D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2009, 11:21:07 PM

Title: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2009, 11:21:07 PM
We have finished Week #7.  Let's start looking at the Pool C candidates.  It looks like all 2-loss teams are out of it.

South Region

UMHB, loser to Mississippi College.  (UMHB only could line up the ASC conference games.)
Thomas More/W&J loser.  (Thomas More also plays HCAC co-leader Mount St Joseph.)
Hampden-Sydney (If they lose to Randolph-Macon on Nov 14th.  RMC already has 2 in-region losses.)
Dickinson (loser to Johns Hopkins in the Centennial)
Centre (if they lose to Millsaps or Trinity.  Centre is at Millsaps and Trinity is at Depauw on 10/24.)
No candidates from the USA South.

North Region

Wheaton at North Central on 10/24 in the CCIW.  (IWU has a loss to Millikin and faces NCentral and Wheaton later in the season.)
Franklin/Mount St Joseph loser (HCAC) on 10/24.  ( MSJ faces Thomas More in their Bridge Bowl on 11/14.)
Capital at Otterbein (OAC) on 10/24. (Otterbein must play MUC on 11/7.)
Wabash (NCAC) plays at Wooster on 10/24 and at DePauw on 11/14.


West Region

St Thomas at Bethel (MIAC) on 11/7.
Coe's (IIAC)  game at Buena Vista on 11/7 is the only foe with a winning record.
UWW at UWSP (WIAC) on 10/31.
UW-LaCrosse hosts UWSP on 10/24 and UWW on 11/14.
Redlands (SCIAC)
Linfield at Willamette (NWC) on 10/24. (Willamette has an ugly loss to Concordia-Moorhead on 9/5.)
St Norbert vs Ripon (MWC) on 10/24.
No candidates in the UMAC.

East Region

Delaware Valley at Albright (MAC) on Nov 7th.
Lebanaon Valley at Albright (MAC) on Nov 14th.
Alfred at SJF (E8) on 10/24.
Kean, Rowan and Montclair State (NJAC) already have 1 in-region loss and still must play each other.
Union at Susquehanna (LL) on 11/14.

That is a preliminary list.  I invite other fans to outline the teams that have a chance at Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 18, 2009, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2009, 11:21:07 PM
We have finished Week #7.  Let's start looking at the Pool C candidates.  It looks like all 2-loss teams are out of it.

South Region

UMHB, loser to Mississippi College.  (UMHB only could line up the ASC conference games.)
Thomas More/W&J loser.  (Thomas More also plays HCAC co-leader Mount St Joseph.)
Hampden-Sydney (If they lose to Randolph-Macon on Nov 14th.  RMC already has 2 in-region losses.)
Dickinson (loser to Johns Hopkins in the Centennial)
Centre (if they lose to Millsaps or Trinity.  Centre is at Millsaps and Trinity is at Depauw on 10/24.)
No candidates from the USA South.

North Region

Wheaton at North Central on 10/24 in the CCIW.  (IWU has a loss to Millikin and faces NCentral and Wheaton later in the season.)
Franklin/Mount St Joseph loser on 10/24.  ( MSJ faces Thomas More in their Bridge Bowl on 11/14.)
Capital at Otterbein on 10/24. (Otterbein must play MUC on 11/7.)


Just last year Wheaton WON the 'North' region with two losses, but, yeah, any team with two losses is certainly in danger of staying home.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: BleacherBum on October 19, 2009, 12:01:57 AM
University of St. Thomas out of the West- 1 loss team. Loss comes at the hands of the #6 (at the time) Johnnies in OT. With a win over an up-and-down Bethel team, UST should finish 2nd in the MIAC with 1 loss and is a strong contender out of a stacked west region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on October 19, 2009, 12:06:21 AM
Ralph  and Ypsi

If  Austin puts one great game together they could be a player the last two weeks with games with  Depauw and Trinity.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 19, 2009, 12:14:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 18, 2009, 11:30:27 PM
...
Just last year Wheaton WON the 'North' region with two losses, but, yeah, any team with two losses is certainly in danger of staying home.
Yeah, only a few conferences, like the CCIW or maybe the E8, seem to be able to pull that off.   :-\
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 19, 2009, 12:18:38 AM
Coe looks like they are in pretty good shape.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 19, 2009, 12:19:35 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 19, 2009, 12:14:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 18, 2009, 11:30:27 PM
...
Just last year Wheaton WON the 'North' region with two losses, but, yeah, any team with two losses is certainly in danger of staying home.
Yeah, only a few conferences, like the CCIW or maybe the E8, seem to be able to pull that off.   :-\

Or an OAC team when one of the losses is MUC. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: b1gpapi on October 20, 2009, 08:38:09 PM
What would be the scenario for Randolph-Macon if they win the ODAC?  The ODAc is an AQ conference.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on October 20, 2009, 09:12:02 PM
in the CCIW if North Central loses this week they are likely done w 2 losses. If Wheaton loses they are a strong C candidate If they win out. IWU lost to millikin, who is 1-2 in conference, so they control their own destiny. If they win out they are the AQ (having wins over wheaton and NCC). If they lose again.....see North Central. IWU is a darkhorse here as they appear to have the best defense of the contenders (see results from common opponents) and if they get their QB back and can operate on offense again they have a good shot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2009, 09:31:26 PM
Quote from: b1gpapi on October 20, 2009, 08:38:09 PM
What would be the scenario for Randolph-Macon if they win the ODAC?  The ODAc is an AQ conference.

RMC earns the AQ and is probably sent somewhere for a first round game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pumkinattack on October 21, 2009, 01:52:08 PM
If there were hypothetically no pool C's in the East this year, what do people see as the likely outcome for bracketing?  I thought MUC has gotten moved to the east because it's close to Western NY where you're likely to get one to three teams in the playoffs reducing the flight burden and yet they imported Randolph Macon creating a flight right out of the break.  Does no pool C's in the East make it more likely that two South teams get imported (e.g. Wesley and either the PAC or CC rep)? 

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on October 22, 2009, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: pumkinattack on October 21, 2009, 01:52:08 PM
Does no pool C's in the East make it more likely that two South teams get imported (e.g. Wesley and either the PAC or CC rep)?

Depends on who the PAC rep is.  If Thomas More wins the PAC, and I were on the committee, I'd send an eastern Ohio school to the "East" and put Thomas More in the "North."
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on October 22, 2009, 05:39:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2009, 09:31:26 PM
Quote from: b1gpapi on October 20, 2009, 08:38:09 PM
What would be the scenario for Randolph-Macon if they win the ODAC?  The ODAc is an AQ conference.

RMC earns the AQ and is probably sent somewhere for a first round game.

I see a couple varying scenarios if the Jackets play their way in.

R-MC could be a 7 seed in front of the USAC champ; not sure how they stack up against NCWC currently, but they'll have a common opponent, and R-MC would need to beat H-SC to get in, and H-SC thumped NCWC 55-23 in week 1.

The South 8 seed could go to Wesley (or W&J if Wesley is the East's No. 1 and the Prezzies beat TMore).

Also, if by some stretch of the imagination there's an odd number of Texas teams, involving some combination of Trinity, Huntingdon, Miss Coll and UMHB, someone from Virginia or N.C. or Ky. might have to travel.

Centre and Thomas More could meet in the first round of the "south" bracket. But I checked, Centre is more than 600 miles from Miss Coll

If H-SC goes unbeaten, they should get a home game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on October 22, 2009, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: pumkinattack on October 21, 2009, 01:52:08 PM
I thought MUC has gotten moved to the east because it's close to Western NY where you're likely to get one to three teams in the playoffs reducing the flight burden and yet they imported Randolph Macon creating a flight right out of the break. 

What am I missing here? Randolph-Macon is not 500 miles from Mount Union and they did not fly there for last season's first-round game. Hobart and Cortland are actually closer to Alliance than R-MC is (shoot over to Buffalo and ride along Lake Erie and you're there), so they didn't fly.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSC85 on October 22, 2009, 06:29:35 PM
How hard was it for you to say if HSC goes undefeated?   :) :) 

They still have much work to do.  Last season they couldn't do it and Randolph Macon was one of the reasons. 

Thank you for all you do to promote D III football.

BTW - Ashland, VA to Alliance, OH is only 399 miles according to mapquest.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pumkinattack on October 23, 2009, 08:13:41 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 22, 2009, 05:46:13 PM

What am I missing here? Randolph-Macon is not 500 miles from Mount Union and they did not fly there for last season's first-round game. Hobart and Cortland are actually closer to Alliance than R-MC is (shoot over to Buffalo and ride along Lake Erie and you're there), so they didn't fly.

I'll be damned, Eastern VA to Alliance is only 400 miles.  I just assumed it was much further, necessitating the flight.  I know Hobart and Cortland are closer and that's why I said that the MUC importation makes sense because they are close enough to most Western/Central NY teams (plus probably the MAC teams also), but the RMC one still doesn't strike me as random as much as concocted.  MUC deserved (and deserves most years) a #1 seed, overall and should get the weakest entrant, but so much of the process seems less than random that I still think they may as well seed all 32 and use the committee.  Obviously with flights and $$ this won't happen, but the mixing of subjective with systematic just looks worse. 

That was my point with the Pool C this year.  Its looking like they're going to have to import more than one team right now.  It's not just about a #1 seed.  Are they just going to pull in a lesser playoff entrant (assuming that's not from the East, which is a big leap right now) to feed to MUC, or are they going to do something different this year. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on October 23, 2009, 03:50:44 PM
I know MUC is the one everybody thinks of when they think of importing a North team to the East because that is what has been done in the past couple of years.  But, if an undefeated Wesley is put in that bracket, I don't see the committee sending MUC there too.  Look for Case Western Reserve to be sent East instead.  It's only about 50 miles from Alliance.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pumkinattack on October 23, 2009, 04:17:32 PM
John Carroll was sent over in 02 and Centennial teams (plus maybe PAC teams) have been put in this bracket (have to stop calling it a region even though the Pool A bids and distance restrictions make it sort of a regional), so there's a lot of things can be done.  Historically its been that the east will have a handful of teams in the, say 10 - 30 or so range, but no one in the top 6-8, so the #1 seed has been the question.  This year, there may not be criteria worthy pool C's (although we may see one between the MAC and NJAC, as well as the crazy possibility that Plymouth State grabs one if they lose to Curry), which means there are a lot more possibilities in the east.  That's what I'm curious the more experienced and knowledgeable playoff posters would suppose can/will happen.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2009, 04:57:14 PM
Franklin lost to Mount St Joseph 26-16.

I mention this game because MSJ probably ascends to the best ranking in the North Region by a HCAC team next Wednesday, and has the inside track for the Pool A bid. 

Should Thomas More be in consideration for a Pool C bid, a win over MSJ in the Bridge Bowl will be a good one to have.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on October 24, 2009, 07:17:36 PM
Does a loss to I-AA Butler kill Franklin's Pool C chances?  The way I see it, the committee could see Franklin as an 5-1 team, including a win over Trine who is currently 6-1.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on October 24, 2009, 08:35:22 PM
Don't count out Ohio Northern quite yet even though they have 2 losses.   Their win over North Central keeps looking better and better.  And their 2 losses are quality with 30-10 against Mount after being tied 10-10 at half and then 38-36 against Otterbein who is still undefeated.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2009, 08:52:10 PM
Quote from: HScoach on October 24, 2009, 08:35:22 PM
Don't count out Ohio Northern quite yet even though they have 2 losses.   Their win over North Central keeps looking better and better.  And their 2 losses are quality with 30-10 against Mount after being tied 10-10 at half and then 38-36 against Otterbein who is still undefeated.

Otterbein at MUC on Nov 7th.

ONU at Capital on Nov 7th.

Those look like they are games for Pool C bids, too.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: FightnScot77 on October 24, 2009, 08:56:38 PM
Quote from: altor on October 24, 2009, 07:17:36 PM
Does a loss to I-AA Butler kill Franklin's Pool C chances?  The way I see it, the committee could see Franklin as an 5-1 team, including a win over Trine who is currently 6-1.

Keith's words:
HEARTLAND COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC CONFERENCE (HCAC)
Kickoff '09 ranking: 18th
Playoff prospects: AQ; Pool C bid possible (NOTE: wording)
Intensity of title race: Kneel down. Week 8 Franklin vs. Mount St. Joseph seems to be the title-decider. The conference's other teams each have three losses or more. Pool C potential is there for the Grizzlies-Lions loser, as Franklin's non-conference wins over Trine and Baldwin-Wallace could help, as would a season-finale victory against Thomas More for MSJ.
To answer your question..the committee doesn't handicap Franklin because of the losss to Butler...you are right about in region record currently at 5-1.

The north (and west region) is loaded this year. Pool C seed bids are going to be tight and a one-loss team (in region) will likely stay home this year. The season isn't over and while I like your chances (should you win out!), I'm not on the committee. Good luck here on out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on October 24, 2009, 09:47:05 PM
Quote from: FightnScot77 on October 24, 2009, 08:56:38 PMThe season isn't over and while I like your chances (should you win out!), I'm not on the committee. Good luck here on out.
Not my team.  I'm a grad from another HCAC school.  But thanks for the reply.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on October 24, 2009, 10:17:30 PM
ONU would most certainly be the #1 2 loss team on the board (and then Bethel?) but at this point there are an awful lot of 1 loss teams. Its been rare that a 2 loss team gets a chance but if it gets that far ONU has a good chance.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSC85 on October 25, 2009, 06:11:00 PM
I counted 50 teams with 0 or 1 region loss at this time. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2009, 07:30:23 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on October 25, 2009, 06:11:00 PM
I counted 50 teams with 0 or 1 region loss at this time.  
I anticipate that 22 of the 23 Pool A teams will have 0 or 1 in-region loss.

We still have three big weekends of conference play, too.

These were some of the choice ones that I found in looking for games in this week's ASC Pick'ems.

Cal Lu at Oxy (and Redlands at Cal Lu on 11/14)

North Central at IWU  (and Wheaton at IWU on 11/7)

UW-Whitewater at UW-Stevens Point (One UWSP loss to Central)

Rowan at Kean  (Montclair at Rowan on 11/7 and Kean at Montclair St on 11/14)

Thomas More at W&J  (Thomas More at MSJ on 11/14).

There are 13 teams of your current 50.

Here are some more games among 0-1 loss teams in the next three weeks.

Albright plays Del Valley on 11/7 and LebValley on 11/14 to decide the MAC.

Undefeateds Otterbein at MUC on 11/7.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 09:33:00 PM
East Region
1. Albright 6-0 7-0   MAC(FDU, at Del Valley, Leb Valley)
2. Alfred 6-0 6-0        E8(Rochester,  at Ithaca, Utica)
3. Delaware Valley 5-0 6-1 6-1   MAC(at Kings Albright  at Widener)
4. Kean 6-1 6-1          NJAC(Rowan,  at WPU, at Montclair St)
5. Rowan 6-1 6-1             NJAC(at Kean; Montclair St, New Jersey)
6. Montclair State 6-1 6-1   NJAC(WConn, at Rowan, Kean)
7. Springfield 6-1 6-1          E8  (hosts Ithaca and SJF; open)
8. Lebanon Valley 6-1 6-1MAC(at Widener, Lycoming at Albright)
9. Union 5-1 5-2                   LL(RPI  at Merchant Marine,  Susquehanna)
10. Curry 6-1 6-2                NEFC     (at Nichols, Mass-Dartmouth, NEFC Championship)


Pat Coleman has confirmed that JHU and Wesley are in-region (200-mile radius) rule.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 09:46:25 PM
North Region
1. Mount Union 6-0 7-0OACat JCU, Otterbein, Marietta
2. Otterbein 7-0 7-0OACat Marietta, at Mount Union, JCU
3. Wittenberg 5-0 7-0NCACat Denison, Allegheny, Wooster
4. Case Western Reserve 6-0 7-0Pool Bat Chicago, at Carnegie-Mellon, Wash UStL
5. Mount St. Joseph 7-0 7-0HCACat Manchester, Defiance, Thomas More*
6. North Central (Ill.) 6-1 6-1CCIWat IWU, at Augustana, Elmhurst
7. Wabash 5-1 6-1NCACat Oberlin, Hiram, at DePauw**
8. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-1 6-1CCIWElmhurst, at IWU, Carthage
9. Illinois Wesleyan 6-1 6-1CCIW     North Central, Wheaton, at North Park
10. Trine 6-1 6-1MIAAAlbion, Adrian Ky, Christian

*Thomas More is a Regionally Ranked (South) team.

**Wabash/DePauw Monon Bell game is between regional ranked teams
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 10:02:59 PM
South Region
1. Wesley 3-0 4-0 7-0Pool BSalisbury, Lake Erie, Ohio Dominican
2. Mississippi College 6-0 6-1ASCHoward Payne, at Sul Ross State, Texas Lutheran
3. Washington and Jefferson 7-0 7-0Pres ACThomas More, at Bethany, Waynesburg
4. Hampden-Sydney 8-0 8-0ODACat Catholic, Salisbury, at RMC
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 4-1 6-1ASCETBU, at Howard Payne, Sul Ross State
6. Thomas More 7-0 7-0Pres ACat W&J, Geneva, at MSJ*
7. Centre 6-1 6-1SCACRhodes, at Trinity TX, open date
8. Huntingdon** 3-0 6-1Pool BLaGrange, at BSC, at South Alabama
9. Dickinson 6-1 6-1CCat Muhlenberg, Juniata, Ursinus
10. DePauw 5-1 5-1SCACat BSC, Austin, Wabash***

*Mount St Joseph is a Regionally Ranked (North) Team.

**Huntingdon may have 2 more in-region wins over SLIAC opponents.

Pat Coleman has confirmed that Wesley's win over Delaware Valley is in-region by virtue of the 200-mile radius rule.

***Wabash/DePauw Monon Bell game is between regional ranked teams

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 10:14:37 PM
West Region

1. Linfield 6-0 7-0NWCPuget Sound, open date, Pac Luth
2. Central 8-0 8-0IIACBuena Vista, at Wartburg, open date
3. St. John's 8-0 8-0MIACopen date, at Augsburg, Carleton
4. UW-Whitewater 5-0 7-0WIACat UWSP, UW-O, at UW-L
5. Monmouth 8-0 8-0MWCIllinois College, at Knox, open date
6. St. Thomas 6-1 6-1MIACAugsburg, at Bethel, Northwestern MN
7. Coe 6-1 6-1IIACat Loras, at Buena Vista, Cornell
8. Occidental 5-1 5-1SCIAC    Cal Luth, at P-P, at Whittier
9. Cal Lutheran 5-1 5-1SCIAC    at Oxy, at LaVerne, Redlands
10. UW-Stevens Point 4-1 5-2WIACUWW, UWRF, at UWP


Cal Lu 24, Oxy 14.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Schwami on October 28, 2009, 11:17:00 PM
Ralph, you can add that the game between Wabash and DePauw also involves regionally ranked teams, as you note for Mount St. Joseph - Thomas More.

Also note that Case Western is Pool B.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2009, 12:06:34 AM
Quote from: Schwami on October 28, 2009, 11:17:00 PM
Ralph, you can add that the game between Wabash and DePauw also involves regionally ranked teams, as you note for Mount St. Joseph - Thomas More.

Also note that Case Western is Pool B.
Thanks and +1!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on October 29, 2009, 09:31:55 AM
You can find this in the 2009 D3 Championship handbook but since these guys will be on the hot seat in the coming weeks it may be helpful to know who the folks responsible for the weekly regional rankings are:

East Evaluation Region
Mike DeLong, Springfield College, co-chair
Joy Solomen, Rowan University, co-chair
John Burrell, Western Connecticut State University
Scott Greene, University of Rochester
Tom Kelley, Framingham State College
Shawn McIntry, Norwich University
Dave Murray, Alfred University
David Wood, Widener University

North Evaluation Region
Norm Eash, Illinois Wesleyan University, co-chair
Tim Gleason, Ohio Athletic Conference, co-chair
Jim Barnes, Augustana College (Illinois)
Jon Cooper, Benedictine University (Illinois)
Shannon Griffith, Manchester College
Eric Hehman, Greenville College
Dean Paul, Ohio Northern University
Craig Rundle, Albion College
Ted Stanley, Kenyon College

South Evaluation Region
Brad Bankston, Old Dominoin Athletic Conference, co-chair
Chris Smith, Grove City College, co-chair
Robert Black, University of the South
Bob Colbert, Saint Vincent College
Mike Dunlevy, Averett University
Pete Gallagher, Ursinus College
Norman Joseph, Mississippi College
Don Montgomery, Emory and Henry College
Todd Mooney, LaGrange College

West Evaluation Region
Chad Eisele, Knox College, co-chair
Mike Maynard, University of Redlands, co-chair
Andy Ankeny, University of La Verne
Glenn Caruso, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)
Mike Durnin, Luther College
Chris Howard, Lawrence University
Duey Naatz, University of Wisconsin, Stout
Bob Owens, Chapman University
Joe Smith, Linfiled College

These people meet weekly to rank their own regions for the weekly rankings. How they rank them on selection Sunday will determine what order they get to the table for Pool C discussion as each region will have only their top Pool C candidate at the table at any given time to be compared with the other 3 currently at the table. The Chair of each region is also on the national committee that decides who is in the field.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2009, 01:20:51 AM
Well, except the national committee can and often does change the rankings from the ones submitted from the regional committee.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2009, 01:29:32 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2009, 01:20:51 AM
Well, except the national committee can and often does change the rankings from the ones submitted from the regional committee.

Since the final rankings are never presented to the public, do you KNOW this, or are you speculating?

And either way, what IS the point of the non-final regional rankings (besides giving us something to talk about)?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2009, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 10:02:59 PM
South Region
1. Wesley 3-0 4-0 7-0Pool BSalisbury, Lake Erie, Ohio Dominican
2. Mississippi College 6-0 6-1ASCHoward Payne, at Sul Ross State, Texas Lutheran
3. Washington and Jefferson 7-0 7-0Pres ACThomas More, at Bethany, Waynesburg
4. Hampden-Sydney 8-0 8-0ODACat Catholic, Salisbury, at RMC
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 4-1 6-1ASCETBU, at Howard Payne, Sul Ross State
6. Thomas More 7-0 7-0Pres ACat W&J, Geneva, at MSJ*
7. Centre 6-1 6-1SCACRhodes, at Trinity TX, open date
8. Huntingdon** 3-0 6-1Pool BLaGrange, at BSC, at South Alabama
9. Dickinson 6-1 6-1CCat Muhlenberg, Juniata, Ursinus
10. DePauw 5-1 5-1SCACat BSC, Austin, Wabash***

*Mount St Joseph is a Regionally Ranked (North) Team.

**Huntingdon may have 2 more in-region wins over SLIAC opponents.

Pat Coleman has confirmed that Wesley's win over Delaware Valley is in-region by virtue of the 200-mile radius rule.

***Wabash/DePauw Monon Bell game is between regional ranked teams

Thomas More 14, W&J 7

Howard Payne 38, Miss College 24.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2009, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 09:46:25 PM
North Region
1. Mount Union 6-0 7-0OACat JCU, Otterbein, Marietta
2. Otterbein 7-0 7-0OACat Marietta, at Mount Union, JCU
3. Wittenberg 5-0 7-0NCACat Denison, Allegheny, Wooster
4. Case Western Reserve 6-0 7-0Pool Bat Chicago, at Carnegie-Mellon, Wash UStL
5. Mount St. Joseph 7-0 7-0HCACat Manchester, Defiance, Thomas More*
6. North Central (Ill.) 6-1 6-1CCIWat IWU, at Augustana, Elmhurst
7. Wabash 5-1 6-1NCACat Oberlin, Hiram, at DePauw**
8. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-1 6-1CCIWElmhurst, at IWU, Carthage
9. Illinois Wesleyan 6-1 6-1CCIW     North Central, Wheaton, at North Park
10. Trine 6-1 6-1MIAAAlbion, Adrian Ky, Christian

*Thomas More is a Regionally Ranked (South) team.

**Wabash/DePauw Monon Bell game is between regional ranked teams

Marietta 25 Otterbein 22.  Does the OAC gauntlet knock off good Pool C candidates?

Now Otterbein needs to beat MUC for the Pool A bid or possibly sit home.

IWU 28,  NCC 22 OT
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2009, 06:49:46 PM
Cut and pasted from the MIAC board...

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2009, 06:48:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2009, 06:41:36 PM
The carnage in the OAC (Otterbein) and CCIW (North Central) should help St. Thomas' "C" chances greatly.
North Central has an in-region loss to Ohio Northern in addition to the loss to IWU today.

Wheaton has a conference loss to NCC and plays at IWU next week.

IWU's loss is to Millikin.

It looks like the CCIW is on the bubble for a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on October 31, 2009, 07:08:27 PM
Wheaton continues to be the only possible pool C for the CCIW. If they win out they will have 1 loss and ncc will be AQ. If IWU beats wheaton next week, iwu is AQ and ncc and wheaton get to watch from home. Pool C watchers from other conferences are hoping for a Titan sweep.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 31, 2009, 07:52:47 PM
Quote from: USee on October 31, 2009, 07:08:27 PM
Wheaton continues to be the only possible pool C for the CCIW. If they win out they will have 1 loss and ncc will be AQ. If IWU beats wheaton next week, iwu is AQ and ncc and wheaton get to watch from home. Pool C watchers from other conferences are hoping for a Titan sweep.


Yeah, I've just alerted them on the OAC about that - we'll take all the fans we can get! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2009, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 10:14:37 PM
West Region

1. Linfield 6-0 7-0NWCPuget Sound, open date, Pac Luth
2. Central 8-0 8-0IIACBuena Vista, at Wartburg, open date
3. St. John's 8-0 8-0MIACopen date, at Augsburg, Carleton
4. UW-Whitewater 5-0 7-0WIACat UWSP, UW-O, at UW-L
5. Monmouth 8-0 8-0MWCIllinois College, at Knox, open date
6. St. Thomas 6-1 6-1MIACAugsburg, at Bethel, Northwestern MN
7. Coe 6-1 6-1IIACat Loras, at Buena Vista, Cornell
8. Occidental 5-1 5-1SCIAC    Cal Luth, at P-P, at Whittier
9. Cal Lutheran 5-1 5-1SCIAC    at Oxy, at LaVerne, Redlands
10. UW-Stevens Point 4-1 5-2WIACUWW, UWRF, at UWP



UWW 41, UWSP 12

Cal Lu 24, Oxy 14.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2009, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2009, 09:46:25 PM
North Region
1. Mount Union 6-0 7-0OACat JCU, Otterbein, Marietta
2. Otterbein 7-0 7-0OACat Marietta, at Mount Union, JCU
3. Wittenberg 5-0 7-0NCACat Denison, Allegheny, Wooster
4. Case Western Reserve 6-0 7-0Pool Bat Chicago, at Carnegie-Mellon, Wash UStL
5. Mount St. Joseph 7-0 7-0HCACat Manchester, Defiance, Thomas More*
6. North Central (Ill.) 6-1 6-1CCIWat IWU, at Augustana, Elmhurst
7. Wabash 5-1 6-1NCACat Oberlin, Hiram, at DePauw**
8. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-1 6-1CCIWElmhurst, at IWU, Carthage
9. Illinois Wesleyan 6-1 6-1CCIW     North Central, Wheaton, at North Park
10. Trine 6-1 6-1MIAAAlbion, Adrian Ky, Christian

*Thomas More is a Regionally Ranked (South) team.

**Wabash/DePauw Monon Bell game is between regional ranked teams

It will be very interesting to see how Saturday's results change these rankings.  Does NCC fall out (which hurts IWU as their win now comes against a team not regionally ranked)?  How far does Otterbein fall after losing to a team with just 2 wins prior to Saturday?  If North Central falls out, who moves in?  

My personal opinion...
- I think Otterbein has to fall considerably...down below the Wabash/Wheaton/IWU group.  You just can't lose to Marietta, even if you've got some QB issues.  
- I think Wheaton and/or IWU move ahead of Wabash (for one week only...the loser of Saturday's big game will obviously fall back down)
- I think NCC falls out and gets replaced by Allegheny who gets to see their name on the board for a week.  
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 02, 2009, 11:02:35 AM
What's interesting is there really aren't many Pool C teams in the North (barring upsets of Witt, MUC or CWR) the only pool C candidates in the North are Wabash and Wheaton. Where they end up relative to each other MAY be important but I have to believe if they both finish with 1 loss they both get in.

You may also see Concordia, Il make this list as they are the likely AQ from their conf after their win over Concordia WI.

The 2 loss team scenario is a lot more real this week than it was last week. Still a lot of 1 loss teams but their are some big games for many of them coming up.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 02, 2009, 11:45:21 AM
Otterbein's loss to Marietta puts the 2nd OAC's Poll C bid in jeopardy.   If they had taken care of business as expected, the easy make the field at 9-1.  But you just can't lose to Marietta.  If Otterbein was anywhere near a real top 20 team, you could leave your entire starting lineup at home and still beat Marietta.  They're horrid. 

Now with Otterbein going to Mount with a 3rd string QB, you can forget about them putting up a good showing against the Raiders like Ohio Northern and Capital did.  Otterbein's defense isn't near strong enough to hold the Raiders under 40 points, but they had the chance to score in the mid 20's or higher to make it look very respectable in defeat.  You can forget that chance now.  Mount will end Otterbein's playoff hopes with a laugher in the 45 to 7 range.  Or worse.

I think the best shot the OAC has is for the winner of this week's Ohio Northern at Capital battle.   Northern already has a big win over North Central and Capital was a few minutes away from beating MUC.  I think the winner of ONU/Capital is the first 8-2 team selected for a Pool C bid.  Behind that might be Bethel or whichever CCIW team finishes 8-2. 

The OAC's best chance is probably for the CCIW to beat each other up over the next 2 weeks so that NCC ends up with the AQ.  Thereby giving the OAC a win over a strong conferences champion.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2009, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: USee on November 02, 2009, 11:02:35 AM
What's interesting is there really aren't many Pool C teams in the North (barring upsets of Witt, MUC or CWR) the only pool C candidates in the North are Wabash and Wheaton. Where they end up relative to each other MAY be important but I have to believe if they both finish with 1 loss they both get in.

You may also see Concordia, Il make this list as they are the likely AQ from their conf after their win over Concordia WI.

The 2 loss team scenario is a lot more real this week than it was last week. Still a lot of 1 loss teams but their are some big games for many of them coming up.
Wabash still has DePauw in the Monon Bell game.  That might be for the Pool C bid, too.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 02, 2009, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2009, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: USee on November 02, 2009, 11:02:35 AM
What's interesting is there really aren't many Pool C teams in the North (barring upsets of Witt, MUC or CWR) the only pool C candidates in the North are Wabash and Wheaton. Where they end up relative to each other MAY be important but I have to believe if they both finish with 1 loss they both get in.

You may also see Concordia, Il make this list as they are the likely AQ from their conf after their win over Concordia WI.

The 2 loss team scenario is a lot more real this week than it was last week. Still a lot of 1 loss teams but their are some big games for many of them coming up.
Wabash still has DePauw in the Monon Bell game.  That might be for the Pool C bid, too.
True but it only affects the North Region pool C teams if Wabash loses. DePauw is  a South Region Team. That's important since only 1 pool C team from each region is at the table on Selection Sunday at a time.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Schwami on November 02, 2009, 03:50:15 PM
Quote from: USee on November 02, 2009, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2009, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: USee on November 02, 2009, 11:02:35 AM
What's interesting is there really aren't many Pool C teams in the North (barring upsets of Witt, MUC or CWR) the only pool C candidates in the North are Wabash and Wheaton. Where they end up relative to each other MAY be important but I have to believe if they both finish with 1 loss they both get in.

You may also see Concordia, Il make this list as they are the likely AQ from their conf after their win over Concordia WI.

The 2 loss team scenario is a lot more real this week than it was last week. Still a lot of 1 loss teams but their are some big games for many of them coming up.
Wabash still has DePauw in the Monon Bell game.  That might be for the Pool C bid, too.
True but it only affects the North Region pool C teams if Wabash loses. DePauw is  a South Region Team. That's important since only 1 pool C team from each region is at the table on Selection Sunday at a time.

