs and be the first at-large choice available in the East region even if Wesley doesn't lose another game.

Don't you think Ithaca's SOS goes up with games against Cortland and RPI, while Wesley's probably drops?

Wesley would benefit from having a RRO win over Delaware Valley and if Endicott were to sneak into the final rankings, that would put them at 2-1 for RRO.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 04, 2019, 06:11:02 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on November 04, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2019, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 04, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
You all seem to have a better grasp on this than me, so I'll ask: What's IC's path to a Pool C bid, assuming Wesley doesn't get upset? What one-loss teams do you think the Bombers' need to lose?

I'm not sure Ithaca is in a "needs help" situation.  The one that would immediately help, obviously, is Wesley.  But I think there's a chance Ithaca could wind up ahead of Wesley in the final RRs and be the first at-large choice available in the East region even if Wesley doesn't lose another game.

Don't you think Ithaca's SOS goes up with games against Cortland and RPI, while Wesley's probably drops?

Yes, that's certainly part of it. 

Quote from: MANDGSU on November 04, 2019, 06:05:55 PM
Wesley would benefit from having a RRO win over Delaware Valley and if Endicott were to sneak into the final rankings, that would put them at 2-1 for RRO.

Wesley's win vs. DelVal isn't going anywhere, but I'm thinking it's going to be difficult to keep Endicott ranked as a two-loss team.  Certainly not with Hobart and that burly SOS hanging around out there.  I haven't crunched through a new regional ranking analysis with Saturday's data, but my feeling here is that Wesley finishes 1-1 vs. RRO. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: ncc_fan on November 04, 2019, 07:10:32 PM
Randolph-Macon will either beat Bridgewater on Saturday and become front runner for the ODAC Pool A spot or pick up loss #2 and drop out of Pool C consideration.  Either way, RMC can be ignored in the Pool C discussion. A Bridgewater loss moves BC onto the Pool C list (SOS currently 0.503).
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: shepherd on November 05, 2019, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
1. Pretty sure Muhlenberg is not in the discussion as they are in the South.  Beyond that the committee may stick to an east team like Salisbury or go with Mount like they have a couple of times before.  Who knows each year we have seen some variances as to sticking to only 4 teams of each area vs moving a team.

2.  Johnnies will probably be placed in the west with UWW.  The North should be full and the South shouldn't need to add any teams.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 05, 2019, 01:16:05 AM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 05, 2019, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
1. Pretty sure Muhlenberg is not in the discussion as they are in the South.  Beyond that the committee may stick to an east team like Salisbury or go with Mount like they have a couple of times before.  Who knows each year we have seen some variances as to sticking to only 4 teams of each area vs moving a team.

2.  Johnnies will probably be placed in the west with UWW.  The North should be full and the South shouldn't need to add any teams.

Probably a good time for the annual reminder that the four quadrants of the bracket aren't region-exclusive.  Muhlenberg is a South region team, but would mesh very well (read: is within 500 miles) with most East region teams.  Wheaton is regionally versatile as well. 

In any case, Muhlenberg should certainly be considered with their current profile.  Or at the very least shouldn't be dismissed outright.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: TheChucker on November 05, 2019, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 05, 2019, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
1. Pretty sure Muhlenberg is not in the discussion as they are in the South.  Beyond that the committee may stick to an east team like Salisbury or go with Mount like they have a couple of times before.  Who knows each year we have seen some variances as to sticking to only 4 teams of each area vs moving a team.

2.  Johnnies will probably be placed in the west with UWW.  The North should be full and the South shouldn't need to add any teams.

If Wheaton gets a top pick, SJU could easily be grouped into that quarterfinal too. It's less than 500 miles. Seeing how the NCAA sent SJU to Texas last year, I'm not sure how much of a factor the quarterfinal distance comes into play.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2019, 10:51:20 AM
An undefeated Salisbury makes a strong case for the #1 seed in the East Region.

If everyone runs the tables, I see the top seeds being

Salisbury
UMU
UMHB

and I will let the committee figure out the bracket for the West Region.  My bet on the "Selection roulette wheel" would be placed on UWW.



Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 05, 2019, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 05, 2019, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 05, 2019, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
1. Pretty sure Muhlenberg is not in the discussion as they are in the South.  Beyond that the committee may stick to an east team like Salisbury or go with Mount like they have a couple of times before.  Who knows each year we have seen some variances as to sticking to only 4 teams of each area vs moving a team.

2.  Johnnies will probably be placed in the west with UWW.  The North should be full and the South shouldn't need to add any teams.

If Wheaton gets a top pick, SJU could easily be grouped into that quarterfinal too. It's less than 500 miles. Seeing how the NCAA sent SJU to Texas last year, I'm not sure how much of a factor the quarterfinal distance comes into play.

Yeah, there is a lot of flexibility between Mount's proximity to the North/East, Muhlenberg to the South/East, Wheaton to the North/West, and UWW to the West/North. Salisbury and UMHB are obviously less flexible.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on November 05, 2019, 11:34:57 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2019, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 05, 2019, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 05, 2019, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
1. Pretty sure Muhlenberg is not in the discussion as they are in the South.  Beyond that the committee may stick to an east team like Salisbury or go with Mount like they have a couple of times before.  Who knows each year we have seen some variances as to sticking to only 4 teams of each area vs moving a team.

2.  Johnnies will probably be placed in the west with UWW.  The North should be full and the South shouldn't need to add any teams.

If Wheaton gets a top pick, SJU could easily be grouped into that quarterfinal too. It's less than 500 miles. Seeing how the NCAA sent SJU to Texas last year, I'm not sure how much of a factor the quarterfinal distance comes into play.

Yeah, there is a lot of flexibility between Mount's proximity to the North/East, Muhlenberg to the South/East, Wheaton to the North/West, and UWW to the West/North. Salisbury and UMHB are obviously less flexible.
How many likely playoff teams from the East are outside of the 500 miles from Mount?  Maybe just Western New England?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on November 05, 2019, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: AO on November 05, 2019, 11:34:57 AM
How many likely playoff teams from the East are outside of the 500 miles from Mount?  Maybe just Western New England?

https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

Yep, 559 miles.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 05, 2019, 11:45:00 AM
Quote from: AO on November 05, 2019, 11:34:57 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2019, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 05, 2019, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 05, 2019, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
1. Pretty sure Muhlenberg is not in the discussion as they are in the South.  Beyond that the committee may stick to an east team like Salisbury or go with Mount like they have a couple of times before.  Who knows each year we have seen some variances as to sticking to only 4 teams of each area vs moving a team.

2.  Johnnies will probably be placed in the west with UWW.  The North should be full and the South shouldn't need to add any teams.

If Wheaton gets a top pick, SJU could easily be grouped into that quarterfinal too. It's less than 500 miles. Seeing how the NCAA sent SJU to Texas last year, I'm not sure how much of a factor the quarterfinal distance comes into play.

Yeah, there is a lot of flexibility between Mount's proximity to the North/East, Muhlenberg to the South/East, Wheaton to the North/West, and UWW to the West/North. Salisbury and UMHB are obviously less flexible.
How many likely playoff teams from the East are outside of the 500 miles from Mount?  Maybe just Western New England?

Salisbury is actually very flexible and within 500 miles. Out of about 20 teams (Salisbury, Union, Delaware Valley, SUNY-Maritime, WNE, Brockport, Framingham State, MIT, WPI, Springfield, Ithaca, Cortland, Wesley, Muhlenberg, Bridgewater (Va.), Susquehanna, R-MC, Mount Union, CWR, John Carrol, and BW), Salisbury, Union, Delaware Valley, Wesley, Ithaca, Cortland, Muhlenberg, Brockport, Susquehanna, and SUNY-Maritime can play any of the above mentioned teams. R-MC can play all but Framingham and MIT, the OAC and Case can play all but NE schools.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 05, 2019, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 05, 2019, 11:45:00 AM
Quote from: AO on November 05, 2019, 11:34:57 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2019, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 05, 2019, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 05, 2019, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: TheChucker on November 04, 2019, 10:20:25 PM
The two biggest questions going into D3 selection Sunday:

1) Wheaton or Muhlenberg as a top 4 seed?

2) Who's the unfortunate top seed that gets the Johnnies in their bracket?
1. Pretty sure Muhlenberg is not in the discussion as they are in the South.  Beyond that the committee may stick to an east team like Salisbury or go with Mount like they have a couple of times before.  Who knows each year we have seen some variances as to sticking to only 4 teams of each area vs moving a team.

2.  Johnnies will probably be placed in the west with UWW.  The North should be full and the South shouldn't need to add any teams.

If Wheaton gets a top pick, SJU could easily be grouped into that quarterfinal too. It's less than 500 miles. Seeing how the NCAA sent SJU to Texas last year, I'm not sure how much of a factor the quarterfinal distance comes into play.

Yeah, there is a lot of flexibility between Mount's proximity to the North/East, Muhlenberg to the South/East, Wheaton to the North/West, and UWW to the West/North. Salisbury and UMHB are obviously less flexible.
How many likely playoff teams from the East are outside of the 500 miles from Mount?  Maybe just Western New England?

Salisbury is actually very flexible and within 500 miles. Out of about 20 teams (Salisbury, Union, Delaware Valley, SUNY-Maritime, WNE, Brockport, Framingham State, MIT, WPI, Springfield, Ithaca, Cortland, Wesley, Muhlenberg, Bridgewater (Va.), Susquehanna, R-MC, Mount Union, CWR, John Carrol, and BW), Salisbury, Union, Delaware Valley, Wesley, Ithaca, Cortland, Muhlenberg, Brockport, Susquehanna, and SUNY-Maritime can play any of the above mentioned teams. R-MC can play all but Framingham and MIT, the OAC and Case can play all but NE schools.
I remember all too well that RMC is within 500 miles of NE Ohio  :'(
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2019, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 05, 2019, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2019, 10:51:20 AM
An undefeated Salisbury makes a strong case for the #1 seed in the East Region.

If everyone runs the tables, I see the top seeds being

Salisbury
UMU
UMHB

and I will let the committee figure out the bracket for the West Region.  My bet on the "Selection roulette wheel" would be placed on UWW.
Sounds like you don't think they deserve it. A "roulette wheel" is pretty random.

Agreed. It's hard to not consider them a #1 if they run the table. They check all the boxes:

- Undefeated
- Strong SOS
- Played in the toughest conference in D3
- Recent historical success
- Probably will be the #1 Regional ranked team in the West
- Purple in color
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: tf37 on November 05, 2019, 04:01:47 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2019, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 05, 2019, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2019, 10:51:20 AM
An undefeated Salisbury makes a strong case for the #1 seed in the East Region.

If everyone runs the tables, I see the top seeds being

Salisbury
UMU
UMHB

and I will let the committee figure out the bracket for the West Region.  My bet on the "Selection roulette wheel" would be placed on UWW.
Sounds like you don't think they deserve it. A "roulette wheel" is pretty random.

Agreed. It's hard to not consider them a #1 if they run the table. They check all the boxes:

- Undefeated
- Strong SOS
- Played in the toughest conference in D3
- Recent historical success
- Probably will be the #1 Regional ranked team in the West
- Purple in color

Saved the best reason for last  ::)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 05, 2019, 04:04:53 PM
UWW is a lock for a #1 seed if they win out.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 06, 2019, 11:57:15 AM
Regional Rankings out:

https://d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-regional-ranking

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional-rankings
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2019, 12:27:25 PM
Thanks! That link includes our analysis.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on November 06, 2019, 03:11:43 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2019, 01:16:05 AM
Probably a good time for the annual reminder that the four quadrants of the bracket aren't region-exclusive. 

Hey Wally, with the latest Regional Rankings, do you have a bracket spread sheet drawn up showing the locks and probables again this year, like you have done in the past on this board?

I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed your work in the past!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
My 1st stab at my mock Bracket

1. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Delaware Valley vs. Ithaca

1. UMHB vs. Redlands/
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.)/North Central (Ill.)/vs. Wesley/Wabash
4. B-SC or Berry vs. Huntingdon

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
3. Case Western vs. Wabash/Bridgewater (Va).
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Hope
2. Wartburg vs. Aurora
3. St. Johns vs. Martin Luther
4. Bethel vs. Lake Forest

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
My 1st stab at my mock Bracket

1. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Delaware Valley vs. Ithaca

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. B-SC vs. Huntingdon

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
3. Case Western vs. Wabash
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Hope
2. Wartburg vs. Aurora
3. St. Johns vs. Martin Luther
4. Bethel vs. Lake Forest

I pray to the football gods that they don't do this.  If that's what they're going to do with the island teams, I'd rather they just make Redlands and Chapman play each other in round 1.  Redlands, with their current criteria doesn't deserve to play the top seed in the tournament because that's the convenient thing to do. 

Ditto with your UWW/Hope pairing.  That's not a proper first round game for those teams given where they are ranked today. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on November 06, 2019, 04:41:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
My 1st stab at my mock Bracket

1. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Delaware Valley vs. Ithaca

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. B-SC vs. Huntingdon

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
3. Case Western vs. Wabash
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Hope
2. Wartburg vs. Aurora
3. St. Johns vs. Martin Luther
4. Bethel vs. Lake Forest

I pray to the football gods that they don't do this.  If that's what they're going to do with the island teams, I'd rather they just make Redlands and Chapman play each other in round 1.  Redlands, with their current criteria doesn't deserve to play the top seed in the tournament because that's the convenient thing to do. 

Ditto with your UWW/Hope pairing.  That's not a proper first round game for those teams given where they are ranked today.

What would you propose instead for UMHB? Playing Linfield almost forces the sciac rematch or extra flights. This seems consistent with past years Linfield/UMHB/HSU early matchups.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 06, 2019, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
My 1st stab at my mock Bracket

1. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Delaware Valley vs. Ithaca

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. B-SC vs. Huntingdon

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
3. Case Western vs. Wabash
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Hope
2. Wartburg vs. Aurora
3. St. Johns vs. Martin Luther
4. Bethel vs. Lake Forest

I pray to the football gods that they don't do this.  If that's what they're going to do with the island teams, I'd rather they just make Redlands and Chapman play each other in round 1.  Redlands, with their current criteria doesn't deserve to play the top seed in the tournament because that's the convenient thing to do. 

Ditto with your UWW/Hope pairing.  That's not a proper first round game for those teams given where they are ranked today.

If the committee was to open pocket book, it could have BS-C and Huntingdon each fly to UMHB and Redlands, respectively. If we really want to get fancy, not considering historical context of matchup. Linfield to UMHB, BS-C to Redlands, and Huntingdon to Chapman. Also, flip the seeding so that if BS-C and Huntingdon were to win, there would be no need for flight and the same would apply for both Redlands and Chapman not having a flight 2nd round.

Also, Wesley and Delaware Valley could be switch to reward H2H winner, but the possibility of Wesley flying to Linfield gives me a chuckle.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2019, 05:25:53 PM
Are we "once ranked, always ranked" in football this year?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 06, 2019, 05:35:52 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 06, 2019, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
My 1st stab at my mock Bracket

1. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Delaware Valley vs. Ithaca

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. B-SC vs. Huntingdon

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
3. Case Western vs. Wabash
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Hope
2. Wartburg vs. Aurora
3. St. Johns vs. Martin Luther
4. Bethel vs. Lake Forest

I pray to the football gods that they don't do this.  If that's what they're going to do with the island teams, I'd rather they just make Redlands and Chapman play each other in round 1.  Redlands, with their current criteria doesn't deserve to play the top seed in the tournament because that's the convenient thing to do. 

Ditto with your UWW/Hope pairing.  That's not a proper first round game for those teams given where they are ranked today.

If the committee was to open pocket book, it could have BS-C and Huntingdon each fly to UMHB and Redlands, respectively. If we really want to get fancy, not considering historical context of matchup. Linfield to UMHB, BS-C to Redlands, and Huntingdon to Chapman. Also, flip the seeding so that if BS-C and Huntingdon were to win, there would be no need for flight and the same would apply for both Redlands and Chapman not having a flight 2nd round.

Also, Wesley and Delaware Valley could be switch to reward H2H winner, but the possibility of Wesley flying to Linfield gives me a chuckle.

It scenario seems like you are trying to force feed Muhlenberg in as the #1 seed in the East. And Hope to Whitewater would be very unfair to both parties.   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 06, 2019, 05:39:17 PM
Here's my first stab. I've never done this before, so I'm open to any feedback/criticism.

Salisbury vs. SUNY Maritime
Delaware Valley vs. Western New England
Bridgewater vs. Brockport
Susquehanna vs. Framingham State

Mount Union vs. Hanover
North Central vs. Case Western Reserve
Muhlenberg vs. MIT
Wesley vs. Union

Mary Hardin–Baylor vs. Monmouth
Berry vs. Huntingdon
Chapman vs. Linfield
Redlands vs. Bethel

Wisconsin–Whitewater vs. Martin Luther
St. John's vs. Aurora
Wheaton vs. Wabash
Wartburg vs. Hope
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2019, 05:25:53 PM
Are we "once ranked, always ranked" in football this year?

Sadly, no.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 06, 2019, 05:41:26 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 06, 2019, 05:35:52 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 06, 2019, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
My 1st stab at my mock Bracket

1. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Delaware Valley vs. Ithaca

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. B-SC vs. Huntingdon

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
3. Case Western vs. Wabash
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Hope
2. Wartburg vs. Aurora
3. St. Johns vs. Martin Luther
4. Bethel vs. Lake Forest

I pray to the football gods that they don't do this.  If that's what they're going to do with the island teams, I'd rather they just make Redlands and Chapman play each other in round 1.  Redlands, with their current criteria doesn't deserve to play the top seed in the tournament because that's the convenient thing to do. 

Ditto with your UWW/Hope pairing.  That's not a proper first round game for those teams given where they are ranked today.

If the committee was to open pocket book, it could have BS-C and Huntingdon each fly to UMHB and Redlands, respectively. If we really want to get fancy, not considering historical context of matchup. Linfield to UMHB, BS-C to Redlands, and Huntingdon to Chapman. Also, flip the seeding so that if BS-C and Huntingdon were to win, there would be no need for flight and the same would apply for both Redlands and Chapman not having a flight 2nd round.

Also, Wesley and Delaware Valley could be switch to reward H2H winner, but the possibility of Wesley flying to Linfield gives me a chuckle.

It scenario seems like you are trying to force feed Muhlenberg in as the #1 seed in the East. And Hope to Whitewater would be very unfair to both parties.

Doesn't matter, you can flip the Mount match-up and Muhlenberg match-up, but this scenario saves the most money for NCAA. However, if you do that, that would require multiple flights 3rd round and this bracket eliminates that. Honestly, playing Mount round 3 or 4 isn't a big deal for me, a team from the East would have to play them or UMHB at some point and beat them.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 06, 2019, 05:52:24 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 06, 2019, 05:39:17 PM
Here's my first stab. I've never done this before, so I'm open to any feedback/criticism.

Salisbury vs. SUNY Maritime
Delaware Valley vs. Western New England
Bridgewater vs. Brockport
Susquehanna vs. Framingham State

Mount Union vs. Hanover
North Central vs. Case Western Reserve
Muhlenberg vs. MIT
Wesley vs. Union

Mary Hardin–Baylor vs. Monmouth
Berry vs. Huntingdon
Chapman vs. Linfield
Redlands vs. Bethel

Wisconsin–Whitewater vs. Martin Luther
St. John's vs. Aurora
Wheaton vs. Wabash
Wartburg vs. Hope

I actually like this...gives you 5 guranteed flights, through round 2 and a possible 8 if the Mount, Wheaton, and Whitewater were to get upset, which is a gamble I'd think the committee would be willing to take. This bracket also takes into consideration North Central (Ill.) being the last team in as oppose to Ithaca.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2019, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2019, 05:25:53 PM
Are we "once ranked, always ranked" in football this year?

Sadly, no.
With all of these 10-team conferences playing 9 conference games, it is hard to get a handle on how good teams are.

It makes me grateful for baseball, where we may have 15 games among 10 ranked opponents in a 40 game season!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 06:37:00 PM
I'm going to do a quick and dirty mock Pool C selection here this week, using today's regional rankings. 

First the mechanics:
- There are 27 Pool A bids that go to champions of qualifying conferences. 
- Once the Pool A bids are delivered, zero Pool B bid will be awarded to teams that do not belong to qualifying conferences as there are no such teams or conferences left.
- That leaves 5 spots left which will continue to be designated as Pool C.  Everybody who is not already in the tournament to this point is eligible for these bids. 
- The at-large bids are determined by comparing the top-ranked teams remaining from each region (once those rankings have been scrubbed of the automatic qualifiers) using the selection/seeding criteria (check the handbook or FAQs on D3football.com for a primer on all of that).  Each committee member ranks those four teams, points get counted poll style, and the team with the most points goes in. 
- The next team available from the region of the team that just got selected steps in and the comparing/voting process repeats until the field is complete. 
Good?  Great.  Let's do this. 

Pool A
The projected 27 Pool A's as of this moment:
(https://i.imgur.com/zs3Y5CP.png)

Teams in the gold boxes have clinched and are in, everybody else is still projected.  Most of the conferences left to be decided just need a conference leader to win a game they are heavily favored in this week to seal the deal, others have toss up games to deal with.  In those cases, I've projected the teams that are win-and-in over teams that need help to get the AQ (this is Berry's scenario).   

Now, we scrub the rankings from teams that I've projected in, and we are left with:

East: Wesley, Ithaca, Cortland, WPI, Wilkes
North: North Central, Baldwin Wallace, John Carroll, WashU, Denison
South: Susquehanna, Berry, Randolph-Macon, Texas Lutheran, Hardin-Simmons
West: Redlands, Bethel, Central, UW-Oshkosh

These lists seems pretty solid.  There may be some shuffling down the road amongst the top of each region's list (looking at you East), but the spots where there's weirdness or a high concentration of teams from one league are far enough down on the list that they shouldn't spin this projection off into something completely unreasonable. 

And off we go. 

Pool C:
Round 1:
2E Wesley - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.577 SOS (23rd)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
4W Redlands - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.620 (6th)
(Redlands, Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna)

Among the primary criteria, Redlands is tied for the top of this group in win percentage, they have defeated W6, their lone loss is to W3, and they have the best SOS on the board by a significant margin.  Wesley and North Central also have RRO wins, but Wesley's 4OT game with E3 DelVal and North Central's dismantling of W8 WashU are, to me, not as impressive as Redlands' handling of Linfield, who have been great all season outside their game with Redlands.  Bulldogs are my first selection. 

Round 2:
2E Wesley - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.577 (23rd)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel)

Bethel joins the party with a similar win percentage with their lone loss and RRO result being a 19-0 shutdown against W5 St. John's.  At this stage of the game, I have a strong preference for teams that have RRO wins, which leads me back to Wesley and North Central.  In the event that the committee does have to judge Wesley and North Central at the same time, Christopher Newport may provide a rare piece of common opponent data between teams from different regions.  I don't know how much weight a common opponent results from Weeks 1 and 11 should carry, but if I'm Wesley I probably don't want to play a competitive four quarter with the Captains if I can at all avoid it.  For now, CNU has a different impact on this decision, as they are an anchor (ha) on North Central's SOS- to the degree that I'm going to choose Wesley here. 

Round 3:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel, Ithaca)

Per the last round, you can probably see that I favor North Central above the teams that do not have RRO wins.  I have to check in with Ithaca to make sure that they don't beat North Central and...they do not.  Ithaca does not have an RRO win (for now), their SOS is not overwhelmingly larger than North Central's (for now), and they have identical win percentages.  The WashU win gives North Central a clear edge here- one that isn't so clear if/when Hobart pops up in the East rankings. 

Round 4:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
5N Baldwin Wallace - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Susquehanna, Bethel, Ithaca, Baldwin Wallace)

Now I've got a board where nobody has an RRO win.  This is where things always get dicey for me.  I see that Susquehanna has the best SOS on a board with four identical win percentages.  Susquehanna lost 24-17 in OT to S2.  That's a pretty solid result.  Ithaca lost to E4 by 10, Baldwin Wallace was noncompetitive to N1 (most are, but when you're in this position, it helps to at least show a pulse in that game), and Bethel was shut out by W5.  Best SOS, best "result" IMO...the River Hawks are my choice here. 

Round 5:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
5N Baldwin Wallace - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115th)
6S Berry 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.481 (158th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Bethel, Ithaca, Baldwin Wallace, Berry)

Have to do a quick evaluation on newcomer Berry.  The Vikings have the same kind of profile that we've seen in the last couple of rounds.  Just one loss, fortunately to a ranked opponent.  But Berry's SOS suffers (largely from Maryville's downturn this year, and their loss is kind of a deceptively close 28-15 game to S9.  That definitely doesn't stack up well with the teams that were already on the board, so Berry isn't going to step right over the others and in to the tournament.  This is really a coin toss between Bethel and Ithaca.  I'm going to give the edge to Bethel on the back of their slight SOS advantage, but you can put Ithaca in the field in this spot and it wouldn't be controversial.  I went back and forth on this a few times before finalizing the post. 

There it is.  That's my five Pool C's if I had to pick them today.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 06:40:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2019, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2019, 05:25:53 PM
Are we "once ranked, always ranked" in football this year?

Sadly, no.
With all of these 10-team conferences playing 9 conference games, it is hard to get a handle on how good teams are.

It makes me grateful for baseball, where we may have 15 games among 10 ranked opponents in a 40 game season!

It is a bummer because they're ignoring useful data points in an exercise that is already starved for data. 

Your point about 10 team leagues playing full round robins also speaks to the decreasing utility of SOS, which was already not a great metric as the NCAA calculates it, but is made less so because most teams are playing in 90% closed systems. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 06, 2019, 07:01:05 PM
Pat/Wally/Keith/whomever,

At one point in the past I remember seeing that the National Committee picks 4 top seeds and then builds geographic brackets. In the Q&A it says they pick the top 8 teams and build geographic brackets. Which is it? both?

