D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: wally_wabash on August 31, 2012, 11:19:36 AM

Title: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on August 31, 2012, 11:19:36 AM
Never too early to worry about this, right?   :)

Just for fun (and maybe, just maybe, because I have an unhealthy obsession with Pool C selection), I leafed through the projections in Kickoff '12 (get it if you haven't yet...my guess is that most Pool C nuts have it) just to see what the selection pools might look like.  I'm not going to spoil Kickoff content by laying out what I've found here, but a couple of interesting things stick out...

- Pool C will be very, very tough.  Some really really good teams from really really good AQ leagues may well be sitting at home...
- ...because Pool B got a lot stronger this year.  I believe there will be just one Pool B selection (more next year I think), which is going to bump 1-2 really strong (as in slam dunk strong) candidates  and maybe two more very good candidates to Pool C.  Mark it down: there's going to be an independent stealing an at-large bid from a Pool A league runner up for the first time this year. 

Should clarify...I believe there is only one Pool B selection available, which isn't clear from above.  I believe there will likely be more than one Pool B-eligible teams that get selected. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on August 31, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
Win your league! Yes, I know that's tough for folks who play Purples, but they're not totally 100% invincible. And aside from winning your league, root like heck for everyone in your league to schedule up and win.

So, for me, whilst the Hiram and Kenyon games may not be on anyone's radar at all, they all add something into the calculations for a "C" for an NCAC team. The OAC, with only one non-conference game, needs to be sure their teams play good teams and beat them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on August 31, 2012, 03:05:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on August 31, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
So, for me, whilst the Hiram and Kenyon games may not be on anyone's radar at all, they all add something into the calculations for a "C" for an NCAC team. The OAC, with only one non-conference game, needs to be sure their teams play good teams and beat them.

They do count...a big ol' drain-o on the OWP variable.  Although starting next year, when Kenyon or Hiram lose, some other common NCAC opponent wins, so it's a wash...and a wash will actually help NCAC teams in the SOS metric in most years.  The same round robin wash probably hurts OAC teams in most years, but that's the cost of doing the round robin business. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on September 07, 2012, 01:17:35 AM
Wally, been thinking the same thing. There's Wesley, then Trinity, Centre and B-SC stacked up against the C pool, plus Huntingdon ... and they all play each other or similar good teams, giving them the OWP/OOWP numbers to justify their selection.

We'll watch closely, but should be interesting the closer we get.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on September 07, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
I think this is a year where we just don't pencil in "Wesley" for a "B" and that definitely the "C" pool will be infiltrated with "B" even more so than Case did last year.

This year, more than any, we need to have clear accountability from the committee because the smoke-filled rooms could get very thick.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 09, 2012, 05:32:55 PM
Poll B fans need for UMHB to beat Wesley this week.

Pool B is really strong this year. Fortunately there is enough head-to-head and with common opponents, that I think that we will have a fair test for the bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on September 09, 2012, 09:31:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 09, 2012, 05:32:55 PM
Poll B fans need for UMHB to beat Wesley this week.

Pool B is really strong this year. Fortunately there is enough head-to-head and with common opponents, that I think that we will have a fair test for the bid.

And it would not surprise me at all if one or two pool B teams get pool C bids this year - a pretty rare occurrence!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on September 24, 2012, 02:18:30 PM
I think Carnegie Mellon or Birmingham Southern, even with later stumbles against the 'right' teams, could definitely get into the "C" queue if a "B" doesn't happen for them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 02, 2012, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on September 07, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
This year, more than any, we need to have clear accountability from the committee because the smoke-filled rooms could get very thick.

I have always wanted to sit in on the process. Not to name names or out anybody, but to see and explain how the sausage is made, so to speak.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on October 03, 2012, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 02, 2012, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on September 07, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
This year, more than any, we need to have clear accountability from the committee because the smoke-filled rooms could get very thick.

I have always wanted to sit in on the process. Not to name names or out anybody, but to see and explain how the sausage is made, so to speak.

I'd like to even have the NCAA do what they have done in the past with the Division I basketball tournament where they invite some media members in a couple of weeks before the selection date and make the media go through the process. See exactly what the selection committee will see when they make their selections and bracket the teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 04, 2012, 04:39:57 PM
Most teams are almost halfway through the schedule.  Why not gaze into the crystal ball and see what Pool C starts to look like?  I need a hobby. 

Here's what I'm guessing projecting for the Pool A's:

   League   
Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   IWU   
   ECFC   
   Gallaudet   
   E8   
   SJF   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Albion   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Illinois College   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NCAC   
   Wittenberg   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Randolph-Macon   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   St. Scholastica   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW Whitewater   

Pool B: At this time, I'm selecting Wesley in spite of their loss to UMHB.  It helps that the rest of the pool is eating itself, but the biggest reason why Wesley is the pick here is because their SOS number is overwhelmingly better than the next best candidate (Birmingham-Southern).  B-SC @ Wesley this Saturday is obviously a huge game. 

Pool C: So I yanked out all of the 0 or 1 loss teams left and gave them a quick and dirty ranking, broken down by region.  Then went through the process of selecting seven teams in the same manner as the committee does (one team per region considered at one time).  My selections, in order of selection are...
Whitworth
Bethel
UW-Oshkosh
Ithaca
Otterbein
Birmingham-Southern
Carnegie Mellon

A couple of things to note...I'm not trying to predict future results (mostly).  This is how I would select teams given the current resumés...with one caveat.  After Oshkosh came off the board from the West, Ithaca was the next pick and then the next three were going to be Concorida-Moorhead, St. Olaf, and Willamette.  I've already got one MIAC team and one NWC team in and all of those teams have gaves against each other forthcoming...which is to say, the MIAC and NWC aren't going to realistically have 3-4 teams being considered for the postseason.  So I did take some futures liberty there and did not consider Concordia-Moorhead, St. Olaf, and Willamette. 

I'm doing this so early because I'm curious to see how this all evolves over the course of the season.  We usually don't worry about this until regional rankings start getting out in week 9-ish.  Thought I'd share it here for the other selection junkies out there. 