While the Monon Bell game may turn in to a "play in" game, it may be another forlorn hope for DePauw even with a victory.  DePauw cannot finish better than 8-1, which may put it behind all other Pool C hopefuls.  They could also line up third behind UMHB and W&J in the South Region.  It would help DePauw if Wabash remained regionally ranked, but there could be a logjam of quality 8-2 teams in the North that keeps Wabash out of the final regional rankings at that point.  (Does it matter if a team has a win over a regionally ranked opponent from a different region? Or does it count only if the team is from the same region?)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2009, 03:55:40 PM
As far as the selection committee goes, Wabash would only be 8-1 at the end of the year as well, Schwami.  That @#*$#'n Washington game that Wabash has to take and I hate with a passion is non-regional and doesn't help Wabash at all.   If Pool C is as tight after 11/14 as it is right now, that one game that doesn't count for squat could be a difference maker. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 02, 2009, 03:58:03 PM
It is certain that the final Regional rankings are an important excercise to determine pool C bids. If a 1 loss Depauw is sitting behind 2 other 1 loss teams they may never get to the table while a 1 loss Wheaton will be there from the start (if Wabash loses to Depauw--that is NOT a predicition). There are still so many key games to play that it won't surprise me at all to see a 2 loss team in the picture.

Wally,
I don't think 8-1 is looked at any differently than 9-1 in the rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2009, 03:59:18 PM
DePauw will have a win against a regionally ranked opponent - Centre, should both they and DePauw win on Saturday.  That should help.  
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: DPU3619 on November 02, 2009, 04:34:30 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2009, 03:59:18 PM
DePauw will have a win against a regionally ranked opponent - Centre, should both they and DePauw win on Saturday.  That should help. 

It should indeed, particularly since neither UMHB or W&J have one.  I know you guys touched on it above, but if 2 loss Wabash stays in the North ranking, DePauw would be 8-1 overall with a 2-0 record vs. region ranked opponents.

EDIT: Nevermind.  DePauw didn't beat Centre.  I regret the error.  Maybe Millsaps sneaks up there, else they'd be 1-0 against region ranked teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2009, 06:12:07 PM
Duh, that's right.  Sorry.   :(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: DPU3619 on November 02, 2009, 06:24:58 PM
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpunditkitchen.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F05%2F128872516326470663.jpg&hash=dd836f75097b15de7bba0a6d28eb00f06731deee)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Hawks88 on November 02, 2009, 06:29:35 PM
Didn't stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night? tsk tsk ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: d-train on November 02, 2009, 06:31:02 PM
I feel like I'm looking over four lists to get a vague picture of Pool C likelihoods.  Does this help?  

One-loss Pool C candidates:

UMHB
St. Thomas
Wheaton (@ IWU this week)
Coe
Wabash/DePauw winner (DePauw still roughly 50/50 for Pool A - depending on Centre @ Trinity)
Wash. & Jeff.
Springfield
St. Norbert
Redlands (still to play @ Cal Lu)

Obviously teams need to win to stay on that list.  Others might be added if they lose grip of their Pool A (perhaps Centre; Albright?).

Strongest two-loss teams:
ONU/Capital winner
Bethel (if they knock off St. Thomas)
Others? Willamette?


Thoughts, edits, corrections, etc. are welcome...

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2009, 06:40:16 PM
In a 3-way tie in the SCIAC, Cal Lu gets the bid on the SICAC's "Rose Bowl" rule.

Redlands could be a one-loss (Oxy) SCIAC tri-champ.

If St Thomas beats Bethel, then their only loss is in OT to SJU.

Coe has one loss, 24-6 to Central.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
D-train, Centre would be a one-loss Pool C candidate should they win this weekend (50-50) and DePauw lose to Austin (maybe 20% chance).  
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: d-train on November 02, 2009, 06:50:37 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
D-train, Centre would be a one-loss Pool C candidate should they win this weekend (50-50) and DePauw lose to Austin (maybe 20% chance). 

Okay, I noted that above. DePauw holds the head-to-head for the Pool A over Millsaps if Centre loses, right?

I don't know teams outside the West very well (especially East teams/scenarios).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2009, 09:11:40 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 02, 2009, 06:31:02 PM
I feel like I'm looking over four lists to get a vague picture of Pool C likelihoods.  Does this help?  

One-loss Pool C candidates:

UMHB
St. Thomas
Wheaton (@ IWU this week)
Coe
Wabash/DePauw winner (DePauw still roughly 50/50 for Pool A - depending on Centre @ Trinity)
Wash. & Jeff.
Springfield
St. Norbert
Redlands (still to play @ Cal Lu)

Obviously teams need to win to stay on that list.  Others might be added if they lose grip of their Pool A (perhaps Centre; Albright?).

Strongest two-loss teams:
ONU/Capital winner
Bethel (if they knock off St. Thomas)
Others? Willamette?


Thoughts, edits, corrections, etc. are welcome...

+1!  Looks good.

Let's overlay the Wednesday regional rankings on your table.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2009, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: Schwami on November 02, 2009, 03:50:15 PM
DePauw cannot finish better than 8-1, which may put it behind all other Pool C hopefuls. 

There's no evidence that suggests that 8-1 is treated any different than 9-1, by the way.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 03, 2009, 12:01:53 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2009, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: Schwami on November 02, 2009, 03:50:15 PM
DePauw cannot finish better than 8-1, which may put it behind all other Pool C hopefuls. 

There's no evidence that suggests that 8-1 is treated any different than 9-1, by the way.

Ah yes Pat buit there is no evidence that it isn't either!!!!  ;) Noone ever sees the evidence only the verdict when the seeds come out!!  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 03, 2009, 11:57:43 AM
Quote from: d-train on November 02, 2009, 06:31:02 PM
I feel like I'm looking over four lists to get a vague picture of Pool C likelihoods.  Does this help?  

One-loss Pool C candidates:

UMHB
St. Thomas
Wheaton (@ IWU this week)
Coe
Wabash/DePauw winner (DePauw still roughly 50/50 for Pool A - depending on Centre @ Trinity)
Wash. & Jeff.
Springfield
St. Norbert
Redlands (still to play @ Cal Lu)

Obviously teams need to win to stay on that list.  Others might be added if they lose grip of their Pool A (perhaps Centre; Albright?).

Strongest two-loss teams:
ONU/Capital winner
Bethel (if they knock off St. Thomas)
Others? Willamette?


Thoughts, edits, corrections, etc. are welcome...

I believe Plymouth State of the NEFC is 7-1 in region (despite what the SOS page says).  Their opening loss against D-II St. Anselm is out of region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 03, 2009, 12:04:13 PM
Thanks. This is the problem with schools having access to our database. Sometimes they change things. This used to be correct on our site.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 03, 2009, 12:47:36 PM
I was also going to point out that you might change Springfield to Springfield/St John Fisher winner.

St John Fisher is 4-1 in region, but out-of-region losses to Mount Union and Salisbury might be enough to remove them from consideration.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 07, 2009, 07:56:56 PM
Those removed from the category have been struckthrough.  Additions (even the unlikely ones) in bold.

Quote from: d-train on November 02, 2009, 06:31:02 PM
I feel like I'm looking over four lists to get a vague picture of Pool C likelihoods.  Does this help?  

One-loss Pool C candidates:

UMHB  - Beat Howard Payne 45-7
St. Thomas  - Beat Bethel 19-10
Wheaton (@ IWU this week)  - Lost to IWU 20-17
Coe  - beat Buena Vista 31-20
Wabash/DePauw winner
     Wabash beat Hiram 41-0
     DePauw beat Austin 34-23
     Trinity beat Centre 27-17, making DePauw Pool A
Wash. & Jeff.  - beat Bethany 49-0
Springfield  - lost to St John Fisher 34-7
St. Norbert - beat Illinois College 49-0
Redlands (still to play @ Cal Lu)  - plays late tonight
Albright/Lebanon Valley winner
Plymouth St - beat Salve Regina 33-7
St John Fisher (1 in-region loss, 2 more OoR losses) - beat Springfield 34-7

Obviously teams need to win to stay on that list.  Others might be added if they lose grip of their Pool A (perhaps Centre; Albright?).

Strongest two-loss teams:
ONU/Capital winner - ONU wins 31-21
Bethel (if they knock off St. Thomas)  - lost to St Thomas 19-10
Others? Willamette?
Otterbein?
North Central?
Wheaton?
Springfield?
Will a two-loss team even get to the table?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2009, 08:53:20 PM
With one week left, let's assume that the Pool C candidates make it to the table.

South Region

UMHB
W&J

East Region

Lebanon Valley/Albright winner
Plymouth State
SJF

West Region

St Thomas
Coe
St Norbert
Redlands

North Region

Wabash

Everyone else has 2 in-region losses.

Otterbein
ONU
NCC
Wheaton
etc.
...

A two loss team might make it to the table in the North Region, but that may be the only region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2009, 09:33:32 PM
IF Wabash loses the Monon Bell game, a 2-loss team will be at the table from the get-go in the North.  We may need to examine the SOS and other criteria for several North teams to guesstimate who starts at the table.

IMO several North 2-loss teams are better than all but a couple of the 1-loss teams, but it may be hard to win on the criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: JK on November 07, 2009, 09:51:38 PM
Otterbein is a shell of the team they were a few weeks ago, even with Schlosser playing.  They are seriously beat up and I don't think its out of the question that John Carroll may give them a run next week. 

Despite them holding the head to head against ONU, I think if the OAC gets a second team (as has been the custom) in that it will be the P-Bears.  It was week 1, but they did knock off NCC.  You may recall that a few years ago Capital got in with 2 losses despite a second place tie with ONU.

Oh, some of you know, despite my profile pic I am a Capital fan.  My pic is a result of a friendly wager with our Otterbein poster on the OAC board regarding the result of the CAP-OTT game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 08, 2009, 01:05:48 AM
Altor, et. al., thanks for the posts. Was just about to sit down & start figuring things out. Helpful stuff.

Lotta interesting results today ... IWU might make CCIW a one-bid league again. ONU has to get in before NCC, but Wheaton could have a shot again.

Ypsi I agree with your second paragraph ... A two-loss North team could start on the table and never get off/in.

There's even more Pool C potential ... If the Jackets steal the ODAC again, HSC would join the group.

What's the sitch in the E8? Ith > Alf > Spfld > SJF > Ith :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 08, 2009, 01:27:06 AM
If I had to guess, without the benefit of the new numbers, I'd guess UMHB, St. Thomas and Coe are the first three in. Then it depends on Bash. If they go in, then the two-loss north teams get on the table. If they are a two-loss north team, maybe ONU starts on there. And then that depends on if NCC stays regionally ranked.

Then it's what, W&J on in the south, Alb/LV in the east and St N or Redlands out west? (can't scroll up  here, going off memory) ... That'd be interesting with 2-3 spots open.

One-loss W&J over two-loss ONU (and NCC) might mean that it's wiser to schedule light after all. If they sit on the table while other teams get in, then maybe it's the final indictment of it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: algernon on November 08, 2009, 08:18:54 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2009, 01:27:06 AM
One-loss W&J over two-loss ONU (and NCC) might mean that it's wiser to schedule light after all. If they sit on the table while other teams get in, then maybe it's the final indictment of it.

Johns Hopkins can win the CC AQ if they win next week, leaving Dickinson (who, with a win over Ursinus, would be 9-1) hoping for a Pool C bid.  Given that Dickinson is higher in the regional rankings than W&J, wouldn't they have a better chance of a Pool C than W&J?  
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ryan Tipps on November 08, 2009, 08:34:16 AM
Quote from: algernon on November 08, 2009, 08:18:54 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2009, 01:27:06 AM
One-loss W&J over two-loss ONU (and NCC) might mean that it's wiser to schedule light after all. If they sit on the table while other teams get in, then maybe it's the final indictment of it.

Johns Hopkins can win the CC AQ if they win next week, leaving Dickinson (who, with a win over Ursinus, would be 9-1) hoping for a Pool C bid.  Given that Dickinson is higher in the regional rankings than W&J, wouldn't they have a better chance of a Pool C than W&J?  

I think you're right algernon. I was just sitting down to post this same thing :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 08, 2009, 08:39:41 AM
The only hitch would be where Dickinson v WJ end up in the final rankings, which we don't get to see. Last year Wheaton was behind wooster in the last publicly released rankings but ended up being picked ahead of them for pool C. But based on what we see now, its clear Dickinson gets to the table before WJ.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: algernon on November 08, 2009, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2009, 01:05:48 AM
There's even more Pool C potential ... If the Jackets steal the ODAC again, HSC would join the group.

If the Tigers lose this coming Saturday against Randolph-Macon and finish at 9-1,  I think they should still make the NCAAs as a Pool C.  With their 55-23 win over likely USA South champ North Carolina Wesleyan and yesterday's 45-point victory over Salisbury (a team that lost by only 18 to #3 Wesley), the Tigers have impressive out-of-conference victories to go along with their ODAC wins, which include a 19-0 shutout of Bridgewater (6-3) and a solid victory over Emory and Henry (6-3).

However, if Hampden-Sydney finishes 10-0, they will have the distinct advantage of starting the NCAA Tournament at home, with a regional ranking of #1 or #2. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 08, 2009, 12:40:32 PM
I am thinking 2 teams from the west go north. I think UWW goes to the north as the #1 seed (MUC east) and one of the pool C's goes as teh 7 or 8 seed. It would be very convenient to put St. Norberts vs UWW as a north #8 v #1 in round 1. With so many 1 loss teams I have to think the 2 loss teams are on the outside looking in but I would rank them:

ONU
NCC
Wheaton/Otterbein

ONU could really benefit from a Wabash loss to Depauw as they would likely be at the pool C table right away (but possibly to no avail)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 12:57:33 PM
UMHB is in the position to be a nightmare for anyone who gets them.

I can imagine that the criteria may not have them any higher than 5th or 6th in the Region.  (With only 8-in-region games, all in conference, their OWP/OOWP will be around .500)

The only place that they can be bussed is to Mississippi College which has the head-to-head over UMHB.  Huntingdon can only be bussed to Mississippi College.  HC had very favorable comparisons, results versus common opponents, etc., with Mississippi College.


SOUTH REGION (Second Regional Rankings)
1. Wesley 5-0 8-0  Pool B
2. Hampden-Sydney 8-0 8-0  clinches Pool A with win over RandyMac
3. Thomas More 8-0 8-0          Pool A
4. Huntingdon 4-0 7-1            Pool B ( and no clarification on those SLIAC in-region games)
5. Mississippi College 6-1 6-2  Pool A
6. Mary Hardin-Baylor 5-1 7-1  Pool C
7. Centre 7-1 7-1                     Lost to Trinity. DePauw is Pool A
8. Dickinson 7-1 7-1                 JHU has inside track on Centennial Conference Pool A
9. Washington and Jefferson 7-1 7-1         Pool C
10. DePauw 6-1 6-1                 SCAC Pool A (play Wabash on Nov 14th)

WEST REGION  (Second Regional Rankings)
1. St. John's 8-0 8-0                     Pool A
2. UW-Whitewater 6-0 8-0          Pool A
3. Linfield 7-0 8-0                       Pool A
4. Central 9-0 9-0                          Pool A
5. Monmouth 9-0 9-0                       Pool A
6. St. Thomas 7-1 7-1                  Pool C
7. Coe 7-1 7-1                             Pool C
8. Cal Lutheran 6-1 6-1                Plays Redlands for Pool A
9. Redlands 6-1 6-1                         "     CalLU            "
10. St. Norbert 8-1 8-1                   Pool C

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are lots of travel orphans out there.  It looks like Linfield and the SCIAC Pool A are travel orphans, too.  Does the committee create a sub-bracket of travel orphans?  Cal LU/Redlands  at Linfield is a nice #3 vs #8.

Do you send UMHB out of region?  Will there be "politicking" by AD's/Coaches who want UMHB sent bracketed anywhere but against them?  It sure looks interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 08, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
 Ralph looking at the regional rankings could give UMHB and W and J cause for concern. They are ranked ahead of three conference champions(if Johns Hopkins wins) and behind Wesley and Huntingdon two teams who with wins this week will get  B bids.  With Centre losing maybe N.C. Wesleyan or Johns Hopkins move into the top ten.   Could we see two south teams moving? As far as C bids go, are Wand J's and UMHB resumes strong enough to compete agains the other regons one loss teams?? A few teams have tough games this week and that could change some positioning ion the south region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 01:44:49 PM
IMHO, I think that UMHB is first on table from the South Region.

I don't think that the committee goes thru 6 rounds of selection and bypasses them each time.

I also think that UMHB would rather fly out of the Region than play Miss College in the first round.

I also wonder if the unspoken sentiment of D3 is to send UMHB to Miss College in the first round to knock out one of those teams early.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 08, 2009, 01:44:53 PM
The NCAA may be paying for a few more flights this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: @d3jason on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 08, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
I think Wesley almost has to stay "South," if only to give that bracket a true #1 seed.

At the risk of drawing some ire, what do y'all think of this bracket (seeds are negotiable):

1 Wesley vs. 8 NC Wesleyan/Averett
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3  Hampden-Sydney vs. 6 UMHB
2 Linfield vs 7 Cal Lu/Redlands

Seems to balance out pretty well compared to what the other three brackets would be and gives the committee some flexibility in the other brackets (like keeping Thomas More and DePauw closer to home).

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 04:18:30 PM
Quote from: altor on November 08, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
I think Wesley almost has to stay "South," if only to give that bracket a true #1 seed.

At the risk of drawing some ire, what do y'all think of this bracket (seeds are negotiable):

1 Wesley vs. 8 NC Wesleyan/Averett
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3  Hampden-Sydney vs. 6 UMHB
2 Linfield vs 7 Cal Lu/Redlands

Seems to balance out pretty well compared to what the other three brackets would be and gives the committee some flexibility in the other brackets (like keeping Thomas More and DePauw closer to home).

Not ire, just good discussion...

That means that you can send Centennial to the East, which they would probably prefer.

I think that you have taken too many teams out of the West Region.  It is hard to fill that bracket, because you almost need MUC in the "East" and UWW in the "North".
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 08, 2009, 04:20:57 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 04:18:30 PM
Not ire, just good discussion...

Perhaps, but I know the Texas and West Coast people hate their perennial sub-brackets.  I wasn't sure how y'all would feel about those two brackets being combined in the second/third rounds.    :-\
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: @d3jason on November 08, 2009, 04:22:50 PM
Interesting scenario. Looks like a lot of flights though. What if Mount Union Was moved South and Wesley is moved East? What would that look like?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 04:35:08 PM
Quote from: altor on November 08, 2009, 04:20:57 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 04:18:30 PM
Not ire, just good discussion...

Perhaps, but I know the Texas and West Coast people hate their perennial sub-brackets.  I wasn't sure how y'all would feel about those two brackets being combined in the second/third rounds.    :-\
I think that the Texas and West Coast "island" teams would like a little variety, especially in the first round.  I don't think that H-SC wants to fly to McMinnville, if they beat UMHB
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 08, 2009, 04:45:59 PM
Quote from: altor on November 08, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
I think Wesley almost has to stay "South," if only to give that bracket a true #1 seed.

At the risk of drawing some ire, what do y'all think of this bracket (seeds are negotiable):

1 Wesley vs. 8 NC Wesleyan/Averett
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3  Hampden-Sydney vs. 6 UMHB
2 Linfield vs 7 Cal Lu/Redlands

Seems to balance out pretty well compared to what the other three brackets would be and gives the committee some flexibility in the other brackets (like keeping Thomas More and DePauw closer to home).


Doesn't look too bad, except I think (not surprisingly) that if H-SC takes care of business next week they will have earned the right to at least a #2 seed and maybe a #1 if Wesley actually does move elsewhere. Plus I agree with Ralph that UMHB will be a nightmare for somebody and (selfishly) I'd rather it be somebody else for at least one round.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: algernon on November 08, 2009, 06:07:45 PM
My suggested bracket, with Hampden-Sydney moving upto #1 ahead of Wesley, since the Tigers (9-0) beat a common opponent (Salisbury) by 45 points that Wesley (9-0) beat by only 18 points:

1 Hampden-Sydney vs. 8 Johns Hopkins
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3 Thomas More  vs. 6 DePauw
2 Wesley vs 7 North Carolina Wesleyan

UMHB flies somewhere else.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 08, 2009, 06:16:08 PM
Wesley ahs a win over a regionally ranked team in Del Val and the comittee doesn't take into score against common opponents
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wesleydad on November 08, 2009, 06:46:37 PM
Plus Salisbury cared about the Wesley game as it was a rivalry, whereas the Hampden-Sydney game was just another game.  Proof would be the 8 turnovers.

Ralph, I agree with you, moving Linfield and Cal/Redlans winner south would leave the west a little short.

Algernon, I like the bracket if you switch Wesley and Hampden-Sydney.  The proximity would work well.  I also would like to see new teams, so if they ship Umhb elsewhere, great.  I have seen them the last 2 years and they are good, despite the lose, they will be tough to deal with for anyone.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Gray Fox on November 08, 2009, 07:17:47 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 08, 2009, 06:46:37 PM
Plus Salisbury cared about the Wesley game as it was a rivalry, whereas the Hampden-Sydney game was just another game.  Proof would be the 8 turnovers.

Ralph, I agree with you, moving Linfield and Cal/Redlans winner south would leave the west a little short.

Algernon, I like the bracket if you switch Wesley and Hampden-Sydney.  The proximity would work well.  I also would like to see new teams, so if they ship Umhb elsewhere, great.  I have seen them the last 2 years and they are good, despite the lose, they will be tough to deal with for anyone.
If Redlands beats CLU they both might get in.  Assuming Wesley is a number one, then sending one of them to Wesley would likely keep them from further flights and allow you to see a new team. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 08, 2009, 07:24:10 PM
  This week has some interesting match-ups that cold change a few teams regional rankings..
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 08, 2009, 08:05:20 PM
Quote from: algernon on November 08, 2009, 06:07:45 PM
My suggested bracket, with Hampden-Sydney moving upto #1 ahead of Wesley, since the Tigers (9-0) beat a common opponent (Salisbury) by 45 points that Wesley (9-0) beat by only 18 points:

1 Hampden-Sydney vs. 8 Johns Hopkins
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3 Thomas More  vs. 6 DePauw
2 Wesley vs 7 North Carolina Wesleyan

UMHB flies somewhere else.

I hate to disagree with my compatriot, but Wesley deserves to get a #1 seed and it should be in the South. They've been on top most of the year and they haven't done anything to justify bumping them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 08, 2009, 08:13:31 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on November 08, 2009, 07:17:47 PM
If Redlands beats CLU they both might get in.  Assuming Wesley is a number one, then sending one of them to Wesley would likely keep them from further flights and allow you to see a new team. ;D

If CLU loses, they're done.  They would be the 2nd two loss team in the west, behind Willamette (who beat them back in September).  The deck is already stacked against 2-loss teams as it is.

Quote from: wesleydad on November 08, 2009, 06:46:37 PM
Ralph, I agree with you, moving Linfield and Cal/Redlans winner south would leave the west a little short

Even if Linfield goes "South" and UWW moves to the "North," that still leaves the "West" with three undefeated teams.

Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 08, 2009, 04:45:59 PM
Doesn't look too bad, except I think (not surprisingly) that if H-SC takes care of business next week they will have earned the right to at least a #2 seed and maybe a #1 if Wesley actually does move elsewhere. Plus I agree with Ralph that UMHB will be a nightmare for somebody and (selfishly) I'd rather it be somebody else for at least one round.  ;)
I said seeds were negotiable.   ;) Unfortunately, UMHB will be underseeded, period.  Some high seed is going to have their hands full.  Luckily, it should at least be at home.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 08:21:32 PM
If UWW is moved out, then every undefeated team in the West Region can host a first round game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Gray Fox on November 08, 2009, 08:28:11 PM
altor,
I should have explained my reasoning for CLU.  The SCIAC uses the conference wins as the only factor in determining  the champion so even if Redlands wins they are tied in the conference.  They use the "Rose Bowl Rule",  to determine who gets the playoff bid.  The RBR means the team who has been out of the playoffs the longest gets the bid. So it is possible both would get a bid.  Playing each other two weeks in a row is always possible in the season of Scrooge. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 08, 2009, 08:44:47 PM
I knew that and I posted anyways...bad Altor.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 08, 2009, 09:09:44 PM
Here is my North Bracket if things stay the way they are now:

1. UWW
2. Witt
3. Mt St Joes
4 CWRU
5 IWU
6. Wabash
7. Trine
8. Concordia IL

Makes for some easy 1st round matchups. If MtSt Joe's loses to Thomas More and/or Wabash loses to DePauw things change as far as seeding and we may see a St Norberts or Coe move in as #8 seed as well as a possible IWU home game
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2009, 09:13:27 PM
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2009, 09:09:44 PM
Here is my North Bracket if things stay the way they are now:

1. UWW
2. Witt
3. Mt St Joes
4 CWRU
5 IWU
6. Wabash
7. Trine
8. Concordia IL

Makes for some easy 1st round matchups. If MtSt Joe's loses to Thomas More and/or Wabash loses to DePauw things change as far as seeding and we may see a St Norberts or Coe move in as #8 seed as well as a possible IWU home game
Respectfully, I think that Wabash must beat DePauw to get the Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 08, 2009, 09:34:52 PM
Thus my intro "...if things stay the way they are now". :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2009, 11:43:04 PM
Just ran the numbers on the Pool C teams from the North.

(Since SOS is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP, I took the OWP, doubled it, added the OOWP, then divided by 3 - not exact, since number of games may vary, but should be accurate to within .005.)

IF Wabash beats DePauw, they are probably first at the table due to only 1-loss (and DePauw would raise their SOS above .500), but with a second loss they are dead - lowest SOS of the five contenders in the North (except possibly Ott).  Current SOS = .497; regionally-ranked results = lost to Witt, will play DePauw (but if the LGs win, will DePauw remain regionally ranked?)

NCC currently has the highest SOS (.585), and has a win over Wheaton (but will they remain regionally ranked?), and losses to ONU and IWU.

Wheaton has the second highest SOS (.5833), but lost to both NCC and IWU).

ONU is third in SOS (.5707), beat NCC, and has losses to Ott and MUC.

Ott trails all 2-loss teams in SOS (.502), but beat ONU (and lost to MUC).

Not sure what this all means, but some data for others' consideration.  My guess would be that Wabash is at the table first if they win (and would probably go no later than 3rd or 4th), but is hopeless if they lose.  Assuming everyone else wins, I'll predict the line-up behind (or in front of) them to be ONU, NCC, Wheaton, Ott.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ryan Tipps on November 08, 2009, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: algernon on November 08, 2009, 06:07:45 PM
My suggested bracket, with Hampden-Sydney moving upto #1 ahead of Wesley, since the Tigers (9-0) beat a common opponent (Salisbury) by 45 points that Wesley (9-0) beat by only 18 points:

1 Hampden-Sydney vs. 8 Johns Hopkins
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3 Thomas More  vs. 6 DePauw
2 Wesley vs 7 North Carolina Wesleyan

UMHB flies somewhere else.

I haven't crunched any numbers, but could there be concern of Thomas More leapfrogging Hampden-Sydney if both teams win out?

I ask only becuase Thomas More still has the opportunity to get a win over currently-undefeated MSJ, which also happens to be a regionally ranked team. That would look better than a win over Randolph-Macon (6-3), which is what H-SC is going for.

I guess I'm more wondering about H-SC possibly losing a spot in the final rankings rather than the outside chance of becoming a No. 1 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2009, 11:14:53 AM
Interesting ... the NCAA, for the first time, released the final regional rankings (http://d3blogs.com/d3soccer/2009/11/09/final-ncaa-regional-rankings-november-8/) used to make playoff selections in soccer.  Wonder if they will do the same for football or other sports?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on November 09, 2009, 11:23:11 AM
Possibly a move to more transparency in the selection process.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: BlueRebel94 on November 09, 2009, 12:11:46 PM
Quote from: Ryan Tipps on November 08, 2009, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: algernon on November 08, 2009, 06:07:45 PM
My suggested bracket, with Hampden-Sydney moving upto #1 ahead of Wesley, since the Tigers (9-0) beat a common opponent (Salisbury) by 45 points that Wesley (9-0) beat by only 18 points:

1 Hampden-Sydney vs. 8 Johns Hopkins
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3 Thomas More  vs. 6 DePauw
2 Wesley vs 7 North Carolina Wesleyan

UMHB flies somewhere else.

I haven't crunched any numbers, but could there be concern of Thomas More leapfrogging Hampden-Sydney if both teams win out?

I ask only becuase Thomas More still has the opportunity to get a win over currently-undefeated MSJ, which also happens to be a regionally ranked team. That would look better than a win over Randolph-Macon (6-3), which is what H-SC is going for.

I guess I'm more wondering about H-SC possibly losing a spot in the final rankings rather than the outside chance of becoming a No. 1 seed.

I would have to think Thomas More would leap over H-SC due to current strenght of schedule TMC 157, H-SC 213 as well as the upcoming competion MSJ 193 and R-M 221.  From TMC standpoint the question is whether they will be moved to the North because of travel being right outside of Cincinnati, OH.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: D O.C. on November 09, 2009, 12:56:09 PM
How many of you guys are card counters? You do not have to admit it here, you can always IM me. Only a few of us would know then. If you only handicap the dogs, I am not that interested. BTW, where do you get your injury reports?   ::)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 01:54:08 PM
I think UMHB just wants a ticket to the dance. Let us in and we'll take our chances.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2009, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 01:54:08 PM
I think UMHB just wants a ticket to the dance. Let us in and we'll take our chances.

No worries - with the criteria currently in place there's no way the AA can leave out the Cru.   

Honest.   ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: D O.C. on November 09, 2009, 01:59:28 PM
QuoteI think UMHB just wants a ticket to the dance. Let us in and we'll take our chances.

...and that's a healthy attitude.

Many teams will have it and that's why the selection is so tough.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 09, 2009, 03:12:46 PM
Quote from: D O.C. on November 09, 2009, 12:56:09 PM
How many of you guys are card counters? You do not have to admit it here, you can always IM me. Only a few of us would know then. If you only handicap the dogs, I am not that interested. BTW, where do you get your injury reports?   ::)

Pardon me for being stupid, but WHAT THE HELL ...?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 09, 2009, 05:15:13 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2009, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 01:54:08 PM
I think UMHB just wants a ticket to the dance. Let us in and we'll take our chances.

No worries - with the criteria currently in place there's no way the AA can leave out the Cru.   

Honest.   ;D
If Ron says it, It must be true.  I should wager all that I have.   ;) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 05:17:19 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 09, 2009, 05:15:13 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2009, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 01:54:08 PM
I think UMHB just wants a ticket to the dance. Let us in and we'll take our chances.

No worries - with the criteria currently in place there's no way the AA can leave out the Cru.   

Honest.   ;D
If Ron says it, It must be true.  I should wager all that I have.   ;) ;D
Ron said it; you backed it up maybe now I can sleep some this week ;) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 09, 2009, 05:18:22 PM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 05:17:19 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 09, 2009, 05:15:13 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2009, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 01:54:08 PM
I think UMHB just wants a ticket to the dance. Let us in and we'll take our chances.

No worries - with the criteria currently in place there's no way the AA can leave out the Cru.   

Honest.   ;D
If Ron says it, It must be true.  I should wager all that I have.   ;) ;D
Ron said it; you backed it up maybe now I can sleep some this week ;) ;D
Like a New born no doubt
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2009, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 09, 2009, 05:15:13 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2009, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 09, 2009, 01:54:08 PM
I think UMHB just wants a ticket to the dance. Let us in and we'll take our chances.

No worries - with the criteria currently in place there's no way the AA can leave out the Cru.   

Honest.   ;D
If Ron says it, It must be true.  I should wager all that I have.   ;) ;D

Well, no, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2009, 08:01:18 PM
If Wabash can't beat DPU then they have no right to be in the playoffs.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:32:09 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2009, 08:01:18 PM
If Wabash can't beat DPU then they have no right to be in the playoffs.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't know about that specifically, but they will have had two clear paths -- via the NCAC AQ, and then as the only one-loss playoff hopeful in the North, giving them as many as six shots at getting chosen by the committee.

It's a much tougher road once you group them with ONU, NCC, Wheaton and Otterbein.

I realize these things don't break 100% along the one-loss/two-loss lines, but that's usually a good line of demarcation
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:38:10 AM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 08, 2009, 01:44:53 PM
The NCAA may be paying for a few more flights this year.

Don't count on it.

Even when the selection committee comes up with a bracket that asks for more flights, if there's a way to avoid them, they'll be avoided.

The best bets are for the island teams (Texas/south and Far west) to have odd numbers get in, therefore forcing someone to fly no matter what the matchups are. (i.e. Linfield, Redlands and CLU in the West)

There are so many flex teams that are within 500 miles of more than one region that I feel fairly confident, given several hours of bracket-making, that the committee will be forced to come up with something we can all argue about later.

Also remember the NCAA generally makes the bracket with no respect to what might happen in the second round, flight-wise or conference-rematch-wise. It tends to go only with what can be guaranteed in the first round.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: Conrad on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

I'm very intrigued by these possibilities as well.