I will admit a lack of understanding and history around the 1 seed discussions, primarily because my team has not been in this position very often to pay as close attention.

That said. It seems the 1 seed locks, based on today's snapshot (sure to change, even dramatically) are UMHB (defending champ), UMU (national finalist) and UWW (undefeated with playoff history). The 4th 1 seed is up for debate. Among the undefeated contenders we have (ranked in order of CURRENT SOS):

1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Chapman (7-0),  .536, 1-0 RRO (West #3)
5: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 1-0 RRO (East #1)
6: Bridgewater (8-0),  .502 0-0 (RRO South #3)

Obviously we can cross off Bridgewater and Chapman, who are behind others on this list and wouldn't be considered.

That leaves:
1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 2-0 RRO (East #1)

Based on criteria, Wheaton is the next best team with only Salisbury matching their RRO but not close on SOS. Both teams will decline in SOS over the last 2 weeks so that spread seems unlikely to close and this seems a similar picture between the two. Muhlenberg has only 1 RRO band their SOS will decline a similar amount to Wheaton's. Muhlenberg does have a playoff result from last year (L @UMU).

Many are assuming Muhlenberg or Salisbury are the more likely pick as a 4th 1 seed. I am not seeing it in the critereria, unless Muhlenberg's playoff result trumps everything else. Salisbury also may lose an RRO when UWO plays UWW in week 11. Wartburg may end up with the strongest SOS of this group but may have no all important RRO if they beat Central, knocking them from rankings (small chance Monmouth appears but I doubt it). If this choice is criteria based, what am I missing?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 06, 2019, 07:10:02 PM
Quote from: USee on November 06, 2019, 07:01:05 PM
Pat/Wally/Keith/whomever,

At one point in the past I remember seeing that the National Committee picks 4 top seeds and then builds geographic brackets. In the Q&A it says they pick the top 8 teams and build geographic brackets. Which is it? both?

I will admit a lack of understanding and history around the 1 seed discussions, primarily because my team has not been in this position very often to pay as close attention.

That said. It seems the 1 seed locks, based on today's snapshot (sure to change, even dramatically) are UMHB (defending champ), UMU (national finalist) and UWW (undefeated with playoff history). The 4th 1 seed is up for debate. Among the undefeated contenders we have (ranked in order of CURRENT SOS):

1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Chapman (7-0),  .536, 1-0 RRO (West #3)
5: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 1-0 RRO (East #1)
6: Bridgewater (8-0),  .502 0-0 (RRO South #3)

Obviously we can cross off Bridgewater and Chapman, who are behind others on this list and wouldn't be considered.

That leaves:
1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 2-0 RRO (East #1)

Based on criteria, Wheaton is the next best team with only Salisbury matching their RRO but not close on SOS. Both teams will decline in SOS over the last 2 weeks so that spread seems unlikely to close and this seems a similar picture between the two. Muhlenberg has only 1 RRO band their SOS will decline a similar amount to Wheaton's. Muhlenberg does have a playoff result from last year (L @UMU).

Many are assuming Muhlenberg or Salisbury are the more likely pick as a 4th 1 seed. I am not seeing it in the critereria, unless Muhlenberg's playoff result trumps everything else. Salisbury also may lose an RRO when UWO plays UWW in week 11. Wartburg may end up with the strongest SOS of this group but may have no all important RRO if they beat Central, knocking them from rankings (small chance Monmouth appears but I doubt it). If this choice is criteria based, what am I missing?

This is a logical piece for East/North/South Bracket: No Flights until 3rd round.
1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Delaware Valley vs. Ithaca/Case Western


1. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
2. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
3  Brockport vs. Susquehanna
4. Case Western/North Central vs. Wabash
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 06, 2019, 07:13:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 06:37:00 PM
I'm going to do a quick and dirty mock Pool C selection here this week, using today's regional rankings. 

First the mechanics:
- There are 27 Pool A bids that go to champions of qualifying conferences. 
- Once the Pool A bids are delivered, zero Pool B bid will be awarded to teams that do not belong to qualifying conferences as there are no such teams or conferences left.
- That leaves 5 spots left which will continue to be designated as Pool C.  Everybody who is not already in the tournament to this point is eligible for these bids. 
- The at-large bids are determined by comparing the top-ranked teams remaining from each region (once those rankings have been scrubbed of the automatic qualifiers) using the selection/seeding criteria (check the handbook or FAQs on D3football.com for a primer on all of that).  Each committee member ranks those four teams, points get counted poll style, and the team with the most points goes in. 
- The next team available from the region of the team that just got selected steps in and the comparing/voting process repeats until the field is complete. 
Good?  Great.  Let's do this. 

Pool A
The projected 27 Pool A's as of this moment:
(https://i.imgur.com/zs3Y5CP.png)

Teams in the gold boxes have clinched and are in, everybody else is still projected.  Most of the conferences left to be decided just need a conference leader to win a game they are heavily favored in this week to seal the deal, others have toss up games to deal with.  In those cases, I've projected the teams that are win-and-in over teams that need help to get the AQ (this is Berry's scenario).   

Now, we scrub the rankings from teams that I've projected in, and we are left with:

East: Wesley, Ithaca, Cortland, WPI, Wilkes
North: North Central, Baldwin Wallace, John Carroll, WashU, Denison
South: Susquehanna, Berry, Randolph-Macon, Texas Lutheran, Hardin-Simmons
West: Redlands, Bethel, Central, UW-Oshkosh

These lists seems pretty solid.  There may be some shuffling down the road amongst the top of each region's list (looking at you East), but the spots where there's weirdness or a high concentration of teams from one league are far enough down on the list that they shouldn't spin this projection off into something completely unreasonable. 

And off we go. 

Pool C:
Round 1:
2E Wesley - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.577 SOS (23rd)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
4W Redlands - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.620 (6th)
(Redlands, Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna)

Among the primary criteria, Redlands is tied for the top of this group in win percentage, they have defeated W6, their lone loss is to W3, and they have the best SOS on the board by a significant margin.  Wesley and North Central also have RRO wins, but Wesley's 4OT game with E3 DelVal and North Central's dismantling of W8 WashU are, to me, not as impressive as Redlands' handling of Linfield, who have been great all season outside their game with Redlands.  Bulldogs are my first selection. 

Round 2:
2E Wesley - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.577 (23rd)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel)

Bethel joins the party with a similar win percentage with their lone loss and RRO result being a 19-0 shutdown against W5 St. John's.  At this stage of the game, I have a strong preference for teams that have RRO wins, which leads me back to Wesley and North Central.  In the event that the committee does have to judge Wesley and North Central at the same time, Christopher Newport may provide a rare piece of common opponent data between teams from different regions.  I don't know how much weight a common opponent results from Weeks 1 and 11 should carry, but if I'm Wesley I probably don't want to play a competitive four quarter with the Captains if I can at all avoid it.  For now, CNU has a different impact on this decision, as they are an anchor (ha) on North Central's SOS- to the degree that I'm going to choose Wesley here. 

Round 3:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel, Ithaca)

Per the last round, you can probably see that I favor North Central above the teams that do not have RRO wins.  I have to check in with Ithaca to make sure that they don't beat North Central and...they do not.  Ithaca does not have an RRO win (for now), their SOS is not overwhelmingly larger than North Central's (for now), and they have identical win percentages.  The WashU win gives North Central a clear edge here- one that isn't so clear if/when Hobart pops up in the East rankings. 

Round 4:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
5N Baldwin Wallace - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Susquehanna, Bethel, Ithaca, Baldwin Wallace)

Now I've got a board where nobody has an RRO win.  This is where things always get dicey for me.  I see that Susquehanna has the best SOS on a board with four identical win percentages.  Susquehanna lost 24-17 in OT to S2.  That's a pretty solid result.  Ithaca lost to E4 by 10, Baldwin Wallace was noncompetitive to N1 (most are, but when you're in this position, it helps to at least show a pulse in that game), and Bethel was shut out by W5.  Best SOS, best "result" IMO...the River Hawks are my choice here. 

Round 5:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
5N Baldwin Wallace - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115th)
6S Berry 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.481 (158th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Bethel, Ithaca, Baldwin Wallace, Berry)

Have to do a quick evaluation on newcomer Berry.  The Vikings have the same kind of profile that we've seen in the last couple of rounds.  Just one loss, fortunately to a ranked opponent.  But Berry's SOS suffers (largely from Maryville's downturn this year, and their loss is kind of a deceptively close 28-15 game to S9.  That definitely doesn't stack up well with the teams that were already on the board, so Berry isn't going to step right over the others and in to the tournament.  This is really a coin toss between Bethel and Ithaca.  I'm going to give the edge to Bethel on the back of their slight SOS advantage, but you can put Ithaca in the field in this spot and it wouldn't be controversial.  I went back and forth on this a few times before finalizing the post. 

There it is.  That's my five Pool C's if I had to pick them today.

This is solid research and reporting WW. Do you get the sense the committee looks at results of otherwise tied teams the way you do in the late rounds here? I think its invaluable but I have never seen it reported they do that. This process also highlights the tenuous nature of Pool C when teams like Bethel and NCC are a Hobart ranking away from the bubble, yikes.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 06, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
This shows that no matter how good we think Ithaca (or Berry) is, they gotta win their league to ensure entrance.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 07:53:51 PM
Quote from: USee on November 06, 2019, 07:13:14 PM
Do you get the sense the committee looks at results of otherwise tied teams the way you do in the late rounds here? I think its invaluable but I have never seen it reported they do that. This process also highlights the tenuous nature of Pool C when teams like Bethel and NCC are a Hobart ranking away from the bubble, yikes.

I think they do, and they should!  When you've got four teams in front of you and none have quality wins (specifically, wins against ranked opponents), you have dive into the deep end to try and find ways to differentiate them.  I think the language in the criteria encourages that kind of analysis ("results" vs ranked opponents as opposed to "win pct vs ranked opponents").  There's so little allowable information to be used here, that you have to go down those rabbit holes to get what you need. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 07, 2019, 05:23:17 PM
OK using Wally's selections here are my 8 quads. Each quad is listed 1st to 4th, with the first playing the fourth and the second playing the third. 3 flights in the first round with one, but possibly 2 in the second round.

1.) Mount Union, Union, W. New England, SUNY-Maritime
2.) Salisbury, Delaware Valley, Brockport, Framingham St.

3.) Wheaton, Hope, Bethel, Hanover
4.) Muhlenberg, Wesley, MIT, CWR

5.) MH-B, Bridgewater (Va.), Susquehanna, Huntingdon
6.) Chapman, Redlands, Birmingham-Southern, Linfield

7.) UW-Whitewater, North Central, Wabash, Martin Luther or Monmouth
8.) Wartburg, St. John's, Aurora, Martin Luther or Monmouth 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 07, 2019, 09:23:01 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 07, 2019, 05:23:17 PM
OK using Wally's selections here are my 8 quads. Each quad is listed 1st to 4th, with the first playing the fourth and the second playing the third. 3 flights in the first round with one, but possibly 2 in the second round.

1.) Mount Union, Union, W. New England, SUNY-Maritime
2.) Salisbury, Delaware Valley, Brockport, Framingham St.

3.) Wheaton, Hope, Bethel, Hanover
4.) Muhlenberg, Wesley, MIT, CWR

5.) MH-B, Bridgewater (Va.), Susquehanna, Huntingdon
6.) Chapman, Redlands, Birmingham-Southern, Linfield

7.) UW-Whitewater, North Central, Wabash, Martin Luther or Monmouth
8.) Wartburg, St. John's, Aurora, Martin Luther or Monmouth

Probably not realistic with 3 flights but I like it. You could swap Wabash and Bethel and eliminate a flight all the while angering NCC fans
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 09:38:01 PM
Quote from: USee on November 06, 2019, 07:01:05 PM
Pat/Wally/Keith/whomever,

At one point in the past I remember seeing that the National Committee picks 4 top seeds and then builds geographic brackets. In the Q&A it says they pick the top 8 teams and build geographic brackets. Which is it? both?

Certainly, my understanding is that they identify the top 8 seeds and build 8, 4-team pods.  Then they'll pair off those pods for your four "regions".

Quote from: USee on November 06, 2019, 07:01:05 PM
I will admit a lack of understanding and history around the 1 seed discussions, primarily because my team has not been in this position very often to pay as close attention.

That said. It seems the 1 seed locks, based on today's snapshot (sure to change, even dramatically) are UMHB (defending champ), UMU (national finalist) and UWW (undefeated with playoff history). The 4th 1 seed is up for debate. Among the undefeated contenders we have (ranked in order of CURRENT SOS):

1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Chapman (7-0),  .536, 1-0 RRO (West #3)
5: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 1-0 RRO (East #1)
6: Bridgewater (8-0),  .502 0-0 (RRO South #3)

Obviously we can cross off Bridgewater and Chapman, who are behind others on this list and wouldn't be considered.

That leaves:
1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 2-0 RRO (East #1)

Based on criteria, Wheaton is the next best team with only Salisbury matching their RRO but not close on SOS. Both teams will decline in SOS over the last 2 weeks so that spread seems unlikely to close and this seems a similar picture between the two. Muhlenberg has only 1 RRO band their SOS will decline a similar amount to Wheaton's. Muhlenberg does have a playoff result from last year (L @UMU).

Many are assuming Muhlenberg or Salisbury are the more likely pick as a 4th 1 seed. I am not seeing it in the critereria, unless Muhlenberg's playoff result trumps everything else. Salisbury also may lose an RRO when UWO plays UWW in week 11. Wartburg may end up with the strongest SOS of this group but may have no all important RRO if they beat Central, knocking them from rankings (small chance Monmouth appears but I doubt it). If this choice is criteria based, what am I missing?

Wheaton certainly presents a very strong case for one of the top four seeds.  I'm going to avoid speculation on that until all of the SOS data comes in.  I think those gaps will close over the last two weeks, perhaps to a point where Salisbury and Muhlenberg don't appear as far behind as they do now.  As it sits, were I on the committee, I'd probably advocate for Wheaton here, but that might not be the case in 9 days. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 07, 2019, 09:57:34 PM
Quote from: USee on November 07, 2019, 09:23:01 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 07, 2019, 05:23:17 PM
OK using Wally's selections here are my 8 quads. Each quad is listed 1st to 4th, with the first playing the fourth and the second playing the third. 3 flights in the first round with one, but possibly 2 in the second round.

1.) Mount Union, Union, W. New England, SUNY-Maritime
2.) Salisbury, Delaware Valley, Brockport, Framingham St.

3.) Wheaton, Hope, Bethel, Hanover
4.) Muhlenberg, Wesley, MIT, CWR

5.) MH-B, Bridgewater (Va.), Susquehanna, Huntingdon
6.) Chapman, Redlands, Birmingham-Southern, Linfield

7.) UW-Whitewater, North Central, Wabash, Martin Luther or Monmouth
8.) Wartburg, St. John's, Aurora, Martin Luther or Monmouth

Probably not realistic with 3 flights but I like it. You could swap Wabash and Bethel and eliminate a flight all the while angering NCC fans

You are right about eliminating a flight. It doesn't look right as is, maybe I am trying to hard to put a quad in So. Cal.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: UfanBill on November 07, 2019, 10:50:10 PM
As a Union fan it would be great to finally see that absent but seemingly inevitable Mt. Union vs Union game. Of course MTU would have to get by SUNY-Maritime first.  ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on November 08, 2019, 04:30:33 PM
I would have to drop that last #1 seed to either Muhlenberg or Wheaton.  I think that the secondary criteria will come in to play, and Muhlenberg has the most recent playoff success.  It also gives a the a true eastern team a bracket. 

IMO, Wheaton is truly the best team out there and should garner home field in their bracket. 

I also think the assumption is that Mount and UMHB will be on opposing sides of the bracket and would only meet in the Stagg.  Is there a foundation for this, or is it possible that last year's championship game could be this year's semi-final? 

Lastly, I'm sure every year pool C is super difficult to decide whose in and whose out, but this year seems worse than normal.  I feel like if all the teams that are in the mix currently win out, and I think there are 7 teams, there will be more controversy than normal.  The last team in will have as must justification for be selected, as the last team out will.  I don't know.  This year just seems much more gray than normal. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 08, 2019, 04:48:47 PM
Quote from: Captainred81 on November 08, 2019, 04:30:33 PM
I would have to drop that last #1 seed to either Muhlenberg or Wheaton.  I think that the secondary criteria will come in to play, and Muhlenberg has the most recent playoff success.  It also gives a the a true eastern team a bracket. 

IMO, Wheaton is truly the best team out there and should garner home field in their bracket. 

I also think the assumption is that Mount and UMHB will be on opposing sides of the bracket and would only meet in the Stagg.  Is there a foundation for this, or is it possible that last year's championship game could be this year's semi-final? 

Lastly, I'm sure every year pool C is super difficult to decide whose in and whose out, but this year seems worse than normal.  I feel like if all the teams that are in the mix currently win out, and I think there are 7 teams, there will be more controversy than normal.  The last team in will have as must justification for be selected, as the last team out will.  I don't know.  This year just seems much more gray than normal.

As Wally indicated the next 8 days will change the profile of both the #1 seed outlook as well as the Pool C discussion. What we don't know is whether the waters get clearer or muddier with the games yet to be played.

For Pool A, the criteria will likely dictate and if all the teams win out, the SOS and RRO criteria could be pretty close for Wheaton/Salisbury/Muhlenberg. In that case Muhlenberg's playoff appearance last year could be a differentiator. What I don't know is if SOS's are all similar and Wheaton is 2-0 RRO vs 1-0 for the others, is that enough?

For Pool C, there is a lot riding on these games. This could become an easy Pool C pickem year or it could just as easily become the toughest year ever. MHB v TLU, Ithaca v Cortland, UWW v UWO, Bethel v UST, NCC v IWU, and several other games could all impact the picture there substantially. And something as simple as Hobart getting ranked in the East could change the fortunes of NCC and the OAC runner-up. There is a lot to digest and we will have to let it play out.

I am pretty sure, whatever happens, that the D3.com team will have a pretty accurate take on what is likely to happen in their final projection a week from tomorrow after the final games are played. They always do.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: DChicks on November 08, 2019, 06:51:00 PM
How much of Redland's pool-C case depends upon Linfield winning out (assuming Redlands does win out)? Right now Redlands has a very strong SoS and is 1-1 against RRO, but their RRO will weaken over the next two weeks, and if (God forbid) Linfield were not to win out, then they would fall out of the regional rankings, leaving Redlands 0-1 against RRO. Obviously their case for pool-C would weaken, but would this prove fatal to their pool-C hopes?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2019, 06:59:40 PM
Quote from: DChicks on November 08, 2019, 06:51:00 PM
How much of Redland's pool-C case depends upon Linfield winning out (assuming Redlands does win out)? Right now Redlands has a very strong SoS and is 1-1 against RRO, but their RRO will weaken over the next two weeks, and if (God forbid) Linfield were not to win out, then they would fall out of the regional rankings, leaving Redlands 0-1 against RRO. Obviously their case for pool-C would weaken, but would this prove fatal to their pool-C hopes?

I don't know about fatal, but it's definitely not good.  In my view, even if Redlands' SOS drops precipitously in the next two games (it will), they are buoyed by Linfield.  I don't think their SOS can fall off to a point where 1-loss Redlands with a  h2h win over 1-loss Linfield can justifiably be ranked below the team they beat.  So Linfield is UR's floor.  If Linfield loses, that floor gets obliterated, and now Redlands gets a little more directly compared with maybe Bethel or the best of the non-champ WIACs.  They could potentially lose their spot at the top of the at-large queue in the West region, no doubt. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 09, 2019, 01:13:32 PM
I'll be updating this throughout the day.

Rundown of the Pool A races:

ARC: Central gets it with a win next week; Wartburg gets it with a win and a Central loss. If both lose, a three- or four-way tie could result.
ASC: Mary Hardin–Baylor has CLINCHED.
Centennial: Muhlenberg has CLINCHED.
CCIW: Wheaton has CLINCHED.
CCC: Western New England has CLINCHED.
ECFC: SUNY Maritime has CLINCHED.
Empire 8: Brockport has CLINCHED.
HCAC: Hanover has CLINCHED.
Liberty: Union has CLINCHED.
MASCAC: Framingham State has CLINCHED.
MIAA: Hope has CLINCHED.
MAC: Delaware Valley has CLINCHED.
MWC: Monmouth will meet St. Norbert next week for the title.
MIAC: St. John's has CLINCHED.
NEWMAC: MIT gets it if they beat Springfield next week; if Springfield wins, WPI gets it with a win, otherwise Springfield does.
NJAC: Salisbury has CLINCHED.
NCAC: Wabash has CLINCHED.
NACC: Aurora has CLINCHED.
NWC: Linfield has CLINCHED.
OAC: Mount Union has CLINCHED.
ODAC: Bridgewater has CLINCHED.
PAC: Case Western Reserve has CLINCHED.
SAA: Berry gets it with a win next week; Trinity gets it with a win and a Berry loss. If both lose, a three-way tie could result.
SCIAC: Chapman has CLINCHED.
UMAC: Martin Luther has CLINCHED.
USA South: Huntingdon gets it with a win next week. If they lose, anything could happen. I don't know how Brevard's ineligibility affects tiebreakers with Huntingdon, Averett, and North Carolina Wesleyan.
WIAC: Winner of UW Whitewater at UW Oshkosh next week gets it.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 09, 2019, 05:24:59 PM
So is Wartburg a serious Pool C candidate?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2019, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 09, 2019, 05:24:59 PM
So is Wartburg a serious Pool C candidate?
yes---unless they lose again next week.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 09, 2019, 05:55:10 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2019, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 09, 2019, 05:24:59 PM
So is Wartburg a serious Pool C candidate?
yes---unless they lose again next week.
Or if Central loses to Coe. That still a big game in the ARC next week.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: sju56321 on November 09, 2019, 07:33:57 PM
Interesting-who would be second on the west list after Redlands for pool C-bethel or wartburg if they both win next week?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 09, 2019, 08:00:18 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on November 09, 2019, 07:33:57 PM
Interesting-who would be second on the west list after Redlands for pool C-bethel or wartburg if they both win next week?

Bethel
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2019, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 09, 2019, 08:00:18 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on November 09, 2019, 07:33:57 PM
Interesting-who would be second on the west list after Redlands for pool C-bethel or wartburg if they both win next week?

Bethel
at first I was like, duh...but I dunno.  I think Wartburg will have the higher SOS and they will both likely be 0-1 against Regionally ranked opponents.....will be an interseting one
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 09, 2019, 08:58:20 PM
After tonight's games their is only one week left to play, but their is much yet to be determined. One scenario that may occur is if St. Thomas beats Bethel next week, the ARC and SCIAC might be a 2 bid leagues and the MIAC and the WIAC would probably be one bid leagues. Who would of gave that a chance when the season started?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2019, 09:38:26 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 09, 2019, 08:58:20 PM
After tonight's games their is only one week left to play, but their is much yet to be determined. One scenario that may occur is if St. Thomas beats Bethel next week, the ARC and SCIAC might be a 2 bid leagues and the MIAC and the WIAC would probably be one bid leagues. Who would of gave that a chance when the season started?
Right?  Could end up having a very different looking bracket this year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2019, 12:23:09 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2019, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 09, 2019, 08:00:18 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on November 09, 2019, 07:33:57 PM
Interesting-who would be second on the west list after Redlands for pool C-bethel or wartburg if they both win next week?

Bethel
at first I was like, duh...but I dunno.  I think Wartburg will have the higher SOS and they will both likely be 0-1 against Regionally ranked opponents.....will be an interseting one

Sounds like the reason GAC didn't get ranked and Martin Luther did was that the committee considered UST the next best team in the MIAC. So they took 1 loss ML over 2 loss UST. Now that GAC and UST have played and there's a common opponent, can UST jump ML in the regional rankings? GAC monkey stomped ML. UST just monkey stomped GAC. That might be a tipping point in how the West sorts out the Redlands, Wartburg, Central, Bethel, Linfield quagmire.

RRO with current rankings:
Redlands 1-1
Central 1-0
Bethel 0-1
Linfield 0-1
Wartburg 0-1
Martin Luther 0-0

Wart's SOS will be better than Bethel's. What hurts Bethel is both SJU and UST have head scratching losses (depressing SJU's Regional Ranking and ensuring that if Bethel beats UST, they are no longer a RRO). UST getting ranked means SJU is 2-0 vs. RRO. Enough to push SJU above Redlands? If so, does that bump Bethel above Wartburg because of the quality of opponent? I really have no idea how they sort out that quagmire.

My gut says Bethel and Redlands should be the top two (Bethel blowing up ARC champ Wartburg pretty handily last year in the playoffs is no small part of that opinion). I'd bet Linfield would beat Wartburg, but SOS doesn't favor Linfield in criteria (bit of a moot point since they are Pool A at this point).

Central still faces Coe next Saturday and Bethel has a huge game against UST.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 10, 2019, 12:37:38 AM
21 of the Pool A teams are clear (assuming the NCAC doesn't do something weird with tiebreakers). The MWC and WIAC have winner-take-all games next week, while the ARC, NEWMAC, SAA, and USA South have multiple scenarios in play.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2019, 12:45:13 AM
Games Most Likely to have Pool C Implications:

Central v. Coe - Central W means Pool A, L means Wart (with a W) gets Auto and Central is likely out.
Wartburg v. Loras - W keeps Pool C in play, L means Pool A or bust (potential for 4 way tie in ARC and I think Wart wins due to H2H criteria)
Ithaca v. Cortland - Cortland W and they are in play, Ithaca W and they are both out.
JCU v. Baldwin Wallace - JCU W and they have a chance, BW W and they are likely both out.
WPI v. Norwich - W and they have faint Pool C life. If Springfield beats MIT and WPI wins, WPI gets Pool A.
UWO v. UWW - W for UWO means Pool A, and UWW thrown into the top of Pool C mix.
Bethel v. UST - W for Bethel and Pool C in play. L and out.