BTW, including current league leaders and teams with 0 or 1 loss, I'm figuring that there are roughly 50 or so teams in play for those 7 Pool C spots as of today. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 04, 2012, 04:43:49 PM
Should also clarify on the Pool A's before I catch a beating from my fellow Wabash fans...my Pool A picks are based on current standings and where there is not a clear leader (in the case of multiple undefeated teams most likely), I picked the one that I thought was best.  So, no, I'm not predicting or projecting that Wittenberg will beat Wabash on Saturday.  What's in the table reflects current standings and then a touch of my own subjectivity in selecting Wittenberg instead of Ohio Wesleyan or Allegheny.  And the same scenario holds for every other conference where there are ties atop the league standings, obviously. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 08, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
Here's what I came up with after the games of 10/6, same process as last week:

Pool A's, changes from last week in bold:

   League   
  Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   IWU   
   ECFC   
   Gallaudet   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NCAC   
   Ohio Wesleyan   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Randolph-Macon   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   Northwestern   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW Whitewater   

Pool B: Wesley won the big game against B-SC, but doesn't quite lock up the Pool B for them.  There is the matter of a game at Huntingdon in a few weeks.  A win there, and Pool B is closed.  A loss, and then the committee will have to sort out the Wesley/B-SC/Huntingdon results.  The criteria could favor Huntingdon there if the Hawks can get that win. 

Pool C: My seven picks, in order are...
Willamette
Bethel
Otterbein
UW-Oshkosh
Wabash
SJF
Birmingham-Southern

Whitworth's SOS is insane and would have been the selection after Oshkosh, but I'm applying the same fudge factor when it comes to multiple Pool C's from the same conference that I did last week.  Sorry, Pirates.  Last week, Ithaca was an easy choice, but a loss to Alfred who lost to RPI shoves the Bombers way down in the East region pecking order.  The emergence of SJF into Pool C also doesn't help. 

So basically, Willamette beat Whitworth and took their spot...Ithaca out, SJF in...and Wabash replaces Carnegie Mellon (CMU actually didn't get to the table this week as their SOS took a nosedive this week). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 08, 2012, 12:09:48 PM
Don't worry too much about Whitworth until you have results from this Sat. (at Linfield).  They most likely will pick up conference loss number two and be done in terms of the playoffs.  You only need to consider them in predictions if they pull the upset.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 08, 2012, 03:43:35 PM
CMU could still get a "B" based on how the Wesley / BSC / Huntingdon troika settles out. Their SOS could improve if the UAA takes care of the NCAC in their remaining games, OWU keeps winning and Gheny snaps out of it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 08, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 08, 2012, 03:43:35 PM
CMU could still get a "B" based on how the Wesley / BSC / Huntingdon troika settles out. Their SOS could improve if the UAA takes care of the NCAC in their remaining games, OWU keeps winning and Gheny snaps out of it.

Those teams are going to have to lose somewhere we don't see coming (possible but not likely...interesting games left there are Adrian @ Huntingdon, Trinity @ B-SC, BS-C @ Millsaps).  I don't think CMU is going to get a big SOS boost the rest of the way (they went from .701 to .579 this week).  And if Wesley loses to Huntingdon and creates an A beat B beat C beat A situation, I still think CMU with their one loss sits behind at least two of those three (1-loss Huntingdon and B-SC) based on results vs. ranked teams and maybe all three depending on how much Wesley gets punished for a second loss.  CMU's more likely avenue to the postseason, I believe, is through Pool C.  At 9-1 with a respectable SOS, they should be near the top of the South region's at-larges on selection Sunday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 11, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
Quote from: d-train on October 08, 2012, 12:09:48 PM
Don't worry too much about Whitworth until you have results from this Sat. (at Linfield).  They most likely will pick up conference loss number two and be done in terms of the playoffs.  You only need to consider them in predictions if they pull the upset.
Yeah, and I would not be shocked in the least to see no NWC team finish with less than 2 losses (save for Linfield going undefeated).  I think PLU could knock Willamette off the board as well....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 11, 2012, 11:20:45 AM
Wally and smedindy,

Good discussion re: where CMU fits into the B/C picture.  I think the most likely scenario is Wesley winning out and taking the B.  It will be interesting to see where they stack up in the "C" picture, but I generally believe that a Pool B team kinda has to go undefeated to be absolutely certain of getting in via that route.  They will be 9-1 with a decent SOS, and as wally points out, the list of 9-1 teams in Pool C from the South Region is likely to be rather thin; it will be interesting to see if it comes to B-SC and CMU (and it's even possible, IMO, that these COULD end up as the first two at-large selections on the board from the South; I might be missing someone, but I don't see many possibilities for 9-1 runners-up around the region).

The ODAC, PAC, USAC, and ASC runners-up are all likely to end with two losses, although Louisiana College will be a VERY strong 8-2 team.  If the loser of Gettysburg vs. Johns Hopkins runs the table, the Centennial runnerup will be 9-1.  Past that, I don't know who else ends up on the board before either B-SC or CMU, and I think they'll both be in the mix with either of the aforementioned possibilities.  Obviously all four won't get in (no way we'll have four C's from the South) but it will be VERY interesting to see what order they come up in.  I'd give the first two up a pretty good chance to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 11, 2012, 11:25:21 AM
Ex -- I'm in line with you. I think 9-1 Centennial runner up will be strong competition for 9-1 CMU to get on the board. If it was me, and I was going off what the committee did last year with SJF, I'd put an 8-2 La Col, with a close loss to Wesley and a (maybe?) close loss to UMHB before either of the 9-1 teams. A lot hinges on how La Col loses to UMHB and how Wesley and UMHB finish the season. If they both run the table they are probably top 5 seeds. If you have two close losses to top 5 seeds you can probably play with anyone and have proved it, something I'm not sure many other Pool C candidates can prove from their schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 11, 2012, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 11, 2012, 11:20:45 AM
Wally and smedindy,

Good discussion re: where CMU fits into the B/C picture.  I think the most likely scenario is Wesley winning out and taking the B.  It will be interesting to see where they stack up in the "C" picture, but I generally believe that a Pool B team kinda has to go undefeated to be absolutely certain of getting in via that route.  They will be 9-1 with a decent SOS, and as wally points out, the list of 9-1 teams in Pool C from the South Region is likely to be rather thin; it will be interesting to see if it comes to B-SC and CMU (and it's even possible, IMO, that these COULD end up as the first two at-large selections on the board from the South; I might be missing someone, but I don't see many possibilities for 9-1 runners-up around the region).