W&J could go north, east or south.

There are enough teams within a very short drive of Mount Union to make them a 1 seed without having to have the bracket involve only East teams. W&J, Thomas More, MSJ, DePauw, potential ONU/Otterbein/Wabash ... East teams could surround Wesley, but that leaves the deep south on a weird island.

All I'm saying is maybe four Ohio teams and the NE/NY teams could be in one bracket, and the deep south could end up with the Pa./Del. south. ... maybe I'm reaching, but it could be done.

Also, for all the H-SC speculation, 1, 2 or 3 seed ... you can mark down that they'll host the USAC champ. NCWC or Averett. Seems like a no-brainer.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 10, 2009, 12:56:02 AM
Interesting theory on the Ohio/East bracket. I hadn't considered it that deeply. It does feel like the logjam is in the west though and, while there are a couple ways to solve it, moving UWW and a Coe/St Norberts as a 1/8 seed seems to free up a lot of spots and insure the other undefeated West teams get home games. I'll be interested to see your and Pat's predictions later this week.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2009, 01:06:49 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: Conrad on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

I'm very intrigued by these possibilities as well.

W&J could go north, east or south.

There are enough teams within a very short drive of Mount Union to make them a 1 seed without having to have the bracket involve only East teams. W&J, Thomas More, MSJ, DePauw, potential ONU/Otterbein/Wabash ... East teams could surround Wesley, but that leaves the deep south on a weird island.

All I'm saying is maybe four Ohio teams and the NE/NY teams could be in one bracket, and the deep south could end up with the Pa./Del. south. ... maybe I'm reaching, but it could be done.

Also, for all the H-SC speculation, 1, 2 or 3 seed ... you can mark down that they'll host the USAC champ. NCWC or Averett. Seems like a no-brainer.

I think that the ASC would be happy just splitting us apart.  If Huntingdon is ranked ahead of Miss College, then the drive to Montgomery for Mississippi fans is nothing... just like another SEC road game! The next game is a plane fight anyway you look at it.

Besides, I think that it would be good to take advantage of the opportunity to have different brackets one year.

Curry to Wesley is 387 miles.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2009, 01:18:02 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: Conrad on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

I'm very intrigued by these possibilities as well.

W&J could go north, east or south.

There are enough teams within a very short drive of Mount Union to make them a 1 seed without having to have the bracket involve only East teams. W&J, Thomas More, MSJ, DePauw, potential ONU/Otterbein/Wabash ... East teams could surround Wesley, but that leaves the deep south on a weird island.

All I'm saying is maybe four Ohio teams and the NE/NY teams could be in one bracket, and the deep south could end up with the Pa./Del. south. ... maybe I'm reaching, but it could be done.

Also, for all the H-SC speculation, 1, 2 or 3 seed ... you can mark down that they'll host the USAC champ. NCWC or Averett. Seems like a no-brainer.


While "The Game" week posturing should probably preclude such a question, if R-MC wins Saturday do the Tigers get a Pool C bid and what sort of seed would result if they do? I actually thought about asking Ryan, as the only non-ODAC d3.com guru, but he's got his own fish to fry this week.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2009, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2009, 01:18:02 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: Conrad on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

I'm very intrigued by these possibilities as well.

W&J could go north, east or south.

There are enough teams within a very short drive of Mount Union to make them a 1 seed without having to have the bracket involve only East teams. W&J, Thomas More, MSJ, DePauw, potential ONU/Otterbein/Wabash ... East teams could surround Wesley, but that leaves the deep south on a weird island.

All I'm saying is maybe four Ohio teams and the NE/NY teams could be in one bracket, and the deep south could end up with the Pa./Del. south. ... maybe I'm reaching, but it could be done.

Also, for all the H-SC speculation, 1, 2 or 3 seed ... you can mark down that they'll host the USAC champ. NCWC or Averett. Seems like a no-brainer.


While "The Game" week posturing should probably preclude such a question, if R-MC wins Saturday do the Tigers get a Pool C bid and what sort of seed would result if they do? I actually thought about asking Ryan, as the only non-ODAC d3.com guru, but he's got his own fish to fry this week.
A #5 seed and a chance to fly to Belton, Texas, versus a #4 seed UMHB...   ;D    :D    ;)

Just kidding...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2009, 02:19:07 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2009, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2009, 01:18:02 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: Conrad on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

I'm very intrigued by these possibilities as well.

W&J could go north, east or south.

There are enough teams within a very short drive of Mount Union to make them a 1 seed without having to have the bracket involve only East teams. W&J, Thomas More, MSJ, DePauw, potential ONU/Otterbein/Wabash ... East teams could surround Wesley, but that leaves the deep south on a weird island.

All I'm saying is maybe four Ohio teams and the NE/NY teams could be in one bracket, and the deep south could end up with the Pa./Del. south. ... maybe I'm reaching, but it could be done.

Also, for all the H-SC speculation, 1, 2 or 3 seed ... you can mark down that they'll host the USAC champ. NCWC or Averett. Seems like a no-brainer.


While "The Game" week posturing should probably preclude such a question, if R-MC wins Saturday do the Tigers get a Pool C bid and what sort of seed would result if they do? I actually thought about asking Ryan, as the only non-ODAC d3.com guru, but he's got his own fish to fry this week.
A #5 seed and a chance to fly to Belton, Texas, versus a #4 seed UMHB...   ;D    :D    ;)

Just kidding...

Maybe so Ralph, but if they blow the AQ and a sure top 4 seed for the second year in a row it's a fate they deserve.   :)
Having said that, however, I don't believe they will.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 08:55:53 AM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2009, 02:19:07 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2009, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2009, 01:18:02 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: Conrad on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

I'm very intrigued by these possibilities as well.

W&J could go north, east or south.

There are enough teams within a very short drive of Mount Union to make them a 1 seed without having to have the bracket involve only East teams. W&J, Thomas More, MSJ, DePauw, potential ONU/Otterbein/Wabash ... East teams could surround Wesley, but that leaves the deep south on a weird island.

All I'm saying is maybe four Ohio teams and the NE/NY teams could be in one bracket, and the deep south could end up with the Pa./Del. south. ... maybe I'm reaching, but it could be done.

Also, for all the H-SC speculation, 1, 2 or 3 seed ... you can mark down that they'll host the USAC champ. NCWC or Averett. Seems like a no-brainer.


While "The Game" week posturing should probably preclude such a question, if R-MC wins Saturday do the Tigers get a Pool C bid and what sort of seed would result if they do? I actually thought about asking Ryan, as the only non-ODAC d3.com guru, but he's got his own fish to fry this week.
A #5 seed and a chance to fly to Belton, Texas, versus a #4 seed UMHB...   ;D    :D    ;)

Just kidding...

Maybe so Ralph, but if they blow the AQ and a sure top 4 seed for the second year in a row it's a fate they deserve.   :)
Having said that, however, I don't believe they will.

There are a lot of fates Hampden-Sydney folks deserve.

Off top, I think they're in either way. I haven't closely considered the SOS numbers, but I don't think they can be worse than W&Js. It might be close with Dickinson to see who gets on the board first, and at 9-1, the Tigers might have a regionally-ranked NC Wesleyan win. Other than that, I suppose it could be a struggle. Their only sure bet is to be 10-0. H-SC has been left out before at 9-1 and even though they tried to pump up the schedule by adding Salisbury, it turned out to be a had year for that.

Oh yikes. I just looked at the SOS page. H-SC's OWP is terrible (.384) compared to Dickinson (.494). That'll improve some, and their OOWPs are the same, but H-SC might not be in good shape after all with a loss.

Just makes the game all the more fun :)

Someone somewhere will be highly ticked off if a 7-3 R-MC "steals" a bid and H-SC gets in as an at-large; that'll basically mean a three-loss team pushed some one- or two-loss team out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 09:07:08 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2009, 01:06:49 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: Conrad on November 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
There are a lot of candidates to move in the South region. Thomas More could go North again, so could Depauw. Wesley could easily be moved east along with Dickinson, Hopkins and W &J (who could go North too if they get in.)

I'm very intrigued by these possibilities as well.

W&J could go north, east or south.

There are enough teams within a very short drive of Mount Union to make them a 1 seed without having to have the bracket involve only East teams. W&J, Thomas More, MSJ, DePauw, potential ONU/Otterbein/Wabash ... East teams could surround Wesley, but that leaves the deep south on a weird island.

All I'm saying is maybe four Ohio teams and the NE/NY teams could be in one bracket, and the deep south could end up with the Pa./Del. south. ... maybe I'm reaching, but it could be done.

Also, for all the H-SC speculation, 1, 2 or 3 seed ... you can mark down that they'll host the USAC champ. NCWC or Averett. Seems like a no-brainer.

I think that the ASC would be happy just splitting us apart.  If Huntingdon is ranked ahead of Miss College, then the drive to Montgomery for Mississippi fans is nothing... just like another SEC road game! The next game is a plane fight anyway you look at it.

Besides, I think that it would be good to take advantage of the opportunity to have different brackets one year.

Curry to Wesley is 387 miles.

That brings up the point I was trying to make in one of my other posts. If Huntingdon, Miss Coll and UMHB are all in the field representing the deep south, an odd number means someone has to go somewhere.

The committee is supposed to try to avoid rematches of conference teams in the first round; it's happened to UMHB/HSU in the past because the committee hasn't had other options (or misused the mileage software and thought it didn't have other options).

Google Maps gives me 286 miles from Clinton to Montgomery, and while that might work out as a 3/7 or 4/7 game, Miss Coll-Huntingdon seems like it has to be the pick if both are in the field along with UMHB. UMHB will be a lower seed than Miss Coll and is 663 miles from Huntingdon, so it's not an option.

So really I think you're safe from the Texas ASC subbracket this season. If UMHB is left out, then it's Miss Coll-Huntingdon. If UMHB is in, it's still gotta be Miss Coll/Hunt over Miss Coll/UHMB. If they do it this year, they really did you wrong.

And I checked ... Averett is a shade over 535 miles by I-85 (I don't think 'as the crow flies' mileage is used, but that could be cutting it close) and N.C. Wesleyan is further than that from Huntingdon, so all = flights.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 09:19:07 AM
Taking that a step further, if Redlands, CLU and Linfield are all in, and UMHB, Miss Coll and Huntingdon are, that means they'll have two three-team islands requiring a flight each, and two conference rematches to try to avoid.

While I'm inclined to think they might just make Cal Lu and Redlands play again this scenario to save dough, it would be a rematch of a Week 11 game; they'd almost have to avoid that.

I'm talking myself through this as I type, but it seems there'd be a logical way to take the extraneous "flying" team from each "island" and match them up, therefore avoiding flights throughout the rest of the bracket. (I'm assuming there's enough flexibilty in the upper midwest/mid-atlantic/northeast to make three flight-free first rounds)

So is it Hunt @ Miss Coll, Redlands @ Linfield and UMHB @ Cal Lu (they won't beef at the trip to Malibu)?

We've speculated on Cali-Texas flights before, based on the fact it's been done in basketball, but the chips never seem to fall that way.

Just seems to be an unprecendented amount of flexibility with the group of teams that could potentially make it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 10, 2009, 09:30:53 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 09:07:08 AM
So really I think you're safe from the Texas ASC subbracket this season. If UMHB is left out, then it's Miss Coll-Huntingdon. If UMHB is in, it's still gotta be Miss Coll/Hunt over Miss Coll/UHMB. If they do it this year, they really did you wrong.
Well, maybe this year it would at least come with a kiss.   :-* ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:08:44 AM
Just for fun, since the Pool C thread seems to be doubling as this year's playoff speculation thread, I'm going to make a field of 32 with matchups I could potentially see. I don't plan to spend more than two minutes thinking about this, I just want to throw something out there that might or (more likely) might not happen.

Feel free to change one Week 11 result, one Pool C selection or both, or just re-mix and match the bracket in a way you potentially see it falling.

I think I'll make my six Pool Cs be UMHB, St. Thomas, Coe, Wabash, Redlands and LV/Albright (really wanted to do ONU. Maybe next time)

Okay, here's a hastily assembled suggestion:

1 MUC
8 Union

4 Thomas More
5 Alfred

3 Case Western Reserve
6 MSJ

2 Wittenberg
7 Trine
------------
1 UWW
8 Wabash

4 Ill. Wesleyan
5 DePauw

3 Monmouth
6 Coe

7 St. Thomas
2 Central
-----------
1 Wesley
7 LV/Albright

3 H-SC
8 NCWC/Averett

4 Kean
5 Curry

2 Del Val
6 Johns Hopkins

------------
1 St. John's
8 Conc Ill

3 Miss Coll
6 Hunt

4 Cal Lutheran
5 UMHB

7 Redlands
2 Linfield

-----------
Okay, some observations:

-- This took much longer than two minutes. If you do it yourself, I advise you to list your 32 teams and have them in front of you before you start mixing and matching, rather than the way I did it ... making up matchups that make sense, then trying to remember who I was missing ... only to have that team not have a good fit.

-- There's a severe shortage of low seeds in the West/North, especially if you split St. John's and UWW

-- That last bracket features a weird flight into St. John's 2nd round. Probably not ideal, but I think I kept it to minimum flights in the first round based on the teams I had in.

-- This is by no means what I think will happen; just something I wanted to do to see if it could happen.

-- Use a map. You'll be surprised how close Alfred is to Ohio. They can get to Case and Wittenberg. Trine can get to Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. If you sub Union for Susquehanna, there are a ton more places the LL champ can go, with it being in Central Pa. stead upstate NY.

-- Do one yourself, but switch one Pool C team and watch the dominoes fall.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2009, 10:28:52 AM
Great bracket, K-Mack!

I think that that is a great matchup.  Huntingdon was ranked higher than Miss College, and so may be given the home game.  But, I don't think that affects much.  (It is a 4/5 type of game anyway.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 10, 2009, 10:30:10 AM
K-Mack:  I would love to see that bracket.  It creates much more interesting regions built around Mount and Whitewater tha I expect.  I might be in the minority, but I really like Mount getting paired with non-traditional North Region teams.  The new opponents create some excitement in the early rounds that we wouldn't normally have by playing the NCAC or Heartland teams. 

Only thing I don't like is Wabash getting in over Ohio Northern.  I realize that a 9-1 Wabash will be selected by the NCAA before an 8-2 ONU, but Northern would drill Wabash into the ground if they actually played. 

One last statement about potential Pool C's.   I really, REALLY hope Otterbein doesn't get picked if the OAC is fortunate enough to get a C bid.  They are a complete pretender.   I still don't know how they managed to steal victories against ONU and Capital, but Otterbein woud not be anywhere near as  competitive in the playoffs as Ohio Northern or 7-3 Capital.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:43:20 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:08:44 AM
1 Wesley
8 LV/Albright

2 H-SC
8 NCWC/Averett

3 Kean
6 Curry

2 Del Val
7 Johns Hopkins

Clearly all the mixing and matching got me to duplicate seeds here. I'll go back and update after I post this, but an interesting thing about this group is that even though it mixes East and South teams, there's no potential to fly unless a very unlikely final takes place; Even Hopkins vs. Curry is just 400 miles from Baltimore to Boston. Hampden-Sydney to Kean is within reach, and even Averett to Kean is less than 500 miles. The outlier is Curry, and they're a flight to H-SC and Averett, but it's no different than putting them in a bracket with Mount Union, which is also about 600 miles and therefore a flight.

Gonna go back and re-seed now :)

Another big question about that bracket is which regions meet in the semis
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:51:53 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 10, 2009, 10:30:10 AM
K-Mack:  I would love to see that bracket.  It creates much more interesting regions built around Mount and Whitewater tha I expect.  I might be in the minority, but I really like Mount getting paired with non-traditional North Region teams.  The new opponents create some excitement in the early rounds that we wouldn't normally have by playing the NCAC or Heartland teams. 

Only thing I don't like is Wabash getting in over Ohio Northern.  I realize that a 9-1 Wabash will be selected by the NCAA before an 8-2 ONU, but Northern would drill Wabash into the ground if they actually played. 

One last statement about potential Pool C's.   I really, REALLY hope Otterbein doesn't get picked if the OAC is fortunate enough to get a C bid.  They are a complete pretender.   I still don't know how they managed to steal victories against ONU and Capital, but Otterbein woud not be anywhere near as  competitive in the playoffs as Ohio Northern or 7-3 Capital.

Interesting observations.

In the podcast, Pat and I talked about how Otterbein is at a distinct SOS disadvantage compared to ONU, Wheaton and North Central. But they're at the top of this h2h/common opponents chain: OTT > ONU > NCC > Wheaton. Not sure what the committee would favor.

In the event of a Wabash loss, I think two-loss ONU has a chance to emerge from that group to be the first North Region team on the Pool C table, because of the huge SOS difference. But it's hard to get a committee to ignore an h2h result, which is usually the right way to decide.

Can anyone tell the kids woke me up before leaving for school this morning and I can't fall back asleep? Wasn't supposed to be up this early aimlessly analyzing potential playoff fields.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Nice work K-Mack--here is my question about your proposed bracket:  If Redlands beats CLU and wins a Pool C selection--does CLU really still end up seated higher than them and get the home game in round 1?  Or might the committee look at the head to head when placing them in brackets and swap--give Redlands the home game and send CLU up to Linfield?  I only ask because, as a Linfield fan and somebody who has watched the SCIAC this year--Redlands looks like the better team (compared to CLU) and should they win on Saturday will confirm this--  So, it would seem a little "unfair" to give the weaker team the home game and send the better team on the road (not to mention a bit unfair to Linfield to have to face a better first round team than their ranking might otherwise dictate).

addendum:  If that scenario plays out--you'd have CLU with the Autobid but 2 losses and Redlands with Pool C with one loss--maybe they send both schools out (one to Linfield and one to MHB) which of course would create a flight situation in round 2 unless both teams won--then they'd have an easy drive for the rematch between Cal LU and Redlands *but I doubt that will happen* :)

One more thought:  There are probably some in the NWC looking to see Redlands win on Saturday and still get left out of the playoffs as there was speculation that the Redlands Coach was involved in Whitworth's snubbing a few years ago....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 10, 2009, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Nice work K-Mack--here is my question about your proposed bracket:  If Redlands beats CLU and wins a Pool C selection--does CLU really still end up seated higher than them and get the home game in round 1?  Or might the committee look at the head to head when placing them in brackets and swap--give Redlands the home game and send CLU up to Linfield?  I only ask because, as a Linfield fan and somebody who has watched the SCIAC this year--Redlands looks like the better team (compared to CLU) and should they win on Saturday will confirm this--  So, it would seem a little "unfair" to give the weaker team the home game and send the better team on the road (not to mention a bit unfair to Linfield to have to face a better first round team than their ranking might otherwise dictate).
In Texas we understand that "fair" has nothing to do with it.  The only reason I think CLU and Redlands wouldn't meet again is because it would be back to back weeks, but if they did, it could also mean only 1 flight UMHB to Linfield.  Which match up would be more fair?  Redlands -Linfield or UMHB - Linfield
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: oldnuthin on November 10, 2009, 11:25:45 AM
Quick stupid question. After the first round is done do they use the traditional bracketology or do they refigure the mileage for the second round matchups?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSC85 on November 10, 2009, 11:30:44 AM
K-Mack,

Great work on the bracket.  My question is based on your experience does the NCAA try to avoid regular season rematches in the first round if the can?

I really like the idea of teams playing different teams.  However, it seems too logical to be taken seriously.  The NCAA seems married to the idea of "regional brackets".  It has been only recently that they have taken the top 4 teams and made them all #1 seeds.

Thanks for your insight.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:43:25 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 10, 2009, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Nice work K-Mack--here is my question about your proposed bracket:  If Redlands beats CLU and wins a Pool C selection--does CLU really still end up seated higher than them and get the home game in round 1?  Or might the committee look at the head to head when placing them in brackets and swap--give Redlands the home game and send CLU up to Linfield?  I only ask because, as a Linfield fan and somebody who has watched the SCIAC this year--Redlands looks like the better team (compared to CLU) and should they win on Saturday will confirm this--  So, it would seem a little "unfair" to give the weaker team the home game and send the better team on the road (not to mention a bit unfair to Linfield to have to face a better first round team than their ranking might otherwise dictate).
In Texas we understand that "fair" has nothing to do with it.  The only reason I think CLU and Redlands wouldn't meet again is because it would be back to back weeks, but if they did, it could also mean only 1 flight UMHB to Linfield.  Which match up would be more fair?  Redlands -Linfield or UMHB - Linfield
I actually think Redlands to MHB and CLU to Linfield would be more fair--and we know about the unfairness of it all in the Northwest as well.... :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Gray Fox on November 10, 2009, 12:09:30 PM
My theory is that the "extra"  island teams that are low seeds be sent to a top seed.  That, in theory, eliminates further flights and fits the normal seeding concept.  It makes no difference which Region they are sent to.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: crudbdad on November 10, 2009, 12:14:10 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 10, 2009, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Nice work K-Mack--here is my question about your proposed bracket:  If Redlands beats CLU and wins a Pool C selection--does CLU really still end up seated higher than them and get the home game in round 1?  Or might the committee look at the head to head when placing them in brackets and swap--give Redlands the home game and send CLU up to Linfield?  I only ask because, as a Linfield fan and somebody who has watched the SCIAC this year--Redlands looks like the better team (compared to CLU) and should they win on Saturday will confirm this--  So, it would seem a little "unfair" to give the weaker team the home game and send the better team on the road (not to mention a bit unfair to Linfield to have to face a better first round team than their ranking might otherwise dictate).
In Texas we understand that "fair" has nothing to do with it.  The only reason I think CLU and Redlands wouldn't meet again is because it would be back to back weeks, but if they did, it could also mean only 1 flight UMHB to Linfield.  Which match up would be more fair?  Redlands -Linfield or UMHB - Linfield
The only thing I remember from 9th grade science was we complained about the FAIRNESS of a test and the teacher replied that the FAIR is in OCTOBER!. When it comes to the AA and fairness it doesn't seem to be a priority since the 500 mile rule is in place. See UMHB #2 seed/HSU #3 seed meeting in 1st round in '07. If UMHB can get a Pool C I would like to see someone different.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on November 10, 2009, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 10, 2009, 12:14:10 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 10, 2009, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Nice work K-Mack--here is my question about your proposed bracket:  If Redlands beats CLU and wins a Pool C selection--does CLU really still end up seated higher than them and get the home game in round 1?  Or might the committee look at the head to head when placing them in brackets and swap--give Redlands the home game and send CLU up to Linfield?  I only ask because, as a Linfield fan and somebody who has watched the SCIAC this year--Redlands looks like the better team (compared to CLU) and should they win on Saturday will confirm this--  So, it would seem a little "unfair" to give the weaker team the home game and send the better team on the road (not to mention a bit unfair to Linfield to have to face a better first round team than their ranking might otherwise dictate).
In Texas we understand that "fair" has nothing to do with it.  The only reason I think CLU and Redlands wouldn't meet again is because it would be back to back weeks, but if they did, it could also mean only 1 flight UMHB to Linfield.  Which match up would be more fair?  Redlands -Linfield or UMHB - Linfield
The only thing I remember from 9th grade science was we complained about the FAIRNESS of a test and the teacher replied that the FAIR is in OCTOBER!. When it comes to the AA and fairness it doesn't seem to be a priority since the 500 mile rule is in place. See UMHB #2 seed/HSU #3 seed meeting in 1st round in '07. If UMHB can get a Pool C I would like to see someone different.

The West will remember Oxy getting sent to Willamette last year for a #2 vs. #1 match-up in the first round so the nCAA would have one flight in the first round instead of two.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 01:01:27 PM
I didn't really mean for the discussion to be about fairness---but if they are going to send Redlands or CLU up North, I'm guessing it would be the lower of the 2 (unless they are sending one to St. Johns) in K-Mack's bracket....that was it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 10, 2009, 01:31:17 PM
What's FAIR about D3 football is that 200+ teams enter the season having a true, legitimate path to a chance at a national championship determined on the actual playing field.  Just like all collegiate sports except D1 football.  The selections of the last Pool C bids, the seedings and the pairings might be open to debate and argument because the NCAA is cehap, but at least we all get the chance to settle it on the field.

If we had the BCS crap that D1 has, last season would have had Mount Union against a North Central team that didn't make it out of the 2nd round playing for the mythical championship.   



Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 01:01:27 PM
I didn't really mean for the discussion to be about fairness---but if they are going to send Redlands or CLU up North, I'm guessing it would be the lower of the 2 (unless they are sending one to St. Johns) in K-Mack's bracket....that was it.

You're right, for Redlands to get it, they'd need to beat CLU and then have Oxy win to give CLU the SCIAC tiebreaker. But Redlands would have the win over regionally-ranked CLU to make certain it would be the higher seed. In my quick assembling of that, I was putting A AQ winners over C entries, but that does not have to be the case.

I guarantee if R-MC gets in, for example, at 7-3 they'll be an 8 seed again, likely playing Wesley, while ODAC "runner-up" Hampden-Sydney would be a middle seed if it got in. Even though R-MC would have the 1 win of note vs. H-SC and a h2h advantage
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: DPU3619 on November 10, 2009, 01:50:29 PM
Just curious, Keith: You've got DePauw as the 5 in the North and Wabash as the 8 in the North.  Is that with a DePauw win or a Wabash win?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 10, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
Quote from: Wes Anderson on November 10, 2009, 01:50:29 PM
Just curious, Keith: You've got DePauw as the 5 in the North and Wabash as the 8 in the North.  Is that with a DePauw win or a Wabash win?

Would have to be a DPU win.  7-2 DPU would not warrant a #5 seed (nor would 8-2 Wabash). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: DPU3619 on November 10, 2009, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 10, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
Would have to be a DPU win.  7-2 DPU would not warrant a #5 seed (nor would 8-2 Wabash). 

That's kind of what I was assuming, but I figured if I was taking a 2 loss C out of the North, that probably wouldn't be the one.

But, I hate them more than anything in the entire world.  So my view is skewed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 02:49:23 PM
Quote from: oldnuthin on November 10, 2009, 11:25:45 AM
Quick stupid question. After the first round is done do they use the traditional bracketology or do they refigure the mileage for the second round matchups?

Once the bracket is built, teams advance to play the winner of a pre-determined matchup the traditional way; there is no re-seeding or re-shuffling in the next round.

But to go a little further with your question, the selection committee tends to build the bracket without regard for what might happen in future rounds, flight-wise, but only what can be guaranteed in the first round.

Also, the seeds might be a little confusing in a D3 playoff since travel takes precedence; higher seeds still host, but you might see a 4-6 matchup instead of a 3-6 if geography necessitates that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 02:56:06 PM
Quote from: Wes Anderson on November 10, 2009, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 10, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
Would have to be a DPU win.  7-2 DPU would not warrant a #5 seed (nor would 8-2 Wabash). 

That's kind of what I was assuming, but I figured if I was taking a 2 loss C out of the North, that probably wouldn't be the one.

But, I hate them more than anything in the entire world.  So my view is skewed.

You guys caught me in my hastiness messing that up. I was generally giving better seeds to conference champions, but for Wabash to get in, I think they'd have to win the Monon Bell game. So since distance is not really a concern with those two, can I just flip them?

The loser of Monon Bell going to UWW is no great reward.

Truth is, I originally had Wabash in there twice and had taken out Union, so I had to go back at the very end and move some things around ... Would it be easier, Wes, if we just scratched Wabash from the whole thing entirely?

Anyway, you're right, they can't both win. And while I might not hate Hampden-Sydney more than anything, I can identify with what you're feeling.

I want to make totally clear that I was just making that bracket up off the top of my head and there are numerous variables that could sway things, one of them being paying attention to detail :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: gobash83 on November 10, 2009, 02:58:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:51:53 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 10, 2009, 10:30:10 AM
K-Mack:  I would love to see that bracket.  It creates much more interesting regions built around Mount and Whitewater tha I expect.  I might be in the minority, but I really like Mount getting paired with non-traditional North Region teams.  The new opponents create some excitement in the early rounds that we wouldn't normally have by playing the NCAC or Heartland teams. 

Only thing I don't like is Wabash getting in over Ohio Northern.  I realize that a 9-1 Wabash will be selected by the NCAA before an 8-2 ONU, but Northern would drill Wabash into the ground if they actually played. 

One last statement about potential Pool C's.   I really, REALLY hope Otterbein doesn't get picked if the OAC is fortunate enough to get a C bid.  They are a complete pretender.   I still don't know how they managed to steal victories against ONU and Capital, but Otterbein woud not be anywhere near as  competitive in the playoffs as Ohio Northern or 7-3 Capital.

Interesting observations.

In the podcast, Pat and I talked about how Otterbein is at a distinct SOS disadvantage compared to ONU, Wheaton and North Central. But they're at the top of this h2h/common opponents chain: OTT > ONU > NCC > Wheaton. Not sure what the committee would favor.

In the event of a Wabash loss, I think two-loss ONU has a chance to emerge from that group to be the first North Region team on the Pool C table, because of the huge SOS difference. But it's hard to get a committee to ignore an h2h result, which is usually the right way to decide.

Can anyone tell the kids woke me up before leaving for school this morning and I can't fall back asleep? Wasn't supposed to be up this early aimlessly analyzing potential playoff fields.

Given the quote above, I thought that Keith had assumed a Wabash win, though I do think that a 9-1 Wabash deserves a better seed than #8 and a 2 loss DPU wouldn't deserve a #5 seed (even with my obvious bias).

Personally, I do not think that a 2 loss Wabash deserves a Pool C bid.  And, while I don't think ONU would "drill  Wabash into the ground" if they played, I do think that Northern and perhaps other 2 loss teams in the region would have as good as, if not better, argument for a Pool C bid. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: D O.C. on November 10, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
QuoteHow many of you guys are card counters? You do not have to admit it here, you can always IM me. Only a few of us would know then. If you only handicap the dogs, I am not that interested. BTW, where do you get your injury reports?   

Pardon me for being stupid, but WHAT THE HELL ...?


Keith is very good at this. However, I am not suggesting he try his hand at card counting.  :-*

It is my opinion that as esteemed as most of you handicapping these bids are, this is only handicapping.
Horse handicappers look down on dog handicappers and that was an attempt at humor.
Injury reports are important to odds maker$ and all those who cannot just sit back and enjoy a game.
This Fantasy Football must be fun but I notice every year it is NOT perfect.
I must await the NCAA, not this conjecture, before purchasing airfare SOMEWHERE.
   

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: gobash83 on November 10, 2009, 03:06:04 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 02:56:06 PM
So since distance is not really a concern with those two, can I just flip them?

***

Would it be easier, Wes, if we just scratched Wabash from the whole thing entirely?


While you didn't ask, flipping them is fine with me.... :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 03:36:42 PM
Quote from: D O.C. on November 10, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
QuoteHow many of you guys are card counters? You do not have to admit it here, you can always IM me. Only a few of us would know then. If you only handicap the dogs, I am not that interested. BTW, where do you get your injury reports?   

Pardon me for being stupid, but WHAT THE HELL ...?


Keith is very good at this. However, I am not suggesting he try his hand at card counting.  :-*

It is my opinion that as esteemed as most of you handicapping these bids are, this is only handicapping.
Horse handicappers look down on dog handicappers and that was an attempt at humor.
Injury reports are important to odds maker$ and all those who cannot just sit back and enjoy a game.
This Fantasy Football must be fun but I notice every year it is NOT perfect.
I must await the NCAA, not this conjecture, before purchasing airfare SOMEWHERE.

Thanks for the explanation.

You should be fairly confident that there'll be a game in McMinnville. There might also be one in Southern Calif. if you choose to wait a week to see the 'Cats, and I'm responding to who I think I'm responding to.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: AUPepBand on November 10, 2009, 03:56:01 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:08:44 AM
-- Use a map. You'll be surprised how close Alfred is to Ohio. They can get to Case and Wittenberg. Trine can get to Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. If you sub Union for Susquehanna, there are a ton more places the LL champ can go, with it being in Central Pa. stead upstate NY.


When Pep was a tot before the AFL and NFL were talking to each other, the closest NFL team to Alfred was the old Cleveland Browns. Since Pep's pops couldn't stomach the Bills, but Cleveland had some outstanding talent, we watched a lot of Browns games on the old 19" B&W TV since the Buffalo station carried the Browns.

Alfred is closer to Cleveland than New York City. Pep wouldn't mind seeing the Saxons travel to Cleveland to play Case Western again....the band is still drying out from its last trip there in 2005, a 14-0 win for AU in a steady downpour.

Alfred to Crestview Hills, KY is 491 miles...Pep once attended an AU basketball game at a tournament at Centre College in Danville, KY, which is a bit farther.