*I only listed one loss teams playing above .500 opponents.

Strong Pool C candidates with likely wins on Saturday:

Redlands, Wesley, NCC, Susquehanna (listed in the order Wally picked them during the simulation last week)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2019, 01:09:35 AM
The interesting thing about Wally's pool C exercise before this weekend, the top 4 could likely still be the first four but those at the table in round 5 could all be different... Ithaca lost, Baldwin Wallace lost, Berry moved back into a pool A position, and Bethel could get pushed behind Wartburg. Likely teams to be discussed are Cortland, John Carroll, a 2 loss South team, and Wartburg/Bethel. I think whoever the west has up would get the last spot. John Carroll might have had a chance had Baldwin Wallace not lost because now if they beat them BW will have 3 losses and be out of the RR and not help.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2019, 02:46:42 AM
I've come up with a bracket... I believe there's only 2 flights 1st round and 2 in the 2nd. Pool C teams were North Central, Redlands, Susquehanna, Wartburg, and Wesley. I plugged in Berry, Central, Chapman, Huntingdon, and UW-Whitewater as pool A. MWC and NEWMAC spot works with whoever ends up with them. I just grouped pods together, could probably mix them around a bit.

I know the likely scenario is west coast/Texas in a pod... but Huntingdon only reaches Berry and I think Hanover might be the only other team Berry can get to so why not throw them in the mix and let Chapman host a pod which they probably should.
I tried to choose the 8 pod leaders but that was rather hard. First 6 were easy, managed to work it to get Chapman one for the seventh and the 8th one was a struggle. Ultimately it ended up with Bridgewater but I'm not that enthusiastic about it.


UMHB (9-0) vs Redlands (8-1); Berry (8-1) vs Huntingdon (6-3)
Chapman (8-0) vs Linfield (7-1); St John's (8-1) vs Martin Luther (8-1)

UW-Whitewater (9-0) vs MWC (6-2); Central (8-1) vs North Central (8-1)
Wheaton (9-0) vs Wabash (7-2); Wartburg (8-1) vs Aurora (8-1)

Mount Union (9-0) vs SUNY Maritime (4-5); Hope (8-1) vs Hanover (8-1)
Muhlenberg (9-0) vs Framingham St (7-2); Brockport (8-1) vs Wesley (8-1)

Salisbury (8-0) vs NEWMAC; Union (9-0) vs W New England (8-1)
Bridgewater (9-0) vs Susquehanna (8-1); Case Western Reserve (9-0) vs Delaware Valley (8-1)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2019, 02:46:42 AM
I've come up with a bracket... I believe there's only 2 flights 1st round and 2 in the 2nd. Pool C teams were North Central, Redlands, Susquehanna, Wartburg, and Wesley. I plugged in Berry, Central, Chapman, Huntingdon, and UW-Whitewater as pool A. MWC and NEWMAC spot works with whoever ends up with them. I just grouped pods together, could probably mix them around a bit.

I know the likely scenario is west coast/Texas in a pod... but Huntingdon only reaches Berry and I think Hanover might be the only other team Berry can get to so why not throw them in the mix and let Chapman host a pod which they probably should.
I tried to choose the 8 pod leaders but that was rather hard. First 6 were easy, managed to work it to get Chapman one for the seventh and the 8th one was a struggle. Ultimately it ended up with Bridgewater but I'm not that enthusiastic about it.


UMHB (9-0) vs Redlands (8-1); Berry (8-1) vs Huntingdon (6-3)
Chapman (8-0) vs Linfield (7-1); St John's (8-1) vs Martin Luther (8-1)

UW-Whitewater (9-0) vs MWC (6-2); Central (8-1) vs North Central (8-1)
Wheaton (9-0) vs Wabash (7-2); Wartburg (8-1) vs Aurora (8-1)

Mount Union (9-0) vs SUNY Maritime (4-5); Hope (8-1) vs Hanover (8-1)
Muhlenberg (9-0) vs Framingham St (7-2); Brockport (8-1) vs Wesley (8-1)

Salisbury (8-0) vs NEWMAC; Union (9-0) vs W New England (8-1)
Bridgewater (9-0) vs Susquehanna (8-1); Case Western Reserve (9-0) vs Delaware Valley (8-1)

Nice work here.

3 small things I would disagree on. First, I just can't see Redlands be a first round matchup for UMHB for that seems very unfair to both parties. I don't know who should be the 8th host, but Bridgewater doesn't feel right as an option. Last is the pool C choice of Wartburg over Bethel, unless it is from projecting St. Thomas beating Bethel next weekend.

I guess the chance is there for Monmouth to win their title game and sneak in the backdoor and take the 10th spot in the final regional rankings, that would be a big plus for Wartburg.

Again, nice work and thanks for the food for thought.       
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2019, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2019, 02:46:42 AM
I've come up with a bracket... I believe there's only 2 flights 1st round and 2 in the 2nd. Pool C teams were North Central, Redlands, Susquehanna, Wartburg, and Wesley. I plugged in Berry, Central, Chapman, Huntingdon, and UW-Whitewater as pool A. MWC and NEWMAC spot works with whoever ends up with them. I just grouped pods together, could probably mix them around a bit.

I know the likely scenario is west coast/Texas in a pod... but Huntingdon only reaches Berry and I think Hanover might be the only other team Berry can get to so why not throw them in the mix and let Chapman host a pod which they probably should.
I tried to choose the 8 pod leaders but that was rather hard. First 6 were easy, managed to work it to get Chapman one for the seventh and the 8th one was a struggle. Ultimately it ended up with Bridgewater but I'm not that enthusiastic about it.


UMHB (9-0) vs Redlands (8-1); Berry (8-1) vs Huntingdon (6-3)
Chapman (8-0) vs Linfield (7-1); St John's (8-1) vs Martin Luther (8-1)

UW-Whitewater (9-0) vs MWC (6-2); Central (8-1) vs North Central (8-1)
Wheaton (9-0) vs Wabash (7-2); Wartburg (8-1) vs Aurora (8-1)

Mount Union (9-0) vs SUNY Maritime (4-5); Hope (8-1) vs Hanover (8-1)
Muhlenberg (9-0) vs Framingham St (7-2); Brockport (8-1) vs Wesley (8-1)

Salisbury (8-0) vs NEWMAC; Union (9-0) vs W New England (8-1)
Bridgewater (9-0) vs Susquehanna (8-1); Case Western Reserve (9-0) vs Delaware Valley (8-1)

Nice work here.

3 small things I would disagree on. First, I just can't see Redlands be a first round matchup for UMHB for that seems very unfair to both parties. I don't know who should be the 8th host, but Bridgewater doesn't feel right as an option. Last is the pool C choice of Wartburg over Bethel, unless it is from projecting St. Thomas beating Bethel next weekend.

I guess the chance is there for Monmouth to win their title game and sneak in the backdoor and take the 10th spot in the final regional rankings, that would be a big plus for Wartburg.

Again, nice work and thanks for the food for thought.       
unfair is basically the standard when dealing with the west coast/Texas island teams in a playoff bracket.  Unless they are willing to shell out $ for an extra flight...
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 09:46:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2019, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2019, 02:46:42 AM
I've come up with a bracket... I believe there's only 2 flights 1st round and 2 in the 2nd. Pool C teams were North Central, Redlands, Susquehanna, Wartburg, and Wesley. I plugged in Berry, Central, Chapman, Huntingdon, and UW-Whitewater as pool A. MWC and NEWMAC spot works with whoever ends up with them. I just grouped pods together, could probably mix them around a bit.

I know the likely scenario is west coast/Texas in a pod... but Huntingdon only reaches Berry and I think Hanover might be the only other team Berry can get to so why not throw them in the mix and let Chapman host a pod which they probably should.
I tried to choose the 8 pod leaders but that was rather hard. First 6 were easy, managed to work it to get Chapman one for the seventh and the 8th one was a struggle. Ultimately it ended up with Bridgewater but I'm not that enthusiastic about it.


UMHB (9-0) vs Redlands (8-1); Berry (8-1) vs Huntingdon (6-3)
Chapman (8-0) vs Linfield (7-1); St John's (8-1) vs Martin Luther (8-1)

UW-Whitewater (9-0) vs MWC (6-2); Central (8-1) vs North Central (8-1)
Wheaton (9-0) vs Wabash (7-2); Wartburg (8-1) vs Aurora (8-1)

Mount Union (9-0) vs SUNY Maritime (4-5); Hope (8-1) vs Hanover (8-1)
Muhlenberg (9-0) vs Framingham St (7-2); Brockport (8-1) vs Wesley (8-1)

Salisbury (8-0) vs NEWMAC; Union (9-0) vs W New England (8-1)
Bridgewater (9-0) vs Susquehanna (8-1); Case Western Reserve (9-0) vs Delaware Valley (8-1)

Nice work here.

3 small things I would disagree on. First, I just can't see Redlands be a first round matchup for UMHB for that seems very unfair to both parties. I don't know who should be the 8th host, but Bridgewater doesn't feel right as an option. Last is the pool C choice of Wartburg over Bethel, unless it is from projecting St. Thomas beating Bethel next weekend.

I guess the chance is there for Monmouth to win their title game and sneak in the backdoor and take the 10th spot in the final regional rankings, that would be a big plus for Wartburg.

Again, nice work and thanks for the food for thought.       
unfair is basically the standard when dealing with the west coast/Texas island teams in a playoff bracket.  Unless they are willing to shell out $ for an extra flight...

I'm might be lost in the weeds here, but I am thinking that a quad will be made up of Chapman-Linfield, Redlands-some one shipped in. Whether they fly Redlands to somewhere or fly someone to Redlands the cost is still a flight.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 10, 2019, 11:09:50 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2019, 06:37:00 PM
I'm going to do a quick and dirty mock Pool C selection here this week, using today's regional rankings. 

First the mechanics:
- There are 27 Pool A bids that go to champions of qualifying conferences. 
- Once the Pool A bids are delivered, zero Pool B bid will be awarded to teams that do not belong to qualifying conferences as there are no such teams or conferences left.
- That leaves 5 spots left which will continue to be designated as Pool C.  Everybody who is not already in the tournament to this point is eligible for these bids. 
- The at-large bids are determined by comparing the top-ranked teams remaining from each region (once those rankings have been scrubbed of the automatic qualifiers) using the selection/seeding criteria (check the handbook or FAQs on D3football.com for a primer on all of that).  Each committee member ranks those four teams, points get counted poll style, and the team with the most points goes in. 
- The next team available from the region of the team that just got selected steps in and the comparing/voting process repeats until the field is complete. 
Good?  Great.  Let's do this. 

Pool A
The projected 27 Pool A's as of this moment:
(https://i.imgur.com/zs3Y5CP.png)

Teams in the gold boxes have clinched and are in, everybody else is still projected.  Most of the conferences left to be decided just need a conference leader to win a game they are heavily favored in this week to seal the deal, others have toss up games to deal with.  In those cases, I've projected the teams that are win-and-in over teams that need help to get the AQ (this is Berry's scenario).   

Now, we scrub the rankings from teams that I've projected in, and we are left with:

East: Wesley, Ithaca, Cortland, WPI, Wilkes
North: North Central, Baldwin Wallace, John Carroll, WashU, Denison
South: Susquehanna, Berry, Randolph-Macon, Texas Lutheran, Hardin-Simmons
West: Redlands, Bethel, Central, UW-Oshkosh

These lists seems pretty solid.  There may be some shuffling down the road amongst the top of each region's list (looking at you East), but the spots where there's weirdness or a high concentration of teams from one league are far enough down on the list that they shouldn't spin this projection off into something completely unreasonable. 

And off we go. 

Pool C:
Round 1:
2E Wesley - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.577 SOS (23rd)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
4W Redlands - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.620 (6th)
(Redlands, Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna)

Among the primary criteria, Redlands is tied for the top of this group in win percentage, they have defeated W6, their lone loss is to W3, and they have the best SOS on the board by a significant margin.  Wesley and North Central also have RRO wins, but Wesley's 4OT game with E3 DelVal and North Central's dismantling of W8 WashU are, to me, not as impressive as Redlands' handling of Linfield, who have been great all season outside their game with Redlands.  Bulldogs are my first selection. 

Round 2:
2E Wesley - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.577 (23rd)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel)

Bethel joins the party with a similar win percentage with their lone loss and RRO result being a 19-0 shutdown against W5 St. John's.  At this stage of the game, I have a strong preference for teams that have RRO wins, which leads me back to Wesley and North Central.  In the event that the committee does have to judge Wesley and North Central at the same time, Christopher Newport may provide a rare piece of common opponent data between teams from different regions.  I don't know how much weight a common opponent results from Weeks 1 and 11 should carry, but if I'm Wesley I probably don't want to play a competitive four quarter with the Captains if I can at all avoid it.  For now, CNU has a different impact on this decision, as they are an anchor (ha) on North Central's SOS- to the degree that I'm going to choose Wesley here. 

Round 3:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
3N North Central - 7-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.496 (128th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel, Ithaca)

Per the last round, you can probably see that I favor North Central above the teams that do not have RRO wins.  I have to check in with Ithaca to make sure that they don't beat North Central and...they do not.  Ithaca does not have an RRO win (for now), their SOS is not overwhelmingly larger than North Central's (for now), and they have identical win percentages.  The WashU win gives North Central a clear edge here- one that isn't so clear if/when Hobart pops up in the East rankings. 

Round 4:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
5N Baldwin Wallace - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115th)
4S Susquehanna - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.565 (36th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Susquehanna, Bethel, Ithaca, Baldwin Wallace)

Now I've got a board where nobody has an RRO win.  This is where things always get dicey for me.  I see that Susquehanna has the best SOS on a board with four identical win percentages.  Susquehanna lost 24-17 in OT to S2.  That's a pretty solid result.  Ithaca lost to E4 by 10, Baldwin Wallace was noncompetitive to N1 (most are, but when you're in this position, it helps to at least show a pulse in that game), and Bethel was shut out by W5.  Best SOS, best "result" IMO...the River Hawks are my choice here. 

Round 5:
6E Ithaca - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.520 (95th)
5N Baldwin Wallace - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115th)
6S Berry 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.481 (158th)
6W Bethel - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.540 (55th)
(Bethel, Ithaca, Baldwin Wallace, Berry)

Have to do a quick evaluation on newcomer Berry.  The Vikings have the same kind of profile that we've seen in the last couple of rounds.  Just one loss, fortunately to a ranked opponent.  But Berry's SOS suffers (largely from Maryville's downturn this year, and their loss is kind of a deceptively close 28-15 game to S9.  That definitely doesn't stack up well with the teams that were already on the board, so Berry isn't going to step right over the others and in to the tournament.  This is really a coin toss between Bethel and Ithaca.  I'm going to give the edge to Bethel on the back of their slight SOS advantage, but you can put Ithaca in the field in this spot and it wouldn't be controversial.  I went back and forth on this a few times before finalizing the post. 

There it is.  That's my five Pool C's if I had to pick them today.

It seems to me this analysis will be similar this week. What's changed is Ithaca will be out and Cortland will bump up, Wartburg is in the conversation likely above Bethel.  I think Wally's analysis is similar here and we would get Redlands, Wesley and then probably Wartburg in round 3. Susquehanna may get picked in round 4 over NCC, who loses the RRO advantage and Susquehanna's result vs S2 is slightly better than NCC's v N2. That would leave Bethel and NCC at the table for the final pick and NCC's result vs N2 may be better than Bethels' v W5ish.

If Bethel loses in week 11 to UST, NCC is probably in as the final pick. Maybe this is all wrong, I just used Wally's analysis and updated the numbers.

If UWO beats UWW this week, then Bethel and NCC may be on the wrong side of the bubble. Pool C is very competitive this year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: ncc_fan on November 10, 2019, 11:17:25 AM
Though it would be disappointing, I wouldn't be surprised to see Redlands @ Chapman and Linfield @ UMHB in round 1.  That requires only one flight rather than two, sends the lowest-ranked west coast team to Texas, and is consistent with past penny-pinching first round matchups.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:18:35 AM
Who wants to tell him?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 11:34:52 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:18:35 AM
Who wants to tell him?

Aww go ahead you can be the one to tell him that teams from the same conference can't play each other in the 1st round.

When are you going to bless us with an update on your thoughts WW.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: ncc_fan on November 10, 2019, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 11:34:52 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:18:35 AM
Who wants to tell him?

Aww go ahead you can be the one to tell him that teams from the same conference can't play each other in the 1st round.

When are you going to bless us with an update on your thoughts WW.

Tell that to Pacific Lutheran, Whitworth, Texas Lutheran, and Hardin-Simmons.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2019, 12:37:06 PM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 10, 2019, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 11:34:52 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:18:35 AM
Who wants to tell him?

Aww go ahead you can be the one to tell him that teams from the same conference can't play each other in the 1st round.

When are you going to bless us with an update on your thoughts WW.

Tell that to Pacific Lutheran, Whitworth, Texas Lutheran, and Hardin-Simmons.

Historically you're correct but I believe it's a new rule this year. Which means Redlands doesn't have to play Chapman, but gets a potential trip to UMHB instead.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: sju56321 on November 10, 2019, 12:53:19 PM
I believe Pat said a couple weeks ago that the NCAA had agreed to pay for additional flights this year according to the chair, so it will be interesting to see what they do with that West Coast group, if in fact they can fly each one of those or somebody in to each one of those.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 10, 2019, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 11:34:52 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:18:35 AM
Who wants to tell him?

Aww go ahead you can be the one to tell him that teams from the same conference can't play each other in the 1st round.

When are you going to bless us with an update on your thoughts WW.

Tell that to Pacific Lutheran, Whitworth, Texas Lutheran, and Hardin-Simmons.

This got dealt with (https://www.d3football.com/notables/2019/10/football-playoffs-welcome-change). 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 10, 2019, 04:52:46 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 11:34:52 AM

When are you going to bless us with an update on your thoughts WW.

After the new RR come out on Wednesday, the D3.com staff usually does a mock selection and bracket before Saturday's games and then a final projection late Saturday after the last games.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 05:42:23 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 11:34:52 AM
When are you going to bless us with an update on your thoughts WW.

I've had the chance to go through this week's results in each region now and Week 10 was quite the scrambler.  Not so much at the top of the rankings- those are going to be relatively unchanged from last week, IMO.  But the bottom of the rankings are really messy in each region.  On top of Week 10 results, this week the RACs will take into account vRRO data, a key piece of primary criteria that was not used last week. 

- In the East, Ithaca has bombed out (sorry), and I'm not sure how that will affect Union going forward.  I had seen a path here for Union to go up to 2 and Ithaca to go ahead of Wesley for the top at-large spot in the region, but that's over now.  It may be that Union's ceiling now is 4 in the East.  At the bottom, Wilkes and WPI were strange inclusions last week.  Wilkes lost, so that's not going to complicate things this week.  WPI is still there, and I think will still be ranked even with a low SOS and no vRROs to work with.  They're an outlier.  The real question is does Hobart come in, and if so how is that Week 1 win over Brockport going to work?  I think Hobart has to be there this week.  The last spot I think is up for grabs between Stevenson, Endicott, and Framingham.  Could be any of those three. 

- Down South, the bottom is just as messy.  The South is running out of even two loss teams to rank. I expect Trinity to take B-SC's place and then really not much other movement there.  Randolph-Macon may stick around because there really just aren't other teams available. 

- In the North, you have to hold your nose and rank teams with all kinds of bad SOS.  I don't know how the North's SOS, like as an entire region, is so poor.  You also run into the problem where you run out of rankable two loss teams.  I think Wabash stays in, WashU goes out, Hanover is definitely coming in, and then it's a toss up for me between OWU or BW.  I will say that as 3-loss teams, WashU and Heidelberg aren't *terrible*, but I believe the RACs as a whole last week sent a message that win percentage is huge and I think a third loss may be disqualifying regardless of the other primary criteria. 

- In the West, I think the interesting thing to watch is where Wartburg lands relative to Redlands.  Redlands' floor is Linfield and Wartburg's ceiling is Central.  So can Central get above Redlands?  Seems unlikely.  I think Redlands stays the top at-large team in the West.  The ARCs might wind up ahead of Linfield, which makes a Linfield/Chapman game not just convenient, but seed-appropriate.  That would make a lot of folks happy.   I do think Wartburg stays ahead of Bethel- Bethel may have been the biggest loser from that Central/Wartburg game.  At the bottom of this region you've got deal with the UWO/P/L chain somehow, you've got Monmouth down there also on the fringe.  Maybe they'll stick with Martin Luther even though the criteria don't really support it.  St. Thomas, I think is closer to being ranked than maybe we thought, but I still think they've got a huge UWEC common opponent problem with the other UWs that has to block them. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 06:21:42 PM
Good stuff, thanks for the work.

Agree that St. Thomas may well be blocked from being ranked.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 10, 2019, 07:13:18 PM
I think the West Rankings could look like this:
1. UWW
2. Chapman
3. Redlands
4. Central
5 St Johns
6. Wartburg
7. Bethel
8. Linfield
9. UWO
10 Martin Luther
11. Monmouth/STT

I think the committee is avoiding the STT v WIAC situation and also didn't rank Monmouth, who is clearly better than STT on all the criteria, in part because they benefit from Grinnell's forfeit thus not getting their terrible SOS counted as part of their number. But a win vs SNC this week could put Monmouth in at the bottom, which would be big for Wartburg and Wheaton (for 1 seed consderation)

North:

1. Mt Union
2. Wheaton
3. North Central
4. Hope
5. John Carroll
6. Aurora
7. Wabash
8. Hanover
9. OWU
10. Baldwin Wallace
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: E.115 on November 10, 2019, 08:54:56 PM
In no way would I want it to play out like this, but would Carnegie Mellon have a Pool C bid chance if they defeated Case Western Reserve (9-0)?

Best case scenario resume for then depending on how the other games end up..ending with a record of 8-2..

With wins over two Pool A league champs:
Case Western Reserve (9-1) - PAC Champ
MIT (8-2) - NEWMAC Champ

And wins over:
Washington & Jefferson 7-3
Westminster 7-3
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 10, 2019, 09:08:15 PM
Quote from: E.115 on November 10, 2019, 08:54:56 PM
In no way would I want it to play out like this, but would Carnegie Mellon have a Pool C bid chance if they defeated Case Western Reserve (9-0)?

Best case scenario resume for then depending on how the other games end up..ending with a record of 8-2..

With wins over two Pool A league champs:
Case Western Reserve (9-1) - PAC Champ
MIT (8-2) - NEWMAC Champ

And wins over:
Washington & Jefferson 7-3
Westminster 7-3

It is probably safe to say that their is a zero percent chance of Carnegie Mellon making the 32 team playoff this year under any scenario.

I hope that did not sound rude or harsh because I did not mean for it to sound that way.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: E.115 on November 10, 2019, 09:24:31 PM
^ No not all all ... just seemed intriguing to think they potentially could have two regular season wins over two Pool A, conference champs (which I'm guessing there not many examples of this in the country) and not be in the Playoffs.

With that said, I hope they lose against my CWRU Spartans.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: tf37 on November 10, 2019, 09:37:29 PM
Quote from: USee on November 10, 2019, 07:13:18 PM
I think the West Rankings could look like this:
1. UWW
2. Chapman
3. Redlands
4. Central
5 St Johns
6. Wartburg
7. Bethel
8. Linfield
9. UWO
10 Martin Luther
11. Monmouth/STT

I think the committee is avoiding the STT v WIAC situation and also didn't rank Monmouth, who is clearly better than STT on all the criteria, in part because they benefit from Grinnell's forfeit thus not getting their terrible SOS counted as part of their number. But a win vs SNC this week could put Monmouth in at the bottom, which would be big for Wartburg and Wheaton (for 1 seed consderation)

North:

1. Mt Union
2. Wheaton
3. North Central
4. Hope
5. John Carroll
6. Aurora
7. Wabash
8. Hanover
9. OWU
10. Baldwin Wallace

If we are just looking at the criteria, then Olivet should be ahead of B-W and OWU.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: thunderdog on November 10, 2019, 09:38:11 PM
Quote from: USee on November 10, 2019, 07:13:18 PM
North:

1. Mt Union
2. Wheaton
3. North Central
4. Hope
5. John Carroll
6. Aurora
7. Wabash
8. Hanover
9. OWU
10. Baldwin Wallace

I'm thinking Olivet makes it into the next North rankings. Higher win % and higher SOS than Ohio Wesleyan. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but according to the criteria, especially the committee's emphasis on win%, seems likely to me.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: thunderdog on November 10, 2019, 09:40:16 PM
Quote from: tf37 on November 10, 2019, 09:37:29 PM
If we are just looking at the criteria, then Olivet should be ahead of B-W and OWU.

Beat me by 42 seconds... ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 09:54:20 PM
OWU will have a vRRO win over Denison when the RACs conference this week.  That may get them in there. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2019, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 09:54:20 PM
OWU will have a vRRO win over Denison when the RACs conference this week.  That may get them in there.

When does a vRRO result no longer qualify. Assume Ithaca drops out of RR after this week. But does the committee still consider Union's W a vRRO as they consider where to slot teams this week, since they are a RRO until the new Regional Ranking is done. But then in the final poll they aren't considered a vRRO any longer? Not sure if that made sense, but hopefully you get what I'm asking.

It's a lot muddier since they don't have the "once ranked always ranked" format any longer.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:11:54 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2019, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 09:54:20 PM
OWU will have a vRRO win over Denison when the RACs conference this week.  That may get them in there.