The ODAC, PAC, USAC, and ASC runners-up are all likely to end with two losses, although Louisiana College will be a VERY strong 8-2 team.  If the loser of Gettysburg vs. Johns Hopkins runs the table, the Centennial runnerup will be 9-1.  Past that, I don't know who else ends up on the board before either B-SC or CMU, and I think they'll both be in the mix with either of the aforementioned possibilities.  Obviously all four won't get in (no way we'll have four C's from the South) but it will be VERY interesting to see what order they come up in.  I'd give the first two up a pretty good chance to get in.

In the two weeks that I've done this projection, Pool B overlfow has indeed been the top two choices from the South Region (B-SC and CMU last week, B-SC and Huntingdon this week).  Huntingdon or Wesley is going to take a second loss and will probably drift below 1-loss CMU per the criteria (Huntingdon for sure, Wesley probably).  As long as B-SC keeps winning, I think they'll stay on top of the at-large tableau in the South.  CMU's chances will depend on exactly what happens with their SOS number and if anybody that they beat happens to get into a regional ranking (maybe OWU, maybe Allegheny if they can beat Wittenberg). 

I think that the past has not favored excess Pool B teams in the Pool C conversation more because there hasn't been depth of quality in Pool B moreso than I think the committee has a particular bias against Pool B overflow. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 14, 2012, 09:10:13 PM
Is it early for an elimination game? The Carnegie Mellon / Ohio Wesleyan game seems like it. Assuming OWU loses to Wabash (big assumption, I know, because of Allegheny and stuff) they can't lose to CMU and be considered for a "C" in any way shape or form. If OWU beats CMU then the Tartans have two losses and that'll knock 'em out of "B" consideration and on verrry shaky ground in "C" land.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 15, 2012, 06:30:54 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 14, 2012, 09:10:13 PM
Is it early for an elimination game? The Carnegie Mellon / Ohio Wesleyan game seems like it. Assuming OWU loses to Wabash (big assumption, I know, because of Allegheny and stuff) they can't lose to CMU and be considered for a "C" in any way shape or form. If OWU beats CMU then the Tartans have two losses and that'll knock 'em out of "B" consideration and on verrry shaky ground in "C" land.

I agree.  CMU vs. OWU is an elimination game for Pool B/C, respectively.  Obviously the winner will still have some work to do in order to go 9-1 and keep themselves in this discussion.  Given that neither program was a realistic playoff contender at the start of the season, it's pretty cool to see both teams even considering that possibility.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 15, 2012, 10:28:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 04, 2012, 04:39:57 PM
Most teams are almost halfway through the schedule.  Why not gaze into the crystal ball and see what Pool C starts to look like?  I need a hobby.

Yeah you do. Although I believe this qualifies. That's what I tell the guys down at the Lionel train shop.

I just popped into this thread for the first time this season, but I'm really enjoying the work you guys are putting in.

Quote from: jknezek on October 11, 2012, 11:25:21 AMIf you have two close losses to top 5 seeds you can probably play with anyone and have proved it, something I'm not sure many other Pool C candidates can prove from their schedule.

I couldn't agree more, but the committee might have to fudge the criteria to make it happen. In-region results are on the table of course, and LC might have a very nice SoS, but I wonder if they'll be passing over some nice one-loss teams who have actually beaten somebody pretty good. LC/Hardin-Simmons winner will be the other's best win, most likely, unless the Cowboys shock UMHB on Saturday.

Tangent I guess ... I'm working on a chart, mostly for the 6-0/7-0 but haven't beaten anybody good crowd, to show how many teams are undefeated, have only lost to ranked teams (and some have two losses).

The danger in taking that Wesley game for LC was not winning it, and not winning the ASC. They'll have the SoS, but being in the two-loss group is always a crapshoot. Would have been nice to see UW-Oshkosh be 8-2 last year with Ls to UMU and UWW and see if they'd have gotten in or not. I think there are some two-loss teams that are better than one-loss teams, and teams that schedule aggressively shouldn't necessarily be punished.

Wesley, on the other hand, was kind of brilliant in creating this national barnstorming schedule but playing all the key teams in the South Region (it seems) plus Salisbury. Their D-III SoS will be through the roof.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 11:17:16 AM
New projection, including results through 10/13:

Pool A's, changes from last week in bold:

   League   
    Team
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   IWU   
   ECFC   
   Mount Ida   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NCAC   
   Ohio Wesleyan   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   Northwestern   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW Whitewater   

W&L seized control of the ODAC with their win over Randolph Macon last weekend.  Gallaudet's loss to Norwich sort of throws the ECFC into flux.  I've now projected Mount Ida there, but really you can use any ECFC placeholder as that is now going to be a one-bid league. 

Pool B: This bid comes down to Wesley/Huntingdon on 10/27 (btw, Huntingdon has two bye weeks heading into that game...that's a long layoff before stepping on the field with Wesley...at least they don't have to travel).  Birmingham Southern's loss to Trinity has pretty much knocked them out of this.  Carnegie Mellon and Millsaps are still lurking if Wesley loses and Huntingdon loses a non-Wesley game, but then Trinity's 2-loss resume actually starts to look good with lots of good wins.  I'm straying too far from the bid here.  Wesley is the pick until further notice. 

Pool C: Just to give you an idea of how fluid this projection is, three of my seven Pool C teams from last week lost their way out: SJF, Otterbein, Birmingham-Southern.  And none of those teams are even close at this point.  That's how valuable every game is.  Here are the picks for this week, in order of selection:

Willamette
UW-Oshkosh
Bethel
Heidelberg
Wabash
Huntingdon
RPI

The West gets really interesting in the next couple of weeks.  Oshkosh and Whitewater this weekend, Willamette and Linfield next weekend.  Only Whitewater doesn't have a game to play with; selection gets VERY interesting if Oshkosh beats  Whitewater and we have to consider a 2-loss team with an average SOS, just one quality win, and the last three natiional championships (which is not a criteria, but can people resist the urge to consider it). 