On Saxon Warriors!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 10, 2009, 04:10:49 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 10, 2009, 11:30:44 AM
I really like the idea of teams playing different teams.  However, it seems too logical to be taken seriously.  The NCAA seems married to the idea of "regional brackets".  It has been only recently that they have taken the top 4 teams and made them all #1 seeds.

One thing to consider is that Dick Kaiser, the chairman of the selection committee for the past couple years, finished his term last year.  When Dr. Kaiser started was when we started seeing brackets built around what they considered the top 4 teams.  I'm hoping the new chair will inject new philosophies and ideas to the group like Dr. Kaiser seemed to.  Perhaps they will think outside the box and bring us some inter-regional brackets like some are hoping.

And, if we have three West Coast and three Deep South teams, expect the SCIAC teams to play each other and UMHB to travel to the Northwest.  That makes only 1 flight for the first round, which is what the bean-counters are looking for.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2009, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: altor on November 10, 2009, 04:10:49 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 10, 2009, 11:30:44 AM
I really like the idea of teams playing different teams.  However, it seems too logical to be taken seriously.  The NCAA seems married to the idea of "regional brackets".  It has been only recently that they have taken the top 4 teams and made them all #1 seeds.

One thing to consider is that Dick Kaiser, the chairman of the selection committee for the past couple years, finished his term last year.  When Dr. Kaiser started was when we started seeing brackets built around what they considered the top 4 teams.  I'm hoping the new chair will inject new philosophies and ideas to the group like Dr. Kaiser seemed to.  Perhaps they will think outside the box and bring us some inter-regional brackets like some are hoping.

And, if we have three West Coast and three Deep South teams, expect the SCIAC teams to play each other and UMHB to travel to the Northwest.  That makes only 1 flight for the first round, which is what the bean-counters are looking for.

UMHB at Linfield would be a rematch of the last Stagg Bowl that did not have UWW and MUC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: TC on November 10, 2009, 04:32:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:08:44 AM
1 St. John's
8 Conc Ill

3 Miss Coll
6 Hunt

4 Cal Lutheran
5 UMHB

7 Redlands
2 Linfield

From a St. John's perspective, that bracket would be... interesting.  St. John's fans have spent the past couple weeks discussing potential matchups with familiar foes like UW-Whitewater, Central, Coe, St. Norbert, and St. Thomas.  Instead, this bracket (which I believe is a looooooooong shot) would put the Johnnies in a bracket with only two teams they've ever faced before (Linfield and Redlands)--and a possibility that the Johnnies wouldn't even have to face one of those two teams to win the region.

And, as a fan, I think I like this bracket.  It would mean St. John's wouldn't have to potentially face one of the Purple Powers until the national semifinals.  It would bring a new team or two to Collegeville.  And can you imagine those southern teams heading north in late November?  I think it would be a lot more interesting football than Johnnie/Tommie II. 

So tell us, Keith.  How would you seed the #1's in your potential bracket?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 05:12:56 PM
Quote from: TC on November 10, 2009, 04:32:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:08:44 AM
1 St. John's
8 Conc Ill

3 Miss Coll
6 Hunt

4 Cal Lutheran
5 UMHB

7 Redlands
2 Linfield

From a St. John's perspective, that bracket would be... interesting.  St. John's fans have spent the past couple weeks discussing potential matchups with familiar foes like UW-Whitewater, Central, Coe, St. Norbert, and St. Thomas.  Instead, this bracket (which I believe is a looooooooong shot) would put the Johnnies in a bracket with only two teams they've ever faced before (Linfield and Redlands)--and a possibility that the Johnnies wouldn't even have to face one of those two teams to win the region.

And, as a fan, I think I like this bracket.  It would mean St. John's wouldn't have to potentially face one of the Purple Powers until the national semifinals.  It would bring a new team or two to Collegeville.  And can you imagine those southern teams heading north in late November?  I think it would be a lot more interesting football than Johnnie/Tommie II. 

So tell us, Keith.  How would you seed the #1's in your potential bracket?

Well first off, I agree this is very unlikely to happen. I was really just trying to have a little fun and speculate about the possibilities. I sort of set out to do a bracket with three teams in each "sub-bracket" and one that made Mount Union, UWW and SJU the No. 1 seeds without necessarily making all the "east" teams have to go to MUC.

Mission accomplished, but then this sort of became the leftovers bracket.

In the poll, my top four are UW-W, MUC, Wesley and St. John's ... I realize that's not exactly what you asked, and you're aware polls and selection criteria don't necessarily match. But I think no matter how you slice it, MUC and UWW should be 1-2 and should be split. This would pit Wesley and MUC for the first time if the seeds hold, but it would rematch SJU and UWW. Any other way, you risk the UWW-Wesley rematch that no one wants to see.

I don't know how you do it exactly. Maybe Central or Linfield sneaks a 1, but I think those are the four, barring something really ridiculous.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 05:19:52 PM
Quote from: altor on November 10, 2009, 04:10:49 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 10, 2009, 11:30:44 AM
I really like the idea of teams playing different teams.  However, it seems too logical to be taken seriously.  The NCAA seems married to the idea of "regional brackets".  It has been only recently that they have taken the top 4 teams and made them all #1 seeds.

One thing to consider is that Dick Kaiser, the chairman of the selection committee for the past couple years, finished his term last year.  When Dr. Kaiser started was when we started seeing brackets built around what they considered the top 4 teams.  I'm hoping the new chair will inject new philosophies and ideas to the group like Dr. Kaiser seemed to.  Perhaps they will think outside the box and bring us some inter-regional brackets like some are hoping.

And, if we have three West Coast and three Deep South teams, expect the SCIAC teams to play each other and UMHB to travel to the Northwest.  That makes only 1 flight for the first round, which is what the bean-counters are looking for.

I think those are some good points, one about Dr. Kaiser, who was very open with us and sort of ushered in the "seed four No. 1s first" era. And the second about the multiple SCIAC teams.

We've seen travel trump the no-conference-rematches before, but I can't remember if there's ever been a case where they'd be forced to rematch teams that had just played the Saturday before. That would be weaksauce.

I also understand there's been an internal push to try to allow more flights in the first round, and while I don't think they've gotten anywhere with that officially, the optimists among us could hope for a situation where they allow two flights.

It's important to keep in mind that it's probably fairly unlikely CLU and Redlands will both get in anyway. Redlands would need to beat CLU but still lose out on the AQ due to the Rose Bowl Rule, then outgrade all the other Pool C candidates on the board. If Oxy loses to Whittier and Redlands steals the AQ, CLU won't get in with two losses, IMHO

Perhaps, altor, if we closely consider this ... one SCIAC, one NWC and one ASC, plus Miss Coll vs. Huntingdon ... that forces two flights, no?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 05:26:08 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:43:25 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 10, 2009, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2009, 11:11:36 AM
Nice work K-Mack--here is my question about your proposed bracket:  If Redlands beats CLU and wins a Pool C selection--does CLU really still end up seated higher than them and get the home game in round 1?  Or might the committee look at the head to head when placing them in brackets and swap--give Redlands the home game and send CLU up to Linfield?  I only ask because, as a Linfield fan and somebody who has watched the SCIAC this year--Redlands looks like the better team (compared to CLU) and should they win on Saturday will confirm this--  So, it would seem a little "unfair" to give the weaker team the home game and send the better team on the road (not to mention a bit unfair to Linfield to have to face a better first round team than their ranking might otherwise dictate).
In Texas we understand that "fair" has nothing to do with it.  The only reason I think CLU and Redlands wouldn't meet again is because it would be back to back weeks, but if they did, it could also mean only 1 flight UMHB to Linfield.  Which match up would be more fair?  Redlands -Linfield or UMHB - Linfield
I actually think Redlands to MHB and CLU to Linfield would be more fair--and we know about the unfairness of it all in the Northwest as well.... :)

You are probably right. I was speeding through assuming that Pool A teams were higher seeds than Pool C teams, but I made that mistake elsewhere ... once the 32 teams are in, the committee makes no distinction how you got in, so coming off the h2h win, Redlands would probably be more likely to host.

Quote from: Gray Fox on November 10, 2009, 12:09:30 PM
My theory is that the "extra"  island teams that are low seeds be sent to a top seed.  That, in theory, eliminates further flights and fits the normal seeding concept.  It makes no difference which Region they are sent to.

Yes and no. I doubt they are flying a West Coast team to Cleveland or Philadelphia (Dover) when they can fly them into Minneapolis.

The rest of your theory is worth considering though.

If it's one SCIAC, one NWC and three deep south, then somebody's on an island no matter how it's sliced. That probably means Huntingdon vs. Miss Coll, SCIAC to Linfield, and UMHB traveling or hosting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 10, 2009, 06:44:05 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 05:19:52 PM

We've seen travel trump the no-conference-rematches before, but I can't remember if there's ever been a case where they'd be forced to rematch teams that had just played the Saturday before. That would be weaksauce.

For what it's worth, they just did it in men's soccer, where Hardin-Simmons and UMHB are forced to play a rematch of last weekend's ASC championship match because they're the only two teams within 500 miles of Trinity, who got a bye (even though UMHB beat them earlier in the season) and faces the winner in the second round.  Not exactly the same situation, but close enough.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: D O.C. on November 10, 2009, 07:02:30 PM
Quoteand a possibility that the Johnnies wouldn't even have to face one of those two teams to win the region.

because their magic ran out and they could not pull off another squeaker?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 10, 2009, 06:44:05 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 05:19:52 PM

We've seen travel trump the no-conference-rematches before, but I can't remember if there's ever been a case where they'd be forced to rematch teams that had just played the Saturday before. That would be weaksauce.

For what it's worth, they just did it in men's soccer, where Hardin-Simmons and UMHB are forced to play a rematch of last weekend's ASC championship match because they're the only two teams within 500 miles of Trinity, who got a bye (even though UMHB beat them earlier in the season) and faces the winner in the second round.  Not exactly the same situation, but close enough.

Interesting.

Let's just say the same situation in football would be met with much scorn on these internets.

Anyway, like I said, it's not all that likely, so we've maybe already spent too much time talking about it.

Anyone think the Kean/Montclair State loser has a shot to get on the table from the East? It's just the Albright/Leb Val winner and loser, plus SJF and Plymouth State, right?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wesleydad on November 10, 2009, 09:26:56 PM
kmack, i love the wesley bracket.  there is not a team in it that the wolverines would not be clear favorites against.  plus playing all the games in dover is an added bonus.  I, also like your seeded of the ones.  I would much rather see wesley play mount then go to uwww again, i can make the drive to mount, not getting to the uwww game if it happens.  purely selfish reasons, but my friends at mount have also voiced an interest in playing the wolverines and it would be nice to see things mixed up a little bit.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2009, 09:30:18 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 02:56:06 PM
Quote from: Wes Anderson on November 10, 2009, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 10, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
Would have to be a DPU win.  7-2 DPU would not warrant a #5 seed (nor would 8-2 Wabash). 

That's kind of what I was assuming, but I figured if I was taking a 2 loss C out of the North, that probably wouldn't be the one.

But, I hate them more than anything in the entire world.  So my view is skewed.

And while I might not hate Hampden-Sydney more than anything ...

Gosh Keith, thanks.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 10, 2009, 10:51:11 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 05:26:08 PM
If it's one SCIAC, one NWC and three deep south, then somebody's on an island no matter how it's sliced. That probably means Huntingdon vs. Miss Coll, SCIAC to Linfield, and UMHB traveling or hosting.
That was my theory when I posted my South/West bracket for comments a couple days ago.  With these five, UMHB almost certainly is flying somewhere, and the VA/NC area seems likely to me.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: altor on November 10, 2009, 10:51:11 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 05:26:08 PM
If it's one SCIAC, one NWC and three deep south, then somebody's on an island no matter how it's sliced. That probably means Huntingdon vs. Miss Coll, SCIAC to Linfield, and UMHB traveling or hosting.
That was my theory when I posted my South/West bracket for comments a couple days ago.  With these five, UMHB almost certainly is flying somewhere, and the VA/NC area seems likely to me.

Why, because it's a short flight?

I think it's more likely the low-seeded USAC champ goes to high seed H-SC.

As Gray Fox hinted, once you commit to a flight, it's not necessarily important that it be to the next-closest school.

Also, I'm not sure UMHB hosting is out of the question. But if they do fly out, I wonder if consideration is given to who is near a major airport, or are they charter flights? (I seem to remember some of the PLU stories sounding like commercial flights)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: lakeshore on November 11, 2009, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: gobash83 on November 10, 2009, 02:58:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:51:53 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 10, 2009, 10:30:10 AM
K-Mack:  I would love to see that bracket.  It creates much more interesting regions built around Mount and Whitewater tha I expect.  I might be in the minority, but I really like Mount getting paired with non-traditional North Region teams.  The new opponents create some excitement in the early rounds that we wouldn't normally have by playing the NCAC or Heartland teams. 

Only thing I don't like is Wabash getting in over Ohio Northern.  I realize that a 9-1 Wabash will be selected by the NCAA before an 8-2 ONU, but Northern would drill Wabash into the ground if they actually played. 

One last statement about potential Pool C's.   I really, REALLY hope Otterbein doesn't get picked if the OAC is fortunate enough to get a C bid.  They are a complete pretender.   I still don't know how they managed to steal victories against ONU and Capital, but Otterbein woud not be anywhere near as  competitive in the playoffs as Ohio Northern or 7-3 Capital.

Interesting observations.

In the podcast, Pat and I talked about how Otterbein is at a distinct SOS disadvantage compared to ONU, Wheaton and North Central. But they're at the top of this h2h/common opponents chain: OTT > ONU > NCC > Wheaton. Not sure what the committee would favor.

In the event of a Wabash loss, I think two-loss ONU has a chance to emerge from that group to be the first North Region team on the Pool C table, because of the huge SOS difference. But it's hard to get a committee to ignore an h2h result, which is usually the right way to decide.

Can anyone tell the kids woke me up before leaving for school this morning and I can't fall back asleep? Wasn't supposed to be up this early aimlessly analyzing potential playoff fields.

Given the quote above, I thought that Keith had assumed a Wabash win, though I do think that a 9-1 Wabash deserves a better seed than #8 and a 2 loss DPU wouldn't deserve a #5 seed (even with my obvious bias).

Personally, I do not think that a 2 loss Wabash deserves a Pool C bid.  And, while I don't think ONU would "drill  Wabash into the ground" if they played, I do think that Northern and perhaps other 2 loss teams in the region would have as good as, if not better, argument for a Pool C bid. 

Is it possible for 2 pool C bids to come from the CCIW in North Central and Wheaton.  Wheaton's playoff record speaks for itself and both of these teams would surely handle a Wabash or Depauw.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 11:54:43 AM
Please remember that UMHB in Belton TX is just 60 miles up the interstate from Austin, which has very good flight connections.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 11:55:16 AM
Wheaton's past playoff record isn't part of what can be considered for selection.  

This was noted earlier, but based on the h2h chain, the order of two loss North region teams has to be ONU then NCC then Wheaton.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 11, 2009, 12:20:58 PM
ralph,
flying out of or into killeen isn't too bad these days either
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2009, 01:06:53 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 11:55:16 AM
Wheaton's past playoff record isn't part of what can be considered for selection.  

This was noted earlier, but based on the h2h chain, the order of two loss North region teams has to be ONU then NCC then Wheaton.

You left Otterbein off the food chain, owning a win over Ohio Northern.....
That would make it Ott > ONU > NoCent > Wheaton

Of course, there is that lower OWP thing....


Regional rankings have appeared to look more at record, at least so far....

Here's who I have on the North Pool C board (current overall records):

Wabash (8-1)
Ohio Northern (7-2)
North Central (7-2) (CCIW AQ possible)
Otterbein (7-2)
Wheaton (7-2)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Blutarsky on November 11, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
I write this knowing full-well that teams change over the course of the year.  However, after seeing ONU, OTT, and Capital first-hand, I believe that ONU would be the best "2nd choice" from the OAC, if one is selected.  For the life of me, I can't figure out how the Otterbein team I witnessed last Saturday defeated ONU and Cap.  They are pretty banged-up, and don't appear to be playing with much purpose.  If the goal is to truly get the "best teams" in the playoffs, then ONU fills the bill for a Pool C--even with two losses.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
Otterbein lost to Marietta, which is unforgiveable so they're out even if they have a win over ONU.  Had Otterbein lost to Cap and MUC, fine.  But not Marietta.  Playoff teams don't lose to Marietta. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 11, 2009, 02:53:35 PM
New Regional Rankings are in:

North Region
1. Mount Union 8-0 9-0
2. Wittenberg 7-0 9-0
3. Mount St. Joseph 9-0 9-0
4. Case Western Reserve 7-0 9-0
5. Illinois Wesleyan 8-1 8-1
6. Wabash 7-1 8-1
7. Trine 8-1 8-1
8. Ohio Northern 7-2 7-2
9. North Central (Ill.) 7-2 7-2
10. Concordia (Ill.) 8-1 8-1

What I find most interesting about the North rankings is not the appearance of ONU but the inclusion of NCC, which strengthen's ONU's case (win over a regionally ranked opponent).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2009, 04:05:22 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
Otterbein lost to Marietta, which is unforgiveable so they're out even if they have a win over ONU.  Had Otterbein lost to Cap and MUC, fine.  But not Marietta.  Playoff teams don't lose to Marietta. 

Bingo!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 04:09:58 PM
Running through the rankings and assuming nothing about future results, these are the pool C selections that I came up with (using my interpretation of the selection criteria: mainly SOS, h2h, and results vs. regionally ranked opponents)...in order of selection:

St. Thomas
Coe
Kean
Albright
Leb Valley
Wabash

Obviously, these are not the six teams that will be selected.  Lebanon Valley and Albright are playing an elimination game this weekend.  One of those teams will not make the field.  Kean is also playing Montclair State in a game that, if Kean wins, they're probably in.  Montclair State has a really good chance to get in if they win AND Kean doesn't fall out of the rankings. 

Where's UMHB?  Looking strictly at the numbers, UMHB is getting killed on SOS. On my board, they're the first team left out...which means if we assume that one of Leb Valley and Albright are out, then UMHB is in.  BUT, we get to a very, very interesting situation because once Wabash goes off the board, ONU comes on and ONU's SOS kills everybody and they have a win over a regionally ranked opponent whereas nobody else on the board does.  Do those things trump the extra loss and get ONU in ahead of teams like UMHB, St. Norbert, or Montclair State?  That I don't know. 

I should also say that I don't think there's any way that UMHB gets left out, regardless of what the SOS numbers say. I can't envision the committee leaving them out and telling all of us that UMHB wasn't as good as 2 runners up in the West and 2-3 runners up in the East.  That isn't happening...which of course puts Wabash squarely on the bubble.  Wabash will get a SOS boost from this weekend's Monon Bell game, which will help (provided the LGs can win). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2009, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
Otterbein lost to Marietta....  Playoff teams don't lose to Marietta.  

While that may be true, here's the deal:

If playoff teams don't lose to Marietta, playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to Marietta....there goes ONU.

If playoff teams don't lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to teams who lose to Marietta, so much for North Central.

And, finally, if playoff teams don't lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to teams who lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lost to teams who lose to teams who lose to teams who lose to Marietta, good bye Wheaton.

Now, that we've removed the Ott., ONU, NCC and Wheaton, there's nobody left in Pool C from the North except Wabash!  The rest of the field is happy to hear about the new criteria....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 04:26:32 PM
Har dee har, Bob...

If losing to Marietta wasn't a mortal sin, Otterbein would be ranked ahead of Ohio Northern (or ranked at all for that matter), which they are not.  It would seem that the group of people responsible for the regional rankings would agree that one shouldn't lose to Marietta and expect to be considered for an invite to the tournament.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2009, 04:33:13 PM
It may not be Marietta (and, of course, officially it isn't); Ott has BY FAR the worst SOS of the four 2-loss teams being mentioned.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2009, 04:34:43 PM
wally, I wasn't disagreeing with you....I was taking your stance to its logical conclusion.  That conclusion results in Wabash getting in, win or lose in the Bell game....there's nobody else worth considering after the Marietta Domino effect is applied to the rankings.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bill McCabe on November 11, 2009, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 04:09:58 PM
Running through the rankings and assuming nothing about future results, these are the pool C selections that I came up with (using my interpretation of the selection criteria: mainly SOS, h2h, and results vs. regionally ranked opponents)...in order of selection:

St. Thomas
Coe
Kean
Albright
Leb Valley
Wabash

Obviously, these are not the six teams that will be selected.  Lebanon Valley and Albright are playing an elimination game this weekend.  One of those teams will not make the field.  Kean is also playing Montclair State in a game that, if Kean wins, they're probably in.  Montclair State has a really good chance to get in if they win AND Kean doesn't fall out of the rankings. 

Where's UMHB?  Looking strictly at the numbers, UMHB is getting killed on SOS. On my board, they're the first team left out...which means if we assume that one of Leb Valley and Albright are out, then UMHB is in.  BUT, we get to a very, very interesting situation because once Wabash goes off the board, ONU comes on and ONU's SOS kills everybody and they have a win over a regionally ranked opponent whereas nobody else on the board does.  Do those things trump the extra loss and get ONU in ahead of teams like UMHB, St. Norbert, or Montclair State?  That I don't know. 

I should also say that I don't think there's any way that UMHB gets left out, regardless of what the SOS numbers say. I can't envision the committee leaving them out and telling all of us that UMHB wasn't as good as 2 runners up in the West and 2-3 runners up in the East.  That isn't happening...which of course puts Wabash squarely on the bubble.  Wabash will get a SOS boost from this weekend's Monon Bell game, which will help (provided the LGs can win). 

As a UMHB fan, this is the type of NCAA scenario that makes me really nervous.  It has happened to UMHB before.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on November 11, 2009, 04:49:02 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 11:25:40 PM
Why, because it's a short flight?
For several reasons.  The biggest reason is that the VA/NC area is on a bit of a mini-island.  Only so many playoff teams can be sent to/from there.  It fixes a lot of headaches to send UMHB there.  Second, even though we all know better, UMHB is about a 6 seed at the moment and Hampden-Sydney is about a 2-3 seed (going off the Regional rankings today).  That makes for a "balanced bracket."

Quote
I think it's more likely the low-seeded USAC champ goes to high seed H-SC.

As Gray Fox hinted, once you commit to a flight, it's not necessarily important that it be to the next-closest school.

True, but "teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity."  (from the handbook)

Quote
Also, I'm not sure UMHB hosting is out of the question. But if they do fly out, I wonder if consideration is given to who is near a major airport, or are they charter flights? (I seem to remember some of the PLU stories sounding like commercial flights)
I'm pretty sure UMHB is flying somewhere.  Either that or they are going to Mississippi (which I don't think anybody wants).  Or they will be at home, as some or worried about.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 04:54:26 PM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 11, 2009, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 04:09:58 PM
Running through the rankings and assuming nothing about future results, these are the pool C selections that I came up with (using my interpretation of the selection criteria: mainly SOS, h2h, and results vs. regionally ranked opponents)...in order of selection:

St. Thomas
Coe
Kean
Albright
Leb Valley
Wabash

Obviously, these are not the six teams that will be selected.  Lebanon Valley and Albright are playing an elimination game this weekend.  One of those teams will not make the field.  Kean is also playing Montclair State in a game that, if Kean wins, they're probably in.  Montclair State has a really good chance to get in if they win AND Kean doesn't fall out of the rankings.  

Where's UMHB?  Looking strictly at the numbers, UMHB is getting killed on SOS. On my board, they're the first team left out...which means if we assume that one of Leb Valley and Albright are out, then UMHB is in.  BUT, we get to a very, very interesting situation because once Wabash goes off the board, ONU comes on and ONU's SOS kills everybody and they have a win over a regionally ranked opponent whereas nobody else on the board does.  Do those things trump the extra loss and get ONU in ahead of teams like UMHB, St. Norbert, or Montclair State?  That I don't know.  

I should also say that I don't think there's any way that UMHB gets left out, regardless of what the SOS numbers say. I can't envision the committee leaving them out and telling all of us that UMHB wasn't as good as 2 runners up in the West and 2-3 runners up in the East.  That isn't happening...which of course puts Wabash squarely on the bubble.  Wabash will get a SOS boost from this weekend's Monon Bell game, which will help (provided the LGs can win).  

As a UMHB fan, this is the type of NCAA scenario that makes me really nervous.  It has happened to UMHB before.
... back in 2000.

Bill, whom does UMHB have for non-conference games in 2010?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: bleedpurple on November 11, 2009, 04:57:36 PM
As a UWW fan, obviously, I'm happy to see UWW seeded #1 in the west. i am fully expecting a move north, but it would be fun to stay in the west to see if there could be a rematch of the classic 2005 game against Linfield.  

I'd like to posit a serious set of questions:

Is it possible/likely that the #6 seed in the south is still the 3rd best team in the nation? From all I can gather...I'd say yes!  Or is the general consensus that Mississippi College is? Until the upset MC put on UMHB (UWW lost to UWSP last year!), I thought there was a dropoff after MUC, UWW, and UMHB. Is there a general consensus that has changed? Maybe there's a top 4 now? Just wondering....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 11, 2009, 05:03:18 PM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 11, 2009, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 04:09:58 PM
Running through the rankings and assuming nothing about future results, these are the pool C selections that I came up with (using my interpretation of the selection criteria: mainly SOS, h2h, and results vs. regionally ranked opponents)...in order of selection:

St. Thomas
Coe
Kean
Albright
Leb Valley
Wabash

Obviously, these are not the six teams that will be selected.  Lebanon Valley and Albright are playing an elimination game this weekend.  One of those teams will not make the field.  Kean is also playing Montclair State in a game that, if Kean wins, they're probably in.  Montclair State has a really good chance to get in if they win AND Kean doesn't fall out of the rankings. 

Where's UMHB?  Looking strictly at the numbers, UMHB is getting killed on SOS. On my board, they're the first team left out...which means if we assume that one of Leb Valley and Albright are out, then UMHB is in.  BUT, we get to a very, very interesting situation because once Wabash goes off the board, ONU comes on and ONU's SOS kills everybody and they have a win over a regionally ranked opponent whereas nobody else on the board does.  Do those things trump the extra loss and get ONU in ahead of teams like UMHB, St. Norbert, or Montclair State?  That I don't know. 

I should also say that I don't think there's any way that UMHB gets left out, regardless of what the SOS numbers say. I can't envision the committee leaving them out and telling all of us that UMHB wasn't as good as 2 runners up in the West and 2-3 runners up in the East.  That isn't happening...which of course puts Wabash squarely on the bubble.  Wabash will get a SOS boost from this weekend's Monon Bell game, which will help (provided the LGs can win). 

As a UMHB fan, this is the type of NCAA scenario that makes me really nervous.  It has happened to UMHB before.

To help sort out the 3 East teams on this list, Leb Valley and Albright play each other, so the loser will have 2 loses and likely drop out of consideration.  Additionally, both Kean and Montclair cannot finish with 1 loss since they play each other in what has unfolded as a title game in the NJAC.  So, the winner gets the pool A and the loser likely falls out of consideration.  So, that is two spots from the above list opening up regardless of results for potential Pool C candidates.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 05:28:59 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2009, 04:34:43 PM
wally, I wasn't disagreeing with you....I was taking your stance to its logical conclusion.  That conclusion results in Wabash getting in, win or lose in the Bell game....there's nobody else worth considering after the Marietta Domino effect is applied to the rankings.....

Fair enough, but I think the beginning of the logic is also its conclusion...losing to Marietta is a far, far bigger crime than losing to a team that lost to Marietta. 

And I don't think Wabash needs to be considered for the playoffs if they lose on Saturday.  I don't think anybody in the Wabash camp thinks so.  If the best win Wabash has this season is at Allegheny, then Wabash is not a playoff team.  As has been put forth by some others earlier this week, Wabash's playoffs start this weekend. 

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 11, 2009, 05:03:18 PM
To help sort out the 3 East teams on this list, Leb Valley and Albright play each other, so the loser will have 2 loses and likely drop out of consideration.  Additionally, both Kean and Montclair cannot finish with 1 loss since they play each other in what has unfolded as a title game in the NJAC.  So, the winner gets the pool A and the loser likely falls out of consideration.  So, that is two spots from the above list opening up regardless of results for potential Pool C candidates.

That's absolutely right.  I had a feeling there was something I missed about those eastern teams.  There will be two spots available...if ONU gets to the table it is going to be very, very interesting to see if their SOS and regional win trump a number of 1-loss teams. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Breckenridgebear on November 11, 2009, 05:35:49 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 05:28:59 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2009, 04:34:43 PM
wally, I wasn't disagreeing with you....I was taking your stance to its logical conclusion.  That conclusion results in Wabash getting in, win or lose in the Bell game....there's nobody else worth considering after the Marietta Domino effect is applied to the rankings.....

Fair enough, but I think the beginning of the logic is also its conclusion...losing to Marietta is a far, far bigger crime than losing to a team that lost to Marietta. 

And I don't think Wabash needs to be considered for the playoffs if they lose on Saturday.  I don't think anybody in the Wabash camp thinks so.  If the best win Wabash has this season is at Allegheny, then Wabash is not a playoff team.  As has been put forth by some others earlier this week, Wabash's playoffs start this weekend. 

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 11, 2009, 05:03:18 PM
To help sort out the 3 East teams on this list, Leb Valley and Albright play each other, so the loser will have 2 loses and likely drop out of consideration.  Additionally, both Kean and Montclair cannot finish with 1 loss since they play each other in what has unfolded as a title game in the NJAC.  So, the winner gets the pool A and the loser likely falls out of consideration.  So, that is two spots from the above list opening up regardless of results for potential Pool C candidates.

That's absolutely right.  I had a feeling there was something I missed about those eastern teams.  There will be two spots available...if ONU gets to the table it is going to be very, very interesting to see if their SOS and regional win trump a number of 1-loss teams. 

Playoffs! Playoffs dawally_dabash? Dabash is going to be lucky to win another game! Playoffs?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2009, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
Otterbein lost to Marietta....  Playoff teams don't lose to Marietta.  

While that may be true, here's the deal:

If playoff teams don't lose to Marietta, playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to Marietta....there goes ONU.

If playoff teams don't lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to teams who lose to Marietta, so much for North Central.

And, finally, if playoff teams don't lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lose to teams who lose to teams who lose to Marietta, and playoff teams don't lost to teams who lose to teams who lose to teams who lose to Marietta, good bye Wheaton.

Now, that we've removed the Ott., ONU, NCC and Wheaton, there's nobody left in Pool C from the North except Wabash!  The rest of the field is happy to hear about the new criteria....

You've obviously never witnessed first hand the ineptitude of Marietta.  That loss alone should cost Otterbein a potential spot in NEXT YEAR'S field too.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2009, 07:58:25 PM
Now, Marietta has had winning records TWICE this decade.

Up in my area, there is the consistency that is Hamline. If they beat St. Olaf they'll go 5-5.

However, from 1999-2008, they won 2 games five times and 3 games five times.

2004-2007, they were 3-7, 1-7 MAC.

Couldn't do that if you tried...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 08:25:44 PM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 11, 2009, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: gobash83 on November 10, 2009, 02:58:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2009, 10:51:53 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 10, 2009, 10:30:10 AM
K-Mack:  I would love to see that bracket.  It creates much more interesting regions built around Mount and Whitewater tha I expect.  I might be in the minority, but I really like Mount getting paired with non-traditional North Region teams.  The new opponents create some excitement in the early rounds that we wouldn't normally have by playing the NCAC or Heartland teams. 

Only thing I don't like is Wabash getting in over Ohio Northern.  I realize that a 9-1 Wabash will be selected by the NCAA before an 8-2 ONU, but Northern would drill Wabash into the ground if they actually played. 

One last statement about potential Pool C's.   I really, REALLY hope Otterbein doesn't get picked if the OAC is fortunate enough to get a C bid.  They are a complete pretender.   I still don't know how they managed to steal victories against ONU and Capital, but Otterbein woud not be anywhere near as  competitive in the playoffs as Ohio Northern or 7-3 Capital.

Interesting observations.

In the podcast, Pat and I talked about how Otterbein is at a distinct SOS disadvantage compared to ONU, Wheaton and North Central. But they're at the top of this h2h/common opponents chain: OTT > ONU > NCC > Wheaton. Not sure what the committee would favor.

In the event of a Wabash loss, I think two-loss ONU has a chance to emerge from that group to be the first North Region team on the Pool C table, because of the huge SOS difference. But it's hard to get a committee to ignore an h2h result, which is usually the right way to decide.

Can anyone tell the kids woke me up before leaving for school this morning and I can't fall back asleep? Wasn't supposed to be up this early aimlessly analyzing potential playoff fields.