When does a vRRO result no longer qualify. Assume Ithaca drops out of RR after this week. But does the committee still consider Union's W a vRRO as they consider where to slot teams this week, since they are a RRO until the new Regional Ranking is done. But then in the final poll they aren't considered a vRRO any longer? Not sure if that made sense, but hopefully you get what I'm asking.

It's a lot muddier since they don't have the "once ranked always ranked" format any longer.

As I understand it...

This week's RRs (let's call them RR2) will harvest their vRRO data from last week's RR's (RR1).  So, Union is going to have a 1-0 vRRO on the data sheet this week. 

For the RR's done after Week 11's games (RR3), the vRRO data will come from RR2.  So after next week's games, Union is going to be back to 0-0 vRRO (assuming Ithaca or any other Liberty League team is not on RR2). 

The nat'l committee will do one more final set of rankings before they select and bracket Saturday night, taking into account the RR3 information.  Now, the the thing that I'm not entirely certain on here is if this final ranking essentially mines its vRRO data from RR2 and RR3, or just RR3.  As it has been explained to me, I think the final set that we see has both a look-back (RR2) and current (RR3) composition with the vRRO data- ultimately making RR1 the only set of published rankings that wind up not meaning much at all (aside from their contribution to RR2). 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2019, 11:29:25 PM
Quote from: E.115 on November 10, 2019, 09:24:31 PM
^ No not all all ... just seemed intriguing to think they potentially could have two regular season wins over two Pool A, conference champs (which I'm guessing there not many examples of this in the country) and not be in the Playoffs.

Beating an unranked conference champion has no particular impact on playoff selection.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2019, 12:17:33 AM
Thanks Wally, that makes sense
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: UfanBill on November 11, 2019, 01:48:15 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:11:54 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2019, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 09:54:20 PM
OWU will have a vRRO win over Denison when the RACs conference this week.  That may get them in there.

When does a vRRO result no longer qualify. Assume Ithaca drops out of RR after this week. But does the committee still consider Union's W a vRRO as they consider where to slot teams this week, since they are a RRO until the new Regional Ranking is done. But then in the final poll they aren't considered a vRRO any longer? Not sure if that made sense, but hopefully you get what I'm asking.

It's a lot muddier since they don't have the "once ranked always ranked" format any longer.

As I understand it...

This week's RRs (let's call them RR2) will harvest their vRRO data from last week's RR's (RR1).  So, Union is going to have a 1-0 vRRO on the data sheet this week. 

For the RR's done after Week 11's games (RR3), the vRRO data will come from RR2.  So after next week's games, Union is going to be back to 0-0 vRRO (assuming Ithaca or any other Liberty League team is not on RR2). 

The nat'l committee will do one more final set of rankings before they select and bracket Saturday night, taking into account the RR3 information.  Now, the the thing that I'm not entirely certain on here is if this final ranking essentially mines its vRRO data from RR2 and RR3, or just RR3.  As it has been explained to me, I think the final set that we see has both a look-back (RR2) and current (RR3) composition with the vRRO data- ultimately making RR1 the only set of published rankings that wind up not meaning much at all (aside from their contribution to RR2).

To those of you who want to denigrate Union, somehow feeling their opponents struggles after playing the Dutchmen should lower their seeding in the eyes of the committee let me say look at this "criteria".
Union has won 12 straight. 16 of 18, 23-6 after going 0-10 in 2015 for new coach Jeff Behrman and they've avenged 5 of those losses(they haven't played Cortland since). Last season they beat then ranked Husson, Springfield and quarter finalist RPI. This year they've beaten ranked Hobart and Ithaca. They are the Liberty League champions. I'd say that's pretty impressive. They've earned respect.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2019, 02:14:19 AM
Apologies, UfanBill- I was only using Union there to illustrate the mechanics of vRRO results week over week in the regional rankings, not trying to make any judgements on their ranking or general quality.  Indeed, Union's turnaround is more than impressive.

Hang on to those Shoes this week!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Oline89 on November 11, 2019, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 11:11:54 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2019, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2019, 09:54:20 PM
OWU will have a vRRO win over Denison when the RACs conference this week.  That may get them in there.

When does a vRRO result no longer qualify. Assume Ithaca drops out of RR after this week. But does the committee still consider Union's W a vRRO as they consider where to slot teams this week, since they are a RRO until the new Regional Ranking is done. But then in the final poll they aren't considered a vRRO any longer? Not sure if that made sense, but hopefully you get what I'm asking.

It's a lot muddier since they don't have the "once ranked always ranked" format any longer.

As I understand it...

This week's RRs (let's call them RR2) will harvest their vRRO data from last week's RR's (RR1).  So, Union is going to have a 1-0 vRRO on the data sheet this week. 

For the RR's done after Week 11's games (RR3), the vRRO data will come from RR2.  So after next week's games, Union is going to be back to 0-0 vRRO (assuming Ithaca or any other Liberty League team is not on RR2). 

The nat'l committee will do one more final set of rankings before they select and bracket Saturday night, taking into account the RR3 information.  Now, the the thing that I'm not entirely certain on here is if this final ranking essentially mines its vRRO data from RR2 and RR3, or just RR3.  As it has been explained to me, I think the final set that we see has both a look-back (RR2) and current (RR3) composition with the vRRO data- ultimately making RR1 the only set of published rankings that wind up not meaning much at all (aside from their contribution to RR2).

However, Hobart should get ranked this week (RR2), and Union beat Hobart, so shouldn't Union stay at 1-0 next week?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2019, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on November 11, 2019, 10:18:22 AM
However, Hobart should get ranked this week (RR2), and Union beat Hobart, so shouldn't Union stay at 1-0 next week?

This seems likely- again, I wasn't trying to project rankings going forward, only using Ithaca as an example to help explain how the vRRO data can move around and the timing around when teams are counted as ranked and when they aren't. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 12, 2019, 11:56:57 AM
What year had the most Pool C chaos break out on the last Saturday? Aka, the most results that upset the apple cart and suddenly had teams out who we assumed were in, and teams in play who had been left for dead.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 11:58:48 AM
I know this is a pointless exercise, but what else am I going to do well eating my lunch on this cold and damp day.

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. CWR
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. Berry

1.) Muhlenberg vs. MIT, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Central

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 12, 2019, 12:02:30 PM
Quote from: USee on November 06, 2019, 07:01:05 PM
Pat/Wally/Keith/whomever,

At one point in the past I remember seeing that the National Committee picks 4 top seeds and then builds geographic brackets. In the Q&A it says they pick the top 8 teams and build geographic brackets. Which is it? both?

I will admit a lack of understanding and history around the 1 seed discussions, primarily because my team has not been in this position very often to pay as close attention.

That said. It seems the 1 seed locks, based on today's snapshot (sure to change, even dramatically) are UMHB (defending champ), UMU (national finalist) and UWW (undefeated with playoff history). The 4th 1 seed is up for debate. Among the undefeated contenders we have (ranked in order of CURRENT SOS):

1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Chapman (7-0),  .536, 1-0 RRO (West #3)
5: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 1-0 RRO (East #1)
6: Bridgewater (8-0),  .502 0-0 (RRO South #3)

Obviously we can cross off Bridgewater and Chapman, who are behind others on this list and wouldn't be considered.

That leaves:
1: Wheaton (8-0), .593 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565, 0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .562 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Salisbury (7-0),  .509 2-0 RRO (East #1)

Based on criteria, Wheaton is the next best team with only Salisbury matching their RRO but not close on SOS. Both teams will decline in SOS over the last 2 weeks so that spread seems unlikely to close and this seems a similar picture between the two. Muhlenberg has only 1 RRO band their SOS will decline a similar amount to Wheaton's. Muhlenberg does have a playoff result from last year (L @UMU).

Many are assuming Muhlenberg or Salisbury are the more likely pick as a 4th 1 seed. I am not seeing it in the critereria, unless Muhlenberg's playoff result trumps everything else. Salisbury also may lose an RRO when UWO plays UWW in week 11. Wartburg may end up with the strongest SOS of this group but may have no all important RRO if they beat Central, knocking them from rankings (small chance Monmouth appears but I doubt it). If this choice is criteria based, what am I missing?

Updated numbers for a 1 seed through Saturday:


1: Wheaton (9-0), .583 (15th) 2-0 RRO (North #2)
2: Wartburg(8-0),  .565  0-0(West #2)
3: Muhlenberg (8-0),  .516 (92nd) 1-0 RRO (South #2)
4: Salisbury (7-0),  .501(127th) 2-0 RRO (East #1)

All three of these teams will see SOS drops after this week. Wheaton's will end up around .540 (@Elmhurst this week), Muhlenberg just above .500 somewhere (playing 4-5 Moravian) and Salisbury will drop well below .500 (playing 2-7 TCNJ)

The RRO situation will also change. Wheaton will be either 1-0 or 2-0 (if Monmout sneaks in), Muhlenberg is pretty set at 1-0 RRO and Salisbury will be either 2-0 (in which case UWW lost to UWO and yet another 1 seed is open) or 1-0. In any case I don't see how, based on the criteria, there is another choice besides Wheaton as a 1 seed. Doesn't mean it will happen.

If that happens via a UWW loss then grouping Wheaton and UWW together will likely happen and putting UMU with Muhlenberg or Bridgewater in a bracket also seems to make sense. If UWW and Wheaton both win, I am not sue what happens as there is no obvious geographic pairing of 8 top seeds if the 4 1 seeds are UMHB, UMU, UWW and Wheaton and it would require extra flights to group them appropriately. Makes me think the committee will make a way for Muhlenberg or Salisbury to be a 1 seed so they can group Wheaton with either UWW or UMU. But it won't be based on the criteria.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: desertcat1 on November 12, 2019, 02:27:43 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 11:58:48 AM
I know this is a pointless exercise, but what else am I going to do well eating my lunch on this cold and damp day.

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. CWR
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. Berry

1.) Muhlenberg vs. MIT, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Central

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College




I like it..   :D

Yes , sciac #1 then either another shot at the sciac#2 dogs , or mud bowl two.   :P

Sign the cats up.   :-*
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 11:58:48 AM
I know this is a pointless exercise, but what else am I going to do well eating my lunch on this cold and damp day.

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. CWR
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. Berry

1.) Muhlenberg vs. MIT, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Central

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College
Don't see the committee springing for 4 flights in the 1st round when they can easily have 2... 3 would be a stretch but maybe if we're lucky. Redlands @ UMHB, Linfield @ Chapman, Huntingdon @ Berry are virtual locks for 1st round matchups. It's something we all hate but that's how it is. In past years you might have seen them do Redlands @ Chapman and Linfield @ UMHB to cut it down to 1 flight.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 04:06:02 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 11:58:48 AM
I know this is a pointless exercise, but what else am I going to do well eating my lunch on this cold and damp day.

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. CWR
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. Berry

1.) Muhlenberg vs. MIT, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Central

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College
Don't see the committee springing for 4 flights in the 1st round when they can easily have 2... 3 would be a stretch but maybe if we're lucky. Redlands @ UMHB, Linfield @ Chapman, Huntingdon @ Berry are virtual locks for 1st round matchups. It's something we all hate but that's how it is. In past years you might have seen them do Redlands @ Chapman and Linfield @ UMHB to cut it down to 1 flight.

My bad, I had it in my head that Berry to Bridgewater was not a flight. Checked it again and it is 522 miles. Back to square one, but I'm not buying into Redlands to UMHB or the Berry - Huntington matchup until I actually see it.

Going door-to-door Berry to Bridgewater is 513 miles.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 04:06:02 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 11:58:48 AM
I know this is a pointless exercise, but what else am I going to do well eating my lunch on this cold and damp day.

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. CWR
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. Berry

1.) Muhlenberg vs. MIT, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Central

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College
Don't see the committee springing for 4 flights in the 1st round when they can easily have 2... 3 would be a stretch but maybe if we're lucky. Redlands @ UMHB, Linfield @ Chapman, Huntingdon @ Berry are virtual locks for 1st round matchups. It's something we all hate but that's how it is. In past years you might have seen them do Redlands @ Chapman and Linfield @ UMHB to cut it down to 1 flight.

My bad, I had it in my head that Berry to Bridgewater was not a flight. Checked it again and it is 522 miles. Back to square one, but I'm not buying into Redlands to UMHB or the Berry - Huntington matchup until I actually see it.

Going door-to-door Berry to Bridgewater is 513 miles.
I can't count the number of times I've checked a distance and it ended up just a bit over 500 miles. Always frustrating.

As far as seeing it, here's the last 3 years...
2018 7-3 CMS @ 9-0 Whitworth, 9-1 Hardin-Simmons @ 10-0 UMHB, 7-2 Maryville @ 9-1 Berry
2017: 6-2 Chapman @ 10-0 UMHB, 9-1 Hardin-Simmons @ 9-1 Linfield, 9-1 Huntingdon @ 10-0 Berry
2016: 8-1 Redlands @ 10-0 UMHB, 8-1 Linfield @ 8-1 Hardin-Simmons, 9-1 Huntingdon @ 9-1 Wheaton (WashU won the SAA so no school was within 500 miles of Huntingdon)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 12, 2019, 04:32:05 PM
It would be interesting to see the impact if the AA said 600 rather than 500 miles determined plane vs. bus trip.  Yeah, a 600-mile bus trip would be a pain, but how often do you get direct flights between teams 500-600 miles?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 12, 2019, 04:33:21 PM
The "new" policy may give the committee a little more flexibility in adding some interesting matchups with regards to flights. We'll see if anything has changed, but we do know that Redlands@Chapman is off the table.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
It might be rougher to fly. Some of these colleges aren't close to airports anyway, or you'd have hellish traffic once you arrive.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 04:06:02 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 11:58:48 AM
I know this is a pointless exercise, but what else am I going to do well eating my lunch on this cold and damp day.

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. CWR
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. Berry

1.) Muhlenberg vs. MIT, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Central

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College
Don't see the committee springing for 4 flights in the 1st round when they can easily have 2... 3 would be a stretch but maybe if we're lucky. Redlands @ UMHB, Linfield @ Chapman, Huntingdon @ Berry are virtual locks for 1st round matchups. It's something we all hate but that's how it is. In past years you might have seen them do Redlands @ Chapman and Linfield @ UMHB to cut it down to 1 flight.

My bad, I had it in my head that Berry to Bridgewater was not a flight. Checked it again and it is 522 miles. Back to square one, but I'm not buying into Redlands to UMHB or the Berry - Huntington matchup until I actually see it.

Going door-to-door Berry to Bridgewater is 513 miles.
I can't count the number of times I've checked a distance and it ended up just a bit over 500 miles. Always frustrating.

As far as seeing it, here's the last 3 years...
2018 7-3 CMS @ 9-0 Whitworth, 9-1 Hardin-Simmons @ 10-0 UMHB, 7-2 Maryville @ 9-1 Berry
2017: 6-2 Chapman @ 10-0 UMHB, 9-1 Hardin-Simmons @ 9-1 Linfield, 9-1 Huntingdon @ 10-0 Berry
2016: 8-1 Redlands @ 10-0 UMHB, 8-1 Linfield @ 8-1 Hardin-Simmons, 9-1 Huntingdon @ 9-1 Wheaton (WashU won the SAA so no school was within 500 miles of Huntingdon)

No I got the history of it Grizz, but I think the lip service that has come down the pike is real and the extreme injustices of the past will be avoided if possible this year and going forward. I guess we will know soon if real change is coming.   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: WW on November 12, 2019, 05:04:16 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 12, 2019, 04:32:05 PM
It would be interesting to see the impact if the AA said 600 rather than 500 miles determined plane vs. bus trip.  Yeah, a 600-mile bus trip would be a pain, but how often do you get direct flights between teams 500-600 miles?

Yeah, those should be studied case-by-case, not an absolute of 500 miles. Consider where many D3s are located. You're talking a bus ride to an airport, a connecting flight, a layover, another connecting flight, and board another bus to your destination. Add that up and it could be 10 hours. I think I'd rather spend the 10 hours on a single bus that takes me door-to-door.

Charters are certainly an attractive option, but I'm not sure where the cost would measure vs putting 70-75 guys on commercial flights.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 05:05:07 PM
Just checking UMAC conference games this season and their is a total of 15 games with over a 500 mile bus trip. The longest being Minnesota-Morris making the 760 mile trek to Greenville this coming weekend.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 12, 2019, 05:12:16 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 12, 2019, 04:32:05 PM
It would be interesting to see the impact if the AA said 600 rather than 500 miles determined plane vs. bus trip.  Yeah, a 600-mile bus trip would be a pain, but how often do you get direct flights between teams 500-600 miles?

The threshold in Division II (which just became relevant to bracketing for the first time) is 600.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Hawks88 on November 12, 2019, 06:21:23 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 04:06:02 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2019, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 11:58:48 AM
I know this is a pointless exercise, but what else am I going to do well eating my lunch on this cold and damp day.

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. CWR
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. Berry

1.) Muhlenberg vs. MIT, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Central

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College
Don't see the committee springing for 4 flights in the 1st round when they can easily have 2... 3 would be a stretch but maybe if we're lucky. Redlands @ UMHB, Linfield @ Chapman, Huntingdon @ Berry are virtual locks for 1st round matchups. It's something we all hate but that's how it is. In past years you might have seen them do Redlands @ Chapman and Linfield @ UMHB to cut it down to 1 flight.

My bad, I had it in my head that Berry to Bridgewater was not a flight. Checked it again and it is 522 miles. Back to square one, but I'm not buying into Redlands to UMHB or the Berry - Huntington matchup until I actually see it.

Going door-to-door Berry to Bridgewater is 513 miles.
I can't count the number of times I've checked a distance and it ended up just a bit over 500 miles. Always frustrating.

As far as seeing it, here's the last 3 years...
2018 7-3 CMS @ 9-0 Whitworth, 9-1 Hardin-Simmons @ 10-0 UMHB, 7-2 Maryville @ 9-1 Berry
2017: 6-2 Chapman @ 10-0 UMHB, 9-1 Hardin-Simmons @ 9-1 Linfield, 9-1 Huntingdon @ 10-0 Berry
2016: 8-1 Redlands @ 10-0 UMHB, 8-1 Linfield @ 8-1 Hardin-Simmons, 9-1 Huntingdon @ 9-1 Wheaton (WashU won the SAA so no school was within 500 miles of Huntingdon)
And if you go back further, in 2009 we didn't deserve a home game but got one and in 2015 it was questionable but we got one. Unless they are truly opening up the wallet, I would be really surprised if they put us on a plane before they have to.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: DuffMan on November 12, 2019, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: WW on November 12, 2019, 05:04:16 PM
Charters are certainly an attractive option, but I'm not sure where the cost would measure vs putting 70-75 guys on commercial flights.

Does the NCAA not charter them anymore?  My experiences were in the early 2000s, and every playoff flight we took (6 of them) was a charter flight.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2019, 10:28:35 PM
In the postseason, the NCAA charters for football. It's not possible to find that many seats available on commercial flights.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2019, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 05:05:07 PM
Just checking UMAC conference games this season and their is a total of 15 games with over a 500 mile bus trip. The longest being Minnesota-Morris making the 760 mile trek to Greenville this coming weekend.
Sul Ross to Belhaven  899 miles
Sul Ross to Louisiana College  797 miles.

(I don't think that it is fair to count the Austin College and Trinity TX conference games in the SAA. They are now affiliates and there is some history behind this.)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2019, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2019, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 05:05:07 PM
Just checking UMAC conference games this season and their is a total of 15 games with over a 500 mile bus trip. The longest being Minnesota-Morris making the 760 mile trek to Greenville this coming weekend.
Sul Ross to Belhaven  899 miles
Sul Ross to Louisiana College  797 miles.

(I don't think that it is fair to count the Austin College and Trinity TX conference games in the SAA. They are now affiliates and there is some history behind this.)
Ouch--several years back, LaVerne traveled to Linfield by bus.  I'm told that, after losing big, they had to get back on the bus and drive home without staying overnight anywhere (I'm assuming they stayed the night before the game somewhere).
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 13, 2019, 12:13:20 AM
My Pre-Regional Ranking 2 (Outlook) Bracket:

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. Berry vs. Huntington

1. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Delaware Valley vs. John Carroll
4. Case Western vs. Wabash

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Martin Luther
2. St. Johns vs. Aurora
3. North Central (Ill.) vs. MWC Champ
4. Central vs. Hope
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 12:37:06 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 13, 2019, 12:13:20 AM
My Pre-Regional Ranking 2 (Outlook) Bracket:

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. Berry vs. Huntington

1. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Delaware Valley vs. John Carroll
4. Case Western vs. Wabash

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Martin Luther
2. St. Johns vs. Aurora
3. North Central (Ill.) vs. Lake Forest
4. Central vs. Hope

Lake Forest has already been eliminated from the MWC title game.

If I am reading this right, you are going to ship the Bridgewater-Wesley winner across the country to play either Chapman or Linfield? 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 13, 2019, 08:02:31 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2019, 10:28:35 PM
In the postseason, the NCAA charters for football. It's not possible to find that many seats available on commercial flights.

Dang it, there goes Pat with a truth bomb that destroys my argument.   Not the first time  ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 13, 2019, 08:31:53 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 12:37:06 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 13, 2019, 12:13:20 AM
My Pre-Regional Ranking 2 (Outlook) Bracket:

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. Berry vs. Huntington

1. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Delaware Valley vs. John Carroll
4. Case Western vs. Wabash

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Martin Luther
2. St. Johns vs. Aurora
3. North Central (Ill.) vs. MWC CHAMP
4. Central vs. Hope

Lake Forest has already been eliminated from the MWC title game.

If I am reading this right, you are going to ship the Bridgewater-Wesley winner across the country to play either Chapman or Linfield?

Yes, that happens on occasions,  just to feel out bracket,  see 2015 bracket when Cortland went to play Linfield and a few years earlier when Hampden-Sydney did the same.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 08:48:34 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 13, 2019, 08:31:53 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 12:37:06 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 13, 2019, 12:13:20 AM
My Pre-Regional Ranking 2 (Outlook) Bracket:

1. Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
3. Union vs. Western New England
4. Brockport vs. Susquehanna

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Bridgewater (Va.) vs. Wesley
4. Berry vs. Huntington

1. Wheaton (Ill.) vs. Hanover
2. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
3. Delaware Valley vs. John Carroll
4. Case Western vs. Wabash

1. UW-Whitewater vs. Martin Luther
2. St. Johns vs. Aurora
3. North Central (Ill.) vs. MWC CHAMP
4. Central vs. Hope

Lake Forest has already been eliminated from the MWC title game.

If I am reading this right, you are going to ship the Bridgewater-Wesley winner across the country to play either Chapman or Linfield?

Yes, that happens on occasions,  just to feel out bracket,  see 2015 bracket when Cortland went to play Linfield and a few years earlier when Hampden-Sydney did the same.

Interesting, I had forgot about that Cortland trip.

Soo your sayin' there's a chance!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: crufootball on November 13, 2019, 09:06:52 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2019, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 05:05:07 PM
Just checking UMAC conference games this season and their is a total of 15 games with over a 500 mile bus trip. The longest being Minnesota-Morris making the 760 mile trek to Greenville this coming weekend.
Sul Ross to Belhaven  899 miles
Sul Ross to Louisiana College  797 miles.

(I don't think that it is fair to count the Austin College and Trinity TX conference games in the SAA. They are now affiliates and there is some history behind this.)

Really makes you wonder who Sul Ross made mad since they had to do both of those trips in a 3 week period. Of course just to show how far away Sul Ross is from everyone, their non conference game was against Texas A&M Kingsville which was 536 miles.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 01:01:21 PM
Quote from: crufootball on November 13, 2019, 09:06:52 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2019, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 12, 2019, 05:05:07 PM
Just checking UMAC conference games this season and their is a total of 15 games with over a 500 mile bus trip. The longest being Minnesota-Morris making the 760 mile trek to Greenville this coming weekend.
Sul Ross to Belhaven  899 miles
Sul Ross to Louisiana College  797 miles.

(I don't think that it is fair to count the Austin College and Trinity TX conference games in the SAA. They are now affiliates and there is some history behind this.)

Really makes you wonder who Sul Ross made mad since they had to do both of those trips in a 3 week period. Of course just to show how far away Sul Ross is from everyone, their non conference game was against Texas A&M Kingsville which was 536 miles.

To be fair, Kingsville is even more isolated. There are several D2 schools that are a whole lot closer to Sul Ross.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 13, 2019, 01:34:06 PM
New RR's are out:

https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/second-regional-ranking
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 01:34:06 PM
New RR's are out:

https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/second-regional-ranking

I think Bethel is the big loser in this. Can a win against St. Thomas get them ahead of Wartburg?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2019, 01:43:10 PM
It looks like 2 West region at larges, perhaps...

Wartburg and Redlands. (Assuming Central and Wartburg win out).

Never saw that coming!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 01:43:41 PM
Here's the top 3 from each region not projected to be pool A

East: Wesley, Cortland, Hobart
North: North Central, John Carroll, Olivet
South: Susquehanna, Randolph-Macon, Texas Lutheran
West: Redlands, Wartburg, Bethel
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2019, 01:44:06 PM
Loras ain't horrible, so i don't think Wartburg's SOS will take that big of a hit.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 01:43:41 PM
Here's the top 3 from each region not projected to be pool A

East: Wesley, Cortland, Hobart
North: North Central, John Carroll, Olivet
South: Susquehanna, Berry, Randolph-Macon
West: Redlands, Wartburg, Bethel

Berry gets the Pool A bid if they win.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 01:43:41 PM
Here's the top 3 from each region not projected to be pool A

East: Wesley, Cortland, Hobart
North: North Central, John Carroll, Olivet
South: Susquehanna, Berry, Randolph-Macon
West: Redlands, Wartburg, Bethel

Berry gets the Pool A bid if they win.
I knew I'd miss one. Fixed it.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 01:43:41 PM
Here's the top 3 from each region not projected to be pool A

East: Wesley, Cortland, Hobart
North: North Central, John Carroll, Olivet
South: Susquehanna, Berry, Randolph-Macon
West: Redlands, Wartburg, Bethel

Berry hasn't clinched yet, but aren't they the likely rep for the SAA?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 01:50:27 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 01:43:41 PM
Here's the top 3 from each region not projected to be pool A

East: Wesley, Cortland, Hobart
North: North Central, John Carroll, Olivet
South: Susquehanna, Berry, Randolph-Macon
West: Redlands, Wartburg, Bethel

Berry gets the Pool A bid if they win.
I knew I'd miss one. Fixed it.