Selection was a little strange this week because Heidelberg's painful SOS forced me to consider 1-loss teams in front of them, despite their quality win over Otterbein.  Ultimately, Bethel made the cut in front of Heidelberg, Simpson/RPI/Huntingdon did not.  Alfred has played RPI's way onto the list and RPI was the last selection for me this week.  Last three on the table (in no particular order) were Simpson, Franklin & Marshall, and North Central.  This was a HARD choice and I think you could reasonably take North Central or F&M instead of RPI if you wanted to.  All three teams have a quality win and fairly similar SOS's at the moment.  Interestingly, I don't think any of these teams will be Pool C candidates after 11/10.  All three of these teams (NCC/RPI/F&M) are either going to win their league's AQ or wind up with too many losses to be legitimately involved in the Pool C process. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 16, 2012, 11:25:39 AM
As it stands now, you have CMU (and Millsaps) behind Huntingdon. What happens if Huntingdon loses to Wesley? Which one would leapfrog in the South f they stayed as they are now?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 16, 2012, 11:25:39 AM
As it stands now, you have CMU (and Millsaps) behind Huntingdon. What happens if Huntingdon loses to Wesley? Which one would leapfrog if they stayed as they are now?

I think you'd have to say CMU because they HAVEN'T lost to Huntingdon. A 1 loss Millsaps has a hard time getting to the table ahead of a 2 loss Huntingdon, simply because that loss is TO Huntingdon. If the loss was to someone else, then Millsaps would be in better shape. Of course, a 1 loss Millsaps means that Millsaps beats B-SC, who beat Huntingdon, and Trinity, who beat B-SC. So you COULD rationalize it that way. Plus, in that situation, you have to figure Millsaps is 1-1 against RRO (Huntingdon and either Trinity or B-SC), while I'm not sure CMU will have played an RRO for the South.

You can make a case either way, but I don't think you'll have to worry about it. I don't see Millsaps beating a revived Trinity team in San Antonio. Whether B-SC can get back on the ball, I don't know. My confidence in them took a beating when I attended the game this past weekend.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 11:33:44 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 15, 2012, 10:28:10 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 11, 2012, 11:25:21 AMIf you have two close losses to top 5 seeds you can probably play with anyone and have proved it, something I'm not sure many other Pool C candidates can prove from their schedule.

I couldn't agree more, but the committee might have to fudge the criteria to make it happen. In-region results are on the table of course, and LC might have a very nice SoS, but I wonder if they'll be passing over some nice one-loss teams who have actually beaten somebody pretty good. LC/Hardin-Simmons winner will be the other's best win, most likely, unless the Cowboys shock UMHB on Saturday.

Tangent I guess ... I'm working on a chart, mostly for the 6-0/7-0 but haven't beaten anybody good crowd, to show how many teams are undefeated, have only lost to ranked teams (and some have two losses).

The danger in taking that Wesley game for LC was not winning it, and not winning the ASC. They'll have the SoS, but being in the two-loss group is always a crapshoot. Would have been nice to see UW-Oshkosh be 8-2 last year with Ls to UMU and UWW and see if they'd have gotten in or not. I think there are some two-loss teams that are better than one-loss teams, and teams that schedule aggressively shouldn't necessarily be punished.

Wesley, on the other hand, was kind of brilliant in creating this national barnstorming schedule but playing all the key teams in the South Region (it seems) plus Salisbury. Their D-III SoS will be through the roof.

Louisiana College is setting up to be a hard luck team this year.  Their problem is going to be two losses, plus zero wins against ranked teams.  As we know, the criteria says "results" against regionally ranked teams, so you don't necessarily have to win, but there are going to be teams that have wins against RR'd teams and will almost certainly have to be considered before LC.  If HSU can beat UMHB, then there is a chance that HSU could be regionally ranked sometime prior to the week 11 LC/HSU game (the Cowboys would have to also try to outscore SRSU next week to get there).  A third loss anywhere probably keeps HSU from getting regionally ranked. 

One other thing working against LC is the criteria specification of regional win percentage.  With two non-division games, every loss counts more against LC than it does for teams with 9 or 10 divisional games.  This is why a second loss to Wesley may very well keep them out of the playoffs all together.  They would be 4-2 in D3 games for a .667 win%...less than that of a team that has a full D3 schedule and goes 7-3 which would never be considered for at-large selection. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:38:19 AM
LC also has a problem because they lost badly last weekend. A lot of my supposition of them getting a 2 loss bid was built around losing close games to top 5 teams. Losing 30-3 takes a lot of steam out of that argument. While I think UMHB might be the best team in the country, or at least in the top 3, that wasn't what anyone would consider a "competitive" loss. There is no shame in that loss to a team that good, but it isn't the resume builder they needed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 11:46:21 AM
Quote from: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 16, 2012, 11:25:39 AM
As it stands now, you have CMU (and Millsaps) behind Huntingdon. What happens if Huntingdon loses to Wesley? Which one would leapfrog if they stayed as they are now?

I think you'd have to say CMU because they HAVEN'T lost to Huntingdon. A 1 loss Millsaps has a hard time getting to the table ahead of a 2 loss Huntingdon, simply because that loss is TO Huntingdon. If the loss was to someone else, then Millsaps would be in better shape. Of course, a 1 loss Millsaps means that Millsaps beats B-SC, who beat Huntingdon, and Trinity, who beat B-SC. So you COULD rationalize it that way. Plus, in that situation, you have to figure Millsaps is 1-1 against RRO (Huntingdon and either Trinity or B-SC), while I'm not sure CMU will have played an RRO for the South.

You can make a case either way, but I don't think you'll have to worry about it. I don't see Millsaps beating a revived Trinity team in San Antonio. Whether B-SC can get back on the ball, I don't know. My confidence in them took a beating when I attended the game this past weekend.

This is good analysis.  I think it's going to depend on if Trinity and/or B-SC get into the regional rankings before they hypothetically lose to Millsaps.  If one or both of those teams gets ranked, I think it's easy to have 1-loss Millsaps get ahead of 2-loss Huntingdon.  Wins against RROs will be the major factor there. 