Given the quote above, I thought that Keith had assumed a Wabash win, though I do think that a 9-1 Wabash deserves a better seed than #8 and a 2 loss DPU wouldn't deserve a #5 seed (even with my obvious bias).

Personally, I do not think that a 2 loss Wabash deserves a Pool C bid.  And, while I don't think ONU would "drill  Wabash into the ground" if they played, I do think that Northern and perhaps other 2 loss teams in the region would have as good as, if not better, argument for a Pool C bid. 

Is it possible for 2 pool C bids to come from the CCIW in North Central and Wheaton.  Wheaton's playoff record speaks for itself and both of these teams would surely handle a Wabash or Depauw.  Thoughts?

Yes, it's possible.

No, I don't think it's likely. ONU appears to be in front of both of them.

I don't know that they'd "surely handle" a Wabash or DePauw, but CCIW teams fare well against everyone but OAC teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: Blutarsky on November 11, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
If the goal is to truly get the "best teams" in the playoffs, then ONU fills the bill for a Pool C--even with two losses.

It's not. It's to ensure everyone has fair access to the playoffs, where the best among those 32 can sort themselves out.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see ONU in, and I think they have a legitimate shot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 08:41:08 PM
BTW,
not sure if you folks saw this, but I took yesterday's experiment and expanded it on the blog ... three mock brackets:

http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2009/11/11/atn-mock-brackets/

Okay, back to Pool C ...

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 04:09:58 PM
Running through the rankings and assuming nothing about future results, these are the pool C selections that I came up with (using my interpretation of the selection criteria: mainly SOS, h2h, and results vs. regionally ranked opponents)...in order of selection:

St. Thomas
Coe
Kean
Albright
Leb Valley
Wabash

Obviously, these are not the six teams that will be selected.  Lebanon Valley and Albright are playing an elimination game this weekend.  One of those teams will not make the field.  Kean is also playing Montclair State in a game that, if Kean wins, they're probably in.  Montclair State has a really good chance to get in if they win AND Kean doesn't fall out of the rankings. 

Where's UMHB?  Looking strictly at the numbers, UMHB is getting killed on SOS. On my board, they're the first team left out...which means if we assume that one of Leb Valley and Albright are out, then UMHB is in.  BUT, we get to a very, very interesting situation because once Wabash goes off the board, ONU comes on and ONU's SOS kills everybody and they have a win over a regionally ranked opponent whereas nobody else on the board does.  Do those things trump the extra loss and get ONU in ahead of teams like UMHB, St. Norbert, or Montclair State?  That I don't know. 

I should also say that I don't think there's any way that UMHB gets left out, regardless of what the SOS numbers say. I can't envision the committee leaving them out and telling all of us that UMHB wasn't as good as 2 runners up in the West and 2-3 runners up in the East.  That isn't happening...which of course puts Wabash squarely on the bubble.  Wabash will get a SOS boost from this weekend's Monon Bell game, which will help (provided the LGs can win). 

Wally,
I did the same thing re: UMHB when I was assembling mock brackets. Their numbers aren't the greatest, but I really couldn't imagine them being left out. If so, the cries would be that it's financially motivated, to save the cost of a flight, although we saw last year that the selection committee appears to be on our side and there's a "bean-counter" that has to approve the bracket and does so with costs in mind. So I think the committee, if it's close, is going to find every way to get UMHB in, and nobody on the bubble is really going to honestly think they're better.

But, if we advocate sticking to the criteria, and we do, the only thing I really see in UMHB's favor is the word "results" against regionally-ranked teams ... in other words, it's not just trying to make the case that 0-1 vs. RRTs is better than 0-0, but that they lost by 3 on the road, etc. I don't know how ambiguous "results" is supposed to be.

Also, as you mention ... I think you're aware that Kean/Montclair State is an automatic bid and the loser is a two-loss Pool C candidate.

Only one of LV/Albright will be on the table.

Wabash is not guaranteed to beat DePauw.

ONU is trouble if it gets on the board.

A lot of variables, for sure ...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
That's right, Keith.  I picked my Pool C's today based on the results through week 10, the regional rankings released today, and NOT assuming any future results.  This was simply a snapshot of who I think gets selected if they had to be selected at this moment.  The board will certainly look different after the Albright/LV and Wabash/DPU games....as well any other unforeseen craziness that might happen (see week 11, 2008). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: TC on November 11, 2009, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2009, 07:58:25 PM
Now, Marietta has had winning records TWICE this decade.

Up in my area, there is the consistency that is Hamline. If they beat St. Olaf they'll go 5-5.

However, from 1999-2008, they won 2 games five times and 3 games five times.

2004-2007, they were 3-7, 1-7 MAC.

Couldn't do that if you tried...

They play in the MIAC, not the MAC, of course. 

UW-River Falls (http://www.d3football.com/school/UWRF/2009) is pretty similar:  a 4-year run of 3-7/2-5 from '05-'08 and at least one of those records every year from 2002 through 2009. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 09:19:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
That's right, Keith.  I picked my Pool C's today based on the results through week 10, the regional rankings released today, and NOT assuming any future results.  This was simply a snapshot of who I think gets selected if they had to be selected at this moment.  The board will certainly look different after the Albright/LV and Wabash/DPU games....as well any other unforeseen craziness that might happen (see week 11, 2008). 

I read that carefully and put the "as you mention" in there to let you know I had :D I wasn't disagreeing, just furthering the point (since I wanted to post about similar things, your post was a good jumping off point). The "now" board is interesting, but I'm enjoying speculating about what might be the case on Sunday  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 09:19:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
That's right, Keith.  I picked my Pool C's today based on the results through week 10, the regional rankings released today, and NOT assuming any future results.  This was simply a snapshot of who I think gets selected if they had to be selected at this moment.  The board will certainly look different after the Albright/LV and Wabash/DPU games....as well any other unforeseen craziness that might happen (see week 11, 2008). 

I read that carefully and put the "as you mention" in there to let you know I had :D I wasn't disagreeing, just furthering the point (since I wanted to post about similar things, your post was a good jumping off point). The "now" board is interesting, but I'm enjoying speculating about what might be the case on Sunday  ;)

What I got out of my little exercise was that Wabash isn't nearly as "safe" as I would have thought before today.  I was surprised that two West teams were relatively easy selections before any of the "first in line"s from the other regions which really makes St. Thomas and Coe safe if they win this weekend.  The LGs are quite obviously in a must-win situation, but it may actually take the SOS boost that they'll get from DePauw to get into the field.  At best, I think Wabash would be the fourth team selected (behind the two west teams and the Albright/LV winner)...and more likely fifth if you want to assume that UMHB is getting in, SOS be damned (which I do).  Fifth best on the board...according to me.  I'm not sure that I can sleep easy thinking that my view and the committee's view agree to within one or two teams.  As nerve wracking as this Bell week is, even if Wabash gets a satisfying win on Saturday, I'm afraid I'll have to wait one more night to get rest easy.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 09:19:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
That's right, Keith.  I picked my Pool C's today based on the results through week 10, the regional rankings released today, and NOT assuming any future results.  This was simply a snapshot of who I think gets selected if they had to be selected at this moment.  The board will certainly look different after the Albright/LV and Wabash/DPU games....as well any other unforeseen craziness that might happen (see week 11, 2008). 

I read that carefully and put the "as you mention" in there to let you know I had :D I wasn't disagreeing, just furthering the point (since I wanted to post about similar things, your post was a good jumping off point). The "now" board is interesting, but I'm enjoying speculating about what might be the case on Sunday  ;)

What I got out of my little exercise was that Wabash isn't nearly as "safe" as I would have thought before today.  I was surprised that two West teams were relatively easy selections before any of the "first in line"s from the other regions which really makes St. Thomas and Coe safe if they win this weekend.  The LGs are quite obviously in a must-win situation, but it may actually take the SOS boost that they'll get from DePauw to get into the field.  At best, I think Wabash would be the fourth team selected (behind the two west teams and the Albright/LV winner)...and more likely fifth if you want to assume that UMHB is getting in, SOS be damned (which I do).  Fifth best on the board...according to me.  I'm not sure that I can sleep easy thinking that my view and the committee's view agree to within one or two teams.  As nerve wracking as this Bell week is, even if Wabash gets a satisfying win on Saturday, I'm afraid I'll have to wait one more night to get rest easy.   :)

Such is life when you don't earn the AQ.

I think you're analysis is pretty good though, if that's any consolation
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 09:19:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
That's right, Keith.  I picked my Pool C's today based on the results through week 10, the regional rankings released today, and NOT assuming any future results.  This was simply a snapshot of who I think gets selected if they had to be selected at this moment.  The board will certainly look different after the Albright/LV and Wabash/DPU games....as well any other unforeseen craziness that might happen (see week 11, 2008). 

I read that carefully and put the "as you mention" in there to let you know I had :D I wasn't disagreeing, just furthering the point (since I wanted to post about similar things, your post was a good jumping off point). The "now" board is interesting, but I'm enjoying speculating about what might be the case on Sunday  ;)

What I got out of my little exercise was that Wabash isn't nearly as "safe" as I would have thought before today.  I was surprised that two West teams were relatively easy selections before any of the "first in line"s from the other regions which really makes St. Thomas and Coe safe if they win this weekend.  The LGs are quite obviously in a must-win situation, but it may actually take the SOS boost that they'll get from DePauw to get into the field.  At best, I think Wabash would be the fourth team selected (behind the two west teams and the Albright/LV winner)...and more likely fifth if you want to assume that UMHB is getting in, SOS be damned (which I do).  Fifth best on the board...according to me.  I'm not sure that I can sleep easy thinking that my view and the committee's view agree to within one or two teams.  As nerve wracking as this Bell week is, even if Wabash gets a satisfying win on Saturday, I'm afraid I'll have to wait one more night to get rest easy.   :)

Such is life when you don't earn the AQ.

I think you're analysis is pretty good though, if that's any consolation

For sure.  This is the first time I've had the opportunity to do the Pool C dance...and frankly I don't like it.  I'd definitely prefer Wabash to just beat Wittenberg and take the guesswork out of the last week of the season.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2009, 10:05:57 PM
Wally, I don't know if this will give you any comfort (considering how I tend to do in your pickems ::)), but IMO a 9-1 Wabash is definitely in, an 8-2 Wabash is definitely out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 10:06:36 PM
A little perspective about UMHB...

Look at the Open Dates link on the home page for 2010...

http://www.d3football.com/opendates/2010

Week #1 UMHB  See below

Week #2 UMHB  See below

Week #7 UMHB and Salisbury and LaGrange and Alfred

Now let's think this one through at the respective head coaches.

Salisbury -- South Region opponent.  A loss to UMHB probably knocks you out of Pool  B consideration.

LaGrange -- South Region opponent.  Ditto

Alfred -- Non-region game, so a loss won't hurt you.  Why fly to Texas?  Or, do you split the cost and pay half for UMHB to come to beautiful upstate New York when the leaves are turning for a single game?


Let's look who also has an open date in the first two weeks of the season.

Quote
September 04, 2010 (13 schools)  IN-region foes for UMHB are marked.  Recent non-conference UMHB foes are also marked (#)
Alfred
Augsburg*
Carthage*
DePauw*
Earlham
Fitchburg State
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Rose-Hulman
Salisbury*
Simpson*
UW-Stevens Point*
UW-Stout*
Willamette*#

QuoteSeptember 11, 2010 (9 schools)
Alfred
Fitchburg State
Frostburg State*
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Simpson*
UW-Stevens Point*
UW-Whitewater*#
Wesley*
Willamette*#

Kinda interesting isn't it.

Who wants to play UMHB?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 10:07:14 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2009, 10:05:57 PM
Wally, I don't know if this will give you any comfort (considering how I tend to do in your pickems ::)), but IMO a 9-1 Wabash is definitely in, an 8-2 Wabash is definitely out.
+1!  I strongly agree!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 10:11:01 PM
I kinda do too.

Looks like on the 11th it's time to fire up that UWW/UMHB series again!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 11, 2009, 10:27:45 PM
If Wabsh doesn't win this weekend (and I am not advocating that--I am a closet Wabash fan from years ago) and ONU is the 1st team on the North pool C board it will indeed be interesting vs other teams criteria. In fact, if the committee goes with ONU over a 1 loss team then up pops NCC which has very similar numbers as ONU (except a critical win vs a RRO).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 12:16:27 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 10:11:01 PM
I kinda do too.

Looks like on the 11th it's time to fire up that UWW/UMHB series again!
That would be nice K-Mack, but I don't think it will happen.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: crudbdad on November 12, 2009, 02:12:58 AM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 11, 2009, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2009, 04:09:58 PM
Running through the rankings and assuming nothing about future results, these are the pool C selections that I came up with (using my interpretation of the selection criteria: mainly SOS, h2h, and results vs. regionally ranked opponents)...in order of selection:

St. Thomas
Coe
Kean
Albright
Leb Valley
Wabash

Obviously, these are not the six teams that will be selected.  Lebanon Valley and Albright are playing an elimination game this weekend.  One of those teams will not make the field.  Kean is also playing Montclair State in a game that, if Kean wins, they're probably in.  Montclair State has a really good chance to get in if they win AND Kean doesn't fall out of the rankings. 

Where's UMHB?  Looking strictly at the numbers, UMHB is getting killed on SOS. On my board, they're the first team left out...which means if we assume that one of Leb Valley and Albright are out, then UMHB is in.  BUT, we get to a very, very interesting situation because once Wabash goes off the board, ONU comes on and ONU's SOS kills everybody and they have a win over a regionally ranked opponent whereas nobody else on the board does.  Do those things trump the extra loss and get ONU in ahead of teams like UMHB, St. Norbert, or Montclair State?  That I don't know. 

I should also say that I don't think there's any way that UMHB gets left out, regardless of what the SOS numbers say. I can't envision the committee leaving them out and telling all of us that UMHB wasn't as good as 2 runners up in the West and 2-3 runners up in the East.  That isn't happening...which of course puts Wabash squarely on the bubble.  Wabash will get a SOS boost from this weekend's Monon Bell game, which will help (provided the LGs can win). 

As a UMHB fan, this is the type of NCAA scenario that makes me really nervous.  It has happened to UMHB before.
THE LONGEST DAY was a great movie, for me it will be Sunday. Does anyone know what the NCAA number means on the Strength of Schedule page? My thoughts on Pool C.
Not sure about the Rose Bowl Rule but Cal Lutheran/Redlands loser is out. If Kean wins Montclair State out with 2 losses. Montclair State wins they are a toss up on Op and SOS#
Wabash out with a loss in Monon Bell and on bubble with a win.
Albright/LV loser out.
Top 5 Pool C St Thomas; Coe; Kean(assume win); Lebanon Valley(assume win); UMHB;
Not sure on no. 6 as I don't know the Rose Bowl Rule in SCIAC. Probably put Wabash in 6 spot if they win or pick-em between Ohio Northern and North Central.
Wally good analogy but disagree on your top 6 as 2 of the 6 will be eliminated and maybe 3 if Wabash loses.
This is more fun than the BCS but I sure wish UMHB had the AQ.


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: BoBo on November 12, 2009, 02:34:05 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 12:16:27 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 10:11:01 PM
I kinda do too.

Looks like on the 11th it's time to fire up that UWW/UMHB series again!
That would be nice K-Mack, but I don't think it will happen.

The new WIAC directive on travel prohibits it, I think.  :-\  Unless it's a one game deal to be played at Whitewater.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
Quote from: BoBo on November 12, 2009, 02:34:05 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 12:16:27 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 10:11:01 PM
I kinda do too.

Looks like on the 11th it's time to fire up that UWW/UMHB series again!
That would be nice K-Mack, but I don't think it will happen.

The new WIAC directive on travel prohibits it, I think.  :-\  Unless it's a one game deal to be played at Whitewater.
Money's tight these days, but Wisconsin is closer than Oregon.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2009, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
Quote from: BoBo on November 12, 2009, 02:34:05 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 12:16:27 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 10:11:01 PM
I kinda do too.

Looks like on the 11th it's time to fire up that UWW/UMHB series again!
That would be nice K-Mack, but I don't think it will happen.

The new WIAC directive on travel prohibits it, I think.  :-\  Unless it's a one game deal to be played at Whitewater.
Money's tight these days, but Wisconsin is closer than Oregon.

I hadn't noticed the first time, but Wesley has an open date as well. Considering they're having even more trouble scheduling, with no conference and nobody wanting to take an L, a UMHB-Wesley series on the 11th might work.

I understand the WIAC travel restriction, but they gotta play somebody. Unless UWW is going to enter the business of guarantees, I think they're going to have a hard time convincing the small private schools with open dates in driving distance to pick up a near-certain loss, the same way they've been having.

I've been wrong before though ...

It gets lonely at the top, or so say the coaches of top teams who are always telling me no one will play them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2009, 10:33:47 AM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 12, 2009, 02:12:58 AM
Not sure about the Rose Bowl Rule but Cal Lutheran/Redlands loser is out. If Kean wins Montclair State out with 2 losses. Montclair State wins they are a toss up on Op and SOS#

Thought I'd clarify this for you (it sounds like you're saying you don't know how the rose bowl rule works--my apologies if I misunderstood).  In the SCIAC, in the event of a 3 way tie where each team has beaten one of the other teams, the team who has not gone to the playoffs in the longest time gets the automatic bid.  The scenario this year would be:  Redlands beats Cal Lu this weekend and Oxy beats Whittier.  This results in a 3 way tie for first where Redlands beat CalLu, CalLu beat Oxy and Oxy beat Redlands.  Rosebowl rule would send Cal Lu as the Pool A qualifier.  However, keep in mind that Redlands will have finished with only one loss (an OT loss to Oxy) on the season and will have beaten Cal LU (pool A) head to head---  I think there is a strong argument for them in Pool C consideration.  But given the geographical and financial considerations, I would not be the least bit surprised to see them left out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: crudbdad on November 12, 2009, 10:47:16 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2009, 10:33:47 AM
Quote from: crudbdad on November 12, 2009, 02:12:58 AM
Not sure about the Rose Bowl Rule but Cal Lutheran/Redlands loser is out. If Kean wins Montclair State out with 2 losses. Montclair State wins they are a toss up on Op and SOS#

Thought I'd clarify this for you (it sounds like you're saying you don't know how the rose bowl rule works--my apologies if I misunderstood).  In the SCIAC, in the event of a 3 way tie where each team has beaten one of the other teams, the team who has not gone to the playoffs in the longest time gets the automatic bid.  The scenario this year would be:  Redlands beats Cal Lu this weekend and Oxy beats Whittier.  This results in a 3 way tie for first where Redlands beat CalLu, CalLu beat Oxy and Oxy beat Redlands.  Rosebowl rule would send Cal Lu as the Pool A qualifier.  However, keep in mind that Redlands will have finished with only one loss (an OT loss to Oxy) on the season and will have beaten Cal LU (pool A) head to head---  I think there is a strong argument for them in Pool C consideration.  But given the geographical and financial considerations, I would not be the least bit surprised to see them left out.
Thanks, that helps clarify my confusion. So in that scenario Redlands gets in my Pool C as number 6 based on my previous post and the game results this weekend.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 11:36:47 AM
The problem Redlands has is that as soon as they beat CalLu, CalLu is no longer regionally ranked. 

If we assume that the pool C teams right now would be St. Thomas, Coe, the Albright/LVC winner, Wabash, and UMHB (which is how it would seem to play out given the stats we have at this moment), then the next four on the board are (in no order):
Montclair State
ONU
Redlands
Dickinson

Of those four, Redlands has the lowest SOS (which will get a boost this weekend) and doesn't have a win over a regionally ranked team.  I think Redlands can get to the table, but I don't think they would be selected without some help (i.e. Coe or St. Thomas losing). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: BoBo on November 12, 2009, 11:43:47 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2009, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
Quote from: BoBo on November 12, 2009, 02:34:05 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 12:16:27 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 10:11:01 PM
I kinda do too.

Looks like on the 11th it's time to fire up that UWW/UMHB series again!
That would be nice K-Mack, but I don't think it will happen.

The new WIAC directive on travel prohibits it, I think.  :-\  Unless it's a one game deal to be played at Whitewater.
Money's tight these days, but Wisconsin is closer than Oregon.

I hadn't noticed the first time, but Wesley has an open date as well. Considering they're having even more trouble scheduling, with no conference and nobody wanting to take an L, a UMHB-Wesley series on the 11th might work.

I understand the WIAC travel restriction, but they gotta play somebody. Unless UWW is going to enter the business of guarantees, I think they're going to have a hard time convincing the small private schools with open dates in driving distance to pick up a near-certain loss, the same way they've been having.

I've been wrong before though ...

It gets lonely at the top, or so say the coaches of top teams who are always telling me no one will play them.

That's been talked about. But, if they're not permitted to spend the money they don't have to take a road trip to Texas, should they be allowed to spend similar amounts of money they don't have to pay someone to come to the Perk? They're probably going to end up playing a nearby NAIA program like St. Xavier or even DII and let the chips fall where they may.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2009, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 11:36:47 AM
The problem Redlands has is that as soon as they beat CalLu, CalLu is no longer regionally ranked. 

If we assume that the pool C teams right now would be St. Thomas, Coe, the Albright/LVC winner, Wabash, and UMHB (which is how it would seem to play out given the stats we have at this moment), then the next four on the board are (in no order):
Montclair State
ONU
Redlands
Dickinson

Of those four, Redlands has the lowest SOS (which will get a boost this weekend) and doesn't have a win over a regionally ranked team.  I think Redlands can get to the table, but I don't think they would be selected without some help (i.e. Coe or St. Thomas losing). 
Of couse---Montclaire State will either be a Pool A (NJAC winner) or will have a 2nd loss, ONU already has 2 losses, and Dickinson has what looks like a tough game against Ursinus....  BUT, I still think the biggest problem for Redlands will be their location and the NCAA not wanting fly two SCIAC teams (nor rematch them a week after they play each other)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 01:00:22 PM
By the way, BoBo, love the video and the way Beaver ran, along with the quote in your signature line:  "UWW's Justin Beaver...with emphasis & in style!!"

Can't help but also notice the lack of style shown by teammate #3 with his after-the-tackle illegal block in the back...Notice, in the one view, the game official reaching for his belt to throw the penalty flag.  Gotta love a teammate that gives up 15 of my hard-earned, emphatic style-laden rushing yards...



Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 01:27:38 PM
Montclair State would have two losses, but they would still likely get to the table, unless they fell behind Springfield in the rankings (entirely possible).  Springfield would probalby actually grade out higher than Montclair State as a 2-loss team (much better SOS). 

I've got 13 teams on my Pool C list.  Redlands has the 13th best SOS on that list.  Redlands is also third in line in their own region to even get into a discussion for a Pool C bid.  All of the info available right now suggests that Redlands needs help.  In the spirit of transparency, here's a walkthrough of my methodology:

The first four teams at the table are:
East - Albright (regional record 7-1, SOS .503, record against regionally ranked teams 0-1)
North - Wabash (7-1, .497, 0-1)
South - UMHB (6-1, .482, 0-1)
West - St. Thomas (8-1, ..536, 0-1)
:: Records are all essentially equal here, St. Thomas played the stronger schedule (per the NCAA's formula)...St. Thomas is the first team selected.  Next team from the West is Coe and they are on the table. 

Second set of four:
East - Albright (7-1, .503, 0-1)
North - Wabash (7-1, .497, 0-1)
South - UMHB (6-1, .482, 0-1)
West - Coe (8-1, .529, 0-1)
:: Same situation...Coe and St. Thomas actually are nearly identical.  Coe is the selection.  Redlands moves to the table from the West. 

Thrid set:
East - Albright (7-1, .503, 0-1)
North - Wabash (7-1, .497, 0-1)
South - UMHB (6-1, .482, 0-1)
West - Redlands (7-1, .464, 0-0)
:: Albright and Wabash are essentially equal, Albright has a slightly better schedule.  Depending on how you interpret "results vs. regionally ranked opponents", you could see that Wabash lost by a last second field goal to the #2 team in their region while Albright got pummeled by the #1 team in their region...for my purposes I'm sticking with a wins are wins and losses are losses approach, so Albright gets the nod just barely.  Worth noting here that I'm going to skip LVC...LVC and Albright have what amount to identical resumés...the winner will likely be selected here, the loser is out.  Also, since Montclair State is going to be Pool A or suffer a second loss and likely drop behind Springfield, I'll move Springfield to the table from the East. 

Fourth set:
East - Springfield (7-2, .567, 0-2)
North - Wabash (7-1, .497, 0-1)
South - UMHB (6-1, .482, 0-1)
West - Redlands (7-1, .464, 0-0)
:: Enormous SOS for Springfield, but with no wins over regionally ranked teams, it's hard to like them over 1-loss teams.  Wabash is the selection here.  ONU moves to the table from the North. 

Fifth set:
East - Springfield (7-2, .567, 0-2)
North - ONU (7-2, .571, 1-1)
South - UMHB (6-1, .482, 0-1)
West - Redlands (7-1, .464, 0-0)
:: This is where it gets tricky.  ONU has two losses, but they have a tremendous SOS and they're the first team on the board that has actually beaten somebody notable (defined here as a regionally ranked team).  I'm putting UMHB in at this point over the 2-loss teams.  Dickinson moves to the table for the final selection....noteworthy at this point that teams like W&J, St. Norbert, North Central, Otterbein, Wheaton, and Montclair State would never even be discussed if the selection plays out like this. 

Anyway, on to the final set of four:
East - Springfield (7-2, .567, 0-2)
North - ONU (7-2, .571, 1-1)
South - Dickinson (8-1, .508, 0-1)
West - Redlands (7-1, .464, 0-0)
:: I think the decision is between ONU and Dickinson, and it all comes down to whether or not the committee values that SOS and the win over a regionally ranked team more than they devalue that second overall loss (one of which is Mount Union which is often a mulligan for OAC teams).  Honestly, I can't decide. 

So my final selections (altered a bit from yesterday to account for Albright/LVC and Kean/Montclair State) are: St. Thomas, Coe, Albright/LVC winner, Wabash, UMHB, and then either ONU or Dickinson...either would be a fair final selection. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: desertcat1 on November 12, 2009, 02:03:58 PM
nice work wally....  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 12, 2009, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 01:00:22 PM
By the way, BoBo, love the video and the way Beaver ran, along with the quote in your signature line:  "UWW's Justin Beaver...with emphasis & in style!!"

Can't help but also notice the lack of style shown by teammate #3 with his after-the-tackle illegal block in the back...Notice, in the one view, the game official reaching for his belt to throw the penalty flag.  Gotta love a teammate that gives up 15 of my hard-earned, emphatic style-laden rushing yards...

This has been discussed at length on the WIAC board.  It should just die as a conversation now...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 02:45:02 PM
Quote from: kirasdad on November 12, 2009, 02:33:08 PM
[This has been discussed at length on the WIAC board.  It should just die as a conversation now...
ok, hadn't noticed it previously.  I'm done with it, kirasdad
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 02:50:44 PM
Two-loss teams will not get on the board ahead of one-loss teams.
At least, that's what I hear...

We'll see.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 12, 2009, 03:08:28 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 02:50:44 PM
Two-loss teams will not get on the board ahead of one-loss teams.
At least, that's what I hear...

We'll see.

Who did you hear this from?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 03:13:53 PM
How do you mean "on the board"?  Do you mean being selected for the field or do you mean that 2-loss teams are not even going to be at the table to be discussed?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: kirasdad on November 12, 2009, 03:08:28 PMWho did you hear this from?
Source has been a reliable one for me.  Hasn't given me bad info previously...won't go beyond that.  Of course, as they say, may be a first time...


Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 03:13:53 PM
How do you mean "on the board"?  Do you mean being selected for the field or do you mean that 2-loss teams are not even going to be at the table to be discussed?
My understanding of the statement was in the tournament.

We'll see.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2009, 03:39:31 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: kirasdad on November 12, 2009, 03:08:28 PMWho did you hear this from?
Source has been a reliable one for me.  Hasn't given me bad info previously...won't go beyond that.  Of course, as they say, may be a first time...


Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 03:13:53 PM
How do you mean "on the board"?  Do you mean being selected for the field or do you mean that 2-loss teams are not even going to be at the table to be discussed?
My understanding of the statement was in the tournament.

We'll see.

I believe what Bob has to say.. and in that case, that sucks --- I'm really pulling for Ohio Northern. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2009, 03:39:31 PM...I'm really pulling for Ohio Northern.  

I believe that statement to be in conflict with your earlier expressed "hope" that W&J gets in....I don't think they can both get in, just so you know.


By the way, for all you oldtimers, this Pool C stuff may be worse than the old Pool B days....and NO, there are no Pool B teams getting Pool C bids THIS year...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: BlueRebel94 on November 12, 2009, 03:59:31 PM
SaintsFAN has got previous loyalties clashing with current loyalties.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 01:27:38 PM
The ...teams at the table are:
(regional record, SOS, record against regionally ranked teams)
South - UMHB (6-1, .482, 0-1)
South - Dickinson (8-1, .508, 0-1)  

wally, based on the criteria, how is it that UMHB gets on the board from the South first?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2009, 04:08:59 PM
Quote from: BlueRebel94 on November 12, 2009, 03:59:31 PM
SaintsFAN has got previous loyalties clashing with current loyalties.

Yep.  Dean Paul is a class act --- they can BOTH get in, but alot of chaos needs to happen between now on Saturday night
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 12, 2009, 04:11:48 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 01:27:38 PM
The ...teams at the table are:
(regional record, SOS, record against regionally ranked teams)
South - UMHB (6-1, .482, 0-1)
South - Dickinson (8-1, .508, 0-1)  

wally, based on the criteria, how is it that UMHB gets on the board from the South first?

If the Regional Rankings (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/category/regional-rankings/) hold up, then UMHB would be on the board before Dickinson.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 04:13:59 PM
But Regional Rankings are SUPPOSED to be based on the criteria.....

Oh, what a tangled web is woven....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 04:22:27 PM
Quote from: BlueRebel94 on November 12, 2009, 03:59:31 PM
SaintsFAN has got previous loyalties clashing with current loyalties.

Sounds like Devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other....

Been there, done that!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: BlueRebel94 on November 12, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 04:13:59 PM
But Regional Rankings are SUPPOSED to be based on the criteria.....

Oh, what a tangled web is woven....

That's is what has had me perplexed about TMC being behind HSC in the regional rankings this week (both 9-0 TMC 157 SOS, HSC 213 SOS)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2009, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: BlueRebel94 on November 12, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 04:13:59 PM
But Regional Rankings are SUPPOSED to be based on the criteria.....

Oh, what a tangled web is woven....

That's is what has had me perplexed about TMC being behind HSC in the regional rankings this week (both 9-0 TMC 157 SOS, HSC 213 SOS)

Alphabetical order factor, I guess  ::)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 12, 2009, 05:27:27 PM
What if Wabash loses this weekend? then ONU is on the board for the North from the get go. How does that affect the choices, if at all? (Bob will say not at all--ONU Fans will say they are in earlier?)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: oldtiger on November 12, 2009, 06:23:51 PM
With the Chair of each region on the national committee deciding who makes the show, how beneficial is it for ONU and IWU that the North Region Co-Chairs are the OAC Commissioner and IWU's Head Coach? And where does Dan Paul, ONU's Head Coach, being on the North Region Board factor into the process?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 07:49:19 PM
Quote from: oldtiger on November 12, 2009, 06:23:51 PM
With the Chair of each region on the national committee deciding who makes the show, how beneficial is it for ONU and IWU that the North Region Co-Chairs are the OAC Commissioner and IWU's Head Coach? And where does Dan Paul, ONU's Head Coach, being on the North Region Board factor into the process?

Theoretically, no benefit at all.

As the chair of the committee, the Chair wants to conduct a fair, unbiased selection that each of the committee members can justify to their peers.

Will there be hard decisions?  Yes, but the difficulty of those decisions should be appreciated by all who observe the proceedings and study the outcome.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: oldtiger on November 12, 2009, 08:25:41 PM
Comforting to know that all remains apolitical  :o.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 08:50:40 PM
Quote from: oldtiger on November 12, 2009, 08:25:41 PM
Comforting to know that all remains apolitical  :o.

Yes, just like Wittenberg Baseball Coach Jay Lewis who sits on the Mideast Region Baseball Committee or Wittenberg Men's Golf Coach Jeff Roope who chairs the Mideast Regional Men's Golf Committee.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 12, 2009, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: oldtiger on November 12, 2009, 06:23:51 PM
And where does Dan Paul, ONU's Head Coach, being on the North Region Board factor into the process?