One little slip and everyone jumps all over it. ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2019, 01:52:19 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 01:34:06 PM
New RR's are out:

https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/second-regional-ranking

I think Bethel is the big loser in this. Can a win against St. Thomas get them ahead of Wartburg?

Probably not with Monmouth ranked.  That's a really significant thing this week. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 02:06:11 PM
Hopefully I have these numbers all correct

Wesley: 7-1, 1-1 RRO, .560 SOS
Cortland: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .466 SOS

North Central: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .498 SOS
John Carroll: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .489 SOS

Susquehanna: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .548 SOS
Randolph-Macon: 7-2, 0-1 RRO, .582 SOS

Redlands: 8-1, 1-1 RRO, .596 SOS
Wartburg: 8-1, 1-1 RRO, .576 SOS
Bethel: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .494 SOS

First three picks seem super easy, fourth round has a clear SOS edge, then 5th round is a photo finish. I'm sure Wally will have a more detailed mock selection soon.
1) Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Redlands
2) Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Wartburg
3) Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel
4) Cortland, North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel
5) Cortland, North Central, Randolph-Macon, Bethel (too close to call)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:07:52 PM
Keep in mind Bethel's SOS will jump this week with STT on the docket and NCC's will trend lower while playing 4-5 Millikin. And JCU SOS will jump as well playing BW. Some really tenuous waters for these pool C teams.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 02:14:43 PM
And Susquehanna's SOS will drop too with 2-7 Juniata. I think it would be absolutely ridiculous if they were to somehow be left out but they're definitely not secure.
Randolph-Macon has a giant SOS advantage on the 1 loss teams that could put them in the conversation right now but that will go down with 1-8 Hampden-Sydney and should take them out of contention.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.

It may be that the North RAC is moving JCU up so that if/when NCC gets taken, they will be a higher ranked team on the North board than other teams from other regions. I have no idea why they would bump JCU over Hope and Aurora with inferior criteria.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 02:25:02 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.

It may be that the North RAC is moving JCU up so that if/when NCC gets taken, they will be a higher ranked team on the North board than other teams from other regions. I have no idea why they would bump JCU over Hope and Aurora with inferior criteria.
But their regional rank has no bearing. Doesn't matter if it's N4 vs W6... W6 will still be selected first if they're better.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on November 13, 2019, 02:26:05 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:07:52 PM
Keep in mind Bethel's SOS will jump this week with STT on the docket and NCC's will trend lower while playing 4-5 Millikin. And JCU SOS will jump as well playing BW. Some really tenuous waters for these pool C teams.
Redlands SoS will also drop like a rock after playing winless Occidental.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 13, 2019, 02:27:41 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2019, 02:26:05 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:07:52 PM
Keep in mind Bethel's SOS will jump this week with STT on the docket and NCC's will trend lower while playing 4-5 Millikin. And JCU SOS will jump as well playing BW. Some really tenuous waters for these pool C teams.
Redlands SoS will also drop like a rock after playing winless Occidental.
I  just typed and posted this at the same time as you----deleted it as it was redundant!   ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: tf37 on November 13, 2019, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.

It may be that the North RAC is moving JCU up so that if/when NCC gets taken, they will be a higher ranked team on the North board than other teams from other regions. I have no idea why they would bump JCU over Hope and Aurora with inferior criteria.

It is these types of changes that makes it seem like the criteria doesn't truly matter for a region.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2019, 02:29:03 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 02:25:02 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.

It may be that the North RAC is moving JCU up so that if/when NCC gets taken, they will be a higher ranked team on the North board than other teams from other regions. I have no idea why they would bump JCU over Hope and Aurora with inferior criteria.
But their regional rank has no bearing. Doesn't matter if it's N4 vs W6... W6 will still be selected first if they're better.

It might not help, but it definitely can't hurt to put a North #4 sticker on that team.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on November 13, 2019, 02:32:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2019, 02:29:03 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 02:25:02 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.

It may be that the North RAC is moving JCU up so that if/when NCC gets taken, they will be a higher ranked team on the North board than other teams from other regions. I have no idea why they would bump JCU over Hope and Aurora with inferior criteria.
But their regional rank has no bearing. Doesn't matter if it's N4 vs W6... W6 will still be selected first if they're better.

It might not help, but it definitely can't hurt to put a North #4 sticker on that team.
I've also heard various committee chairs talk about results versus regionally ranked opponents as if beating the #2 in the one region could be considered equal to beating the #2 team in any other region.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:32:34 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2019, 02:26:05 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:07:52 PM
Keep in mind Bethel's SOS will jump this week with STT on the docket and NCC's will trend lower while playing 4-5 Millikin. And JCU SOS will jump as well playing BW. Some really tenuous waters for these pool C teams.
Redlands SoS will also drop like a rock after playing winless Occidental.

Probably about .40. And Bethel will bump back up to probably around .530 so Redlands may fall below Wartburg but still ahead of Bethel. And they will be 1-1 vs RRO which will be big after Wartburg gets picked (probably early)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 13, 2019, 02:38:08 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 02:06:11 PM
Hopefully I have these numbers all correct

Wesley: 7-1, 1-1 RRO, .560 SOS
Cortland: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .466 SOS

North Central: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .498 SOS
John Carroll: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .489 SOS

Susquehanna: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .548 SOS
Randolph-Macon: 7-2, 0-1 RRO, .582 SOS

Redlands: 8-1, 1-1 RRO, .596 SOS
Wartburg: 8-1, 1-1 RRO, .576 SOS
Bethel: 8-1, 0-1 RRO, .494 SOS

First three picks seem super easy, fourth round has a clear SOS edge, then 5th round is a photo finish. I'm sure Wally will have a more detailed mock selection soon.
1) Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Redlands
2) Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Wartburg
3) Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel
4) Cortland, North Central, Susquehanna, Bethel
5) Cortland, North Central, Randolph-Macon, Bethel (too close to call)

Wesley is 2-1 RRO, with wins over Delaware Valley and Endicott
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 13, 2019, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.

It may be that the North RAC is moving JCU up so that if/when NCC gets taken, they will be a higher ranked team on the North board than other teams from other regions. I have no idea why they would bump JCU over Hope and Aurora with inferior criteria.
Time for a hot take. If this seems like blatant homerism, oh well!  8-)
I have for a long time thought that the SOS metric (which appears to give an edge to Hope and Aurora) is flawed. This year kind of supports that. Look at John Carroll vs. BW. They are getting the same SOS from the rest of the OAC (since each has played the 8 other teams), but BW is higher in SOS because according to the metric, Alma, BW's non-con, is a better game than UW Stevens Point, JCU's non-con. I don't think there is anybody who honestly thinks in a hypothetical Alma vs. UWSP game, Alma would have any chance of winning.
That shows an underlying issue where teams from weaker conferences are getting propped up because the general strength of conferences are not taken into account when SOS is calculated. Despite what some people might think, an 8-1 record out of the NACC or MIAA is not as impressive as an 8-1 Record out of the OAC or CCIW.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on November 13, 2019, 03:06:56 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on November 13, 2019, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2019, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 13, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
I hope common sense prevails in the case of North Central.

It may be that the North RAC is moving JCU up so that if/when NCC gets taken, they will be a higher ranked team on the North board than other teams from other regions. I have no idea why they would bump JCU over Hope and Aurora with inferior criteria.
Time for a hot take. If this seems like blatant homerism, oh well!  8-)
I have for a long time thought that the SOS metric (which appears to give an edge to Hope and Aurora) is flawed. This year kind of supports that. Look at John Carroll vs. BW. They are getting the same SOS from the rest of the OAC (since each has played the 8 other teams), but BW is higher in SOS because according to the metric, Alma, BW's non-con, is a better game than UW Stevens Point, JCU's non-con. I don't think there is anybody who honestly thinks in a hypothetical Alma vs. UWSP game, Alma would have any chance of winning.
That shows an underlying issue where teams from weaker conferences are getting propped up because the general strength of conferences are not taken into account when SOS is calculated. Despite what some people might think, an 8-1 record out of the NACC or MIAA is not as impressive as an 8-1 Record out of the OAC or CCIW.
It's definitely a bad statistic.  For the purposes of this conversation I think we're just resigned to using it, completely ignoring whether it actually means anything.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2019, 03:11:18 PM
It's better than what they used to have, for sure. The main issue is a very limited set of data points, along with no analytical factors.

Of Redlands their SOS dip won't be big enough to justify Bethel leaping them, nor Bethel leaping Wartburg. Bethel's best move is pray for chaos.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 03:21:16 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2019, 03:11:18 PM
It's better than what they used to have, for sure. The main issue is a very limited set of data points, along with no analytical factors.

Of Redlands their SOS dip won't be big enough to justify Bethel leaping them, nor Bethel leaping Wartburg. Bethel's best move is pray for chaos.

Bethel first must take care of their own business, but if they do that then a lose by Wartburg OR Central probably gets them in. Baldwin-Wallace beating John Carroll wouldn't hurt either, just to make sure of it.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: WW on November 13, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2019, 03:11:18 PM
It's better than what they used to have, for sure. The main issue is a very limited set of data points, along with no analytical factors.

Of Redlands their SOS dip won't be big enough to justify Bethel leaping them, nor Bethel leaping Wartburg. Bethel's best move is pray for chaos.

Welp, not too much chaos. An Oshkosh win would effectively end their season.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 13, 2019, 04:24:16 PM
Bethel needs to beat a good UST for any of it to matter.

But SNC beating Monmouth, and Coe or Loras winning would go a long ways. As would Ithaca not losing 3 straight. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2019, 04:39:03 PM
A win of course, and then losses by Cortland, John Carroll, Wartburg, and Central. Berry won't get any help from Austin. I don't think there is any way that Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, or Redlands loses. That's how Bethel can get in for sure if they win.

A win by Olivet over Albion puts them at 9-1 with a good SOS and probably second on the North board.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 13, 2019, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2019, 04:39:03 PM
A win of course, and then losses by Cortland, John Carroll, Wartburg, and Central. Berry won't get any help from Austin. I don't think there is any way that Wesley, North Central, Susquehanna, or Redlands loses. That's how Bethel can get in for sure if they win.

A win by Olivet over Albion puts them at 9-1 with a good SOS and probably second on the North board.

IMO you have made this look much more dire then it is. A Bethel win combined with a Wartburg or Central lose probably gets them in.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 13, 2019, 05:06:28 PM
Yeah, I think it's just a BU win and win by Coe/Loras as well. Ithaca and SNC are just extra breathing room.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 13, 2019, 06:47:01 PM
It seems likely that one of the following will not make the field:

A 1-loss OAC runner-up
A 1-Loss MIAC runner-up
A 1-loss CCIW runner-up

I am not sure that has ever happened. Certainly a 1-loss runner up from any of those conferences were shoe-ins to make the field. It's not because of a conspiracy, it's really because we have the fewest number of Pool C teams ever and a strong year. Now if Bethel and JCU lose on Saturday and NCC gets in, all will be right with the world.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2019, 07:37:30 PM
There was a correction made... Hope is now ahead of John Carroll in the north rankings. Ultimately shouldn't affect the order since Hope is in Pool A but puts a little bit more breathing room between North Central and John Carroll to be 1st at the table right?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2019, 07:40:23 PM
ÂŻ\_(ツ)_/ÂŻ

I was enjoying the hysteria.   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2019, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

I completely understand the NCAA selection criteria and the travel restrictions which governs the bracket, but at first glance this seems really lopsided.

The left half of that bracket is MHB and no one else.
Upper right is Mount and a bunch of 'meh'.
The lower right bracket is stacked with UWW, SJU, Wheaton and NCC.  In my opinion all four of those are 'semi-final' quality.

Hopefully the bracket gets spread out a bit better than this.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2019, 08:32:40 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2019, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

I completely understand the NCAA selection criteria and the travel restrictions which governs the bracket, but at first glance this seems really lopsided.

The left half of that bracket is MHB and no one else.
Upper right is Mount and a bunch of 'meh'.
The lower right bracket is stacked with UWW, SJU, Wheaton and NCC.  In my opinion all four of those are 'semi-final' quality.

Hopefully the bracket gets spread out a bit better than this.

I agree. I hope this isn't what the bracket ends up looking like.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

At first glance I would guess that bracket was designed by a Wabash Alumnus.  ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: ncc_fan on November 14, 2019, 09:15:06 AM
Why would NCC host Wartburg in round 1 given that Wartburg came off the Pool C board first?  Don't the same criteria determine seedings?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 14, 2019, 09:16:25 AM
always my favorite time of the year and projecting the field is a challenging excercise. The D3.com team is usually pretty accurate with these things and their track record of projections is strong. I do think this could end up being very close to the bracket that comes out.

I would love to see a little more process around the 1 seed decision than "It seems reasonable at this point to give Salisbury the top seed in a bracket of easternmost schools". If the committee, after picking the field, just looks at the map to group the top 8 teams, this bracket may well be the result. If they look at the field and pick the top 4 deserving seeds followed by the next 4 and THEN group them geographically, I would think the result would be very different.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 14, 2019, 09:23:57 AM
And are you guys (d3.com staff) your bracket, which includes Wabash @Redlands, has no bias at all baked in? (Wally we see you out there in San Bernandino!)  8-)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: crufootball on November 14, 2019, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2019, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

I completely understand the NCAA selection criteria and the travel restrictions which governs the bracket, but at first glance this seems really lopsided.

The left half of that bracket is MHB and no one else.
Upper right is Mount and a bunch of 'meh'.
The lower right bracket is stacked with UWW, SJU, Wheaton and NCC.  In my opinion all four of those are 'semi-final' quality.

Hopefully the bracket gets spread out a bit better than this.

Prehaps I am bias....no I am bias, but when do you look at the bracket and not think one portion of the bracket looks lopsided?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 09:52:22 AM
I still like my bracket better. If they are going to have 2 flight anyways, they should be to breakup the injustice of a Berry-Huntingdon first round matchup. IMO 

1.) Mount Union vs. SUNY-Maritime, Hope vs. Central
2.) Wesley vs. Susquehanna, Bridgewater vs. CWR

1.) Muhlenberg vs. NEWMAC winner, Delaware Valley vs. Brockport
2.) Salisbury vs. Framingham St., Union vs. Western New England

1.) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Huntingdon, North Central vs. Hanover
2.) Chapman vs. Linfield, Redlands vs. Berry

1.) UW-Whitewater vs. Monmouth/St. Norbert, Bethel/John Carroll/Wartburg vs. Aurora
2.) Wheaton vs. Wabash, St. John's vs Martin Luther College
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 14, 2019, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: crufootball on November 14, 2019, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2019, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

I completely understand the NCAA selection criteria and the travel restrictions which governs the bracket, but at first glance this seems really lopsided.

The left half of that bracket is MHB and no one else.
Upper right is Mount and a bunch of 'meh'.
The lower right bracket is stacked with UWW, SJU, Wheaton and NCC.  In my opinion all four of those are 'semi-final' quality.

Hopefully the bracket gets spread out a bit better than this.

Prehaps I am bias....no I am bias, but when do you look at the bracket and not think one portion of the bracket looks lopsided?

Although I'm enthused as a fan of Salisbury how the projected bracket was setup, which was a huge surprise to me. I do feel that the bracket is somewhat lopsided, but as mentioned the brackets are "always" lopsided in one way or another. The tough teams in the midwest and West/South will always somehow mesh. It's the foundation of DIII football and how much funds we received. 

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 10:30:16 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

At first glance I would guess that bracket was designed by a Wabash Alumnus.  ;D

Greg did the selections and I do the bracketing, so not quite. :)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 14, 2019, 11:09:17 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

Thanks for all the hard work on this. I don't like the result, but given the broken SOS formula in play, I can't argue with how you came up with this.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 14, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
So here is my updated take:

1. Mount Union (N1)(#1) vs. SUNY-Maritime (NR)(NR)
2. Muhlenberg (S2)(#5) vs. Framingham State (NR)(NR)
3. Wesley (E2)(#12) vs. Western New England (E6)(NR)
4. Union (E4)(#14) vs. Brockport (E5)(#22)

1. UMHB (S1)(#2) vs. Huntingdon (NR)(NR)
2. Chapman (W2)(#13) vs. Linfield (W7)(#19)
3. Delaware Valley (E3)(#11) vs. Central (W5)(#25)
4. Redlands (W3)(#18) vs. Berry (S6)(#23)

1. Salisbury (E1)(#7) vs. NEWMAC CHAMP (NR)(NR)
2. Wheaton (Ill.) (N2)(#4) vs. Hanover (N9)(NR)
3. Case Western (S5)(#20) vs. Wabash (N7)(NR)
4. Bridgewater (Va.) (S3)(#21) vs. Susquehanna (S4)(#16)

1. UW-Whitewater (W1)(#3) vs. Martin Luther (NR)(NR)
3. North Central (Ill.) (N3)(#6) vs. Monmouth (W8)(NR)
2. St. Johns (W4)(#8) vs. Aurora (N6)(NR)(NR)
4. Hope (N4)(ORV) vs. Wartburg (W6) (#24)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 14, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
So here is my updated take:

1. Mount Union (N1)(#1) vs. SUNY-Maritime (NR)(NR)
2. Muhlenberg (S2)(#5) vs. Framingham State (NR)(NR)
3. Wesley (E2)(#12) vs. Western New England (E6)(NR)
4. Union (E4)(#14) vs. Brockport (E5)(#22)

1. UMHB (S1)(#2) vs. Huntington (NR)(NR)
2. Chapman (W2)(#13) vs. Linfield (W7)(#19)
3. Delaware Valley (E3)(#11) vs. Central (W5)(#25)
4. Redlands (W3)(#18) vs. Berry (S6)(#23)

1. Salisbury (E1)(#7) vs. NEWMAC CHAMP (NR)(NR)
2. Wheaton (Ill.) (N2)(#4) vs. Hanover (N9)(NR)
3. Case Western (S5)(#20) vs. Wabash (N7)(NR)
4. Bridgewater (Va.) (S3)(#21) vs. Susquehanna (S4)(#16)

1. UW-Whitewater (W1)(#3) vs. Martin Luther (NR)(NR)
3. North Central (Ill.) (N3)(#6) vs. Monmouth (W8)(NR)
2. St. Johns (W4)(#8) vs. Aurora (N6)(NR)(NR)
4. Hope (N4)(ORV) vs. Wartburg (W6) (#24)

4 first round flights?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 14, 2019, 11:31:33 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 14, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
So here is my updated take:

1. Mount Union (N1)(#1) vs. SUNY-Maritime (NR)(NR)
2. Muhlenberg (S2)(#5) vs. Framingham State (NR)(NR)
3. Wesley (E2)(#12) vs. Western New England (E6)(NR)
4. Union (E4)(#14) vs. Brockport (E5)(#22)

1. UMHB (S1)(#2) vs. Huntingdon (NR)(NR)
2. Chapman (W2)(#13) vs. Linfield (W7)(#19)
3. Delaware Valley (E3)(#11) vs. Central (W5)(#25)
4. Redlands (W3)(#18) vs. Berry (S6)(#23)

1. Salisbury (E1)(#7) vs. NEWMAC CHAMP (NR)(NR)
2. Wheaton (Ill.) (N2)(#4) vs. Hanover (N9)(NR)
3. Case Western (S5)(#20) vs. Wabash (N7)(NR)
4. Bridgewater (Va.) (S3)(#21) vs. Susquehanna (S4)(#16)

1. UW-Whitewater (W1)(#3) vs. Martin Luther (NR)(NR)
3. North Central (Ill.) (N3)(#6) vs. Monmouth (W8)(NR)
2. St. Johns (W4)(#8) vs. Aurora (N6)(NR)(NR)
4. Hope (N4)(ORV) vs. Wartburg (W6) (#24)

4 first round flights?

Yes, because there are no flights in the other pods until round 3. However, the committee could rearrange that travel pod for Berry vs. Huntingdon and a potential 2nd round match-up between Chapman and Redlands that wouldn't require a flight.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Hawks88 on November 14, 2019, 11:33:05 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 14, 2019, 11:31:33 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 14, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
So here is my updated take:

1. Mount Union (N1)(#1) vs. SUNY-Maritime (NR)(NR)
2. Muhlenberg (S2)(#5) vs. Framingham State (NR)(NR)
3. Wesley (E2)(#12) vs. Western New England (E6)(NR)
4. Union (E4)(#14) vs. Brockport (E5)(#22)

1. UMHB (S1)(#2) vs. Huntington (NR)(NR)
2. Chapman (W2)(#13) vs. Linfield (W7)(#19)
3. Delaware Valley (E3)(#11) vs. Central (W5)(#25)
4. Redlands (W3)(#18) vs. Berry (S6)(#23)

1. Salisbury (E1)(#7) vs. NEWMAC CHAMP (NR)(NR)
2. Wheaton (Ill.) (N2)(#4) vs. Hanover (N9)(NR)
3. Case Western (S5)(#20) vs. Wabash (N7)(NR)
4. Bridgewater (Va.) (S3)(#21) vs. Susquehanna (S4)(#16)

1. UW-Whitewater (W1)(#3) vs. Martin Luther (NR)(NR)
3. North Central (Ill.) (N3)(#6) vs. Monmouth (W8)(NR)
2. St. Johns (W4)(#8) vs. Aurora (N6)(NR)(NR)
4. Hope (N4)(ORV) vs. Wartburg (W6) (#24)

4 first round flights?

Yes, because there are no flights in the other pods until round 3. However, the committee could rearrange that travel pod for Berry vs. Huntington and a potential 2nd round match-up between Chapman and Redlands that wouldn't require a flight.

Who's this Huntington you're talking about?  ::)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: desertcat1 on November 14, 2019, 11:33:46 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 14, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
So here is my updated take:

1. Mount Union (N1)(#1) vs. SUNY-Maritime (NR)(NR)
2. Muhlenberg (S2)(#5) vs. Framingham State (NR)(NR)
3. Wesley (E2)(#12) vs. Western New England (E6)(NR)
4. Union (E4)(#14) vs. Brockport (E5)(#22)

1. UMHB (S1)(#2) vs. Huntington (NR)(NR)
2. Chapman (W2)(#13) vs. Linfield (W7)(#19)
3. Delaware Valley (E3)(#11) vs. Central (W5)(#25)
4. Redlands (W3)(#18) vs. Berry (S6)(#23)

1. Salisbury (E1)(#7) vs. NEWMAC CHAMP (NR)(NR)
2. Wheaton (Ill.) (N2)(#4) vs. Hanover (N9)(NR)
3. Case Western (S5)(#20) vs. Wabash (N7)(NR)
4. Bridgewater (Va.) (S3)(#21) vs. Susquehanna (S4)(#16)

1. UW-Whitewater (W1)(#3) vs. Martin Luther (NR)(NR)
3. North Central (Ill.) (N3)(#6) vs. Monmouth (W8)(NR)
2. St. Johns (W4)(#8) vs. Aurora (N6)(NR)(NR)
4. Hope (N4)(ORV) vs. Wartburg (W6) (#24)

4 first round flights?


Sorry charlie. That won't FLY. ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 14, 2019, 11:42:26 AM
Here is the mock bracket with current D3.Com rankings (not a factor in selection) included (I used HansenRatings for teams not in the top 37 of D3.com):

Top Right:
#1 Mt Union vs #220 SUNY Maritime
#32 Hope vs #25 Central
#12 Wesley vs #75 Framingham St
#21 Bridgewater vs #20 CWRU

Bottom Right:
#3 Whitewater vs #139 Martin Luther
#8 St Johns vs #37 Aurora
#4 Wheaton vs #34 Hanover
#6 North Central vs #24 Wartburg

Top Left:
#2 UMHB vs #58 Monmouth
#23 Berry vs #103 Huntingdon
#13 Chapman vs #19 Linfield
#18 Redlands vs #61 Wabash

Bottom Left:
#7 Salisbury vs #67* Newmac (* is highest rated of the 3 candidates)
#14 Union vs #16 Susquehanna
#5 Muhlenberg vs #88 Western NE
#11 Del Valley vs #22 Brockport
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 14, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2019, 11:42:26 AM
Here is the mock bracket with current D3.Com rankings (not a factor in selection) included (I used HansenRatings for teams not in the top 37 of D3.com):

Top Right:
#1 Mt Union vs #220 SUNY Maritime
#32 Hope vs #25 Central
#12 Wesley vs #75 Framingham St
#21 Bridgewater vs #20 CWRU

Bottom Right:
#3 Whitewater vs #139 Martin Luther
#8 St Johns vs #37 Aurora
#4 Wheaton vs #34 Hanover
#6 North Central vs #24 Wartburg

Top Left:
#2 UMHB vs #58 Monmouth
#23 Berry vs #103 Huntingdon
#13 Chapman vs #19 Linfield
#18 Redlands vs #61 Wabash

Bottom Left:
#7 Salisbury vs #67* Newmac (* is highest rated of the 3 candidates)
#14 Union vs #16 Susquehanna
#5 Muhlenberg vs #88 Western NE
#11 Del Valley vs #22 Brockport

I'm not sure using Hansen for rankings will give an accurate picture. I'd just use the Top 4 teams rankings per DIII, which would give a better indicator. From Top to Bottom, the average (rounding to nearest ranking) would be 14, 5, 14, 9. So in theory, prior year finalist and runner-up would have the easiest bracket per DIII rankings. In my bracket, which there would not be any flights until round 3 outside of the 4 flights in the travel pod. The average ranking would be 8, 11, 12, 10, which would be much fair IMHO and saves the NCAA money.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 11:57:43 AM
Whitewater, St. John's, North Central, Wheaton, maybe Bethel, Wartburg...you cannot get all of those teams away from each other.  You just can't do it.  Maybe you could peel a pod away and pair them up with Mount Union, but that creates the same issue in another part of the bracket.  There's a concentrated pocket of really strong teams there, and there isn't much flexibility in what you can do with them. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on November 14, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 11:57:43 AM
Whitewater, St. John's, North Central, Wheaton, maybe Bethel, Wartburg...you cannot get all of those teams away from each other.  You just can't do it.  Maybe you could peel a pod away and pair them up with Mount Union, but that creates the same issue in another part of the bracket.  There's a concentrated pocket of really strong teams there, and there isn't much flexibility in what you can do with them.