Can Carnegie Mellon get in front of either of them?  Maybe.  If Trinity and/or B-SC don't get regionally ranked, and OWU does, then they might.  The problem is going to be that if CMU beats OWU and OWU falls to Wabash the following week, they'll be hard pressed to get ranked in the North region. 

All of that said, if Huntingdon picks up a second loss, and F&M pick up a second loss, and Millsaps picks up a second loss, then 1-loss CMU may very well be sitting at the top of the South region tableau on 11/11.  The Tartans probably have the most favorable schedule remaining to get to the finish line at 9-1 of the South region at-large contenders. 
Title: Re: West Pool C
Post by: d-train on October 16, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
Keep an eye this week on Willamette @ PLU.  The Lutes are a two-loss team (to Linfield and CLU) but could knock off the Bearcats this weekend.  If Willamette survives, I think the NWC will get two bids.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:57:35 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 11:46:21 AM
All of that said, if Huntingdon picks up a second loss, and F&M pick up a second loss, and Millsaps picks up a second loss, then 1-loss CMU may very well be sitting at the top of the South region tableau on 11/11.  The Tartans probably have the most favorable schedule remaining to get to the finish line at 9-1 of the South region at-large contenders.

I don't think F&M will run the table. They have both Gettysburg and Johns Hopkins to play, and Gettysburg is going to be on the road. I think F&M will be 1 loss going into those last two games, but I can see them losing both, or at least to JHU. Would make me happy if they keep winning though, might give W&L an RRO with a result. Granted it was a losing result, but it was real close on the road in week 1. If W&L wins out, that could help them with the seedings.

IHuntingdon has a tough go with Wesley, but after that they shouldn't be troubled. A lot rides on that game for both Wesley and Huntingdon.

CMU does look like they are in good shape if they get past OWU. B-SC really dropped the ball last weekend and that hurts a lot of teams...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 16, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
Keep an eye this week on Willamette @ PLU.  The Lutes are a two-loss team (to Linfield and CLU) but could knock off the Bearcats this weekend.  If Willamette survives, I think the NWC will get two bids.

Willamette looks great if they don't stumble against PLU.  PLU, with a win positions themselves well amongst two-loss teams, but the mantra continues to be don't lose twice. 

Quote from: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:57:35 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 11:46:21 AM
All of that said, if Huntingdon picks up a second loss, and F&M pick up a second loss, and Millsaps picks up a second loss, then 1-loss CMU may very well be sitting at the top of the South region tableau on 11/11.  The Tartans probably have the most favorable schedule remaining to get to the finish line at 9-1 of the South region at-large contenders.

I don't think F&M will run the table. They have both Gettysburg and Johns Hopkins to play, and Gettysburg is going to be on the road. I think F&M will be 1 loss going into those last two games, but I can see them losing both, or at least to JHU. Would make me happy if they keep winning though, might give W&L an RRO with a result. Granted it was a losing result, but it was real close on the road in week 1. If W&L wins out, that could help them with the seedings.

IHuntingdon has a tough go with Wesley, but after that they shouldn't be troubled. A lot rides on that game for both Wesley and Huntingdon.

CMU does look like they are in good shape if they get past OWU. B-SC really dropped the ball last weekend and that hurts a lot of teams...

You're right...F&M is either going to win the CC or be out of the conversation.  But, good news for W&L, F&M could very well get regionally ranked before their JHU/Gettysburg games. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: short on October 16, 2012, 12:29:48 PM
Wally,

If Wabash beats OWU Wabash will get the pool A bid.  If they lose to OWU they are a 2 L team and out of pool B most likely.  So using this logic OWU can not be the Pool A bid for the NCAC and still have Wabash getting a Pool B bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 12:38:13 PM
Quote from: short on October 16, 2012, 12:29:48 PM
Wally,

If Wabash beats OWU Wabash will get the pool A bid.  If they lose to OWU they are a 2 L team and out of pool B most likely.  So using this logic OWU can not be the Pool A bid for the NCAC and still have Wabash getting a Pool B bid.

I'm not trying to predict future results here, with some very minor exceptions.  For example, it's unlikely that both Wesley and Huntingdon are going to make the field.  But as of today, they'd both get in. 

Same with OWU/Wabash.  Certainly the scenario that you paint would probably move Wabash either into Pool A with a win (have to keep an eye on Allegheny...as much as it doesn't feel like it, they're still undefeated in league play and have the h2h hammer on Wabash) or out of Pool C with a loss.  We'll address that after 10/27.  Part of what I'm doing here with this exercise is just seeing how these selections evolve over the last 5-6 weeks of the season.  If I tried to account for "if this, then that" scenarios, I'd never get to a full projection. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 16, 2012, 12:54:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 16, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
Keep an eye this week on Willamette @ PLU.  The Lutes are a two-loss team (to Linfield and CLU) but could knock off the Bearcats this weekend.  If Willamette survives, I think the NWC will get two bids.

Willamette looks great if they don't stumble against PLU.  PLU, with a win positions themselves well amongst two-loss teams, but the mantra continues to be don't lose twice. 

Yeah, I don't think PLU gets in...just too few Pool C bids out there.  (Though I'd love to be wrong on this.)  Best they can do is 7-2 with one win against an NAIA team (Menlo).  Their losses aren't too bad at all (both top 10 teams) but two is likely just one too many.  Their best wins would be Willamette, Whitworth, and Redlands (again, not bad).  But I'm getting way ahead of myself anyway.

Short version: PLU may be a spoiler this Sat. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
I just have a hard time saying the LaCollege lost "badly".

On the last play of the first half, leading the #2 team in the country, 3-0, your FG is blocked and returned for a TD. You block their PAT, trail by only 6-3 at the half, but momentum has just swung to a team that has your number.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
I just have a hard time saying the LaCollege lost "badly".

On the last play of the first half, leading the #2 team in the country, 3-0, your FG is blocked and returned for a TD. You block their PAT, trail by only 6-3 at the half, but momentum has just swung to a team that has your number.

Ralph I really like your stuff and you do a lot of really good posts, but the game didn't end at halftime. A football game is 60 minutes long. Being in the game until halftime is great, but you can still get hammered and lose 30-3, even if most of it came in the second half. In fact, good teams tend to wear other teams down in the first half, making it easier for an underdog to stay close for 15 minutes then it is for 30, and it's a lot easier to stay close in the first 30 then the second 30.