Did ONU get a new coach?  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Thunderbacker on November 12, 2009, 10:08:31 PM
It probably won't happen but based on the playoff run that Wheaton College (Illinois) had in 2008, it's hard to keep them out this year.  They were 7-2 last year and got to the final four.  Their two losses this year were to two ranked teams (Illinois Wesleyan and North Central College).  Too bad the committee won't consider three teams from the same conference.  The CCIW is very competitve and the top teams knock each other out.  Even Carthage and Augustana could compete with several teams that are automatic qualifiers.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Thunderbacker on November 12, 2009, 10:08:31 PM
It probably won't happen but based on the playoff run that Wheaton College (Illinois) had in 2008, it's hard to keep them out this year.  They were 7-2 last year and got to the final four.  Their two losses this year were to two ranked teams (Illinois Wesleyan and North Central College).  Too bad the committee won't consider three teams from the same conference.  The CCIW is very competitve and the top teams knock each other out.  Even Carthage and Augustana could compete with several teams that are automatic qualifiers.

Welcome to the boards, Thunderbacker.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2009, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: Thunderbacker on November 12, 2009, 10:08:31 PM
It probably won't happen but based on the playoff run that Wheaton College (Illinois) had in 2008, it's hard to keep them out this year.  They were 7-2 last year and got to the final four.  Their two losses this year were to two ranked teams (Illinois Wesleyan and North Central College).  Too bad the committee won't consider three teams from the same conference.  The CCIW is very competitve and the top teams knock each other out.  Even Carthage and Augustana could compete with several teams that are automatic qualifiers.

They would if they'd fit the criteria. The way the NCAA does this it's highly unlikely but it could be done.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 12, 2009, 10:31:06 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2009, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
Quote from: BoBo on November 12, 2009, 02:34:05 AM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 12, 2009, 12:16:27 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2009, 10:11:01 PM
I kinda do too.

Looks like on the 11th it's time to fire up that UWW/UMHB series again!
That would be nice K-Mack, but I don't think it will happen.

The new WIAC directive on travel prohibits it, I think.  :-\  Unless it's a one game deal to be played at Whitewater.
Money's tight these days, but Wisconsin is closer than Oregon.

I hadn't noticed the first time, but Wesley has an open date as well. Considering they're having even more trouble scheduling, with no conference and nobody wanting to take an L, a UMHB-Wesley series on the 11th might work.

I understand the WIAC travel restriction, but they gotta play somebody. Unless UWW is going to enter the business of guarantees, I think they're going to have a hard time convincing the small private schools with open dates in driving distance to pick up a near-certain loss, the same way they've been having.

I've been wrong before though ...

It gets lonely at the top, or so say the coaches of top teams who are always telling me no one will play them.

K-Mack

I believe that Coach Drass stated in a radio interview that Welsey actually has a full schedule for next year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 12, 2009, 11:01:31 PM
Quote from: oldtiger on November 12, 2009, 06:23:51 PM
With the Chair of each region on the national committee deciding who makes the show, how beneficial is it for ONU and IWU that the North Region Co-Chairs are the OAC Commissioner and IWU's Head Coach? And where does Dan Paul, ONU's Head Coach, being on the North Region Board factor into the process?



I am pretty sure that if your team is being discussed you have to recuse yourself from the discussion. (e.g Dean Paul and Norm Eash)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 11:01:46 PM
Quote from: USee on November 11, 2009, 10:27:45 PM
If Wabsh doesn't win this weekend (and I am not advocating that--I am a closet Wabash fan from years ago) and ONU is the 1st team on the North pool C board it will indeed be interesting vs other teams criteria. In fact, if the committee goes with ONU over a 1 loss team then up pops NCC which has very similar numbers as ONU (except a critical win vs a RRO).
Okay, this is really bad, but after reading the pre-Monon Bell game banter and Wa-"bashing" that is going on over on the Monon Bell message board, I just could not pass up this retort at USee's expense, but here goes...

"Oh just now coming out of the closet..."

Sorry...  ::)



I shared this post with USee last night after a fit of conscience and he had a good laugh.  He said I could share it for the enjoyment of all.

There is something fun about Week #11 with Monon Bell, Cortaca Jug, Bridge Bowl and nearly a dozen Pool A bids and all of Pool C up in the air.

:)  +1! USee for being a good sport about it.  
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: BoBo on November 12, 2009, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: kirasdad on November 12, 2009, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2009, 01:00:22 PM
By the way, BoBo, love the video and the way Beaver ran, along with the quote in your signature line:  "UWW's Justin Beaver...with emphasis & in style!!"

Can't help but also notice the lack of style shown by teammate #3 with his after-the-tackle illegal block in the back...Notice, in the one view, the game official reaching for his belt to throw the penalty flag.  Gotta love a teammate that gives up 15 of my hard-earned, emphatic style-laden rushing yards...

This has been discussed at length on the WIAC board.  It should just die as a conversation now...

kirasdad is right, it's been beaten to death!!  But, thanks for the compliment. 
wildcat11 did a great job making it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2009, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2009, 05:27:27 PM
What if Wabash loses this weekend? then ONU is on the board for the North from the get go. How does that affect the choices, if at all? (Bob will say not at all--ONU Fans will say they are in earlier?)

The way I went through the selection, I don't think that it will matter all that much.  If ONU is on the board and I selected 1-loss UMHB, then any team that was on the board that got selected before UMHB would have also been selected before ONU.  So ONU would then be in the same spot, but now instead of ONU/Dickinson being the choice for the 6th spot, that would be the choice for the fifth spot...if Dickinson were selected, W&J would come to the table and W&J's SOS is brutal so I think ONU would be the selection.  Either way, as it sits right now and if you take Wabash out of the discussion, ONU looks like the 5th or 6th team taken. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2009, 11:46:00 AM
wally, where do you read that a better SOS for an 8-2 team knocks off a 9-1 team?

Results against regional opponents, OWP, OOWP, SOS, wins vs. regionally ranked opponents.

There's nothing in the selection criteria that says SOS trumps results...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2009, 12:01:09 PM
These are the primary criteria per the championship handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2009/09_3_football.pdf):
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
   - Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
   - Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.


Those criteria are not listed in any sort of priority order, which I take to mean that all of these things are considered together.  History suggests that an extra in-region loss is very hard to overcome, but there have been cases of 2-loss teams being selected in front of 1-loss teams which must be because of value placed on SOS and results vs. regionally ranked opponents.  I'm not sure one single thing definitively trumps another on this list...it's the sum of the parts that should be considered. 

In the case of ONU, it's not just that they have a stronger SOS (it helps), but I think the bigger thing working for them is that they beat a regionally ranked opponent.  They're the one team that gets on the table that actually has a big time win.  Every other at large team had their chance to beat a good team (or two) and lost (otherwise they'd be in Pool A).  You'll note that Springfield gets to the table in my analysis, and even with their strong SOS, I'm not really considering them in front of 1-loss teams because they didn't win either of their games against RR opponents. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2009, 12:20:34 PM
And, since you brought it up, that takes us back to the consideration of Otterbein....

in region head-to-head
in region results vs. regionally ranked opponent.

Just saying...

What was that line listed several times the other day....oh, yeah, it ain't who you lost to, it's who you beat!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 13, 2009, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2009, 12:20:34 PM
What was that line listed several times the other day....oh, yeah, it ain't who you lost to, it's who you beat!

We need to amend that to say:

"It ain't who you lost to, unless that happens to be Marietta, it's who you beat!"
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2009, 12:51:10 PM
you folks are kinda funny...

you love to spout the criteria until it doesn't match your prognostication or your rooting interest....

See y'all Sunday afternoon.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2009, 12:59:29 PM
You can debate whether or not ONU should be ranked ahead of Otterbein.  But the fact is that they ARE ranked ahead of Otterbein and will be at the table for consideration while Otterbein will not be. 

I'm assuming that you know how the process works...that the top ranked team from each region (and ONLY those four teams) are discussed using the criteria, and one team from those four is selected.  The next team from the region of the team that was just selected then comes to the table and is discussed with the other three.  Rinse, lather, repeat until you get six teams.  If you're not aware that this is how it works, maybe that's where the confusion lies. 

And I didn't do this exercise with any sort of rooting interest in mind...the process kind of fascinates me and I was curious to see what I would come up with if I went through it myself. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2009, 02:46:15 PM
wally, I'm fully aware of "how it works" and have been for years.

I'm also fully aware that Regional Rankings, even the last public ones, change when criteria is re-evaluated by the national committee...

Example:  several years ago (2, I think but mind isn't what it used to be), W&J was regionally ranked ahead of CNU (incorrectly based on the criteria) in the last public regional rankings.  W&J won final game impressively, CNU won (can't remember margin).

All the folks on here started spouting about W&J hosting, possibly CNU.  Lo, and behold, when the brackets were revealed, the national committee corrected the regional rankings that had been in error, and put the game AT CNU.

I'm fascinated by the process as well.  I just think it's not all listed criteria (human element is involved at some level)....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2009, 02:55:55 PM
So then you think that Otterbein has to be ranked ahead of ONU and NCC and Wheaton? 

I do hope that the NCAA releases the final regional rankings to the public.  They've not done this in the past, so these post week 11 tweaks that you say happen would be known to everybody.  Transparency is a good thing.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2009, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2009, 02:55:55 PM
So then you think that Otterbein has to be ranked ahead of ONU and NCC and Wheaton? 
I don't think that Otterbein should be or has to be ranked ahead of ONU/NCC/Wheaton.

But I also don't think you can show the criteria why they shouldn't be....
Sorry, losing to Marietta is NOT one of the NCAA recognized criteria...

I think I've shown criteria as to why Otterbein COULD be...

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 13, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2009, 02:46:15 PM
I'm fascinated by the process as well.  I just think it's not all listed criteria (human element is involved at some level)....

I agree with this...there is human discretion involved and That's precisely why the regional committee ranked ONU ahead of Otterbein.

I also only know of 1 situation where a 2 loss team got in over a 1 loss team and that was UWEC over Whitworth  2 years ago. It should be noted, however that Whitwarth had 2 losses but 1 was to an NAIA team (and shouldn't be counted in the criteria). I am not convinced the national committee would take a 2 loss team over a 1 loss team no matter the criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2009, 03:31:02 PM
Losing to Marietta specifically is not one of the criteria...but losing to Marietta clearly (and justly IMO) gets you crushed in the regional rankings which impacts your access to the tournament. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2009, 03:35:14 PM
USee, were there NO 1-loss teams remaining when Wheaton got in last year?  (Real question; I can't recall.)

One thing being overlooked concerning OTT: their SOS (,502) is FAR below NCC (,585), Wheaton (.583), and ONU (.571).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 13, 2009, 03:49:10 PM
Ypsi,

Correct. To my knowledge there were none left (and historically as well). I actually thought it had never happened and Pat gave me the UWEC over whitworth example.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2009, 04:29:16 PM
I don't have time to look at work, but we can check the 2008 Pool C discussions on that message board and the Daily Dose discussions.

we ought to coin a term that describes how three or four teams knock wach other out and allow another team from another region to slip into the field.

I believe we had a simliar situaiton in the WIAC in basketball (2008?).  Two or three WIAC/CCIW teams knocked each other out.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2009, 04:29:16 PM
I don't have time to look at work, but we can check the 2008 Pool C discussions on that message board and the Daily Dose discussions.

we ought to coin a term that describes how three or four teams knock wach other out and allow another team from another region to slip into the field.

I believe we had a simliar situaiton in the WIAC in basketball (2008?).  Two or three WIAC/CCIW teams knocked each other out.

Don't recall the details, but certainly remember the situation.  It was two WIAC teams - Team A had clearly better overall credentials, but had been swept by Team B (which was on the bubble).  There wasn't room to take both, so the committee took neither.

While I expect ONU to squeeze in, an ONU/Ott/NCC rerun of that scenario would not surprise me either.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 13, 2009, 08:48:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2009, 03:31:02 PM
Losing to Marietta specifically is not one of the criteria...but losing to Marietta clearly (and justly IMO) gets you crushed in the regional rankings which impacts your access to the tournament. 

I agree 100%.  A team worthy of being regionally ranked doesn't lose to someone as bad a Marietta.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2009, 11:07:48 PM
Sunday on a special "Selection Sunday" edition of "In the HuddLLe" at http://InTheHuddLLe.com, we will be joined by Joy Solomen, this year's NCAA Division III Football Championship Committee Chairwoman.  She will discuss the bracketing process -- from selection of the Field of 32 to the placement and seeding of those teams.

In order to make the interview more interactive, we would ask those with questions to post those questions between 3:30pm EST and 5:00pm EST to the "East Region Playoffs" message board on Sunday (following the release of the brackets).  We will not just focus on the Liberty League team in the mix or even just the East Region -- we will discuss any surprises and concerns that become evident once the brackets are released.

In addition to Chairwoman Solomen, we will interview Liberty League Commissioner Timothy Danehy, speak with the coach of the Liberty League team that wins tomorrow's League Championship Game and discuss the team the Liberty League participant will face.  Please join us starting at 7:30pm EST at http://InTheHuddLLe.com (or for the archive starting at around 10:00pm EST).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 14, 2009, 04:28:42 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2009, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2009, 11:36:47 AM
The problem Redlands has is that as soon as they beat CalLu, CalLu is no longer regionally ranked. 

If we assume that the pool C teams right now would be St. Thomas, Coe, the Albright/LVC winner, Wabash, and UMHB (which is how it would seem to play out given the stats we have at this moment), then the next four on the board are (in no order):
Montclair State
ONU
Redlands
Dickinson

Of those four, Redlands has the lowest SOS (which will get a boost this weekend) and doesn't have a win over a regionally ranked team.  I think Redlands can get to the table, but I don't think they would be selected without some help (i.e. Coe or St. Thomas losing). 
Of couse---Montclaire State will either be a Pool A (NJAC winner) or will have a 2nd loss, ONU already has 2 losses, and Dickinson has what looks like a tough game against Ursinus....  BUT, I still think the biggest problem for Redlands will be their location and the NCAA not wanting fly two SCIAC teams (nor rematch them a week after they play each other)

I liked your last-four-on-the-table analysis, but I think there's a disconnect in your "not wanting to fly" theory.

The selection committee is made up of coaches and administrators who want to see the most deserving teams picked, because they're all in the same boat ... they wouldn't want to see their own school screwed over geography or what have you.

So I think the people who put the 32 teams in the field aren't as concerned about who has to fly when they select the teams; and not even as much when they seed them.

We learned this last year when Pat and ESPN got the bracket that had Aurora and Monmouth flying to Oxy and Willamette, and sometime between then and when they went on the air, the bracket became Monmouth v. Aurora and Oxy v. Willamette.

In other words, the selection committee's heart is in the right place, but there is apparently a level of approval that the final bracket has to go through, and that's where the penny-pinching comes in.

So I don't think the committee -- of which Redlands coach Mike Maynard is a member, I might add; pretty sure he has to recuse himself though -- would go out of its way not to put Redlands in if they were deserving on the criteria.

The problem in your above scenario is more likely that ONU gets in first.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 09:24:27 AM
Here's a pdf (4 pages) with all the races in one place.

Division III Races (http://www.wjpa.com/DIIIRaces09.pdf)

I'll be in later today and will update as we move through the night.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 14, 2009, 10:46:11 AM
+k nice work Bob.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Nihon Tiger on November 14, 2009, 12:20:51 PM
QuoteWe learned this last year when Pat and ESPN got the bracket that had Aurora and Monmouth flying to Oxy and Willamette, and sometime between then and when they went on the air, the bracket became Monmouth v. Aurora and Oxy v. Willamette.

I had almost forgotten that happened.  I was having such a nice night, and I just HAD to check post patterns before bed :'(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Jeremybozz on November 14, 2009, 02:52:56 PM
Otterbein down 13-10 at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2009, 02:57:06 PM
Maine Maritime beats Curry to impose some 500-mile limits on the brackets.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 07:38:52 PM
All races now decided (as of 7:30 pm, Saturday).

Pool A-B-C Races (http://www.wjpa.com/DIIIRaces09.pdf)

Pool C comes down to this:

7 one-loss teams for 6 spots.  I've also included the two-loss teams:

"East"
Albright (9-1) (win Saturday)
Plymouth State (8-2)
Kean (8-2) (lost Saturday)
Lebanon Valley (8-2) (lost Saturday)

"South"
Mary Hardin-Baylor (9-1) (win Saturday)
Washington & Jefferson (9-1) (win Saturday)
Dickinson (8-2) (lost Saturday)
Franklin & Marshall (8-2) (win Saturday)

"North"
Wabash (9-1) (win Saturday)
Ohio Northern (8-2) (win Saturday)
Otterbein (8-2) (win Saturday)
North Central (8-2) (win Saturday)

"West"
St. Thomas (9-1) (win Saturday)
Coe (9-1) (win Saturday)
St. Norbert (9-1)
Concordia (Ill) (8-2) (lost Saturday)
Willamette (8-2) (win Saturday)
Occidental (7-2) (win Saturday)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 14, 2009, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2009, 02:57:06 PM
Maine Maritime beats Curry to impose some 500-mile limits on the brackets.

I just posted this on an East Region board, but thought I'd pose it to a national audience as well:

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 14, 2009, 07:33:33 PM
Does anyone know how the 500 mile rule works exactly?  Is it driving mileage or a linear distance?  Castine, ME is 475 miles from Alfred (http://www.geobytes.com/CityDistanceTool.htm?loadpage), but over 600 miles by car.

For the record, here are how I think the East teams will be matched up in the MUC bracket:
2 Del Valley vs. 7 Susquehanna
3 Alfred vs. 5 Albright
4 Montclair vs 6 Maine Maritime
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2009, 07:58:19 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 07:38:52 PM
All races now decided (as of 7:30 pm, Saturday).

Pool A-B-C Races (http://www.wjpa.com/DIIIRaces09.pdf)

Pool C comes down to this:

7 one-loss teams for 6 spots.  I've also included the two-loss teams:

"East"
Albright (9-1/9-1  Loss to Del Valley) (win Saturday)
Plymouth State (8-2/8-1)
Kean (8-2/8-2 lost to Del Valley) (lost Saturday)
Lebanon Valley (8-2/8-2  losses Del Valley and Albright) (lost Saturday)

"South"
Mary Hardin-Baylor (9-1/7-1 lost to Miss College) (win Saturday)
Washington & Jefferson (9-1/9-1 lost to TMC) (win Saturday)
Dickinson (8-2/8-2  Loss to JHU and Ursinus) (lost Saturday)
Franklin & Marshall (8-2/ lost to Dickinson and JHU) (win Saturday)

"North"
Wabash (9-1/ 8-2 Lost to Witt) (win Saturday)
Ohio Northern (8-2/ 8-2 Lost to MUC and Otterbein) (win Saturday)
Otterbein (8-2/ 8-2  Loss to MUC and Marietta ) (win Saturday)
North Central (8-2/ 8-2  Loss to ONU and IWU) (win Saturday)

"West"
St. Thomas (9-1/ Loss to SJU) (win Saturday)
Coe (9-1/ Loss to Central) (win Saturday)
St. Norbert (9-1/ Loss to Monmouth)
Concordia (Ill) (8-2/) (lost Saturday)   North Region
Willamette (8-2/7-2 Losses  to Concordia-Moorhead and Linfield) (win Saturday)
Occidental (7-2/7-2 Loss to Linfield and Cal Lutheran) (win Saturday)


This looks too easy.  I think that SNC is left on the table and the other 1-loss teams are in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pg04 on November 14, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 14, 2009, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2009, 02:57:06 PM
Maine Maritime beats Curry to impose some 500-mile limits on the brackets.

I just posted this on an East Region board, but thought I'd pose it to a national audience as well:

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 14, 2009, 07:33:33 PM
Does anyone know how the 500 mile rule works exactly?  Is it driving mileage or a linear distance?  Castine, ME is 475 miles from Alfred (http://www.geobytes.com/CityDistanceTool.htm?loadpage), but over 600 miles by car.

For the record, here are how I think the East teams will be matched up in the MUC bracket:
2 Del Valley vs. 7 Susquehanna
3 Alfred vs. 5 Albright
4 Montclair vs 6 Maine Maritime


I answered you on the other board as well, but it's done using the NCAA mileage calculator
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 09:03:17 PM
The way I see it, there may never have been a field of 32 with as strong a won-loss record:

one team with 4 losses.

six teams with 2 losses.

the other 25 teams will have one loss or none

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 14, 2009, 09:13:04 PM
Bob,

Great work. I agree with Ralph although I haven't compared the numbers of SNC to the others that will be on the board at the end. I don't see any way ONU gets in over any of these teams. (I think they should.....but I don't think they will.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2009, 07:58:19 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 07:38:52 PM
All races now decided (as of 7:30 pm, Saturday).

Pool A-B-C Races (http://www.wjpa.com/DIIIRaces09.pdf)

Pool C comes down to this:

7 one-loss teams for 6 spots.  I've also included the two-loss teams:

"East"
Albright (9-1/9-1  Loss to Del Valley) (win Saturday)
Plymouth State (8-2/8-1)
Kean (8-2/8-2 lost to Del Valley) (lost Saturday)
Lebanon Valley (8-2/8-2  losses Del Valley and Albright) (lost Saturday)

"South"
Mary Hardin-Baylor (9-1/7-1 lost to Miss College) (win Saturday)
Washington & Jefferson (9-1/9-1 lost to TMC) (win Saturday)
Dickinson (8-2/8-2  Loss to JHU and Ursinus) (lost Saturday)
Franklin & Marshall (8-2/ lost to Dickinson and JHU) (win Saturday)

"North"
Wabash (9-1/ 8-2 Lost to Witt) (win Saturday)
Ohio Northern (8-2/ 8-2 Lost to MUC and Otterbein) (win Saturday)
Otterbein (8-2/ 8-2  Loss to MUC and Marietta ) (win Saturday)
North Central (8-2/ 8-2  Loss to ONU and IWU) (win Saturday)

"West"
St. Thomas (9-1/ Loss to SJU) (win Saturday)
Coe (9-1/ Loss to Central) (win Saturday)
St. Norbert (9-1/ Loss to Monmouth)
Concordia (Ill) (8-2/) (lost Saturday)   North Region
Willamette (8-2/7-2 Losses  to Concordia-Moorhead and Linfield) (win Saturday)
Occidental (7-2/7-2 Loss to Linfield and Cal Lutheran) (win Saturday)


This looks too easy.  I think that SNC is left on the table and the other 1-loss teams are in.

Who's the last one in? Albright? W&J?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2009, 10:10:08 PM
W&J is the last one in there. I'm still not sold that W&J and their schedule grade out better than ONU with their SOS and win over a RR team. We shall see. I think either selection is justified.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2009, 10:24:33 PM
It would be a shame if W&J got in over ONU.  W&J beat nobody.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2009, 10:25:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2009, 10:10:08 PM
W&J is the last one in there. I'm still not sold that W&J and their schedule grade out better than ONU with their SOS and win over a RR team. We shall see. I think either selection is justified.
Well. the front page poll asks how many two-loss teams will earn Pool C bids.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 10:27:54 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2009, 10:24:33 PM
It would be a shame if W&J got in over ONU.  W&J beat nobody.

And ONU lost to Otterbein
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: ADL70 on November 14, 2009, 10:32:19 PM
and Otterbein lost to Marietta.

Haven't we been here before?   :o
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 10:34:19 PM
I imagine, if Ralph's right, that W&J would be the 6th Pool C team in, IF they get in.

While not a published criteria, here's one of those "human factors" that will be considered:

UMHB lost to Miss Coll by 3
Wabash lost to Wittenberg by 3
St. Thomas lost to St. Johns by 3 in OT
W&J lost to Thomas More by 7
Coe lost to Central by 18
St Norbert lost to Monmouth by 28
Albright lost to Delaware Valley by 29

St. John Fisher also has only ONE in-region loss, but two other losses to D-III teams.  Their in-region loss was by 3 to Alfred.

We'll see what tomorrow afternon brings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 14, 2009, 10:32:19 PM
and Otterbein lost to Marietta.

Haven't we been here before?   :o

We have.  My very point.  And the published criteria says Otterbein gets a bump with the h-t-h win, plus a win over a regionally ranked opponent (ONU)...

last comment on the Ott/ONU topic
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pg04 on November 14, 2009, 10:44:29 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 10:34:19 PM
I imagine, if Ralph's right, that W&J would be the 6th Pool C team in, IF they get in.

While not a published criteria, here's one of those "human factors" that will be considered:

UMHB lost to Miss Coll by 3
Wabash lost to Wittenberg by 3
St. Thomas lost to St. Johns by 3 in OT
W&J lost to Thomas More by 7
Coe lost to Central by 18
St Norbert lost to Monmouth by 28
Albright lost to Delaware Valley by 29

St. John Fisher also has only ONE in-region loss, but two other losses to D-III teams.  Their in-region loss was by 3 to Alfred.

We'll see what tomorrow afternon brings.

I actually think Fisher is probably the better team when compared to Albright, but Record wise I just don't see any way the comittee would chose them. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 15, 2009, 12:34:28 AM
In the end, I am simply not convinced the committee will take a 2 loss team over a 1 loss team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2009, 01:17:20 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 10:27:54 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2009, 10:24:33 PM
It would be a shame if W&J got in over ONU.  W&J beat nobody.

And ONU lost to Otterbein


Otterbein isn't ranked higher than ONU.  They aren't in the discussion.  The discussion is between ONU and three 1-loss teams.  Otterbein couldn't matter less right now.  They blew their chance to matter. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 15, 2009, 01:55:56 AM
St. Norbert has a significantly better SOS than W&J. If a one-loss team gets taken ahead of the much better Ohio Northern, I would suspect it would be St. Norbert.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 15, 2009, 01:55:56 AM
St. Norbert has a significantly better SOS than W&J. If a one-loss team gets taken ahead of the much better Ohio Northern, I would suspect it would be St. Norbert.

I agree, I think W&J is toast. They needed more help than just Dickinson losing.

Would not be surprised in the least if ONU got in over St. Norbert.

We shall see.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 08:56:43 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 14, 2009, 10:32:19 PM
and Otterbein lost to Marietta.

Haven't we been here before?   :o

We have.  My very point.  And the published criteria says Otterbein gets a bump with the h-t-h win, plus a win over a regionally ranked opponent (ONU)...

last comment on the Ott/ONU topic

We can only hope!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 09:07:10 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 04:31:56 AM
Would not be surprised in the least if ONU got in over St. Norbert.

We shall see.

What specific criteria is it that puts ONU on the board ahead of North Central, by the way?

In region record?  no
OWP?  NCC (.575 v. .544)
OOWP?  NCC (.568 v. .524)
NCAA?  NCC (.573 v. .537)

We will see what happens...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 09:07:10 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 04:31:56 AM
Would not be surprised in the least if ONU got in over St. Norbert.

We shall see.

What specific criteria is it that puts ONU on the board ahead of North Central, by the way?

In region record?  no
OWP?  NCC (.575 v. .544)
OOWP?  NCC (.568 v. .524)
NCAA?  NCC (.573 v. .537)

We will see what happens...


You're going to love this one:

HEAD TO HEAD
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 09:15:13 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 08:56:43 AM
We can only hope!

No big deal, HScoach.  You probably should spend some of your HOPE hoping that your team doesn't get screwed out by failure to use stated criteria...

Meanwhile, the rest of us who have SEEN some criteria followed and others, mysteriously, ignored, will continue to examine, discuss, ponder, consider and debate.  When, finally, we get down to the ESPNews announcement this afternoon, we'll be able to find you sitting over there in your Barney Chair, always hopeful.

Whether you like it or not, my postings in the discussion regarding Otterbein (not my team, by the way) were totally and completely based in the NCAA-stated criteria.  Not hope, not dreams, not wishes, not some mystical hopeful wishing of hscoach.  stated criteria.  period.

Will the AA follow that?  who knows.  But you just hope your day away and keep on smiling.  It'll make people wonder what you're up to.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 09:16:33 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 09:13:42 AM
You're going to love this one:

HEAD TO HEAD

See, there you go.  Head to head matters when you want to make it matter.  But you just throw it out when you want to use just those other numbers...typical.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Do we know that the regional advisory committees have to use the same listed criteria that the NCAA uses for selection and seeding?  I can't find information on this. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 09:37:10 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 09:15:13 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 08:56:43 AM
We can only hope!

No big deal, HScoach.  You probably should spend some of your HOPE hoping that your team doesn't get screwed out by failure to use stated criteria...

Meanwhile, the rest of us who have SEEN some criteria followed and others, mysteriously, ignored, will continue to examine, discuss, ponder, consider and debate.  When, finally, we get down to the ESPNews announcement this afternoon, we'll be able to find you sitting over there in your Barney Chair, always hopeful.

Whether you like it or not, my postings in the discussion regarding Otterbein (not my team, by the way) were totally and completely based in the NCAA-stated criteria.  Not hope, not dreams, not wishes, not some mystical hopeful wishing of hscoach.  stated criteria.  period.

Will the AA follow that?  who knows.  But you just hope your day away and keep on smiling.  It'll make people wonder what you're up to.

Wow.  Someone has their panties in a serious wad.  Hope you don't get a rash from that.

I have a feeling that I'll be just fine watching the selection show.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 15, 2009, 09:39:32 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 09:15:13 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 08:56:43 AM
We can only hope!

No big deal, HScoach.  You probably should spend some of your HOPE hoping that your team doesn't get screwed out by failure to use stated criteria...

There is a chance that MUC doesn't make the playoffs???  Interesting thought.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 12:24:49 PM
Here's the funniest part, at least for me...

The team I cover shouldn't get in, not by the listed criteria...
There are probably six one-loss teams that have better numbers in the primary criteria.
If the team I cover gets in, somebody should be unhappy about being left out.

So, my panties aren't in a bunch. I've been on this road for a lot of years.

Have a good day, have a good tournament, have a good off-season.  Whatever your case is, be hopeful...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 12:32:15 PM
Here are your Pool C's, by the criteria (at least the listed criteria):

Albright
St. Thomas
Wabash
Coe
St. Norbert
UMHB

All one-loss teams with SOS numbers between .463 & .528.
Regional record trumps higher SOS number.

That's the way I see.  Might be wrong, have been before.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 15, 2009, 12:41:02 PM
To be very clear, HSCoach is and always has been an MUC guy. He even does their games on the radio with some other lesser known  guy with a website. So I am pretty sure HSC won't be fretting the selection show too much.

That said I agree with Bob, I don't see how the committee can put a 2 loss ONU team in the field ahead of a 1 loss SNC or even WJ, even though they should and ONU is as good as most of the teams that will be in the tourney. I just can't see it happening.  I too have been wrong before.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 12:46:27 PM
HScoach has nothing to do with Pool C then, and hasn't for a very long time.
Best wishes to the Purple People Eaters at MUC and their radio guy...more than one hs coach has found life in the booth better than that on the sidelines...

As far as whether ONU is as good as most of the teams in the tourney, that doesn't really matter.  That is NOT one of the criteria...

IF the AA is going to publish the qualifying criteria, they should follow them.
IF the AA isn't going to follow them, they should quit publishing them.
The AA really shouldn't be able to have it both ways, and neither should fans of any team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Just Bill on November 15, 2009, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Do we know that the regional advisory committees have to use the same listed criteria that the NCAA uses for selection and seeding?  I can't find information on this. 
Yes, they do.  The 8 chairs of each regional advisory committee comprise the national committee. Same body, same rules.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pg04 on November 15, 2009, 12:56:15 PM
Are the selections at 3pm or 2pm Eastern??  ???
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kohawk Krazy on November 15, 2009, 01:05:31 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 15, 2009, 12:56:15 PM
Are the selections at 3pm or 2pm Eastern??  ???

3 p.m. Eastern
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 01:15:37 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 09:07:10 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 04:31:56 AM
Would not be surprised in the least if ONU got in over St. Norbert.

We shall see.

What specific criteria is it that puts ONU on the board ahead of North Central, by the way?

In region record?  no
OWP?  NCC (.575 v. .544)
OOWP?  NCC (.568 v. .524)
NCAA?  NCC (.573 v. .537)

We will see what happens...


You're going to love this one:

HEAD TO HEAD

I'm with HSCoach on this one, but Bob.Gregg, you make some good points.

I realize Otterbein also has a h2h over ONU, but if you follow the h2h chain among those North teams, you get Ott > ONU > NCC. Then if you look at the other primary criteria, it seems to reverse that order.

This might be a case where primary doesn't result in a decision and they go down to secondary criteria, which can include out of region results and play in the last 25 percent of the season.

I didn't get in on the ground floor of this discussion, so I'm not sure why you seem so angry at HScoach or why you thought his team was ONU, but ...