How does Wheaton's case for a #1 seed stack up with Salisbury?
(I understand that geographical logistics factor in, although Mount Union could go east again)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 14, 2019, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 14, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2019, 11:42:26 AM
Here is the mock bracket with current D3.Com rankings (not a factor in selection) included (I used HansenRatings for teams not in the top 37 of D3.com):

Top Right:
#1 Mt Union vs #220 SUNY Maritime
#32 Hope vs #25 Central
#12 Wesley vs #75 Framingham St
#21 Bridgewater vs #20 CWRU

Bottom Right:
#3 Whitewater vs #139 Martin Luther
#8 St Johns vs #37 Aurora
#4 Wheaton vs #34 Hanover
#6 North Central vs #24 Wartburg

Top Left:
#2 UMHB vs #58 Monmouth
#23 Berry vs #103 Huntingdon
#13 Chapman vs #19 Linfield
#18 Redlands vs #61 Wabash

Bottom Left:
#7 Salisbury vs #67* Newmac (* is highest rated of the 3 candidates)
#14 Union vs #16 Susquehanna
#5 Muhlenberg vs #88 Western NE
#11 Del Valley vs #22 Brockport

I'm not sure using Hansen for rankings will give an accurate picture. I'd just use the Top 4 teams rankings per DIII, which would give a better indicator.

I did use the D3 ratings, unless a team wasn't in their poll, in which case Hansen was used (WNE, Newmac, wabash, Monmouth, Huntingdon, ML, Framingham, SUNYM)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 14, 2019, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 14, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 11:57:43 AM
Whitewater, St. John's, North Central, Wheaton, maybe Bethel, Wartburg...you cannot get all of those teams away from each other.  You just can't do it.  Maybe you could peel a pod away and pair them up with Mount Union, but that creates the same issue in another part of the bracket.  There's a concentrated pocket of really strong teams there, and there isn't much flexibility in what you can do with them.

How does Wheaton's case for a #1 seed stack up with Salisbury?
(I understand that geographical logistics factor in, although Mount Union could go east again)

Wheaton 9-0, .583 SOS, 2-0 RRO
Salisbury 9-0, .501 SOS, 2-0 RRO

If UWO loses to UWW Salisbury loses an RRO, If Monmouth loses to SNC Wheaton loses an RRO. Wheatons SOS will go to around .540 after Saturday and Salisbury will dip to about .490 I would guess.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 14, 2019, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2019, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 14, 2019, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2019, 11:42:26 AM
Here is the mock bracket with current D3.Com rankings (not a factor in selection) included (I used HansenRatings for teams not in the top 37 of D3.com):

Top Right:
#1 Mt Union vs #220 SUNY Maritime
#32 Hope vs #25 Central
#12 Wesley vs #75 Framingham St
#21 Bridgewater vs #20 CWRU

Bottom Right:
#3 Whitewater vs #139 Martin Luther
#8 St Johns vs #37 Aurora
#4 Wheaton vs #34 Hanover
#6 North Central vs #24 Wartburg

Top Left:
#2 UMHB vs #58 Monmouth
#23 Berry vs #103 Huntingdon
#13 Chapman vs #19 Linfield
#18 Redlands vs #61 Wabash

Bottom Left:
#7 Salisbury vs #67* Newmac (* is highest rated of the 3 candidates)
#14 Union vs #16 Susquehanna
#5 Muhlenberg vs #88 Western NE
#11 Del Valley vs #22 Brockport

I'm not sure using Hansen for rankings will give an accurate picture. I'd just use the Top 4 teams rankings per DIII, which would give a better indicator.

I did use the D3 ratings, unless a team wasn't in their poll, in which case Hansen was used (WNE, Newmac, wabash, Monmouth, Huntingdon, ML, Framingham, SUNYM)

I'm not sure using Hansen for rankings will give an accurate picture because some team rankings out severe outliers and would skew the average. I'd just use the Top 4 teams rankings per DIII, which would give a better indicator. From Top to Bottom, the average (rounding to nearest ranking) would be 14, 5, 14, 9. So in theory, prior year finalist and runner-up would have the easiest bracket per DIII rankings. In my bracket, which there would not be any flights until round 3 outside of the 4 flights in the travel pod. The average ranking would be 8, 11, 12, 10, which would be much fair IMHO and saves the NCAA money.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 14, 2019, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2019, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 14, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 11:57:43 AM
Whitewater, St. John's, North Central, Wheaton, maybe Bethel, Wartburg...you cannot get all of those teams away from each other.  You just can't do it.  Maybe you could peel a pod away and pair them up with Mount Union, but that creates the same issue in another part of the bracket.  There's a concentrated pocket of really strong teams there, and there isn't much flexibility in what you can do with them.

How does Wheaton's case for a #1 seed stack up with Salisbury?
(I understand that geographical logistics factor in, although Mount Union could go east again)

Wheaton 9-0, .583 SOS, 2-0 RRO
Salisbury 9-0, .501 SOS, 2-0 RRO

If UWO loses to UWW Salisbury loses an RRO, If Monmouth loses to SNC Wheaton loses an RRO. Wheatons SOS will go to around .540 after Saturday and Salisbury will dip to about .490 I would guess.

In my projected bracket have both teams in the same pod. Regardless, week 3 of playoffs they'd end up playing each other. IMHO, it doesn't matter to me based upon my bracket. I would say that Week 3 of playoffs Wheaton has a higher chance of snowfall than in Salisbury  8-)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 12:09:55 PM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2019, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 14, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 11:57:43 AM
Whitewater, St. John's, North Central, Wheaton, maybe Bethel, Wartburg...you cannot get all of those teams away from each other.  You just can't do it.  Maybe you could peel a pod away and pair them up with Mount Union, but that creates the same issue in another part of the bracket.  There's a concentrated pocket of really strong teams there, and there isn't much flexibility in what you can do with them.

How does Wheaton's case for a #1 seed stack up with Salisbury?
(I understand that geographical logistics factor in, although Mount Union could go east again)

Wheaton 9-0, .583 SOS, 2-0 RRO
Salisbury 9-0, .501 SOS, 2-0 RRO

If UWO loses to UWW Salisbury loses an RRO, If Monmouth loses to SNC Wheaton loses an RRO. Wheatons SOS will go to around .540 after Saturday and Salisbury will dip to about .490 I would guess.

Nobody loses an RRO.  Those teams ranked this week count whether they lose or not on Saturday. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 14, 2019, 12:27:27 PM
OK, I didn't remember that. So we are almost at once ranked, always ranked but not quite.

So this:

Wheaton 9-0, .583 SOS, 2-0 RRO
Salisbury 9-0, .501 SOS, 2-0 RRO

after Saturday, becomes this:

Wheaton 10-0, .540 SOS, 2-0 RRO
Salisbury 10-0, .490 SOS, 2-0 RRO

Provided WashU doesn't reappear in the North (unlikely), this should be pretty close to what those two profiles look like.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2019, 12:57:16 PM
This is why I think Wheaton should be the 4th #1 seed and therefore paired up with MHB bracket in the semifinals
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 01:36:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 10:30:16 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

At first glance I would guess that bracket was designed by a Wabash Alumnus.  ;D

Greg did the selections and I do the bracketing, so not quite. :)

You are much more schooled in this than I am Pat and you very well may be correct, but I just found moving Wabash to the west as odd because of how versatile of a piece they are for the committee with their location geographically. They can travel to 5-6 locations for a game because of it, but we will know in a matter of day. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 02:12:27 PM
Quote from: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 01:36:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 10:30:16 AM
Quote from: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2019, 12:55:49 AM
For the late night crowd:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/first-projected-bracket

At first glance I would guess that bracket was designed by a Wabash Alumnus.  ;D

Greg did the selections and I do the bracketing, so not quite. :)

You are much more schooled in this than I am Pat and you very well may be correct, but I just found moving Wabash to the west as odd because of how versatile of a piece they are for the committee with their location geographically. They can travel to 5-6 locations for a game because of it, but we will know in a matter of day.

We ran out of hosts in that area of the country.  Wabash can play a lot of teams, yes, but has a much higher bracketing value when they can host.  It may not ultimately be Wabash in California, but I think you're going to see a team in the midwest go somewhere weird.  Maybe somebody flies into an Easterly team, maybe somebody flies to Texas (we did that too!)...but things just do not pair off nice and neat in the midwest this year. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 14, 2019, 03:09:03 PM
One change for your bracket that would make it slightly less concentrated for the UWW bracket would be to switch North Central and Hope or St Johns and Hope. The former wouldn't add a flight but the latter might in round 2.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on November 14, 2019, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 12:09:55 PM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2019, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 14, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2019, 11:57:43 AM
Whitewater, St. John's, North Central, Wheaton, maybe Bethel, Wartburg...you cannot get all of those teams away from each other.  You just can't do it.  Maybe you could peel a pod away and pair them up with Mount Union, but that creates the same issue in another part of the bracket.  There's a concentrated pocket of really strong teams there, and there isn't much flexibility in what you can do with them.

How does Wheaton's case for a #1 seed stack up with Salisbury?
(I understand that geographical logistics factor in, although Mount Union could go east again)

Wheaton 9-0, .583 SOS, 2-0 RRO
Salisbury 9-0, .501 SOS, 2-0 RRO

If UWO loses to UWW Salisbury loses an RRO, If Monmouth loses to SNC Wheaton loses an RRO. Wheatons SOS will go to around .540 after Saturday and Salisbury will dip to about .490 I would guess.

Nobody loses an RRO.  Those teams ranked this week count whether they lose or not on Saturday.
I thought the explanation was that the week 2 regionally ranked opponents will still count when they're putting together the final regional rankings, but when they're actually making pool C selections or trying to compare which teams should host or be a #1 seed, only the regionally ranked opponents from the final rankings would count. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: mdrem7 on November 14, 2019, 05:07:06 PM
Took a crack at it.....

(1) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. (8) Huntingdon
(4) Wartburg vs (5) Monmouth
(2) Chapman vs (7) Linfield
(3) Redlands vs (6) Berry

(1) Wisconsin-Whitewater vs. (8) Martin Luther
(4) St. John's vs. (5) Aurora
(2) Wheaton vs. (7) Hanover
(3) Hope vs. (6) Wabash

(1) Mount Union vs. (8) SUNY-Maritime
(4) Bridgewater vs. (5) Susquehanna
(2) Muhlenberg vs. (7) Case Western Reserve
(4) North Central vs. (7) Central

(1) Salisbury vs. (8) MIT
(4) Union vs. (5) Brockport
(2) Wesley vs. (7) Framingham St.
(3) Delaware Valley vs. (6) W. New England

Given that these are impossible, on a scale of bad to atrocious, how'd I do?


Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Baldini on November 14, 2019, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: mdrem7 on November 14, 2019, 05:07:06 PM
Took a crack at it.....

(1) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. (8) Huntingdon
(4) Wartburg vs (5) Monmouth
(2) Chapman vs (7) Linfield
(3) Redlands vs (6) Berry

(1) Wisconsin-Whitewater vs. (8) Martin Luther
(4) St. John's vs. (5) Aurora
(2) Wheaton vs. (7) Hanover
(3) Hope vs. (6) Wabash

(1) Mount Union vs. (8) SUNY-Maritime
(4) Bridgewater vs. (5) Susquehanna
(2) Muhlenberg vs. (7) Case Western Reserve
(4) North Central vs. (7) Central

(1) Salisbury vs. (8) MIT
(4) Union vs. (5) Brockport
(2) Wesley vs. (7) Framingham St.
(3) Delaware Valley vs. (6) W. New England

Given that these are impossible, on a scale of bad to atrocious, how'd I do?

Your guess work is as possible as most of ours. I would doubt that Monmouth would play Wartburg or Wheaton in the first round. Also would be very surprised if the Salisbury grouping worked out like that. That would be a terrible injustice to the rest of the bracket. IMHO
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: desertcat1 on November 14, 2019, 08:09:02 PM
Quote from: mdrem7 on November 14, 2019, 05:07:06 PM
Took a crack at it.....

(1) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. (8) Huntingdon
(4) Wartburg vs (5) Monmouth
(2) Chapman vs (7) Linfield
(3) Redlands vs (6) Berry

(1) Wisconsin-Whitewater vs. (8) Martin Luther
(4) St. John's vs. (5) Aurora
(2) Wheaton vs. (7) Hanover
(3) Hope vs. (6) Wabash

(1) Mount Union vs. (8) SUNY-Maritime
(4) Bridgewater vs. (5) Susquehanna
(2) Muhlenberg vs. (7) Case Western Reserve
(4) North Central vs. (7) Central

(1) Salisbury vs. (8) MIT
(4) Union vs. (5) Brockport
(2) Wesley vs. (7) Framingham St.
(3) Delaware Valley vs. (6) W. New England

Given that these are impossible, on a scale of bad to atrocious, how'd I do?

Yes,

That would be the best for this west Region fan .  :-*

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2019, 08:36:56 PM
Quote from: mdrem7 on November 14, 2019, 05:07:06 PM
Took a crack at it.....

(1) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. (8) Huntingdon
(4) Wartburg vs (5) Monmouth
(2) Chapman vs (7) Linfield
(3) Redlands vs (6) Berry

(1) Wisconsin-Whitewater vs. (8) Martin Luther
(4) St. John's vs. (5) Aurora
(2) Wheaton vs. (7) Hanover
(3) Hope vs. (6) Wabash

(1) Mount Union vs. (8) SUNY-Maritime
(4) Bridgewater vs. (5) Susquehanna
(2) Muhlenberg vs. (7) Case Western Reserve
(4) North Central vs. (7) Central

(1) Salisbury vs. (8) MIT
(4) Union vs. (5) Brockport
(2) Wesley vs. (7) Framingham St.
(3) Delaware Valley vs. (6) W. New England

Given that these are impossible, on a scale of bad to atrocious, how'd I do?

I won't claim to be able to do better,  nor will I try, but the Salisbury region is beyond weak.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: WW on November 14, 2019, 09:49:49 PM
Quote from: mdrem7 on November 14, 2019, 05:07:06 PM
Took a crack at it.....

(1) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. (8) Huntingdon
(4) Wartburg vs (5) Monmouth
(2) Chapman vs (7) Linfield
(3) Redlands vs (6) Berry

(1) Wisconsin-Whitewater vs. (8) Martin Luther
(4) St. John's vs. (5) Aurora
(2) Wheaton vs. (7) Hanover
(3) Hope vs. (6) Wabash

(1) Mount Union vs. (8) SUNY-Maritime
(4) Bridgewater vs. (5) Susquehanna
(2) Muhlenberg vs. (7) Case Western Reserve
(4) North Central vs. (7) Central

(1) Salisbury vs. (8) MIT
(4) Union vs. (5) Brockport
(2) Wesley vs. (7) Framingham St.
(3) Delaware Valley vs. (6) W. New England

Given that these are impossible, on a scale of bad to atrocious, how'd I do?

No less awful than the final brackets are sure to be.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on November 15, 2019, 02:04:21 PM
I think one thing is clear this year, that the top 8 teams are easily justified.  UMHB, UMU, Wheaton, Salisbury, Muhlenberg, Chapman, UWW, okay, well maybe top 7 teams.  I think Wesley would be the 8th team here, but I feel like it should be St. Johns.  Either way, these brackets (based on the criteria set forth and records), SOS notwithstanding, seem pretty even.  However, (assuming UMHB and UMU win their brackets) the UWW bracket winner should eventually travel and the Salisbury bracket winner will travel.  Hypothetically, the West bracket travels to UMHB and the East bracket travels to Mount.  I don't think East bracket holds a candle to the West bracket.  Is this confusing? 

What I'm trying to say,  simply, is that whoever comes out of the Whitewater bracket (Wheaton, St,. Johns, UWW) is going to be superior to whoever comes out of the Salisbury bracket (Salisbury, Wesley, Del. Val.)

Lastly, I am not smart enough to try and figure this out.  It seems like Avengers Infinity wars where Dr. Strange goes ahead in time and tries 14 million ways to win, but only finds one. 

Is there any chance the Mount and UMHB end up on the same side of a bracket?  Is there a rule the prevents this from happening?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 15, 2019, 02:18:03 PM
There isn't a rule per se, but it's a long-standing practice from the UWW/Mount Union days that it's a bad idea to put the two teams which played in last year's Stagg on the same side of the bracket.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2019, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: Captainred81 on November 15, 2019, 02:04:21 PM
I think one thing is clear this year, that the top 8 teams are easily justified.  UMHB, UMU, Wheaton, Salisbury, Muhlenberg, Chapman, UWW, okay, well maybe top 7 teams. I think Wesley would be the 8th team here, but I feel like it should be St. Johns. 

It can't be overstated how damaging St. John's losing to CMC was.  I think St. John's would beat the brakes off of Wesley, but Wesley's lone loss is to their regions #1 ranked team and St. John's lost to a team that will end 5-5.  Who you lost to you really matters when it comes to selection and seeding. 

Quote from: Captainred81 on November 15, 2019, 02:04:21 PM
Either way, these brackets (based on the criteria set forth and records), SOS notwithstanding, seem pretty even.  However, (assuming UMHB and UMU win their brackets) the UWW bracket winner should eventually travel and the Salisbury bracket winner will travel.  Hypothetically, the West bracket travels to UMHB and the East bracket travels to Mount.  I don't think East bracket holds a candle to the West bracket.  Is this confusing? 

This is definitely a case where I think you're confusing yourself by thinking of the fourths of the bracket as E/N/S/W. 

Quote from: Captainred81 on November 15, 2019, 02:04:21 PM
Is there any chance the Mount and UMHB end up on the same side of a bracket?  Is there a rule the prevents this from happening?

Seriously unlikely.  If they decide that UMHB is the top overall seed and UMU is the second overall seed, then they're on opposite sides- as it should be.  If they follow common bracketing logic, the quadrant with the #3 seed (let's say UWW) would be on the same side as Mount Union and the quadrant with the #4 overall seed (Salisbury or Muhlenberg or Wheaton) would be on the UMHB half. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2019, 06:30:20 PM
Quote from: mdrem7 on November 14, 2019, 05:07:06 PM
Took a crack at it.....

(1) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. (8) Huntingdon
(4) Wartburg vs (5) Monmouth
(2) Chapman vs (7) Linfield
(3) Redlands vs (6) Berry

(1) Wisconsin-Whitewater vs. (8) Martin Luther
(4) St. John's vs. (5) Aurora
(2) Wheaton vs. (7) Hanover
(3) Hope vs. (6) Wabash

(1) Mount Union vs. (8) SUNY-Maritime
(4) Bridgewater vs. (5) Susquehanna
(2) Muhlenberg vs. (7) Case Western Reserve
(4) North Central vs. (7) Central

(1) Salisbury vs. (8) MIT
(4) Union vs. (5) Brockport
(2) Wesley vs. (7) Framingham St.
(3) Delaware Valley vs. (6) W. New England

Given that these are impossible, on a scale of bad to atrocious, how'd I do?

3 first round flights

1-2 second round flights

(1) Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. (8) Huntingdon
(4) Wartburg vs (5) Monmouth


[(2) Chapman vs (7) Linfield
(3) Redlands vs (6) Berry
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 15, 2019, 07:49:42 PM
Games with Pool C considerations (games in bold are games that have a decent chance of the upset):

Christopher Newport @ Wesley 1:00pm (Wesley with a win is in)
Redlands @ Occidental 4:00pm (Redlands with a win is in)
Loras @ Wartburg 2:00pm (Wartburg with a win is in)
Susquehanna @ Juniata 1:00pm (Susquehanna must win)
North Central @ Millikin 2:00pm (North Central must win)
John Carroll @ Baldwin Wallace 1:30pm (John Carroll must win)
Bethel @ St Thomas 2:10pm (Bethel must win)
Cortland vs Ithaca 1:00pm (Cortland needs some chaos to get in)

Central @ Coe 2:00pm (If Central loses then they drop out of the playoffs and Wartburg moves to pool A opening up a spot)
UW-Whitewater @ UW-Oshkosh 7:05pm (An Oshkosh win knocks Whitewater to pool C and most likely bursts someone else's bubble)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2019, 09:37:31 PM
A bubble could be about to burst... Oshkosh with a 4 point lead and the ball with under 5 minutes left. Susquehanna, North Central, and John Carroll fans all watching nervously.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 16, 2019, 09:43:08 PM
I'm hoping that JCU doesn't make the field for the sake of the OAC's reputation.   They're horrible offensively.   Good defense,  but can't throw the ball at all.  It will be an early exit if they make it.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 09:47:32 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2019, 09:37:31 PM
A bubble could be about to burst... Oshkosh with a 4 point lead and the ball with under 5 minutes left. Susquehanna, North Central, and John Carroll fans all watching nervously.
Looks like two of the three could out, but who?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2019, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 09:47:32 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2019, 09:37:31 PM
A bubble could be about to burst... Oshkosh with a 4 point lead and the ball with under 5 minutes left. Susquehanna, North Central, and John Carroll fans all watching nervously.
Looks like two of the three could out, but who?
It will depend on how the north ranks the teams. I think Susquehanna gets in ahead of North Central but John Carroll could get in before Susquehanna.

And it's official... Whitewater in Pool C
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 16, 2019, 09:51:04 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2019, 09:37:31 PM
A bubble could be about to burst... Oshkosh with a 4 point lead and the ball with under 5 minutes left. Susquehanna, North Central, and John Carroll fans all watching nervously.

Wow.  UWW turna it over again.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2019, 09:51:56 PM
UWO 27 UWW 20!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 16, 2019, 09:52:07 PM
And now Wheaton should have a clear path to a #1 seed.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: hazzben on November 16, 2019, 10:03:02 PM
The chaos is glorious  ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 10:05:49 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2019, 09:52:07 PM
And now Wheaton should have a clear path to a #1 seed.
Maybe, but Salisbury beat Oshkosh.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2019, 10:06:59 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2019, 09:52:07 PM
And now Wheaton should have a clear path to a #1 seed.
I think that we get both Wheaton and Salisbury.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: retagent on November 16, 2019, 10:08:37 PM
My bet is Wheaton gets a #1. But who plays who in that bracket.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 10:09:20 PM
Chapman and Muhlenberg have an argument too.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 16, 2019, 10:14:06 PM
North Central will likely be #5 in the final regular-season poll. And yet they probably have a less than 50% chance of making the playoffs.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2019, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 10:09:20 PM
Chapman and Muhlenberg have an argument too.
Thanks, Jason.

I can see Chapman from the West having an argument, but I have a hard time knocking an undefeated East Region #1 from hosting and giving it to Muhlenberg.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2019, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 10:09:20 PM
Chapman and Muhlenberg have an argument too.
Thanks, Jason.

I can see Chapman from the West having an argument, but I have a hard time knocking an undefeated East Region #1 from hosting and giving it to Muhlenberg.
Agreed, but they do have that quarter run from last year in the extended criteria.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: @d3jason on November 16, 2019, 10:23:27 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 16, 2019, 10:14:06 PM
North Central will likely be #5 in the final regular-season poll. And yet they probably have a less than 50% chance of making the playoffs.

It's a shame CNU fell apart on them. That was a good looking non-conference win in September.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
If you're not going to give your committee enough latitude to put in North Central as one of the five Pool C teams (okay, four Pool C teams after Whitewater), then why even have a committee?  Just put in exact, specific rules to the tenth power - or hundredth power - or thousandth power - and have the computer spit out the results.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wm4 on November 16, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
If you're not going to give your committee enough latitude to put in North Central as one of the five Pool C teams (okay, four Pool C teams after Whitewater), then why even have a committee?  Just put in exact, specific rules to the tenth power - or hundredth power - or thousandth power - and have the computer spit out the results.

Hot take...after 10 games, who did UWW beat?  The WIAC was not itself this year.  UWW won close games with Platteville, LaCrosse, and even Concordia, and lost to the highest ranked opponent it played.  But in the end, none of those wins are impressive or noteworthy.  Is that really any better a resume than Wartburg, or NCC?  Maybe it's the mezcal tonight, but I just don't see UWW as an automatic C selection.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2019, 11:06:23 PM
Quote from: wm4 on November 16, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
If you're not going to give your committee enough latitude to put in North Central as one of the five Pool C teams (okay, four Pool C teams after Whitewater), then why even have a committee?  Just put in exact, specific rules to the tenth power - or hundredth power - or thousandth power - and have the computer spit out the results.

Hot take...after 10 games, who did UWW beat?  The WIAC was not itself this year.  UWW won close games with Platteville, LaCrosse, and even Concordia, and lost to the highest ranked opponent it played.  But in the end, none of those wins are impressive or noteworthy.  Is that really any better a resume than Wartburg, or NCC?  Maybe it's the mezcal tonight, but I just don't see UWW as an automatic C selection.
I think the first three teams in are Wesley, Redlands, and Wartburg in whatever order. Then it gets tougher but Whitewater is probably the 4th in leaving the last spot for Susquehanna vs whoever the north has higher between North Central and John Carroll.
There's absolutely going to be teams left out this year who are worthy of being included. In a normal year teams like Susquehanna, John Carroll, North Central wouldn't be too worried but this year two of their seasons are over.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: wm4 on November 16, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
If you're not going to give your committee enough latitude to put in North Central as one of the five Pool C teams (okay, four Pool C teams after Whitewater), then why even have a committee?  Just put in exact, specific rules to the tenth power - or hundredth power - or thousandth power - and have the computer spit out the results.