Or, in another example, last night San Diego won the first half! They were killing Denver. Sadly they forgot to come out for the second half and took a bad loss, which is what really counts come playoff time. LC may have had a great first half, but they lost pretty badly in the end, and that's what really matters come playoff time.

I will say LC held UMHB to one of their lower offensive outputs of the season, something to be proud of, but they still lost by 4 possession. That's a pretty bad loss in the end.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 16, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
If Oshkosh beats Whitewater, then that's going to be a real puzzler for the committee? I can hear the howls already from a team excluded because a two-loss team with meh SOS and a bad loss is in the playoffs. CWRU was left out last year for one bad loss and an undefeated regional record.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 16, 2012, 04:26:11 PM
smedindy, I agree, just posted something to this effect on the NCAC board in response to your post there.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 16, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
If Oshkosh beats Whitewater, then that's going to be a real puzzler for the committee? I can hear the howls already from a team excluded because a two-loss team with meh SOS and a bad loss is in the playoffs. CWRU was left out last year for one bad loss and an undefeated regional record.

One difference is that Whitewater will (probably) have a win against a RR'd team...I think Platteville will make the cut in the West unless they lose again.  It just depends on whether or not this committee are strict constructionists or loose constructionists when it comes to the criteria.  Previous championship performance may be considered, but only amongst teams that are inseparable by the primary criteria and have undefeated records.  I don't believe that Whitewater has a playoff resumé without a WIAC championship.  That loss to Buffalo State KILLS them, even if it is out of region.  Looking the other way on that result would be incredibly irresponsible of the committee. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 16, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
^   I agree.   If UWO beats Whitewater and runs the table to garner the WIAC auto bid, then UWW's playoff chances are on thin ice IMHO.  Defending champs or not, a loss to a below than .500 team is not a good resume builder.  Regardless of out of region or not.  The Buff St loss could bite them.

And the Bethel miracle against Concordia is likely to have playoff ramifications well beyond their specific chances.  A 9-1 Bethel makes St Thomas' chances at a very high seed stronger.  The most curious thing for me after the shake up by last years' NCAA committee is how the #1 seeds get selected and slotted.  At this point the obvious #1's are, in order:

Mary Harden Baylor
Mount Union
St Thomas
Linfield

There isn't anyone in the true East that is #1 worthy, sorry Hobart, and the traditional eastern/southern pick of Wesley isn't going happen this season either with the loss to MHB.  So does the 2012 committee stick with the top 4 teams regardless of location and take 2 west teams as #1's when one of them isn't Whitewater that can easily cover the North within driving distance? 

And what does it do with an 9-1 Whitewater?  In the traditional west they'd be no higher than a #3 seed.  In the traditional north they're probably a #3 if Ill Wesleyan completes the CCIW slate undefeated (which I doubt).  Probably more likely the #2 behind MTU and just ahead of North Central based on UWW beating LAX which beat NCC in week 1.

If I had to guess at this point, my 4 teams listed above are the #1 seeds with Mount hosting the traditional eastern region and St Thomas hosting the northern teams.  A 9-1 UWW would then be the #2 seed under STU.  Wesley could be the #2 under either Mount or MHB.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: HScoach on October 16, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
There isn't anyone in the true East that is #1 worthy, sorry Hobart, and the traditional eastern/southern pick of Wesley isn't going happen this season either with the loss to MHB.  So does the 2012 committee stick with the top 4 teams regardless of location and take 2 west teams as #1's when one of them isn't Whitewater that can easily cover the North within driving distance? 

If Oshkosh can get to 10-0, they could take that place of WIAC team that can host most North teams with a bus ride.  And I don't think too many people would be offended if a 10-0 WIAC champion were to be awarded a top seed.  Heidelberg could get there by bus...Wittenberg could...OWU couldn't...Allegheny would almost certainly get fed to Mount Union if they were to win the NCAC...the rest of the North's playoff teams are well within driving distance of Oshkosh. 

It's an interesting dilemma, especially if we wind up with a lot of powerful, undefeated teams out West.  Oshkosh, St. Thomas, Linfield, maybe Coe...not everybody can host three games.  How they break that up would be fun to see if everybody holds serve. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 16, 2012, 08:35:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
I just have a hard time saying the LaCollege lost "badly".

On the last play of the first half, leading the #2 team in the country, 3-0, your FG is blocked and returned for a TD. You block their PAT, trail by only 6-3 at the half, but momentum has just swung to a team that has your number.

I'm sorry -- this is a 60-minute game. In the end, you have to play all four quarters, or at least both halves.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 09:30:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 16, 2012, 08:35:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
I just have a hard time saying the LaCollege lost "badly".

On the last play of the first half, leading the #2 team in the country, 3-0, your FG is blocked and returned for a TD. You block their PAT, trail by only 6-3 at the half, but momentum has just swung to a team that has your number.

I'm sorry -- this is a 60-minute game. In the end, you have to play all four quarters, or at least both halves.
La College's season  may come down to the last play FG against Wesley and the 30:01 minutes against UMHB.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 09:34:08 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 09:30:32 PM
La College's season  may come down to the last play FG against Wesley and the 30:01 minutes against UMHB.

Almost all Pool C teams will have similar stories. Maybe not against the same caliber opponents, and I've been on record as saying that LC is a good C candidate if they run the table, but to be a Pool C means to have had 1 game, 1 drive, 1 quarter, 1 turnover, whatever, that cost you that 1 game that you needed. In LC's case, it was 30 minutes of lambasting and 4 possessions against one of the best teams in the country, or a really close loss, at home, to another of the best teams in the country. Hard luck, but they agreed to the schedule and they have to win the games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 11:02:04 PM
Even with 7 Pool C bids, the ASC is very close to beating themselves out of a Pool C bid!  I think the best chance for a Pool C is for HSU to beat UMHB for the Pool A bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 11:16:53 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 11:02:04 PM
Even with 7 Pool C bids, the ASC is very close to beating themselves out of a Pool C bid!  I think the best chance for a Pool C is for HSU to beat UMHB for the Pool A bid.