I'm not as convinced as everyone else that OAC No. 2 is automatic. I think OAC No. 2 is automatic when the one loss is to MUC, but once you hit two losses, anything's possible.

The CCIW this year was six winning records deep, maybe as good as any conference in the country, so if a two-loss team from any conference should get in, esp. by the SOS numbers, it should be NCC.

But with ONU and Ott also on the board, I don't see how you can ignore the h2h results in NCC's favor. I can see how Otterbein's loss to a not-even-close team might be a disqualifier though.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 01:25:10 PM
Not angry at HScoach specifically.  Didn't know who his team is and still don't care.
You just can't use hth to prove one point and dismiss it when it goes the other way.

IF ONU & NCC only are under consideration at the same time, ONU. hth.

IF ONU & OTT only are under consideration at the same time, OTT.  hth.

I don't think any of them will get on the board or in the field.  Two losses.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 12:46:27 PMAs far as whether ONU is as good as most of the teams in the tourney, that doesn't really matter.  That is NOT one of the criteria...

IF the AA is going to publish the qualifying criteria, they should follow them.
IF the AA isn't going to follow them, they should quit publishing them.
The AA really shouldn't be able to have it both ways, and neither should fans of any team.

mille125 makes some similar points on the dose, that there's a level of subjectivity to things.

I agree with both of you guys to an extent.

Subjective decision-making was what I hated about the 16-team system. Too much of it. And every year, some team from a "weak" conference beats a team in the playoffs from a "strong" one. So it's tough to rely solely on conference strength for playoff worthiness (which technically we don't, but by SOS we kind of do).

The thing I would submit to you is that maybe a little bit of subjectiveness, once everybody has had a fair shot to get into the field , is maybe a good thing.

If the numbers slightly favor 9-1 St. Norbert over 9-1 UMHB, who really thinks SNU is the team that best belongs in the field?

If someone had to make a decision between ONU and NCC, why would we want to ignore the h2h result?

I realize we can talk ourselves into a circle when you involve Otterbein in this argument, and what the relevance of losing to Marietta, as opposed to MUC and IWU, is.

The BL is that criteria isn't always going to produce a clean, clear decision. When you get to selecting the 31st and 32nd teams in the field, just as the last at-larges in the basketball NCAAs, there are murky decisions. Teams have played their way on to the bubble and can complain if they want, but when they haven't provided a resume that gives it a decided advantage, somebody's got to step in and choose, and somebody's going to be left unhappy.

My question to you and mille125 -- and I don't have my mind made up on this -- is that don't we want the committee to exercise a measure of common sense over the proceeding that can't be defined necessarily by published criteria?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 01:25:10 PM
Not angry at HScoach specifically.  Didn't know who his team is and still don't care.
You just can't use hth to prove one point and dismiss it when it goes the other way.

IF ONU & NCC only are under consideration at the same time, ONU. hth.

IF ONU & OTT only are under consideration at the same time, OTT.  hth.

I don't think any of them will get on the board or in the field.  Two losses.

Gotcha.

You might not have been angry or what have you, but it definitely came off that way.

Anyway, the above is a quite a valid point.

I actually think you can use h2h in one instance and not as much in another, but I don't know if that's right.

More specifically, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it happen.

I think someone could make a convincing, though not infallible, argument for most bubble teams, ONU, OTT et. al. included.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you, just providing some other views ... I asked the questions I'm more curious about in the last post I made.

Is there room for any subjectiveness in the at-large decision-making process?

Do you (or anyone) think that sometimes situations might force it?

Or would we legitimately prefer the most clear, followed-to-a-tee, set of criteria possible? (In which case, we might not really need a committee to handle the decisions)

Legitimate question
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pg04 on November 15, 2009, 01:34:43 PM
Quote from: Kohawk Krazy on November 15, 2009, 01:05:31 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 15, 2009, 12:56:15 PM
Are the selections at 3pm or 2pm Eastern??  ???

3 p.m. Eastern

Thank you. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 01:34:55 PM
Keith, ONLY if the published criteria necessitate a movement to some "common sense" factor, that is, a decision can not be made based on the established criteria.

Why should the numbers favoring St Norbert (published criteria) not put them in over UMHB?  Because YOU "know", or I "know" or the AA "knows" that UMHB is the team that "best belongs in the field"?....  There's nothing that I've read anywhere that should encourage, or even allow such a discounting of published criteria.

That having been said, I have long recognized the human factor in all of this, sometimes to the benefit of the team I cover, sometimes to its detriment.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 01:34:55 PM
Keith, ONLY if the published criteria necessitate a movement to some "common sense" factor, that is, a decision can not be made based on the established criteria.

Why should the numbers favoring St Norbert (published criteria) not put them in over UMHB?  Because YOU "know", or I "know" or the AA "knows" that UMHB is the team that "best belongs in the field"?....  There's nothing that I've read anywhere that should encourage, or even allow such a discounting of published criteria

On point A above, I'm with you.

On point B, I'm not saying I've read anything that would encourage it either. And anyone in this UMHB example who would accept this goodwill would also have to recognize that it could be used against them, in order to keep a flying team out of the field. In other words, there are likely people who think UMHB is as likely to get "screwed" out of a bid than into one.

As for why they should ... because the numbers aren't perfect either. 9-1s might look the same to the OWP/OOWP formula, but getting drilled by Monmouth and winning the rest of your MWC games is generally not considered to be as good a measure of who's a good football team as losing by 3 on the road to Miss Coll and winning the rest of your ASC games is.

MOV and home/road aren't criteria either, and I don't think they should be ... but that's an example where someone could make a case for why one team should best belong in the field.

(and I purposely say best belong knowing that that's open to interpretation)

That's what I'm getting at. Anything that's not automatic or really clear by criteria one side or the other could make a case for.

Do we prefer having the ambiguity, or would we rather stick to hard and fast guidelines to decide everything, even if we end up having to accept the flaws of a hard and fast system?

Stuff to ponder as we wait ... :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 02:10:19 PM
K-Mack:  As always, you say what we're thinking much better than we can.  Numbers are nice, but it isn't, nor should it be, the end all.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2009, 02:13:15 PM
Also, from the handbook in the section regarding championship selection:

"Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the Division III football committee."


And that, as far as I can tell, is your published criteria that allows for some human element to play a factor.  

If it was simply about SOS's and in region win percentages, head to heads, and wins against other ranked teams, we wouldn't need a committee.  We have spreadsheets and databases that can track, tabulate, and sort that info for us.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 01:47:16 PM
As for why they should ... because the numbers aren't perfect either. 9-1s might look the same to the OWP/OOWP formula, but getting drilled by Monmouth and winning the rest of your MWC games is generally not considered to be as good a measure of who's a good football team as losing by 3 on the road to Miss Coll and winning the rest of your ASC games is.

In the theme of this thread, and in opposition to the D-3 projection on the front page:
Is a Norbert 9-1, getting drilled by Monmouth and winning the rest of your MWC games better than an ONU 8-2, losing to MUC, then to Ott?
Is a W&J 9-1, losing by a touchdown to TMC and winning the rest of your PAC games better than on ONU, 8-2, losing to MUC, then to Ott?

Is either of those 9-1s better than NCC 8-2, losing to Illinois Wesleyan by a touchdown, AND to ONU?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 02:10:19 PM
K-Mack:  As always, you say what we're thinking much better than we can.  Numbers are nice, but it isn't, nor should it be, the end all.

As always, I fail to be that concise :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 02:21:25 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2009, 02:13:15 PM
"Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the Division III football committee."


wally, the D-III football committee has at least as often revised what was given to them by the regional committees...errors in regional rankings, etc.

In fact, I understand one of those has already happened this year, in the final public regional rankings...

The way I get it, St. Norbert was not on the original list.  The national committee sent it back to the region and said that the criteria puts Norbert in the Top 10.

That's not gospel fact, but it is what I understand has already happened...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 02:22:14 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 02:10:19 PM
K-Mack:  As always, you say what we're thinking much better than we can.  Numbers are nice, but it isn't, nor should it be, the end all.

As always, I fail to be that concise :D

Sometimes being an engineer helps my writing ::). 

Doesn't happen that often though.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 02:24:57 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2009, 02:13:15 PM
Also, from the handbook in the section regarding championship selection:

"Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the Division III football committee."


And that, as far as I can tell, is your published criteria that allows for some human element to play a factor.  

If it was simply about SOS's and in region win percentages, head to heads, and wins against other ranked teams, we wouldn't need a committee.  We have spreadsheets and databases that can track, tabulate, and sort that info for us.

You know, I've read that passage in the handbook, and never got that interpetation. I always read it as "stuff discussed during the weekly conference calls to come up with the rankings might come into play again."

Do you mean it as "since every conference is represented on the subcommittees, everyone's at least seen everyone in discussion at least once and can weigh in?"

That's a really good point.

Would also bring up whether a committee/subcomittee rep would have trouble being objective, either in the promote-my-conference or hate-my-rival direction.

And the committee thing, that's what I was saying earlier.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 02:29:52 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 01:47:16 PM
As for why they should ... because the numbers aren't perfect either. 9-1s might look the same to the OWP/OOWP formula, but getting drilled by Monmouth and winning the rest of your MWC games is generally not considered to be as good a measure of who's a good football team as losing by 3 on the road to Miss Coll and winning the rest of your ASC games is.

In the theme of this thread, and in opposition to the D-3 projection on the front page:
Is a Norbert 9-1, getting drilled by Monmouth and winning the rest of your MWC games better than an ONU 8-2, losing to MUC, then to Ott?
Is a W&J 9-1, losing by a touchdown to TMC and winning the rest of your PAC games better than on ONU, 8-2, losing to MUC, then to Ott?

Is either of those 9-1s better than NCC 8-2, losing to Illinois Wesleyan by a touchdown, AND to ONU?

Bob,
That's my point exactly. One or more of these teams is in by a hair, and the teams that are out by a hair each have solid arguments.

If W&J is the last team in, St. N and ONU will have legitimate gripes.
If St. N is the last team in, W&J and ONU will have legitimate gripes.
If UMHB and ONU are in/out and St. N/W&J are in/out, there will be gripes. That's the nature of the at-large bubble, right?

If it was cut and dried like the AQs are, what would we need a committee for?

The committee makes the tough calls when tough calls have to be made.

My question to you was, do you think a degree of subjectivity is warranted or no?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 02:39:33 PM
Okay,
getting close to 3, so I'm gonna step away. I always miss a few teams, so if I haven't backed your team, get excited :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 02:40:32 PM
I don't see the need for it this year.

I see the criteria have seven 1-loss teams vying for six Pool C slots.  At least five of those seven have comparable SOS, OWP, OOWP with each other and with the discussed 2-loss teams.

Any subjectivity comes in only for what I see as the final spot--which 1-loss team gets in and which gets left out?

Does Norbert's blowout loss overshadow a better SOS as compared to W&J?
Does W&J's close loss (TMC) plus last year's playoff run make up for playing Oberlin?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 03:13:37 PM
W&J in, at MUC...

HScoach, see you next weekend.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 15, 2009, 03:19:45 PM
Bob,

See. just like I told you. Why would you think ONU had a chance?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 03:21:10 PM
Actually, coach, I won't be there.  But we'll have a crew there.

I'll be at the D-2 second round--Cal U Pa at Shippensburg....

Gonna miss my first visit to the Mount.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 02:40:32 PM
I don't see the need for it this year.

I see the criteria have seven 1-loss teams vying for six Pool C slots.  At least five of those seven have comparable SOS, OWP, OOWP with each other and with the discussed 2-loss teams.

Any subjectivity comes in only for what I see as the final spot--which 1-loss team gets in and which gets left out?

Does Norbert's blowout loss overshadow a better SOS as compared to W&J?
Does W&J's close loss (TMC) plus last year's playoff run make up for playing Oberlin?

Valid analysis. Committee appeared to agree with you.

Personally, I think W&J getting in would be something close to a travesty, in that it basically endorses playing pansies as a backup plan for not winning your AQ. But since my suggestion would be to schedule Mount Union anyway, it's sort of poetic justice.

And if they win ... holy schnikes!

(To be clear, I don't think 9-1 teams getting in is generally a travesty. So that's not really the right word. But I think it would be bad for Division III if we interpreted W&J getting in as an endorsement for good teams not taking opponents that challenge them)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 04:37:06 PM
Presidents will play Delaware Valley next year, regarding the SOS issue.
As I indicated earlier, I didn't think the criteria had the Presidents in.
I think Norbert has better primary crits at least.  But, instead of being a travesty (a little strong), I think it gives a little glimpse into the weight of various criteria.

Regional results appears more meaningful than SOS.
And, then, if you get beyond the primaries, even something like "How bad you lost the one you lost" seems to be an item.
Finally, this is W&J's 21st bid in 25 years.  How does that play in the "other factors"...

Not surprised (as I indicated earlier this weekend) that no 2-loss Pool C bids were offered.  Regional results (wins & losses) is a pretty tough criteria to overlook or marginalize.


On a much lighter note, K-Mack, I like grape jelly with my toast....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2009, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 03:21:10 PM
Actually, coach, I won't be there.  But we'll have a crew there.

I'll be at the D-2 second round--Cal U Pa at Shippensburg....

Gonna miss my first visit to the Mount.

Darn.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 15, 2009, 05:30:44 PM
We just finished our "In the HuddLLe" interview with Dr. Joy Solomen, Chairwoman of the NCAA Division III Football Championship Committee.  I have to admit, I learned some things during the call -- and I'm sure readers will want to hear what she said about strength of schedule issues, the East as a whole and the way to avoid Mount Union at the top of the East Bracket every year.

Tune in at http://InTheHuddLLe.com at 7:30pm EST for the interview and a lot more.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 15, 2009, 09:33:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 15, 2009, 05:30:44 PM
We just finished our "In the HuddLLe" interview with Dr. Joy Solomen, Chairwoman of the NCAA Division III Football Championship Committee.  I have to admit, I learned some things during the call -- and I'm sure readers will want to hear what she said about strength of schedule issues, the East as a whole and the way to avoid Mount Union at the top of the East Bracket every year.

Tune in at http://InTheHuddLLe.com at 7:30pm EST for the interview and a lot more.

Frank,
Anyway to hear it after the fact?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: algernon on November 15, 2009, 10:00:25 PM
Quote from: algernon on November 08, 2009, 06:07:45 PM
My suggested bracket, with Hampden-Sydney moving upto #1 ahead of Wesley, since the Tigers (9-0) beat a common opponent (Salisbury) by 45 points that Wesley (9-0) beat by only 18 points:

1 Hampden-Sydney vs. 8 Johns Hopkins
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
3 Thomas More  vs. 6 DePauw
2 Wesley vs 7 North Carolina Wesleyan

UMHB flies somewhere else.

Well, I got the South Bracket correct .... except for the seeding, which is:
3 Hampden-Sydney vs. 6 Johns Hopkins
4 Huntingdon vs. 5 Mississippi College
2 Thomas More  vs. 7 DePauw
1 Wesley vs 8 North Carolina Wesleyan
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2009, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: USee on November 15, 2009, 09:33:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 15, 2009, 05:30:44 PM
We just finished our "In the HuddLLe" interview with Dr. Joy Solomen, Chairwoman of the NCAA Division III Football Championship Committee.  I have to admit, I learned some things during the call -- and I'm sure readers will want to hear what she said about strength of schedule issues, the East as a whole and the way to avoid Mount Union at the top of the East Bracket every year.

Tune in at http://InTheHuddLLe.com at 7:30pm EST for the interview and a lot more.

Frank,
Anyway to hear it after the fact?

Check the NWC board - guy has it archived.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: pumkinattack on November 15, 2009, 10:36:51 PM
Well Bob called it.  I think there's a couple of ways to look at it, but the consequence is you'll probably see more 1 loss NEFC teams as pool C's in the future (as well as possibly ECFC once they get their AQ).  They did, however, look at quality of loss as Dr. Joy mentioned in the in the HuddLLe interview (comparing SNC's loss to a lower regionally ranked team than W&J's loss to #2 regionally ranked TMC, ignoring any cross regional qualitative analysis), so Otterbine's loss to Marietta would've bitten them in the a** had they been competing for a spot (as a one loss team, or with a bunch of two loss teams).   

Flip side is that it probably creates more equal access (whatever that really means) than applying a cross regional subjective analysis, and who knows, maybe those conferences will improve faster with the added competition and exposure. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on November 16, 2009, 12:33:19 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2009, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: USee on November 15, 2009, 09:33:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 15, 2009, 05:30:44 PM
We just finished our "In the HuddLLe" interview with Dr. Joy Solomen, Chairwoman of the NCAA Division III Football Championship Committee.  I have to admit, I learned some things during the call -- and I'm sure readers will want to hear what she said about strength of schedule issues, the East as a whole and the way to avoid Mount Union at the top of the East Bracket every year.

Tune in at http://InTheHuddLLe.com at 7:30pm EST for the interview and a lot more.

Frank,
Anyway to hear it after the fact?

Check the NWC board - guy has it archived.

That's the selection show he has archived. I am loking for the intvw w Joy Solomen.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2009, 12:46:10 AM
The Solomen interview is about 60 minutes into the program.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2009, 03:20:26 AM
That interview is now on the Daily Dose. Thanks to Frank for providing me a copy I could easily post.

http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bill McCabe on November 16, 2009, 07:14:04 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2009, 02:40:32 PM
I don't see the need for it this year.

I see the criteria have seven 1-loss teams vying for six Pool C slots.  At least five of those seven have comparable SOS, OWP, OOWP with each other and with the discussed 2-loss teams.

Any subjectivity comes in only for what I see as the final spot--which 1-loss team gets in and which gets left out?

Does Norbert's blowout loss overshadow a better SOS as compared to W&J?
Does W&J's close loss (TMC) plus last year's playoff run make up for playing Oberlin?

Valid analysis. Committee appeared to agree with you.

Personally, I think W&J getting in would be something close to a travesty, in that it basically endorses playing pansies as a backup plan for not winning your AQ. But since my suggestion would be to schedule Mount Union anyway, it's sort of poetic justice.

And if they win ... holy schnikes!

(To be clear, I don't think 9-1 teams getting in is generally a travesty. So that's not really the right word. But I think it would be bad for Division III if we interpreted W&J getting in as an endorsement for good teams not taking opponents that challenge them)

Pat, Maybe some D1 people snuck into the selction process.  The top D1 teams do that all the time.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 02:29:26 PM
Here's one more point about the Pool C selections:

The D-3 Football.com Top 25 panel seems to agree with the selection of W&J as well.  The Presidents are the 6th Pool C eligible team in the final regular season Top 25 poll....

7 UMHB
10 St. Thomas
13 Ohio Northern
15 Wabash
17 North Central
20 W&J

Where's the questioning of Coe's inclusion?  And Albright's?

Maybe the D-3 Football.com panel has it right.
Maybe the AA Committee has it right.

Just some more discussion items...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 02:35:06 PM
I wasn't aware that the top 25 and the selection process were connected. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 02:44:46 PM
They aren't, and I believe you know that.

My point was simply that the editors of d3football.com, perhaps rightly based on the criteria we all saw, spoke sharply and directly against the inclusion of W&J in the 6-team Pool C field.  The NCAA national committee tabbed the Presidents, apparently, as the 6th member of that field.

The panel of pollsters selected by those same editors ranked the Presidents as the 6th-best member of the field as well, though not directly.  W&J is, in fact the #20 team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll.  That happens to place them in the 6th-best position among Pool C-eligible teams in that poll.

And, just as a point of reference, I said pretty early in the late Saturday / early Sunday discussion that the Presidents didn't have the "stated criteria" to be selected but that there was a "human factor" in the evaluation process...

That's all, just points for discussion, or not.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2009, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 02:44:46 PM
They aren't, and I believe you know that.

My point was simply that the editors of d3football.com, perhaps rightly based on the criteria we all saw, spoke sharply and directly against the inclusion of W&J in the 6-team Pool C field.  The NCAA national committee tabbed the Presidents, apparently, as the 6th member of that field.

The panel of pollsters selected by those same editors ranked the Presidents as the 6th-best member of the field as well, though not directly.  W&J is, in fact the #20 team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll.  That happens to place them in the 6th-best position among Pool C-eligible teams in that poll.

And, just as a point of reference, I said pretty early in the late Saturday / early Sunday discussion that the Presidents didn't have the "stated criteria" to be selected but that there was a "human factor" in the evaluation process...

That's all, just points for discussion, or not.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 02:44:46 PM
They aren't, and I believe you know that.

My point was simply that the editors of d3football.com, perhaps rightly based on the criteria we all saw, spoke sharply and directly against the inclusion of W&J in the 6-team Pool C field.  The NCAA national committee tabbed the Presidents, apparently, as the 6th member of that field.

The panel of pollsters selected by those same editors ranked the Presidents as the 6th-best member of the field as well, though not directly.  W&J is, in fact the #20 team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll.  That happens to place them in the 6th-best position among Pool C-eligible teams in that poll.

And, just as a point of reference, I said pretty early in the late Saturday / early Sunday discussion that the Presidents didn't have the "stated criteria" to be selected but that there was a "human factor" in the evaluation process...

That's all, just points for discussion, or not.

Keith and I ... and the W&J strength of schedule and results on the field, to be honest ... disagree with W&J's inclusion in the Top 25 poll. Enough of the other 23 voters disagree with us to put them in the poll.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2009, 03:01:44 PM
W&J may have enough of a 'name' and a 'reputation' to carry water with some voters. It happens.

W&J is 30th in Massey using MOV - SOS 141
St. Norbert is 66th with a SOS of 179

Massey thinks W & J was a better choice. The dregs of the Midwest Conference really affect St. Norbert in that calculation.

Of course, Ohio Northern was 18th with a SOS of 24.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:03:51 PM
Taking 1-loss teams over ONU is fine...we may not agree that 1 loss should always trump 2 losses, but I can understand the point and accept it.  What I don't get is why W&J would have been selected in front of St. Norbert.  I think that the explanation that W&J played their loss closer than St. Norbert is dubious, at best.  Looking strictly at those two results (and really just the scores) and saying one is better than the other is extremely subjective.  Who's to say that Monmouth isn't a much, much better team than Thomas More?  How do you look at those scores and not factor in things like injuries, road or away, etc. etc.?  And then the ramification of that selection...if regional record trumps all, there is nothing to gain by scheduling stronger opponents.  Why would a team like W&J bother upgrading their schedule?  Oberlin and Frostburg State are safe plays for them.  Why gamble with Del Valley?  

On the other side of the coin, I'm not one that thinks that the OAC's #2 has a right to be in the field just because they are the #2 from the OAC.  In 2009, I think ONU had an intriguing case because they had actually beaten somebody and carried a very strong SOS.  Should we be comparing scores in games that were lost, or should we look and consider teams that have actually beaten a good team?  It's an interesting debate and one that I think is going to end with different results from year to year depending on the composition of the selection committee.  Some years the committee is going to favor strong wins and SOS and some years the committee is going to favor win%.  

The whole thing is a fascinating process, even if it can be head scratching and controversial at times.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:07:55 PM
From the noon hour yesterday: 

Here are your Pool C's, by the criteria (at least the listed criteria):

Albright
St. Thomas
Wabash
Coe
St. Norbert
UMHB

That's the way I see.

I wasn't disagreeing with you Pat.  I had Norbert in, W&J out (via published criteria).  Did find the 23 pollsters disagreement interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:17:01 PM
Norbert had better stated criteria numbers than did W&J.  I felt that way, Pat Coleman felt that way, many people felt that way....so how did the Presidents get in?

HUMAN FACTOR.

So, let me re-post a question K-Mack asked yesterday:  Do we want a cut & dried, no debate, crunch the numbers system for selection to the national tournament?

If the answer is YES, teams who are thought to schedule "cupcakes" would likely be forced to upgrade their out-of-conference games or be willing to risk it all on the AQ road to the tournament.  Otherwise, that Oberlin or Frostburg game would DEFINITELY put you out.

At the same time, ONU wouldn't be in the discussion in this year's circumstances since any compilation of numbers would have to put heavier weight on your own WINS & LOSSES (the Bears had two of the latter).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2009, 03:23:12 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 02:29:26 PM
Here's one more point about the Pool C selections:

The D-3 Football.com Top 25 panel seems to agree with the selection of W&J as well.  The Presidents are the 6th Pool C eligible team in the final regular season Top 25 poll....

7 UMHB
10 St. Thomas
13 Ohio Northern
15 Wabash
17 North Central
20 W&J

Where's the questioning of Coe's inclusion?  And Albright's?

Maybe the D-3 Football.com panel has it right.
Maybe the AA Committee has it right.

Just some more discussion items...

I've made those arguments, on the other board, I guess. (playoff reactions?)

And I'm with you, I'm not necessarily invested in this except that I don't like the message it sends about nonconference scheduling ... but otherwise these are just discussion items, and there's more than one way to look at things.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2009, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:17:01 PM
Norbert had better stated criteria numbers than did W&J.  I felt that way, Pat Coleman felt that way, many people felt that way....so how did the Presidents get in?

HUMAN FACTOR.

So, let me re-post a question K-Mack asked yesterday:  Do we want a cut & dried, no debate, crunch the numbers system for selection to the national tournament?

If the answer is YES, teams who are thought to schedule "cupcakes" would likely be forced to upgrade their out-of-conference games or be willing to risk it all on the AQ road to the tournament.  Otherwise, that Oberlin or Frostburg game would DEFINITELY put you out.

At the same time, ONU wouldn't be in the discussion in this year's circumstances since any compilation of numbers would have to put heavier weight on your own WINS & LOSSES (the Bears had two of the latter).

Well, if we put heavier weight on WINS (i.e. the who you beat argument), W&J is dead in the water on that one. Coe and UMHB didn't have any particularly impressive wins either. ONU and NCC would be among the first one- or two-loss teams in if QoW (Quality of Wins ... see what I did there?) was a major part of the discussion.

It's clear that this year, among this committee, it was not.

FWIW as far as the discussion goes.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:39:36 PM
So based on the Dr. Solomen interview...W&J was selected because:
- Their OOWP was higher than SNC's (.499 vs. .473...nevermind that SNC OWP is .100 higher than W&J and a calculated SOS number .058 higher than W&J...it's the OOWP that matters most...apparently)
- W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 

Yikes.  I'm not sure that I'm terribly comfortable with this way of thinking. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:40:30 PM
K,

W&J is not dead in the water.  They had 9 wins.  That has to be worth more than 8 wins.  Not a trump card, ending the game, but it has value.

Then, factor the OWP, OOWP, SOS, FBI, CIA, CAA, DHS, UPS and all the other things and you're all set.

However, I do not believe THIS AA committee, or any successor to it, will allow for the HUMAN FACTOR to be removed.

I believe that there were several strong voices on this committee who held firmly that this was a 7-team race for 6 bids.  The 2-lossers were never seriously in the discussion.  You'll never get that from the committee members, but I believe that to be the case.

You raised the UMHB--their overall numbers weren't terribly impressive either, if we want to get right down to it.  They were better than W&J's, but I believe ONLY W&J's among the seven one-loss teams.  Yet, the HUMAN FACTOR, on the committee and on these boards, had UMHB as a LOCK...

more FWIW...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:39:36 PM
...W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 
I believe what she said on the "how they lost" portion was that W&J lost by a touchdown to the #2 in the region while Norbert got pounded (28 points) by the #5 team in that region.  Not just that W&J lost to TMC and Norbert lost to Monmouth...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:55:23 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:39:36 PM
...W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 
I believe what she said on the "how they lost" portion was that W&J lost by a touchdown to the #2 in the region while Norbert got pounded (28 points) by the #5 team in that region.  Not just that W&J lost to TMC and Norbert lost to Monmouth...

Ignoring the relative strength of one conference to another is annoying...ignoring the relative strength of an entire REGION is irresponsible. 

Using MOV as a factor in selection and seeding sets a dangerous precedent.  Nearly as dangerous a precedent as may be being set by telling everybody that your schedule doesn't matter (at least not as much as your opponent's schedules anyway). 

I was hoping to listen to the interview and come away with a "I disagree, but I see where you're coming from" feeling.  Unfortunately, I come away with a "I'm wondering if the committee chair wasn't in over her skis this year" feeling.  Not disclosing the first 3-4 teams out doesn't help the case either. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:58:56 PM
She did appear flustered, shall we say....
Pat certainly had her spinning for a few moments....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: jam40jeff on November 16, 2009, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:39:36 PM
Yikes.  I'm not sure that I'm terribly comfortable with this way of thinking. 

Or, apparently, lack of thinking.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: golden_dome on November 17, 2009, 12:08:15 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:55:23 PM
Ignoring the relative strength of one conference to another is annoying...ignoring the relative strength of an entire REGION is irresponsible. 

Using MOV as a factor in selection and seeding sets a dangerous precedent.  Nearly as dangerous a precedent as may be being set by telling everybody that your schedule doesn't matter (at least not as much as your opponent's schedules anyway). 

I was hoping to listen to the interview and come away with a "I disagree, but I see where you're coming from" feeling.  Unfortunately, I come away with a "I'm wondering if the committee chair wasn't in over her skis this year" feeling.  Not disclosing the first 3-4 teams out doesn't help the case either. 

Just to add to the discussion. I don't know how you can factor in a subjective measure such as strength of a region, yet fail to look at MOV. The MOV is a direct indicator of strength and it's only fair to look at if you are also trying to identify a region is stronger. I know it was mentioned that the West region was stronger because of more undefeated teams, which I guess it is according to the handbook. But fewer undefeated South teams could be an indicator of greater overall depth in the region. There's no way to know IMO with so few cross-regional games played.

I think the "human factor" to this is a good thing IMO, I think it brings common sense in. For instance, like one poster said UMHB doesn't have particularly great SOS numbers but everyone knows they are strong. I realize it puts more decision-making into the hands of the regional committees rather than a strict guideline, but I'm more comfortable with that.

I think the criteria does a good job identifying worthy teams, for instance the 7-8 teams vying for the final 6 spots. But at that point I would trust the judgement of the committee more than just what the criteria indicates. UMHB could have been left out just based on criteria, but on some level you have to take into consideration their MOV and back to back semifinal appearances.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Toby Taff on November 17, 2009, 12:16:37 AM
nicely stated chrs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2009, 01:12:38 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2009, 03:39:36 PM
...W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 
I believe what she said on the "how they lost" portion was that W&J lost by a touchdown to the #2 in the region while Norbert got pounded (28 points) by the #5 team in that region.  Not just that W&J lost to TMC and Norbert lost to Monmouth...

She didn't actually say that part, but I certainly wonder if margin of defeat was considered.

Margin of victory without a common opponent being involved is fairly nebulous. It's not like these were similar style teams playing a similar kind of game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2009, 02:47:24 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2009, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:17:01 PM
Norbert had better stated criteria numbers than did W&J.  I felt that way, Pat Coleman felt that way, many people felt that way....so how did the Presidents get in?

HUMAN FACTOR.

So, let me re-post a question K-Mack asked yesterday:  Do we want a cut & dried, no debate, crunch the numbers system for selection to the national tournament?

If the answer is YES, teams who are thought to schedule "cupcakes" would likely be forced to upgrade their out-of-conference games or be willing to risk it all on the AQ road to the tournament.  Otherwise, that Oberlin or Frostburg game would DEFINITELY put you out.

At the same time, ONU wouldn't be in the discussion in this year's circumstances since any compilation of numbers would have to put heavier weight on your own WINS & LOSSES (the Bears had two of the latter).

Well, if we put heavier weight on WINS (i.e. the who you beat argument), W&J is dead in the water on that one. Coe and UMHB didn't have any particularly impressive wins either. ONU and NCC would be among the first one- or two-loss teams in if QoW (Quality of Wins ... see what I did there?) was a major part of the discussion.

It's clear that this year, among this committee, it was not.

FWIW as far as the discussion goes.

K,

W&J is not dead in the water.  They had 9 wins.  That has to be worth more than 8 wins.  Not a trump card, ending the game, but it has value.

Then, factor the OWP, OOWP, SOS, FBI, CIA, CAA, DHS, UPS and all the other things and you're all set.

However, I do not believe THIS AA committee, or any successor to it, will allow for the HUMAN FACTOR to be removed.

I believe that there were several strong voices on this committee who held firmly that this was a 7-team race for 6 bids.  The 2-lossers were never seriously in the discussion.  You'll never get that from the committee members, but I believe that to be the case.

You raised the UMHB--their overall numbers weren't terribly impressive either, if we want to get right down to it.  They were better than W&J's, but I believe ONLY W&J's among the seven one-loss teams.  Yet, the HUMAN FACTOR, on the committee and on these boards, had UMHB as a LOCK...

more FWIW...