Hot take...after 10 games, who did UWW beat?  The WIAC was not itself this year.  UWW won close games with Platteville, LaCrosse, and even Concordia, and lost to the highest ranked opponent it played.  But in the end, none of those wins are impressive or noteworthy.  Is that really any better a resume than Wartburg, or NCC?  Maybe it's the mezcal tonight, but I just don't see UWW as an automatic C selection.

If my life depended on one team of the possible Pool C teams winning on a neutral field against any of the other possible Pool C teams, I would take Whitewater.  Who would you take?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: thunderdog on November 16, 2019, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: wm4 on November 16, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
If you're not going to give your committee enough latitude to put in North Central as one of the five Pool C teams (okay, four Pool C teams after Whitewater), then why even have a committee?  Just put in exact, specific rules to the tenth power - or hundredth power - or thousandth power - and have the computer spit out the results.

Hot take...after 10 games, who did UWW beat?  The WIAC was not itself this year.  UWW won close games with Platteville, LaCrosse, and even Concordia, and lost to the highest ranked opponent it played.  But in the end, none of those wins are impressive or noteworthy.  Is that really any better a resume than Wartburg, or NCC?  Maybe it's the mezcal tonight, but I just don't see UWW as an automatic C selection.

If my life depended on one team of the possible Pool C teams winning on a neutral field against any of the other possible Pool C teams, I would take Whitewater.  Who would you take?

Most years I'd totally agree. In 2019, I think the answer is NCC.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on November 16, 2019, 11:53:23 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: wm4 on November 16, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
If you're not going to give your committee enough latitude to put in North Central as one of the five Pool C teams (okay, four Pool C teams after Whitewater), then why even have a committee?  Just put in exact, specific rules to the tenth power - or hundredth power - or thousandth power - and have the computer spit out the results.

Hot take...after 10 games, who did UWW beat?  The WIAC was not itself this year.  UWW won close games with Platteville, LaCrosse, and even Concordia, and lost to the highest ranked opponent it played.  But in the end, none of those wins are impressive or noteworthy.  Is that really any better a resume than Wartburg, or NCC?  Maybe it's the mezcal tonight, but I just don't see UWW as an automatic C selection.

If my life depended on one team of the possible Pool C teams winning on a neutral field against any of the other possible Pool C teams, I would take Whitewater.  Who would you take?

Uww or North Central.
But as has been noted, the criteria the committee have to look at are much different from how we might evaluate
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 16, 2019, 11:55:07 PM
My Updated Bracket with Wesley, Redlands, Wartburg, NCC, and UW-W as Pool C:

1. Salisbury vs. Framingham State
2. Muhlenberg vs. MIT
4. Wesley vs. Western New England
3. Union vs. Delaware Valley

1. UMHB vs. Redlands
2. Chapman vs. Linfield
3. Berry vs. Huntingdon
4. Central vs. Wabash

1. Mount Union  vs. SUNY-Maritime
2. North Central vs. Hanover
3. UW-Oshkosh vs. Monmouth
4. Bridgewater (Va.) vs Brockport

1. Wheaton (Ill.) vs Martin Luther
2. St. Johns  vs. Aurora
3. UW-Whitewater vs. Case-Western
4. Hope vs. Wartburg
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 12:16:12 AM
Quote from: thunderdog on November 16, 2019, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: wm4 on November 16, 2019, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 16, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
If you're not going to give your committee enough latitude to put in North Central as one of the five Pool C teams (okay, four Pool C teams after Whitewater), then why even have a committee?  Just put in exact, specific rules to the tenth power - or hundredth power - or thousandth power - and have the computer spit out the results.

Hot take...after 10 games, who did UWW beat?  The WIAC was not itself this year.  UWW won close games with Platteville, LaCrosse, and even Concordia, and lost to the highest ranked opponent it played.  But in the end, none of those wins are impressive or noteworthy.  Is that really any better a resume than Wartburg, or NCC?  Maybe it's the mezcal tonight, but I just don't see UWW as an automatic C selection.

If my life depended on one team of the possible Pool C teams winning on a neutral field against any of the other possible Pool C teams, I would take Whitewater.  Who would you take?

Most years I'd totally agree. In 2019, I think the answer is NCC.

Okay, let's say you're right.  I disagree but let's say you're right.  (And, oh by the way, if the committee is not allowed to make a subjective judgment of which are the five qualitatively best teams, NCC might not get in.  Hmmm.)

That leaves all the other Pool C candidates.  After NCC, who would you take in a "my life depends on I get this right" scenario?  There are, after all,  four more openings.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 12:27:06 AM
Susquehanna has a better SOS than NCC, .518 versus .500).

Both are 0-1 RRO.

I have a hard time imagining Susque going 5 rounds on the board.





Updated SOS  Susque .504; NCC .500
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 17, 2019, 12:33:28 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 12:27:06 AM
Susquehanna has a better SOS than NCC, .518 versus .500).

Both are 0-1 RRO.

I have a hard time imagining Susque going 5 rounds on the board.

I think 2016 will be very similar in regards to selections.

https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2016/final-regional-ranking

Subjective Criteria:
Susquehanna - Best Win: 7-3 Johns Hopkins Worst Loss: 10-0 Muhlenberg
Wesley - Best Win: 9-1 Delaware Valley: Worst Loss: 9-0 Salisbury
Redlands - Best Win: 8-1 Linfield: Worst Loss: 9-0 Chapman
John Carroll - Best Win: 7-3 Baldwin Wallace, Worst Loss: 10-0 Mount Union
UW-Whitewater - Best Win: 7-3 UW-Platteville, Worst Loss: 8-2 UW-Oshkosh
NC-C - Best Win: 7-3 WASHU, Worst Loss: 10-0 Wheaton
Wartburg - Best Win: 7-2 Monmouth, Worst Loss: 9-1 Central

Common Opponents:
CNU - Wesley W 42-7, NC-C W 43-13
UW-Stevens Point - JC W 21-7, UW-W 38-0
Dubuque - Wartburg W 42-25, UW-W 42-7


Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 17, 2019, 12:40:44 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 12:27:06 AM
Susquehanna has a better SOS than NCC, .518 versus .500).

Both are 0-1 RRO.

I have a hard time imagining Susque going 5 rounds on the board.
And honestly, if Susquehanna gets left out it's a real shame. The South #2 needed OT to give Susquehanna their only loss of the season.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Cowboy2 on November 17, 2019, 12:43:32 AM
All I have to say, is that it's a shame we don't get to see any of these guys in the playoffs:

BSU RB R Shufford
HSU RB J Hemphill
Trinity(TX) WRs Lavine/Stewart/Edmonson

Some of the most electric players I've seen in a while down in the south. Would have loved to see, especially with  how all three of those teams finished this year, take that momentum into the 1st round, but I guess there's only so many chairs at the table.

Whoever draws Berry, has their day cut out trying to cover Kinsey! That kid is a machine.

Goodluck to everyone is the playoffs!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2019, 01:02:29 AM
Our projected bracket:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/our-projected-bracket
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: mdrem7 on November 17, 2019, 01:56:01 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2019, 01:02:29 AM
Our projected bracket:
https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/our-projected-bracket

Pat, who do you think the final 4 are out of that projected bracket?

I'd go with Mary Hardin-Baylor and Mount Union of course, but then go Muhlenberg and St. John's to upset the #1 seeds in their brackets.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: UfanBill on November 17, 2019, 03:22:07 AM
Pat and Greg, First trying to log in to leave a comment on your Bracket Predictions page is a njghtmare. Why can't we use our boards login?

Now my comment...First Pat, Keith and Adam all picked Union to be upset by RPI in the Dutchmen Shoes game...Wrong...Union won 33-0. Now in your Bracket predictions you have the Dutchmen in the sacrificial pairing with Mt.Union in a potential round 2 game even though you have moved Union into a 2 East ranking. Union is 10-0 with 2 RRO wins. Why would they be in a 4 seed spot? They've been surprising you all season haven't they? I hope the committee gives them more credit than you do.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on November 17, 2019, 03:22:07 AM
Pat and Greg, First trying to log in to leave a comment on your Bracket Predictions page is a njghtmare. Why can't we use our boards login?


I'll second this motion.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 17, 2019, 06:08:05 AM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on November 17, 2019, 03:22:07 AM
Pat and Greg, First trying to log in to leave a comment on your Bracket Predictions page is a njghtmare. Why can't we use our boards login?


I'll second this motion.

Likewise
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: thunderdog on November 17, 2019, 08:15:01 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 12:27:06 AM
Susquehanna has a better SOS than NCC, .518 versus .500).

Both are 0-1 RRO.

I have a hard time imagining Susque going 5 rounds on the board.





Updated SOS  Susque .504; NCC .500

NCC could very easily end up 1-1 vs RRO (WashU)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 08:48:59 AM
Quote from: thunderdog on November 17, 2019, 08:15:01 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 12:27:06 AM
Susquehanna has a better SOS than NCC, .518 versus .500).

Both are 0-1 RRO.

I have a hard time imagining Susque going 5 rounds on the board.





Updated SOS  Susque .504; NCC .500

NCC could very easily end up 1-1 vs RRO (WashU)
As could Susque (JHU)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2019, 01:14:41 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2019, 06:08:05 AM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on November 17, 2019, 03:22:07 AM
Pat and Greg, First trying to log in to leave a comment on your Bracket Predictions page is a njghtmare. Why can't we use our boards login?


I'll second this motion.

Likewise

The comments function used on news pages is pretty commonly used across a bunch of sites elsewhere. Lots of people have logins already, or you can log in with your social media accounts.

The 2005 technology that this board putters along on is not able to be ported out in such a manner.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: @d3jason on November 17, 2019, 02:24:22 PM
Quote from: UfanBill on November 17, 2019, 03:22:07 AM
Pat and Greg, First trying to log in to leave a comment on your Bracket Predictions page is a njghtmare. Why can't we use our boards login?

Now my comment...First Pat, Keith and Adam all picked Union to be upset by RPI in the Dutchmen Shoes game...Wrong...Union won 33-0. Now in your Bracket predictions you have the Dutchmen in the sacrificial pairing with Mt.Union in a potential round 2 game even though you have moved Union into a 2 East ranking. Union is 10-0 with 2 RRO wins. Why would they be in a 4 seed spot? They've been surprising you all season haven't they? I hope the committee gives them more credit than you do.

Non conference scheduling needs to be beefed up IMO.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 17, 2019, 05:10:36 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2019, 01:14:41 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2019, 06:08:05 AM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: UfanBill on November 17, 2019, 03:22:07 AM
Pat and Greg, First trying to log in to leave a comment on your Bracket Predictions page is a njghtmare. Why can't we use our boards login?


I'll second this motion.

Likewise

The comments function used on news pages is pretty commonly used across a bunch of sites elsewhere. Lots of people have logins already, or you can log in with your social media accounts.

The 2005 technology that this board putters along on is not able to be ported out in such a manner.

Hmmm, guess us old farts that don't have a social media account will just take our ball and go home.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 05:39:53 PM
5:39 PM EST and still no Selection Show!  ARGH!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 17, 2019, 05:41:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 05:39:53 PM
5:39 PM EST and still no Selection Show!  ARGH!

I've been watching it...
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2019, 01:14:41 PM

The 2005 technology that this board putters along on is not able to be ported out in such a manner.

2005 technology is pretty much how I roll.  Of course, in 2005 I was basically in 1986.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Jim Matson on November 17, 2019, 05:43:20 PM
Interesting to see UMHB and Whitewater in the same section.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 17, 2019, 05:46:45 PM
So North Central gets in while Susquehanna and John Carroll don't.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 06:00:35 PM
It's hard to see how Salisbury could have received a more fortunate draw.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on November 17, 2019, 06:02:50 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 17, 2019, 06:00:35 PM
It's hard to see how Salisbury could have received a more fortunate draw.
Geography is a major advantage.  Not much more Chapman could have done to get a #1 seed.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: mdrem7 on November 17, 2019, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: Jim Matson on November 17, 2019, 05:43:20 PM
Interesting to see UMHB and Whitewater in the same section.

Should be a really fun quarterfinal matchup. Also, North Central going to Mount Union could be a fun one.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: TheChucker on November 17, 2019, 06:06:37 PM
Could Mount Union's toughest test on the way to the finals be in the 2nd round (North Central)? It seems like the left side of the bracket has several more heavyweights than the right. Or maybe I'm just giving to much credence to the two UW schools, St. Johns and Wheaton (who all would likely need to go through UMHB).
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: cover2 on November 17, 2019, 06:12:53 PM
I think you're exactly right, Chucker.  I posted this on the South Board:

The real bracket is basically swapping UMHB and amount Union from the D3FB mock bracket!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 06:24:15 PM
We have geographic proximity in Division 2. Lone Star Conference foes Tarleton State and Texas A&M Commerce meet on Saturday for a first round rematch.

(The D-2 Championship will be played at McKinney Independent School District School Stadium in the DFW suburb of McKinney.)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: TheChucker on November 17, 2019, 06:40:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2019, 06:24:15 PM
We have geographic proximity in Division 2. Lone Star Conference foes Tarleton State and Texas A&M Commerce meet on Saturday for a first round rematch.

(The D-2 Championship will be played at McKinney Independent School District School Stadium in the DFW suburb of McKinney.)

It looks like the winner of the Texas schools probably travels to Minnesota again for the quarterfinals if I'm reading it right. Similar bracket as last year except Tarleton and Commerce play in the first round.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on November 18, 2019, 12:17:10 AM
I still remember several years back that a Texas D2 school (Angelo State) had to go all the way up to the Upper Peninsula for a playoff game. Angelo State won that game I recall.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 18, 2019, 12:27:26 AM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 18, 2019, 12:17:10 AM
I still remember several years back that a Texas D2 school (Angelo State) had to go all the way up to the Upper Peninsula for a playoff game. Angelo State won that game I recall.
That was probably a 40 to 50 degree swing in temperatures.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on November 18, 2019, 12:05:15 PM
I think when looking at the 4 quadrants of the bracket, and trying to say, "are their any teams in this quadrant that can win the Stagg Bowl?" 

Look at the top left... (2) Teams could win the Stagg Bowl.  UMHB, UWW
Bottom Left ... (2) Teams could win the Stagg Bowl. St. Johns, Wheaton
Top Right ... Not sure any of these could win the Stagg Bowl. 
Bottom Right ... (2) Teams could win the Stagg Bowl.  Mount Union, NCC

Each quadrant has relatively the same difficulty.  Some play the tough teams earlier, some play them later.  I should say that I think Muhlenberg is the real deal, I just don't see them slowing down Mount, or NCC for that matter and I don't think they have the offense to keep pace.  Likewise, I threw NCC in there because of their offensive prowess, but I don't think they have the defense to slow down Mount at all.  While Mount does have the defense to prevent some scoring and will most likely win those football games.

I think this bracket seems like one of the most competitive in a long time.  Even Mount vs. Hanover in round one is more difficult than some past years. 

I'm not sold that Wesley beats Framingham St.  Framingham State lost to Brockport 14-0 on 23 interception returns for TD.  Wesley beat Endicott 20-17.  It could be a game.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 18, 2019, 12:40:15 PM
Hypothetical 32 Team Bracket (DIII Top 25 only guaranteed) with Top 8 being group 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, and 4 vs 5.:

1. Mount Union (#1)  vs. Stevenson (#32)
2. St. Johns (#8) vs. UW-Lacrosse (#25)
3. Delaware Valley (#9) vs. Central (#24)
4. Hardin-Simmons (#16) vs. Redlands (#17)

1. UMHB (#2) vs. Hanover (#31)
2. UW-Whitewater (#7) vs. Texas Lutheran (#26)
3. Wesley (#10) vs. Berry (#23)
4. Susquehanna (#15) vs UW-Oshkosh (#18)

1. Wheaton (Ill.) (#3) vs Hope (#30)
2. Salisbury (#6) vs. Case Western-Reserve (#27)
3. John Carroll (#11) vs. Wartburg (#22)
4. St. Thomas (#14) vs. Bethel (#19)

1. Muhlenberg (#4) vs. Ithaca (#29)
2. North Central (Ill.)(#5) vs. Brockport (#28)
3. Chapman (#12) vs. Bridgewater (Va.) (#21)
4. Union (#13) vs. Linfield (#20)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: retagent on November 18, 2019, 12:41:09 PM
Is edit needed? 23 int returns for TD. I think that would have been news.

Hey, I make typing errors too.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 18, 2019, 12:42:25 PM
Quote from: Captainred81 on November 18, 2019, 12:05:15 PM
I think when looking at the 4 quadrants of the bracket, and trying to say, "are their any teams in this quadrant that can win the Stagg Bowl?" 

Look at the top left... (2) Teams could win the Stagg Bowl.  UMHB, UWW
Bottom Left ... (2) Teams could win the Stagg Bowl. St. Johns, Wheaton
Top Right ... Not sure any of these could win the Stagg Bowl. 
Bottom Right ... (2) Teams could win the Stagg Bowl.  Mount Union, NCC

Each quadrant has relatively the same difficulty.  Some play the tough teams earlier, some play them later.  I should say that I think Muhlenberg is the real deal, I just don't see them slowing down Mount, or NCC for that matter and I don't think they have the offense to keep pace.  Likewise, I threw NCC in there because of their offensive prowess, but I don't think they have the defense to slow down Mount at all.  While Mount does have the defense to prevent some scoring and will most likely win those football games.

I think this bracket seems like one of the most competitive in a long time.  Even Mount vs. Hanover in round one is more difficult than some past years. 

I'm not sold that Wesley beats Framingham St.  Framingham State lost to Brockport 14-0 on 23 interception returns for TD.  Wesley beat Endicott 20-17.  It could be a game.

Common Opponent between Wesley, Salisbury, and NCC. Salisbury beat CNU by 51 (48 in 2 quarters), NCC beat CNU by 30, Wesley beat CNU by 35. I guess it's all subjective. What was the last time a team outside of UW-W and UMHB beat Mount?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 18, 2019, 12:46:19 PM
Are you trying to say we can learn anything from 3 beat downs of CNU because one team beat them by 50 and another by only 30/35? I am not sure your point with the CNU common opponent. I take only that they all beat CNU easily. It tells me nothing of those teams other than that.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 18, 2019, 12:48:57 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2019, 12:46:19 PM
Are you trying to say we can learn anything from 3 beat downs of CNU because one team beat them by 50 and another by only 30/35? I am not sure your point with the CNU common opponent. I take only that they all beat CNU easily. It tells me nothing of those teams other than that.

I'm just saying that Salisbury scored 47 in two quarters. If we are going to base a merit to say a team having a realistic chance based upon offensive prowess, then I think Salisbury would have a case IMHO, just like D1 FBS and their game control factor, I watch both games closely for this reason. I think it comes down to matchups. Some teams matchup better against the big dogs (UMU, UMHB, and UW-W) than other teams. I do believe some teams have a higher ceiling due to depth and pure skill.

Even out of the Top teams, some teams match-up better against the others. I created an hypothetical bracket based upon DIII football rankings. However, that wouldn't sastify many on here. Hansen Ratings has UWW, Wheaton, NCC, Mount , UMHB, Hardin Simmons, and St. Johns, and St. Thomas as the highest 8 teams. 4 of those teams lost to a team not included in that grouping. You have to play the game.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 18, 2019, 12:53:44 PM
I just don't think you can draw any real conclusions from 3 blowouts of the same team.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 18, 2019, 01:12:29 PM
The system is fine. The issue is bracketing where the NCAA is penny wise and pound foolish. I know we need some region specific matchups, but not allowing Redlands a home game, and not allowing a Wabash / Mt. Union / North Central / Monmouth bracket because Monmouth is 575 miles away from Alliance is just...odd. So Wabash gets an 'advantage' of being a 6 or 7 in seeding and not an 8, which they deserve, and Hanover gets to get run over in Alliance.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wesleydad on November 18, 2019, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2019, 12:53:44 PM
I just don't think you can draw any real conclusions from 3 blowouts of the same team.

You can draw one, CNU was not very good this year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: edward de vere on November 18, 2019, 02:43:59 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 18, 2019, 12:42:25 PM
What was the last time a team outside of UW-W and UMHB beat Mount?

John Carroll, last game of regular season, 2016.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on November 18, 2019, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 18, 2019, 02:43:59 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 18, 2019, 12:42:25 PM
What was the last time a team outside of UW-W and UMHB beat Mount?

John Carroll, last game of regular season, 2016.

Touche'
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Toby Taff on November 19, 2019, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: edward de vere on November 18, 2019, 02:43:59 PM
Quote from: MANDGSU on November 18, 2019, 12:42:25 PM
What was the last time a team outside of UW-W and UMHB beat Mount?

John Carroll, last game of regular season, 2016.
The reason Mount union visited the Cruthedral in the semis.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 19, 2019, 05:29:29 PM
I don't know if someone else has pointed this out, but this is the first time in the Pool era that none of the four brackets has had two teams from the same conference.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ithaca798891 on November 19, 2019, 10:06:28 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 19, 2019, 05:29:29 PM
I don't know if someone else has pointed this out, but this is the first time in the Pool era that none of the four brackets has had two teams from the same conference.

How can that be? 5 Pool C teams in four brackets
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on November 19, 2019, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 19, 2019, 10:06:28 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 19, 2019, 05:29:29 PM
I don't know if someone else has pointed this out, but this is the first time in the Pool era that none of the four brackets has had two teams from the same conference.

How can that be? 5 Pool C teams in four brackets

Ithaca798891 - Perhaps you are confusing brackets with conferences. If there are two teams from a Conference, like the CCIW, they won't meet until the Stag bowl. The committee, wittingly or no, made sure no two teams from the same conference didn't meet up again until later in the brackets. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 20, 2019, 09:05:35 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 19, 2019, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 19, 2019, 10:06:28 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 19, 2019, 05:29:29 PM
I don't know if someone else has pointed this out, but this is the first time in the Pool era that none of the four brackets has had two teams from the same conference.

How can that be? 5 Pool C teams in four brackets

Ithaca798891 - Perhaps you are confusing brackets with conferences. If there are two teams from a Conference, like the CCIW, they won't meet until the Stag bowl. The committee, wittingly or no, made sure no two teams from the same conference didn't meet up again until later in the brackets.
Usually the island teams (and more usually two ASC teams) end up in the same quadrant but this year Chapman and Redlands were split up.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on November 20, 2019, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: Ithaca798891 on November 19, 2019, 10:06:28 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 19, 2019, 05:29:29 PM
I don't know if someone else has pointed this out, but this is the first time in the Pool era that none of the four brackets has had two teams from the same conference.

How can that be? 5 Pool C teams in four brackets

You know, I thought the same thing.  That the math just didn't work.  But it turns out it does. 
Redlands (UMHB region), Chapman (Wheaton region)
Wartburg (UMHB region), Central (Wheaton region)
Wesley (Mount Union region), Salisbury (Salisbury region)
UW-Oshkosh (Wheaton region), UW-Whitewater (UMHB region)
North Central (Mount Union region), Wheaton (Wheaton region)

I'm not sure if this was intentional or a happy accident (probably a bit of both), but I think it's good to split these teams up when possible.  In general, I think this committee really paid close attention to those kinds of details and did their best to avoid well-worn matchups, avoid rematches, etc. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 20, 2019, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 17, 2019, 05:46:45 PM
So North Central gets in while Susquehanna and John Carroll don't.

Would have to believe Susquehanna was the odd team out as the result of UWW dropping their final game to UWO.

Susquehanna 4/S .518 SOS
John Carroll 5/N .500 SOS

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Captainred81 on November 21, 2019, 11:41:28 AM
I posted earlier that Brockport had 23 interception returns for a TD, I meant 2 interception returns for a TD.  Fat fingers...no focus...story of my life.

Yes, I would say Susquehanna was definitely the next choice if there had been another bid available.  Alas, no more bids and they stay home.  It's a shame too, because they are good team and might have made some noise. 

Anybody out there eyeing a big upset this week?  I think Central will give UW-O all they can handle.  They are an efficient and high powered offense.  I think that one could end up with Central winning. 

I also like Del. Val. to win at Bridgewater, probably pretty close, but still. 

Lastly, whose going to get the nod for North Region QB? Rutter or Fulford must be the top 2 picks right?  Each of them lead a few categories, and are 2nd in the other categories.  Fulford has 1 pick on the season, Rutter has 2.  Kind of crazy.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 21, 2019, 11:48:29 AM
They're going to get at least one, probably two games in before we have to put out All-Region. If there is a head-to-head game, those guys will each be going against the best team they've faced all year, so there's plenty of data left to be collected, so to speak.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on November 21, 2019, 12:14:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 21, 2019, 11:48:29 AM
They're going to get at least one, probably two games in before we have to put out All-Region. If there is a head-to-head game, those guys will each be going against the best team they've faced all year, so there's plenty of data left to be collected, so to speak.

"...probably two games in...." is code for "they play each other next week, let's see who plays better, winning will help"
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2019, 08:29:08 PM
I follow Lazindex and Bornpowerindex for the ASC Pick'ems contest.

At the end of the regular season, these were the teams who did not earn a bid, either Pool A or C thru the 1st 15 spots in those indexes.

Lazindex --  Tommies #7; HSU #8; Susquehanna #9; Bethel #11; John Carroll #12; UW-La Crosse #14

Bornpowerindex -- Susquehanna #6; JHU #12; HSU #14; Randy Mac #15.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2019, 10:17:55 PM
I miss the bracket challenge that we used to have on the website.