I think you're right, Ralph.  That's the nature of the beast in the powerhouse meatgrinder conferences.  The selection criteria don't offer much leeway in that regard, perhaps unfairly.  And to make matters worse, especially for the teams in the ASC where geography works against them, they almost have to take on non-league games that provide further obstacles to getting to that 9 win target that Pool C teams really need.  LC and HSU are victims of that this year. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 17, 2012, 05:10:02 AM
That's the nature of the beast in the powerhouse meatgrinder conferences.

I agree.  This problem isn't unique to the ASC, either.  The WIAC, OAC, have all experienced this in recent years:

WIAC: Last year's UW-Oshkosh resume, as of October 25, looked very much like the LaCollege's resume - a semicompetitive opening loss to Mount Union and then a 20-17 loss against UWW.  If there was ever a case for a two-loss team to get into the tournament, that seemed like it...until they lost the next week to another tough WIAC opponent (a UW-LaCrosse team that lost by UMHB by seven points ON THE ROAD - their 3-7 record is a touch deceiving because they played UWW twice, see note below, and also UMHB - that's a beast of a Division III schedule!).  Also, much like the ASC scheduling dilemma, the WIAC teams have a lot of trouble scheduling non-con games, so much so that they end up playing each other a second time in "non-league" games.

OAC: 2011 Baldwin-Wallace, a team that took Mount Union to the very wire on its home turf, didn't get into the playoffs at 8-2 because of an early-season loss to Capital (admittedly, this is their own fault because Capital wasn't very good).

The NWC and SCIAC's top teams often end up scheduling one another for non-con games, which is great from a competitive standpoint but also leads to the problem discussed here.  PLU, CLU, Linfield, Redlands might end up 7-2 with a pair of losses against top 5 teams.

Finally, although we're moving past the "whole game" debate...sorry Ralph, I still side

La College's season may come down to the last play FG against Wesley and the 30:01 minutes against UMHB.

Wouldn't every team's resume look an awful lot better if they had an option to take one made opponent FG off the board (or add a made FG of their own somewhere) and remove the worst 30-minute stretch of their season?  Doesn't that bring virtually every 8-2 or 7-3 team in the country into this discussion?  Just because their 30-minute "bad" stretch came against a really good team doesn't mean that they get a mulligan for it. 

What if last year's Baldwin-Wallace team could remove the last FIVE minutes against Mount Union, never mind the last 30?  Or the last 30 SECONDS of their game against Capital (they lost on a TD scored with 15 seconds to go)?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 17, 2012, 08:43:49 AM
I think that Pool C is the safety net for good teams that are stuck in conference with Mount Union or Whitewater and then those teams which dropped a single game in a strong/competitive conference like the ASC, NWC, CCIW, E8, etc.  Lose twice and you're on thin ice.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 17, 2012, 09:37:04 AM
It's simple calculus, really;

Win Your League.*

*OAC teams not named Mt. Union should have just one loss.

/Thinking the WIAC will break through the Whitewater codicil similar to the OAC rule either this year or next.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 17, 2012, 09:41:49 AM
Thinking the WIAC will break through the Whitewater codicil similar to the OAC rule either this year or next.

I agree with this - I'd love to see a second WIAC team in the playoffs, and I'm pulling for Oshkosh this year for that very reason - but the WIAC has had enough trouble even producing an 8-2 runnerup, so it's been hard to get a second team in.  I would have been curious to see even last year's Oshkosh team in the playoffs, but they dropped the ball against UW-SP after the heartbreak against UWW and removed that possibility.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 17, 2012, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: HScoach on October 16, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
At this point the obvious #1's are, in order:

Mary Harden Baylor
Mount Union
St Thomas
Linfield
...

If I had to guess at this point, my 4 teams listed above are the #1 seeds with Mount hosting the traditional eastern region and St Thomas hosting the northern teams.  A 9-1 UWW would then be the #2 seed under STU.  Wesley could be the #2 under either Mount or MHB.

I'd agree with this. Bottom line, baring big upsets, some teams will have to get moved out of the West.

Potential Unbeatens: UST, Linfield/Willamette, UWO, Coe

Potential 1 Loss: UWO(C)/UWW(A), Linfield/Willamette (C), Bethel (C), Augsburg(A)/Concordia(A)/UST(C), Cal Lutheran (A), NWC (A), Lake Forest (A) - NB: The bracket represents their likely category if they ended with 1 loss.

There's obviously some cross-polination in those lists. And things could get crazy in the MIAC with UST, Augsburg and Concordia all still to play each other, but UST likely wins both. The reality is there still could be a slew of unbeaten and criteria favorable one loss teams out West.

But several are candidates (depending on pairings) to be moved to the North region, in order of proximity: Lake Forest, UWW, UWO, Coe, UST/Bethel/Augsburg/NWC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2012, 06:57:55 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:38:19 AM
LC also has a problem because they lost badly last weekend. A lot of my supposition of them getting a 2 loss bid was built around losing close games to top 5 teams. Losing 30-3 takes a lot of steam out of that argument. While I think UMHB might be the best team in the country, or at least in the top 3, that wasn't what anyone would consider a "competitive" loss. There is no shame in that loss to a team that good, but it isn't the resume builder they needed.

Agree here. I've never seen where the regional win pct. has killed a team.

This whole thread is very good, at least to the degree I've read it. Was going to do a major ATN item, but if it just repeats much of this, makes more sense to refer people here and spend my time providing new analysis on something :) We'll see.

One team that i don't think we're talking about but shouldn't forget (and this is mentioned in Thursday's column) is Sul Ross State. With a loss to UMHB but wins through the rest of the ASC, we can throw out their D-II losses just like McMurry did last season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2012, 07:14:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 16, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
If Oshkosh beats Whitewater, then that's going to be a real puzzler for the committee? I can hear the howls already from a team excluded because a two-loss team with meh SOS and a bad loss is in the playoffs. CWRU was left out last year for one bad loss and an undefeated regional record.

UW-W is likely done with a loss this weekend. As always, two-loss teams' fortunes always depend on the strength of the Pool C candidates nationally, but the Warhawks will have a not-impressive SoS and no wins over RROs unless Platteville finishes 8-2 and sneaks in there. And I'm not so sure UW-W would have all that much to cry about.