I don't think you followed what I meant with the "dead in the water" comment. I was twisting your use of "heavier weight on WINS & LOSSES" to point out that if the committee indeed placed a heavy weight on wins, W&J might have 9 of them, but they are against no one of consequence, save for 7-3 Geneva.

They most certainly are dead in the water if a heavy weight was placed on the quality of the wins. We know that not to be the case, it was the quality of the loss and the number of wins.

I've pointed out more than once the ways you could unfavorably compare UMHB, Coe and Albright in the Pool C discussion, so I don't know why we're continuing down that path. We see eye to eye on that.

You might be right that the 2-loss teams were never in the dicussion. I think I'd have to go on record as not being in favor of that, but it doesn't mean that didn't happen. Solid observation.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: D O.C. on November 17, 2009, 01:25:43 PM
I transpose this whole scenario to Division I and really, really roll my eyes.

"Ain't gonna happen there"
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 17, 2009, 02:53:10 PM
D O.C., you're right.

They just go about their merry way, sending teams to bowl games with no meaning, having teams sit for over a month between contests, and no real, definitive championship is determined.

Unless either W&J goes on to win the title this year, or exposes some flaw that Norbert/ONU/NCC/SJF/OTT ad infinitum could have better exploited, at least D-3 crowns a champion totally determined by on-field play.

IF W&J wins, Norbert et al can claim that they should have been in instead.
IF W&J exposes that flaw in someone who goes on to win it, they can all claim how they would have won the title had they only been given the chance.

Short of either of those circumstances (neither of which I'm expecting), we're protected at the D-3 level from the BSC BS of the D-I world.

For that, I believe we're all thankful.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 18, 2009, 02:10:48 PM
Mentioned earlier that W&J would play Delaware Valley in the 2010 season.
PAC/MAC offices released the complete schedule earlier:


September 11, 2010 (MAC default home team unless switched by mutual agreement)
PAC #1 Washington & Jefferson (9-1, 5-1 PAC) at MAC #1 Delaware Valley (9-1, 7-0 MAC)
PAC #2 Geneva (7-3) at MAC #2 Albright (9-1, 6-1 MAC)
PAC #3 Grove City (5-5, 4-2 PAC) at MAC #3 Lebanon Valley (8-2, 5-2 MAC)
PAC #4 Waynesburg (5-5, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #4 Wilkes (6-4, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #5 Westminster (4-6, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #5 Lycoming (4-6, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #6 Bethany (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #6 King's (3-7, 2-5 MAC)
PAC #7 Thiel (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #7 Widener (3-7, 1-6 MAC)
PAC #8 Saint Vincent (0-10) at MAC #8 FDU-Florham (2-8, 1-6 MAC)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MUCheats on November 18, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 17, 2009, 02:53:10 PM
D O.C., you're right.

They just go about their merry way, sending teams to bowl games with no meaning, having teams sit for over a month between contests, and no real, definitive championship is determined.

Unless either W&J goes on to win the title this year, or exposes some flaw that Norbert/ONU/NCC/SJF/OTT ad infinitum could have better exploited, at least D-3 crowns a champion totally determined by on-field play.

IF W&J wins, Norbert et al can claim that they should have been in instead.
IF W&J exposes that flaw in someone who goes on to win it, they can all claim how they would have won the title had they only been given the chance.

Short of either of those circumstances (neither of which I'm expecting), we're protected at the D-3 level from the BSC BS of the D-I world.

For that, I believe we're all thankful.

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
What you say is true, and we need look no further back than last year to see it.  Wheaton got a Pool C with two losses, and made it all the way to the national semis.  This year they would apparently not have even been seriously considered.

I very much like Pool A, giving every conference champion a shot at the title (despite knowing full well that many of them are destined to lose by 4+ TDs).  And it is not a problem in many sports, where there are still plenty enough at large spots to assure that no legitimate threats to go very far get left out.  But with only 32 total slots, and 23 (soon to be 25) Pool A teams, it IS a problem in d3 football.

Alas, I have no solution to offer.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MUCheats on November 18, 2009, 09:08:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
What you say is true, and we need look no further back than last year to see it.  Wheaton got a Pool C with two losses, and made it all the way to the national semis.  This year they would apparently not have even been seriously considered.

I very much like Pool A, giving every conference champion a shot at the title (despite knowing full well that many of them are destined to lose by 4+ TDs).  And it is not a problem in many sports, where there are still plenty enough at large spots to assure that no legitimate threats to go very far get left out.  But with only 32 total slots, and 23 (soon to be 25) Pool A teams, it IS a problem in d3 football.

Alas, I have no solution to offer.

I agree on both counts.  Expanding the tournament certainly isn't feasible.  But I still don't fully understand how Division III chooses Pool C teams.  It seems like things like travel distance and the "spirit of competition" are still getting in the way of Division III selecting the best conference runners-up to compete in the postseason.  If they're not going to get it right, they may as well eliminate Pool C altogether and at least then, to me, the ideals of the division would be put into action.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: golden_dome on November 18, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: MUCheats on November 18, 2009, 11:20:56 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on November 18, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: golden_dome on November 19, 2009, 12:45:46 AM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 11:20:56 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on November 18, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."
f

I understand that part of it, I'm associated with Mississippi College who also plays in a very tough conference. Until this year we've never been able to beat Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin-Simmons, and several years they both were top 10 teams. In 2007 we went 8-2 and didn't get close to getting in because of the criteria, and that was with a team with a future NFL wide receiver, a future AFL receiver and arguably one of the most talented QB's in the country. And that with a pretty good defense and last second loss to HSU.

But, here's another way to look at it. It's not exactly fair to ask the conference champions to beat a team twice, once in the regular season and again to advance in the playoffs. It does cheapen the regular season somewhat by that win not mattering. The way it is now teams are playing deciding games in the regular season, conference races are part of the playoffs

And like I said, there are six additional bids to very strong teams that might have played poorly one game during the regular season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2009, 01:06:02 AM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on November 19, 2009, 12:45:46 AM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 11:20:56 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on November 18, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."
f

I understand that part of it, I'm associated with Mississippi College who also plays in a very tough conference. Until this year we've never been able to beat Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin-Simmons, and several years they both were top 10 teams. In 2007 we went 8-2 and didn't get close to getting in because of the criteria, and that was with a team with a future NFL wide receiver, a future AFL receiver and arguably one of the most talented QB's in the country. And that with a pretty good defense and last second loss to HSU.

But, here's another way to look at it. It's not exactly fair to ask the conference champions to beat a team twice, once in the regular season and again to advance in the playoffs. It does cheapen the regular season somewhat by that win not mattering. The way it is now teams are playing deciding games in the regular season, conference races are part of the playoffs

And like I said, there are six additional bids to very strong teams that might have played poorly one game during the regular season.

Recently MUC and UWW so pulled away from the pack that we could have a one-game BCS fiasco and the Stagg would be unchanged anyway.  But that DOES also raise the question of 1-loss vs. 2-loss teams in certain circumstances.  Both ONU and Ott had only 1 loss (other than MUC) and Stevens Point and Stout had only 1 loss (other than UWW, and for UWSP also excluding a non-d3 loss).  All four teams would be ahead of several Pool C teams except for having two losses.  Should that matter?

(IMO, St. Norb's definitely was screwed (by the published criteria) by the selection of W & J; since there is no specification of the relative weight of the primary criteria, I believe ONU should have gone in ahead of either W & J OR St. Norbert.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: D O.C. on November 19, 2009, 02:13:36 PM
Well let us begin thinking ahead to how the WIAC is going to play into selection next year with their budget saving two-time-go-around.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2009, 03:13:59 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 18, 2009, 02:10:48 PM
Mentioned earlier that W&J would play Delaware Valley in the 2010 season.
PAC/MAC offices released the complete schedule earlier:

September 11, 2010 (MAC default home team unless switched by mutual agreement)
PAC #1 Washington & Jefferson (9-1, 5-1 PAC) at MAC #1 Delaware Valley (9-1, 7-0 MAC)
PAC #2 Geneva (7-3) at MAC #2 Albright (9-1, 6-1 MAC)
PAC #3 Grove City (5-5, 4-2 PAC) at MAC #3 Lebanon Valley (8-2, 5-2 MAC)
PAC #4 Waynesburg (5-5, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #4 Wilkes (6-4, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #5 Westminster (4-6, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #5 Lycoming (4-6, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #6 Bethany (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #6 King's (3-7, 2-5 MAC)
PAC #7 Thiel (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #7 Widener (3-7, 1-6 MAC)
PAC #8 Saint Vincent (0-10) at MAC #8 FDU-Florham (2-8, 1-6 MAC)

I read the release ... it said all games at MAC sites next year and all games at PAC sites the year after.

My question is do the matchups stay the same in 2011, or do they reset based on 2010 results? I would think they would, but the release read like maybe they were just home-and-home series.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2009, 05:25:32 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2009, 01:06:02 AM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on November 19, 2009, 12:45:46 AM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 11:20:56 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on November 18, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."
f

I understand that part of it, I'm associated with Mississippi College who also plays in a very tough conference. Until this year we've never been able to beat Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin-Simmons, and several years they both were top 10 teams. In 2007 we went 8-2 and didn't get close to getting in because of the criteria, and that was with a team with a future NFL wide receiver, a future AFL receiver and arguably one of the most talented QB's in the country. And that with a pretty good defense and last second loss to HSU.

But, here's another way to look at it. It's not exactly fair to ask the conference champions to beat a team twice, once in the regular season and again to advance in the playoffs. It does cheapen the regular season somewhat by that win not mattering. The way it is now teams are playing deciding games in the regular season, conference races are part of the playoffs

And like I said, there are six additional bids to very strong teams that might have played poorly one game during the regular season.

Recently MUC and UWW so pulled away from the pack that we could have a one-game BCS fiasco and the Stagg would be unchanged anyway.  But that DOES also raise the question of 1-loss vs. 2-loss teams in certain circumstances.  Both ONU and Ott had only 1 loss (other than MUC) and Stevens Point and Stout had only 1 loss (other than UWW, and for UWSP also excluding a non-d3 loss).  All four teams would be ahead of several Pool C teams except for having two losses.  Should that matter?

(IMO, St. Norb's definitely was screwed (by the published criteria) by the selection of W & J; since there is no specification of the relative weight of the primary criteria, I believe ONU should have gone in ahead of either W & J OR St. Norbert.)

I enjoyed this discussion.

While it's true MUC and UWW have pulled away, keep in mind that they were not ranked 1-2 all four years they met in the Stagg Bowl. Linfield was No. 1 in '05 and UWW lost a game last season and fell behind North Central and Millsaps, etc.

So under a BCS system, we would not even be able to make the statement that MUC and UWW have pulled away.

File under Reason No. 8,467 why playoffs are better.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 19, 2009, 07:59:15 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2009, 03:13:59 PM
[My question is do the matchups stay the same in 2011, or do they reset based on 2010 results? I would think they would, but the release read like maybe they were just home-and-home series.

According to the PAC ED, matchups are the same in 2011, sites flip.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2009, 08:11:09 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 19, 2009, 07:59:15 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2009, 03:13:59 PM
[My question is do the matchups stay the same in 2011, or do they reset based on 2010 results? I would think they would, but the release read like maybe they were just home-and-home series.

According to the PAC ED, matchups are the same in 2011, sites flip.

Gotcha, makes scheduling easy ... although if they guaranteed every MAC team was still playing an away game against a PAC team on the same weekend, I guess it wouldn't matter if the matchups reset again.

Either way, I think this is good for both conferences, but better for the PAC. The MAC has been able to schedule NJAC and other good teams in the mid-Atlantic, the PAC not as much. Having a good game early will negate arguments about weak schedules, IF it's a team that's good this year against a team that remains good. As you I'm sure already know.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: 1990 Champs on November 30, 2009, 03:23:36 PM
The discussion regarding Pool C fascinates me, especially considering that I played during the 16 team regional ranking era.  Then, even winning the conference was not an automatic in to the playoffs, and there were often a couple of undefeated teams left out and more than a few one-loss squads.  Despite the subjective nature of the regional rankings, I never got the feeling that a potential champion was left out of the playoffs.

Now that there are two possible paths to entry for every team in the country, at least one of which is objective - win your conference and you're in, I do not see how there can be complaints about the system.  I think the selection (and seeding) process should be more transparent than it was this year, but every team had a chance to take care of business on the field and take the selection out of the hands of a committee (except, technically, for the pool B's). 

No system, other than an open tournament for all teams, will guarantee that the bracket consists of the top 32 (16, 8, 2, etc.) teams.  But a bracket that allows each team to decide their fate largely on the field is the most we can ask for.  Division III consistently provides that kind of bracket.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 30, 2009, 03:31:15 PM
Well said 1990!  +K4U
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: HScoach on November 30, 2009, 05:20:40 PM
1990 Champs:  Check your PM's.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on November 30, 2009, 11:19:24 PM
Quote from: 1990 Champs on November 30, 2009, 03:23:36 PM
The discussion regarding Pool C fascinates me, especially considering that I played during the 16 team regional ranking era.  Then, even winning the conference was not an automatic in to the playoffs, and there were often a couple of undefeated teams left out and more than a few one-loss squads.  Despite the subjective nature of the regional rankings, I never got the feeling that a potential champion was left out of the playoffs.

Now that there are two possible paths to entry for every team in the country, at least one of which is objective - win your conference and you're in, I do not see how there can be complaints about the system.  I think the selection (and seeding) process should be more transparent than it was this year, but every team had a chance to take care of business on the field and take the selection out of the hands of a committee (except, technically, for the pool B's). 

No system, other than an open tournament for all teams, will guarantee that the bracket consists of the top 32 (16, 8, 2, etc.) teams.  But a bracket that allows each team to decide their fate largely on the field is the most we can ask for.  Division III consistently provides that kind of bracket.   

I think almost everyone agrees with the gist of your post and 90 percent of the points made in it.

I, too, played in the 16-team era and saw a 10-0 team from my conference get left out, which left teams from certain conferences wondering what they could possibly do to get in. The AQ era has made it very clear to most teams what they have to do to get in.

And while I agree that no matter the size of the field, there will always be bubble teams who think they're deserving, I disagree with you on two major points.

1) That there should be no complaints about at-large bids. The Division III handbook lists the criteria for at-large selection. When different selection committees apply those criteria differently from year to year, it leads to the exact opposite of what you like so much about the AQs, which is clarity on what a team must do to make the playoffs.

2) That a "bubble" team can't win a championship. The recent dominance of Mount Union and UW-Whitewater has established a definite ruling class in Division III which makes it hard for some people to remember what it was like when any team in the playoffs could feasibly win it. But in 1999, Pacific Lutheran was the lowest seed in the West Region and presumably one of the last teams in, and won four road games and a fifth in Salem to win it all. They beat Rowan, who beat Mount Union in the semis.

Also I think anymore the definition of a "bubble" team, given the scarcity of Pool C bids (six for 23 conferences) is any team with one loss. And I took a fast look back to the mid-80s, when that run of unbeaten Augustana teams was winning it all ... about half the national champions had a loss or tie.

I'm in total agreement that no one we were discussing in this year's 'last team in' discussion seemed like much of championship contender, but I don't think we can make a blanket statement and say every team on the Pool C bubble isn't going to make a run. Wheaton went to the semis as a two-loss last team in last year; this year, Pool C St. Thomas and Albright are alive and well in the final 8.

And while we might never have the 32 "best" teams, there's no harm in striving to have the "best"/"strongest" field our system allows.

I think it's fine to have the arguments over the at-large spots, as long as we keep in perspective what you originally mentioned, that whatever we end up with beats the heck out of the 16-team system.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: 1990 Champs on November 30, 2009, 11:30:32 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 30, 2009, 11:19:24 PM
Quote from: 1990 Champs on November 30, 2009, 03:23:36 PM
The discussion regarding Pool C fascinates me, especially considering that I played during the 16 team regional ranking era.  Then, even winning the conference was not an automatic in to the playoffs, and there were often a couple of undefeated teams left out and more than a few one-loss squads.  Despite the subjective nature of the regional rankings, I never got the feeling that a potential champion was left out of the playoffs.

Now that there are two possible paths to entry for every team in the country, at least one of which is objective - win your conference and you're in, I do not see how there can be complaints about the system.  I think the selection (and seeding) process should be more transparent than it was this year, but every team had a chance to take care of business on the field and take the selection out of the hands of a committee (except, technically, for the pool B's). 

No system, other than an open tournament for all teams, will guarantee that the bracket consists of the top 32 (16, 8, 2, etc.) teams.  But a bracket that allows each team to decide their fate largely on the field is the most we can ask for.  Division III consistently provides that kind of bracket.   

I think almost everyone agrees with the gist of your post and 90 percent of the points made in it.

I, too, played in the 16-team era and saw a 10-0 team from my conference get left out, which left teams from certain conferences wondering what they could possibly do to get in. The AQ era has made it very clear to most teams what they have to do to get in.

And while I agree that no matter the size of the field, there will always be bubble teams who think they're deserving, I disagree with you on two major points.

1) That there should be no complaints about at-large bids. The Division III handbook lists the criteria for at-large selection. When different selection committees apply those criteria differently from year to year, it leads to the exact opposite of what you like so much about the AQs, which is clarity on what a team must do to make the playoffs.

2) That a "bubble" team can't win a championship. The recent dominance of Mount Union and UW-Whitewater has established a definite ruling class in Division III which makes it hard for some people to remember what it was like when any team in the playoffs could feasibly win it. But in 1999, Pacific Lutheran was the lowest seed in the West Region and presumably one of the last teams in, and won four road games and a fifth in Salem to win it all. They beat Rowan, who beat Mount Union in the semis.

Also I think anymore the definition of a "bubble" team, given the scarcity of Pool C bids (six for 23 conferences) is any team with one loss. And I took a fast look back to the mid-80s, when that run of unbeaten Augustana teams was winning it all ... about half the national champions had a loss or tie.

I'm in total agreement that no one we were discussing in this year's 'last team in' discussion seemed like much of championship contender, but I don't think we can make a blanket statement and say every team on the Pool C bubble isn't going to make a run. Wheaton went to the semis as a two-loss last team in last year; this year, Pool C St. Thomas and Albright are alive and well in the final 8.

And while we might never have the 32 "best" teams, there's no harm in striving to have the "best"/"strongest" field our system allows.

I think it's fine to have the arguments over the at-large spots, as long as we keep in perspective what you originally mentioned, that whatever we end up with beats the heck out of the 16-team system.

Well said, K-Mack.  I do want to clarify that I was not saying that there should be no complaints about at-large bids.  I think the chief complaint I would make, especially this year, is the transparency of the process.  The criteria LISTED certainly make those selections appear to be as objective as possible.  Unfortunately, the Criteria ACTUALLY USED is not known.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2009, 11:41:03 PM
Please remember that UWW was Pool C in 2008.

http://www.d3football.com/school/UWW/2008
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 01, 2009, 12:10:01 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2009, 11:41:03 PM
Please remember that UWW was Pool C in 2008.

http://www.d3football.com/school/UWW/2008

Good point, Ralph.  And Wheaton made the Final Four in 2008 as a Pool C as well.

Has a Pool C ever won the Stagg?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: K-Mack on December 01, 2009, 12:47:14 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 01, 2009, 12:10:01 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2009, 11:41:03 PM
Please remember that UWW was Pool C in 2008.

http://www.d3football.com/school/UWW/2008

Good point, Ralph.  And Wheaton made the Final Four in 2008 as a Pool C as well.

Has a Pool C ever won the Stagg?

PLU in 1999.

UMHB lost 28-21 in 2004, but very well could've won.

I think St. John's in 2000 might have been a Pool C. One of the early runners-up was a Pool C, as well as UWW last year.

In the end, people very rarely remember how a team gets in :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 01, 2009, 12:59:15 AM
With that success of Pool Cs, we probably can't be too confident that a potential national champion didn't get left out.  With Pool As going to 25 very soon, and zero chance of the total pool going beyond 32, I have to wonder if a potential national champion will be left out sometime soon.

Alas, I have no solution, yet I wonder ...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2009, 08:37:38 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on December 01, 2009, 12:47:14 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 01, 2009, 12:10:01 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2009, 11:41:03 PM
Please remember that UWW was Pool C in 2008.

http://www.d3football.com/school/UWW/2008

Good point, Ralph.  And Wheaton made the Final Four in 2008 as a Pool C as well.

Has a Pool C ever won the Stagg?

PLU in 1999.

UMHB lost 28-21 in 2004, but very well could've won.

I think St. John's in 2000 might have been a Pool C. One of the early runners-up was a Pool C, as well as UWW last year.

In the end, people very rarely remember how a team gets in :)

Yes, the Johnnies finished in 2nd place at 8-1 behind Bethel at 9-0 in the MIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2009, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 01, 2009, 12:59:15 AM
With that success of Pool Cs, we probably can't be too confident that a potential national champion didn't get left out.  With Pool As going to 25 very soon, and zero chance of the total pool going beyond 32, I have to wonder if a potential national champion will be left out sometime soon.

Alas, I have no solution, yet I wonder ...
The 2 extra Pool A bids will come from Pool B.  There should be no net change in 6 Pool C bids in 2011.

Salisbury will move to Pool A (Empire 8).

The concern that I have is the NEFC splitting into 2 Pool A conferences ro the UAA acquiring affiliates to become a Pool A conference to take a bid from Pool C by that time.

If the number of Pool B candidates ever got below the number of schools determining the access ratio, would we see no Pool B bid awarded that year?   (I assume that Pool B schools would be considered with the Pool C schools.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: altor on December 01, 2009, 10:56:44 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2009, 08:42:22 AM
The 2 extra Pool A bids will come from Pool B.  There should be no net change in 6 Pool C bids in 2011.

I guess that depends on how you look at it.  Let's do a little thought experiment.

Use the pools from 2011 in this years playoff selections.  Pool A now adds the ECFC and UMAC champions.  The lone Pool B is likely Wesley.  While it's true that Pool C is still technically 6 deep, now you add CWRU and Huntingdon in there.  Undefeated CWRU is likely in, leaving Wash & Jeff(?) on the outside.  Huntingdon has two losses, but I don't think either are in-region.

I guess my point is that, except for a few strange possibilties, Pool C teams from AQ conferences almost certainly will have 1 or more losses.  It's entirely possible to see multiple undefeated Pool B teams.  So while technically the new Pool A's came from Pool B, you can see how they will also make Pool C that much more tight.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2009, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: altor on December 01, 2009, 10:56:44 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2009, 08:42:22 AM
The 2 extra Pool A bids will come from Pool B.  There should be no net change in 6 Pool C bids in 2011.

I guess that depends on how you look at it.  Let's do a little thought experiment.

Use the pools from 2011 in this years playoff selections.  Pool A now adds the ECFC and UMAC champions.  The lone Pool B is likely Wesley.  While it's true that Pool C is still technically 6 deep, now you add CWRU and Huntingdon in there.  Undefeated CWRU is likely in, leaving Wash & Jeff(?) on the outside.  Huntingdon has two losses, but I don't think either are in-region.

I guess my point is that, except for a few strange possibilties, Pool C teams from AQ conferences almost certainly will have 1 or more losses.  It's entirely possible to see multiple undefeated Pool B teams.  So while technically the new Pool A's came from Pool B, you can see how they will also make Pool C that much more tight.
Altor, you make a very good point.

I think that neither CWRU nor Huntingdon was as good as the 6th Pool C team.  They are definitely better than the UMAC and ECFC champion.  By criteria, they were able to host first round games as determined by the criteria in the Handbook, but they also lost to "inferior" seeds, too.

I agree that it makes Pool C tighter, but I also think that Huntingdon would have a head-to-head loss in the 2011 season versus Wesley.  I also think that the USA South will have accepted affiliation with the GSAC schools when Shenandoah leaves the USA South.  When those GSAC schools move to the USA South, and the Empire 8 accepts affiliation with Salisbury and Frostburg, we might only have 8 Pool B schools.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2009, 09:28:04 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on December 01, 2009, 12:47:14 AM
PLU in 1999.

PLU was Pool B.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: 1990 Champs on December 02, 2009, 10:39:22 AM
Mr. Ypsi, Raplh, et al -

One of the reasons I enjoy these boards is because the posters here are very well-informed.  I stand corrected, to some degree, regarding my take on the Pool C teams.  Although I don't have the stats, seedings etc. available from the years mentioned, I do not believe that any of the teams that went deep into the tournament were controversial picks.  Thus, I still think it's not very likely that a potential national champion has been left out. 

I would venture to guess that those teams you all mentioned fit the Pool C criteria to a tee.  I think the discussion this year (and others) has more to do with the selection committee apparently abandoning the criteria in some instances.  Transparency would make many of these arguments go away, but even with some controversy, the D3 Tournament field seems to balance the interest of ensuring that every team has a legitimate chance to get in with ensuring that the strongest field is in the bracket.

Although I am sympathetic to the likes of ONU and the schools that play in conferences with MUC and UWW, the fact is that taking only that one loss gets you in 99.9% of the time if you are in those conferences.  Thus, those teams still have the opportunity to take care of business on the field. 

I think the expansion has provided D3 with the best of both worlds - a bracket that gives every team an oppotunity to get in, and a selection committee that continues to baffle fans and generate intense debate!

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2009, 01:36:18 PM
Thanks for the comments, 1990.

I think these boards have a general attitude that we want to become better informed.  There is an underlying premise that our debates will be Socratic in the finest sense of the tradition.  We may disagree with the point made, but posters rarely disrespect the dignity of the poster with a contrary opinion.

During this season, I felt like the OAC teams (ONU especially) fell into a "logjam/quagmire/tarpit" with some other very good teams, at the #5-9 Pool C level, and they did little to distinguish themselves as a distinct #5.  We will almost always quibble about #6.  That is just the nature of the last spot.  Rarely is there a distinct separation between #6 and the rest of the field.

I wish that the statisticians would compare the OWP/OOWP by geographic areas, by the # of non-conference dates and the number of nearby conferences.  I think that we get distorted OWP/OOWP's in men's basketball in the northeast, becuase of the number of teams that are there.  That being the case, I don't think that the OWP/OOWP can evaluate the quality of the ball played in the ASC, the NWC and maybe the SCIAC as well as it can in the CCIW /WIAC /MWC /IIAC /NATHC /UMAC /HCAC /OAC /MIAA area.  Those conferences have 3/3/1/2/3/4/2/1/4 non-conference games to use in the OWP/OOWP calculation.  Whether a Massey MOV rating system could supplement the current OWP/OOWP would be interesting to study.

The problem that we have in the ASC is that we have 2 non-conference games, and we only have Millsaps, Trinity and Austin College nearby for non-conference games.  In the 18- non-conference games available, ASC teams played Redlands, Whittier, UWLacrosse, Whitworth, Linfield, Trinity twice, Austin College, Huntingdon, Millsaps -- 10 games against D3's.  That is lots of travel.  Plus UMHB couldn't find a D3 opponent.  Sul Ross State played a nearby D-2 Western New Mexico State.  TLU played D-2  Incarnate Word. The remaining games were versus NAIA schools.  This is where a Massey-like algorithm might help isolated conferences.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 02, 2009, 03:14:13 PM
1990 Champs,

Wheaton last year was probably the last team selected (and would apparently not have been selected this year as they had two losses).  While they did not win the title, they did make the Final Four.

I'm not sure an actual national champ will get left out, but teams who would have won 2 or 3 games will (and probably already do) be going home.

Since expansion is extremely unlikely, and I would oppose any cuts to Pool A, I doubt there is any solution.  Though I think the selection process could be improved - there are five primary criteria, with no indication of relative importance, but this year regional winning % seemed to totally override the other four criteria.  IMO at least 3 or 4 two-loss teams would have been better choices than a couple of the one-loss teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on December 02, 2009, 11:44:38 PM
Mr Ypsi,

Last year was different than this year. Last year all the 1 loss teams got in and there was 1 spot left for a 2 loss team. Wheaton got the nod over DePauw, Wooster and a couple others. Thats a much different scenario than a 2 loss team getting in while a 1 loss team stays home.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: smedindy on December 02, 2009, 11:57:57 PM
I think winning a conference is paramount to getting into the playoffs. If you can't do that, you takes your chances. Do quality teams get left out? Yes. But the key is winning the conference. Mt. Union HAS lost an OAC game in this decade. It CAN be done.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: bashbrother on December 03, 2009, 02:49:14 PM
Smeds -

I have always agreed with that statement.  

I believe that many people are somewhat taking the NCAA Div I Basketball tourney selection process as an example of the way the Div III Football Selection should be.

This method is pounded into our heads yearly. Marginal teams have to win their conference tourney or reg. season conference title to get into the dance (period)  The balance of the bracket is at-large.

30 of the 65 get in by winning their conference tourney and 1, the Ivy League champion, gets in by winning the regular season title.
Leaving 34 teams for at-large consideration.   (that's 2 more than the entire DIII Bracket)

Typically 25 or 26 of these 34 at-large bids come from the six "Power Conferences" primarily because they are ranked high in RPI.

You can also figure money into Div. 1 selection process.   Named teams that may be 15-14, will bring better ratings (Money) then say a St. Mary's or TN Chattanooga that is 19-10 etc.  The NCAA makes so much money on this tourney that it virtually pays for a large part of what the NCAA does for everyone.

My point is, this is Division III Football.  Celebrate the difference and if teams don't like losing twice to quality teams and being on the bubble for the playoffs.... there are only two solutions for them.

1.  Get better and only lose once or even go undefeated.

OR

2.  Change your conference.

Because unless they expand the field or consolidate the AQ situation, quality 2-loss teams will be left out.  And don't forget, the DIII Football Tourney does not make a nickel for the NCAA.  We should be thankful it exists at all.





 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 04, 2009, 12:23:29 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.
I agree.

I want to see the UMHB-UWW's.

I want HSU to get credit for playing Linfield, and both teams flying across country to do that.  (and vice-versa!)

The top ranked teams ought to be playing for home field advantage in the semifinals and Regional finals in those games.

Depending on the JHU-Wesley game, we can get an idea of how strong the Pres AC was this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: smedindy on December 04, 2009, 12:52:47 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.

But if North Central had demolished Lakeland, would they have been ready for the CCIW season?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 01:22:59 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 04, 2009, 12:52:47 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.

But if North Central had demolished Lakeland, would they have been ready for the CCIW season?

Yes, that is the flip side of the argument.  But the selection committee seems to be saying "lose any non-con game, you are eliminated from Pool C" (since going undefeated in conference would mean a Pool A).

I prefer Ralph's position - encourage the 'big dogs' to meet in the non-con.  Otherwise the first few weeks of the season will be unwatchable.

The committee's current process almost certainly rules out a Wabash vs IWU or Wheaton game, since the loser would have to run the CCIW (rare) or beat both Witt AND DePauw (though, until things change, I guess just beating Witt would give you the AQ). ;)  While winning the conference is obviously the 'simple' way in, I just think a 'two strikes, you're (all but automatically) out" policy is the wrong incentive for good non-con games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: usee on December 04, 2009, 09:34:54 AM
I disagree to some extent with the either/or scheduling proposition of Lakeland OR UWW. I don't think it's a binary result. The reality is a lot of CCIW schools already schedule difficult (but not impossible) non conf games to prepare them for a brutal CCIW schedule. If you are good enough to make the playoffs then scheduling Hope, Platteville, Coe, Wartburg, Wabash, etc for non conference is plenty to keep you ready for the playoffs. I think NCC would have been fine in the playoffs with Lakeland on their schedule. They have been to the playoffs so they know how what they have to do to succeed there. For the CCIW the non conf schedule is not as important because the conference is brutal enough and prepares for the playoffs as much as any non conf game would. So for our conference I don't ever see their being an incentive for the top schools to schedule a MUC or UWW non conference. In fact I would argue that NCC's slate w ONU was more penal to their playoff hopes than additive.

I don't think that's the case with many other conferences save the top 2 or 3. In those conferences they need to see the competition of the other top schools to know where they are as a program. I would argue Wabash's games the last 2 years against CCIW schools in the playoffs were far more helpful for them as a program than any other games on their schedule. Teams with weak conferences need stronger non conf games.

So basically I believe this issue is more complex than the Lakeland or UWW solution. There are lots of other reason's and middle ground and it depends on your situation.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2009
Post by: bashbrother on December 04, 2009, 10:07:55 AM
Quote from: USee on December 04, 2009, 09:34:54 AM
I would argue Wabash's games the last 2 years against CCIW schools in the playoffs were far more helpful for them as a program than any other games on their schedule.

Very true.

The NCAC/UAA agreement has Bash somewhat trapped into a Wash U./Chicago non-conference.   (Depauw is the other game and of greater value.)