Here are my picks:

UMHB, Berry, UWW, Wart; Wheaton, UWO, Chap, SJU; Salisbury, Union, Muhl, Brock; UMU, NCC, Wesley, BC

UMHB, UWW, Wheaton, SJU; Salisbury, Muhl, UMU, Wesley.

UMHB, Wheaton, Salisbury, UMU.

UMHB, UMU.

UMHB 16 UMU 13
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 23, 2019, 01:08:10 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2019, 10:17:55 PM
I miss the bracket challenge that we used to have on the website.
I know it's last minute but I've added a bracket challenge in the pickem board for those who want to still do one this year.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=9000.0
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: jamtod on November 23, 2019, 07:16:00 PM
Pool C squads go 4-1, only loss is Redlands to UMHB
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2019, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 23, 2019, 07:16:00 PM
Pool C squads go 4-1, only loss is Redlands to UMHB
UMHB 43 Redlands 14

UWW 35 Monmouth 10

Wartburg 41 Hope 3

NCC 51 Wabash 14

Wesley 58 Framingham State 14
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2019, 09:48:43 PM
Interregion results:

South UMHB 43
West  Redlands 14

West Wartburg 41
North Hope 3

North Wheaton 51
West Martin Luther 7

West SJU 51
North Aurora 47

East Union 24
South CWRU 21

South Muhl 38
East  MIT  0

East Del Valley 30
South B'water 22
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2019, 05:54:41 PM
My bracket is busted.  Of more historical significance, the only "Purples" left on the board are UMHB and UWW.  There may be a new colored jersey to win the Stagg Bowl.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on November 30, 2019, 07:04:26 PM
Interesting to note: The eight teams remaining are #2 through #9 in the D3football.com poll.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Teamski on November 30, 2019, 10:12:49 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on November 30, 2019, 07:04:26 PM
Interesting to note: The eight teams remaining are #2 through #9 in the D3football.com poll.

A very interesting fact indeed!  It certainly validates the poll!

-Ski
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on November 30, 2019, 10:24:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2019, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 23, 2019, 07:16:00 PM
Pool C squads go 4-1, only loss is Redlands to UMHB
UMHB 43 Redlands 14

UWW 35 Monmouth 10

Wartburg 41 Hope 3

NCC 51 Wabash 14

Wesley 58 Framingham State 14

Thought you would have posted the update by now, but Pool C was 2-2 this weekend, with both UWW and NCC left on opposite sides of the bracket and could not meet until the Stagg.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2019, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 30, 2019, 10:24:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2019, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 23, 2019, 07:16:00 PM
Pool C squads go 4-1, only loss is Redlands to UMHB
UMHB 43 Redlands 14

UWW 35 Monmouth 10

Wartburg 41 Hope 3

NCC 51 Wabash 14

Wesley 58 Framingham State 14

Thought you would have posted the update by now, but Pool C was 2-2 this weekend, with both UWW and NCC left on opposite sides of the bracket and could not meet until the Stagg.

NCC 59 UMU 52

UWW 41 Wartburg 28

Del Valley 45  Wesley 10

Sorry, I was watching the Iron Bowl.  WAR EAGLE!!!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on December 07, 2019, 05:36:21 PM
Someone may have the stat on this, but have two Pool C teams faced off in the Stagg Bowl?

Does this mean Whitewater and Central travel?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 07, 2019, 05:36:21 PM
Someone may have the stat on this, but have two Pool C teams faced off in the Stagg Bowl?

Does this mean Whitewater and Central travel?

No, no, a thousand times no!  The pool from which you qualify does not have a thing to do with site selection.  North Central, Pool C, literally just got done hosting Delaware Valley, Pool A.

North Central should go to Muhlenberg.  St. John's should go to UWW. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on December 07, 2019, 05:48:56 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 07, 2019, 05:36:21 PM
Someone may have the stat on this, but have two Pool C teams faced off in the Stagg Bowl?

Does this mean Whitewater and Central travel?

No, no, a thousand times no!  The pool from which you qualify does not have a thing to do with site selection.  North Central, Pool C, literally just got done hosting Delaware Valley, Pool A.

North Central should go to Muhlenberg.  St. John's should go to UWW.

Help me understand why.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 06:17:08 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 07, 2019, 05:48:56 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 07, 2019, 05:36:21 PM
Someone may have the stat on this, but have two Pool C teams faced off in the Stagg Bowl?

Does this mean Whitewater and Central travel?

No, no, a thousand times no!  The pool from which you qualify does not have a thing to do with site selection.  North Central, Pool C, literally just got done hosting Delaware Valley, Pool A.

North Central should go to Muhlenberg.  St. John's should go to UWW.

Help me understand why.

The qualification pool is irrelevant.  Pool C teams have hosted six games in this tournament, all against Pool A teams (Wesley x2, UWW x2, North Central x2).  Redlands would have hosted a game, but they got island'd out of that home game that they actually earned. 

Generally, the team ranked higher in the final regional rankings is going to host.  It's really straightforward when the teams are from the same region (as SJU and UWW are).  When you get teams from different regions, it gets trickier, but you can still usually figure it out by looking at the same criteria used for selection. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: retagent on December 07, 2019, 06:23:31 PM
So a 1 loss Pool C team gets 3 home games, and a 1 loss Pool A team gets 1 home game? How do you know that UWW was ranked higher than SJU in the Final Regional Rankings? Have they been published?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: retagent on December 07, 2019, 06:23:31 PM
So a 1 loss Pool C team gets 3 home games, and a 1 loss Pool A team gets 1 home game? How do you know that UWW was ranked higher than SJU in the Final Regional Rankings? Have they been published?

Yes (https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/final-regional-ranking).

Again, labeling teams as Pool A or Pool C is superfluous and doesn't have any bearing on seeding or site selection. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on December 07, 2019, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: retagent on December 07, 2019, 06:23:31 PM
So a 1 loss Pool C team gets 3 home games, and a 1 loss Pool A team gets 1 home game? How do you know that UWW was ranked higher than SJU in the Final Regional Rankings? Have they been published?

Yes (https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/final-regional-ranking).

Again, labeling teams as Pool A or Pool C is superfluous and doesn't have any bearing on seeding or site selection.

Cool. So where are the final Regional Rankings found?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 07:03:41 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 07, 2019, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: retagent on December 07, 2019, 06:23:31 PM
So a 1 loss Pool C team gets 3 home games, and a 1 loss Pool A team gets 1 home game? How do you know that UWW was ranked higher than SJU in the Final Regional Rankings? Have they been published?

Yes (https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/final-regional-ranking).

Again, labeling teams as Pool A or Pool C is superfluous and doesn't have any bearing on seeding or site selection.

Cool. So where are the final Regional Rankings found?

Right there in the link I posted. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on December 07, 2019, 07:29:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 07:03:41 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 07, 2019, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 07, 2019, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: retagent on December 07, 2019, 06:23:31 PM
So a 1 loss Pool C team gets 3 home games, and a 1 loss Pool A team gets 1 home game? How do you know that UWW was ranked higher than SJU in the Final Regional Rankings? Have they been published?

Yes (https://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2019/final-regional-ranking).

Again, labeling teams as Pool A or Pool C is superfluous and doesn't have any bearing on seeding or site selection.

Cool. So where are the final Regional Rankings found?

Right there in the link I posted.

Plain as the nose on my face - Thanx, Wally!
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2019, 09:02:47 PM
Something that important might well be something we put on D3football.com, for sure.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2019, 10:23:36 PM
Done!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2019, 10:17:55 PM
I miss the bracket challenge that we used to have on the website.

Here are my picks:

UMHB, Berry, UWW, Wart; Wheaton, UWO, Chap, SJU; Salisbury, Union, Muhl, Brock; UMU, NCC, Wesley, BC

UMHB, UWW, Wheaton, SJU; Salisbury, Muhl, UMU, Wesley.

UMHB, Wheaton, Salisbury, UMU.

UMHB, UMU.

UMHB 16 UMU 13
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2019, 10:26:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2019, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 30, 2019, 10:24:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2019, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 23, 2019, 07:16:00 PM
Pool C squads go 4-1, only loss is Redlands to UMHB
UMHB 43 Redlands 14

UWW 35 Monmouth 10

Wartburg 41 Hope 3

NCC 51 Wabash 14

Wesley 58 Framingham State 14

Thought you would have posted the update by now, but Pool C was 2-2 this weekend, with both UWW and NCC left on opposite sides of the bracket and could not meet until the Stagg.

NCC 59 UMU 52

UWW 41 Wartburg 28

Del Valley 45  Wesley 10


Week #3 Pool C 2-0

NCC 31 Del Valley 14

UWW 26 UMHB 7
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2019, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.
Respectfully, I think that is the case.

I think that the consensus on this forum is that we are about 2-3 Pool C teams shy of what we need to an appropriate field of competitive teams in the football Pool C bids, that there were 2-3 teams left on the board who were worthy Pool C candidates this year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on December 07, 2019, 11:37:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2019, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.
Respectfully, I think that is the case.

I think that the consensus on this forum is that we are about 2-3 Pool C teams shy of what we need to an appropriate field of competitive teams in the football Pool C bids, that there were 2-3 teams left on the board who were worthy Pool C candidates this year.
This was a brutal year in pool C. Susquehanna could easily have made some noise as well... their only loss was in OT at Muhlenberg who is still alive.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 09, 2019, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

We're talking in a normal year about the 2 loss teams, not this year where we had a perfect storm of too many good teams and not enough slots. This will happen.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

I don't think I've said that Pool C teams don't have a chance to win the championship.  I have repeatedly said things like this:

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
To date, even with the limited number of at-large bids, I don't think anybody can reasonably point to one single instance where the size of the field excluded a team that would be considered a contender to win the tournament.

My position on the issue has not changed through three rounds of this tournament. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bluestreak66 on December 09, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

I don't think I've said that Pool C teams don't have a chance to win the championship.  I have repeatedly said things like this:

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
To date, even with the limited number of at-large bids, I don't think anybody can reasonably point to one single instance where the size of the field excluded a team that would be considered a contender to win the tournament.

My position on the issue has not changed through three rounds of this tournament.
I respectfully disagree on this point. I do believe based on the way Mulhenberg has handled their first three rounds that Susquehanna could have made some noise in this tournament. I don't think Mulhenberg winning the championship is totally far fetched at this point, and if they do, there will have been a 9-1 team whose only loss was in OT to the champions excluded from the playoffs. I do generally agree that never before has a true potential contender been left out, but there is a part of me that feels like this may have been the year.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on December 09, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

I don't think I've said that Pool C teams don't have a chance to win the championship.  I have repeatedly said things like this:

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
To date, even with the limited number of at-large bids, I don't think anybody can reasonably point to one single instance where the size of the field excluded a team that would be considered a contender to win the tournament.

My position on the issue has not changed through three rounds of this tournament.
I respectfully disagree on this point. I do believe based on the way Mulhenberg has handled their first three rounds that Susquehanna could have made some noise in this tournament. I don't think Mulhenberg winning the championship is totally far fetched at this point, and if they do, there will have been a 9-1 team whose only loss was in OT to the champions excluded from the playoffs. I do generally agree that never before has a true potential contender been left out, but there is a part of me that feels like this may have been the year.

I understand the sentiment.  Making noise in the tournament and winning the tournament are different things.  I'm talking very specifically about teams that can win that have been left out, and I don't think that's happened this year or in any year. 

Are we sure Susquehanna is even the best team that didn't qualify?  The Top 25 doesn't think so. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on December 09, 2019, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on December 09, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

I don't think I've said that Pool C teams don't have a chance to win the championship.  I have repeatedly said things like this:

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
To date, even with the limited number of at-large bids, I don't think anybody can reasonably point to one single instance where the size of the field excluded a team that would be considered a contender to win the tournament.

My position on the issue has not changed through three rounds of this tournament.
I respectfully disagree on this point. I do believe based on the way Mulhenberg has handled their first three rounds that Susquehanna could have made some noise in this tournament. I don't think Mulhenberg winning the championship is totally far fetched at this point, and if they do, there will have been a 9-1 team whose only loss was in OT to the champions excluded from the playoffs. I do generally agree that never before has a true potential contender been left out, but there is a part of me that feels like this may have been the year.

I understand the sentiment.  Making noise in the tournament and winning the tournament are different things.  I'm talking very specifically about teams that can win that have been left out, and I don't think that's happened this year or in any year. 

Are we sure Susquehanna is even the best team that didn't qualify?  The Top 25 doesn't think so.
Even if Muhlenberg goes on to win the title this year that doesn't necessarily mean they would have beaten Mount Union.  Susquehanna's odds to the win the tournament wouldn't improve that much either.  It's not zero, but it's still very unlikely.   
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HSCTiger74 on December 09, 2019, 06:30:49 PM
Quote from: AO on December 09, 2019, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on December 09, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

I don't think I've said that Pool C teams don't have a chance to win the championship.  I have repeatedly said things like this:

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
To date, even with the limited number of at-large bids, I don't think anybody can reasonably point to one single instance where the size of the field excluded a team that would be considered a contender to win the tournament.

My position on the issue has not changed through three rounds of this tournament.
I respectfully disagree on this point. I do believe based on the way Mulhenberg has handled their first three rounds that Susquehanna could have made some noise in this tournament. I don't think Mulhenberg winning the championship is totally far fetched at this point, and if they do, there will have been a 9-1 team whose only loss was in OT to the champions excluded from the playoffs. I do generally agree that never before has a true potential contender been left out, but there is a part of me that feels like this may have been the year.

I understand the sentiment.  Making noise in the tournament and winning the tournament are different things.  I'm talking very specifically about teams that can win that have been left out, and I don't think that's happened this year or in any year. 

Are we sure Susquehanna is even the best team that didn't qualify?  The Top 25 doesn't think so.
Even if Muhlenberg goes on to win the title this year that doesn't necessarily mean they would have beaten Mount Union.  Susquehanna's odds to the win the tournament wouldn't improve that much either.  It's not zero, but it's still very unlikely.

  Maybe I'm slow but I'm not sure what your point is here. How Muhlenberg (or SJU or UWW) would have done against Mt. Union is irrelevant, because North Central already knocked them out. Are you equating that to the irrelevance of the Susquehanna speculation, since they didn't even make the field?
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: AO on December 09, 2019, 07:20:37 PM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on December 09, 2019, 06:30:49 PM
Quote from: AO on December 09, 2019, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on December 09, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

I don't think I've said that Pool C teams don't have a chance to win the championship.  I have repeatedly said things like this:

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
To date, even with the limited number of at-large bids, I don't think anybody can reasonably point to one single instance where the size of the field excluded a team that would be considered a contender to win the tournament.

My position on the issue has not changed through three rounds of this tournament.
I respectfully disagree on this point. I do believe based on the way Mulhenberg has handled their first three rounds that Susquehanna could have made some noise in this tournament. I don't think Mulhenberg winning the championship is totally far fetched at this point, and if they do, there will have been a 9-1 team whose only loss was in OT to the champions excluded from the playoffs. I do generally agree that never before has a true potential contender been left out, but there is a part of me that feels like this may have been the year.

I understand the sentiment.  Making noise in the tournament and winning the tournament are different things.  I'm talking very specifically about teams that can win that have been left out, and I don't think that's happened this year or in any year. 

Are we sure Susquehanna is even the best team that didn't qualify?  The Top 25 doesn't think so.
Even if Muhlenberg goes on to win the title this year that doesn't necessarily mean they would have beaten Mount Union.  Susquehanna's odds to the win the tournament wouldn't improve that much either.  It's not zero, but it's still very unlikely.

  Maybe I'm slow but I'm not sure what your point is here. How Muhlenberg (or SJU or UWW) would have done against Mt. Union is irrelevant, because North Central already knocked them out. Are you equating that to the irrelevance of the Susquehanna speculation, since they didn't even make the field?
Yeah I think you got it.  If we started the tournament over today with Susquehanna in the field, I still don't think they are a top contender for the title. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HSCTiger74 on December 09, 2019, 07:46:52 PM
Quote from: AO on December 09, 2019, 07:20:37 PM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on December 09, 2019, 06:30:49 PM
Quote from: AO on December 09, 2019, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on December 09, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2019, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: USee on December 07, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I seem to recall there being some folks who argued the last team in the field, or any pool C team really has no realistic chance to win the Stagg. I may be misremembering this discussion but if that's the case, this year may be the year that 2 Pool C's end up playing for the Stagg.

I don't think I've said that Pool C teams don't have a chance to win the championship.  I have repeatedly said things like this:

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
To date, even with the limited number of at-large bids, I don't think anybody can reasonably point to one single instance where the size of the field excluded a team that would be considered a contender to win the tournament.

My position on the issue has not changed through three rounds of this tournament.
I respectfully disagree on this point. I do believe based on the way Mulhenberg has handled their first three rounds that Susquehanna could have made some noise in this tournament. I don't think Mulhenberg winning the championship is totally far fetched at this point, and if they do, there will have been a 9-1 team whose only loss was in OT to the champions excluded from the playoffs. I do generally agree that never before has a true potential contender been left out, but there is a part of me that feels like this may have been the year.

I understand the sentiment.  Making noise in the tournament and winning the tournament are different things.  I'm talking very specifically about teams that can win that have been left out, and I don't think that's happened this year or in any year. 

Are we sure Susquehanna is even the best team that didn't qualify?  The Top 25 doesn't think so.
Even if Muhlenberg goes on to win the title this year that doesn't necessarily mean they would have beaten Mount Union.  Susquehanna's odds to the win the tournament wouldn't improve that much either.  It's not zero, but it's still very unlikely.

  Maybe I'm slow but I'm not sure what your point is here. How Muhlenberg (or SJU or UWW) would have done against Mt. Union is irrelevant, because North Central already knocked them out. Are you equating that to the irrelevance of the Susquehanna speculation, since they didn't even make the field?
Yeah I think you got it.  If we started the tournament over today with Susquehanna in the field, I still don't think they are a top contender for the title.

  Okay, thanks.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 10, 2019, 12:57:41 AM
Susquehanna and John Carroll may have won a game, possibly two. Yes, Susquehanna was close against Muhlenberg, but the Mules seem to have rocketed up their play after that game and after Ursinus went ahead of them 14-7.

From that point in their Ursinus game forward (losing 14-7), Muhlenberg has given up just 48 points.

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: art76 on December 15, 2019, 09:13:07 AM
We've got ourselves a Pool C Stagg Bowl. Interesting. Gotta wonder how this will all play out next year, and the coming years, as Pool C teams are selected in the future.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MUC57 on December 15, 2019, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: art76 on December 15, 2019, 09:13:07 AM
We've got ourselves a Pool C Stagg Bowl. Interesting. Gotta wonder how this will all play out next year, and the coming years, as Pool C teams are selected in the future.

art76

Thanks for pointing that out. Never occurred to me that was the situation.
As to the impact on future pool C selections - hmmmm! 🤔
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on December 15, 2019, 12:44:15 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 15, 2019, 09:13:07 AM
We've got ourselves a Pool C Stagg Bowl. Interesting. Gotta wonder how this will all play out next year, and the coming years, as Pool C teams are selected in the future.

The criteria for Pool C selection is composed entirely of data from the current regular season.  The one spot where previous year's results can be leveraged are when seeding undefeated teams- undefeated teams are (generally) not Pool C teams, so committees wouldn't be able to look back for data from 2019 when selecting 2020's Pool C teams. 
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2019, 03:27:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2019, 10:26:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2019, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 30, 2019, 10:24:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2019, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: jamtod on November 23, 2019, 07:16:00 PM
Pool C squads go 4-1, only loss is Redlands to UMHB
UMHB 43 Redlands 14

UWW 35 Monmouth 10

Wartburg 41 Hope 3

NCC 51 Wabash 14

Wesley 58 Framingham State 14

Thought you would have posted the update by now, but Pool C was 2-2 this weekend, with both UWW and NCC left on opposite sides of the bracket and could not meet until the Stagg.

NCC 59 UMU 52

UWW 41 Wartburg 28

Del Valley 45  Wesley 10


Week #3 Pool C 2-0

NCC 31 Del Valley 14

UWW 26 UMHB 7

Week #4 Pool C 2-0

NCC 45 Muhlenberg 14

UWW 35 SJU 32

Pool C Final Record - 11-4

Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2019, 03:30:38 PM
The fact that we have a Pool C Stagg Bowl is not surprising when we consider that each team comes from a Top 5 conference, and/or maybe the 2 best conferences in D3.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 15, 2019, 04:31:16 PM
Even though we have a "C" Stagg Bowl, I don't think the 'last teams out' would have made it this far. Maybe round 2.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 15, 2019, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: art76 on December 15, 2019, 09:13:07 AM
We've got ourselves a Pool C Stagg Bowl. Interesting. Gotta wonder how this will all play out next year, and the coming years, as Pool C teams are selected in the future.

I think they already select Pool C with this in mind -- trying to take the highest quality teams regardless of how they actually measure up in SOS and the like.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Inkblot on December 20, 2019, 11:56:11 PM
Conspiracy theory time: Wisconsin–Whitewater intentionally tanked against Oshkosh in an attempt to keep North Central from getting a Pool C bid.  ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: MRMIKESMITH on March 26, 2020, 06:43:04 PM
We are going to see quite a lot of conference rematches and short distance match-ups this upcoming season with the NCAA cutting the budget, because no NCAA Tournament.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 27, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on March 26, 2020, 06:43:04 PM
We are going to see quite a lot of conference rematches and short distance match-ups this upcoming season with the NCAA cutting the budget, because no NCAA Tournament.

No. Not accurate. The money and the deficit NCAA announced pertaining to DIII is just for this academic/fiscal year. That includes all the championships already played (and paid for) and other expenses seen every year.

The fact half of basketball and other winter sports plus none of the spring sports meant the hit wasn't as brutal. ALSO, there is a reserve set aside for situations JUST like this. It was created, I believe, after the budget tightening in 2013/14 which did impact the championships in nearly all sports (especially the highest cost ones). It has something like $16m set aside for occasions like 2013/14 (when the TV money isn't given out at the same rate as previously per contact or change in contracts) or rainy days.

The shortfall is for JUST this academic/fiscal year ... as I've been told, next year's budget will be what is already planned due it being crafted with the TV money (and other revenue) expected next year.

I reported this yesterday on Twitter (@d3hoopsville) and responded to some tweets today (@davemchugh).
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 27, 2020, 03:16:31 PM
But let's be realistic -- even with the budget deficit applying to 2019-20, it would be wise to consider the possibility that expenditures might be more conservative in 2020-21. If we're spending the rainy day fund now, as we should, I'm sure the powers that be will want to start rebuilding it.

I would not be surprised at all to see championship expenditures played closer to the vest in 2020-21.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 27, 2020, 03:31:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 27, 2020, 03:16:31 PM
But let's be realistic -- even with the budget deficit applying to 2019-20, it would be wise to consider the possibility that expenditures might be more conservative in 2020-21. If we're spending the rainy day fund now, as we should, I'm sure the powers that be will want to start rebuilding it.

I would not be surprised at all to see championship expenditures played closer to the vest in 2020-21.

Yes ... but they put money into the reserve every year from the budget as I understand it. Do they put more in? Possibly, but I suspect they will do everything they can to avoid having that cause changes to championships. Would they maybe limit one flight? Possibly, but we wait for that to happen every year. That's nothing new.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: HScoach on May 19, 2020, 02:23:09 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 27, 2020, 03:31:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 27, 2020, 03:16:31 PM
But let's be realistic -- even with the budget deficit applying to 2019-20, it would be wise to consider the possibility that expenditures might be more conservative in 2020-21. If we're spending the rainy day fund now, as we should, I'm sure the powers that be will want to start rebuilding it.

I would not be surprised at all to see championship expenditures played closer to the vest in 2020-21.

Yes ... but they put money into the reserve every year from the budget as I understand it. Do they put more in? Possibly, but I suspect they will do everything they can to avoid having that cause changes to championships. Would they maybe limit one flight? Possibly, but we wait for that to happen every year. That's nothing new.

Just a complete outsider's opinion, but expecting the NCAA to spend $ on D3 during uncertain financial times is probably not a good bet.  I'm leaning towards a tighter belt this fall.  Assuming we get to have a fall 2020 season......
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: bluestreak66 on May 20, 2020, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: HScoach on May 19, 2020, 02:23:09 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 27, 2020, 03:31:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 27, 2020, 03:16:31 PM
But let's be realistic -- even with the budget deficit applying to 2019-20, it would be wise to consider the possibility that expenditures might be more conservative in 2020-21. If we're spending the rainy day fund now, as we should, I'm sure the powers that be will want to start rebuilding it.

I would not be surprised at all to see championship expenditures played closer to the vest in 2020-21.

Yes ... but they put money into the reserve every year from the budget as I understand it. Do they put more in? Possibly, but I suspect they will do everything they can to avoid having that cause changes to championships. Would they maybe limit one flight? Possibly, but we wait for that to happen every year. That's nothing new.

Just a complete outsider's opinion, but expecting the NCAA to spend $ on D3 during uncertain financial times is probably not a good bet.  I'm leaning towards a tighter belt this fall.  Assuming we get to have a fall 2020 season......
kind of agree. Not saying I think the playoffs will be pared down at all, but I think seeing a SIAC-NWC first round game and a hypothetical UMHB and Hardin Simmons first round game would be a possibility to save one flight.
Title: Re: 2019 Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 20, 2020, 12:54:47 PM
DIII has already announced (per my podcast with Dan Dutcher) that the budget really doesn't have plans for belt tightening in a grand scheme. They have their money budgeted already.

What has been announced is that all championship banquets will not happen for any sport this upcoming academic year. That will help save a little under $500,000. Again, mainly to get the money put back into the reserve that needed to cover the shortfall this past academic year.