If they win, and Oshkosh finishes strong, two 9-1 WIAC teams are locks, IMO.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 16, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
If Oshkosh beats Whitewater, then that's going to be a real puzzler for the committee? I can hear the howls already from a team excluded because a two-loss team with meh SOS and a bad loss is in the playoffs. CWRU was left out last year for one bad loss and an undefeated regional record.

One difference is that Whitewater will (probably) have a win against a RR'd team...I think Platteville will make the cut in the West unless they lose again.  It just depends on whether or not this committee are strict constructionists or loose constructionists when it comes to the criteria.  Previous championship performance may be considered, but only amongst teams that are inseparable by the primary criteria and have undefeated records.  I don't believe that Whitewater has a playoff resumé without a WIAC championship.  That loss to Buffalo State KILLS them, even if it is out of region.  Looking the other way on that result would be incredibly irresponsible of the committee.

Good points.

I forgot about that being a non-region game. Could change things, or at least provide an opening for the committee to put UW-W in if they want to.

That said, it would also matter how they look against UW-O and how they finish out the season. The picture hasn't quite been fleshed out yet.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 17, 2012, 07:41:43 PM
The committee didn't care that CWRU was 9-0 in region last year. But when is consistency part of the equation anyway?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2012, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 09:34:08 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2012, 09:30:32 PM
La College's season  may come down to the last play FG against Wesley and the 30:01 minutes against UMHB.

Almost all Pool C teams will have similar stories. Maybe not against the same caliber opponents, and I've been on record as saying that LC is a good C candidate if they run the table, but to be a Pool C means to have had 1 game, 1 drive, 1 quarter, 1 turnover, whatever, that cost you that 1 game that you needed. In LC's case, it was 30 minutes of lambasting and 4 possessions against one of the best teams in the country, or a really close loss, at home, to another of the best teams in the country. Hard luck, but they agreed to the schedule and they have to win the games.

True. They also have to beat Hardin-Simmons and Sul Ross ... this is how we got ahead of ourselves with UW-Oshkosh last year.

The Wesley loss basically meant LC had to win the ASC. There'd be an exceptional case if UMHB had squeaked by, even though MOV is not criteria, we'd sympathize.

The flipside too is that if they'd beaten Wesley, they'd been in great shape and the Wolverines would be the ones in trouble for having scheduled big.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 17, 2012, 09:41:49 AM
Thinking the WIAC will break through the Whitewater codicil similar to the OAC rule either this year or next.

I agree with this - I'd love to see a second WIAC team in the playoffs, and I'm pulling for Oshkosh this year for that very reason - but the WIAC has had enough trouble even producing an 8-2 runnerup, so it's been hard to get a second team in.  I would have been curious to see even last year's Oshkosh team in the playoffs, but they dropped the ball against UW-SP after the heartbreak against UWW and removed that possibility.

From my own personal experience, I remember it being very hard to get geared up after your conference championship hopes go out the window.

But I also remember it happening one year and the very next week the leader lost and it was three-way tie possibilities if we handled our business, which we did (and then lost the following week to finish 7-3).

Treating every week like it's an important game -- it is, because it's the only one you can win that day -- is the mark of great teams. It's remarkable how UMU does it, for instance, when they know they're going to smash a team. They still play nearly flawless and haven't had a stumble in years.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2012, 09:01:16 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 17, 2012, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: HScoach on October 16, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
At this point the obvious #1's are, in order:

Mary Harden Baylor
Mount Union
St Thomas
Linfield
...

If I had to guess at this point, my 4 teams listed above are the #1 seeds with Mount hosting the traditional eastern region and St Thomas hosting the northern teams.  A 9-1 UWW would then be the #2 seed under STU.  Wesley could be the #2 under either Mount or MHB.

I'd agree with this. Bottom line, baring big upsets, some teams will have to get moved out of the West.

Potential Unbeatens: UST, Linfield/Willamette, UWO, Coe

Potential 1 Loss: UWO(C)/UWW(A), Linfield/Willamette (C), Bethel (C), Augsburg(A)/Concordia(A)/UST(C), Cal Lutheran (A), NWC (A), Lake Forest (A) - NB: The bracket represents their likely category if they ended with 1 loss.

There's obviously some cross-polination in those lists. And things could get crazy in the MIAC with UST, Augsburg and Concordia all still to play each other, but UST likely wins both. The reality is there still could be a slew of unbeaten and criteria favorable one loss teams out West.

But several are candidates (depending on pairings) to be moved to the North region, in order of proximity: Lake Forest, UWW, UWO, Coe, UST/Bethel/Augsburg/NWC.

I'm not sure those are the obvious No. 1s. UST IMO is no lock to go undefeated, but if it does, it will have the SoS for a No. 1

UW-Oshkosh could push Linfield though. They'd each have multiple results, potentially, against regionally ranked opponents, but as with everything, how the other teams perform both in the region and across the nation would affect the layout of the bracket, so I don't see much point in speculating yet about who would have to move where.

I also don't think it's a given that an unbeaten Hobart or Johns Hopkins wouldn't get a 1 seed. Certainly a bracket with a powerhouse like UMU to go through is more fair, but there's nothing on the books that says they have to do that.

One truism ... it always looks at this time of the season like there will be a bunch of unbeatens, but not very many teams close the deal. There will likely be some upsets.

I looked back at last year. Seems like the 27th was when the playoff talk got hot and heavy, but it's never too early to speculate I guess, as long as we acknowledge it as such.

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2011/heres-our-regional-rankings
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 17, 2012, 09:16:39 PM
I should have qualified that those are my #1 seeds now.   Not at the end.

Regardless, it's never too early to start talking playoffs!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 18, 2012, 12:53:08 PM
Just kicking this over to here since we have two new full pages since Tuesday, but I'm referring people to this thread from ATN. This is the best place to start if you're just taking your first look at the playoff picture, although take note of Wally's "this is as of now" qualifications.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 11:17:16 AM
New projection, including results through 10/13:

Pool A's, changes from last week in bold:

   League   
    Team
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   IWU   
   ECFC   
   Mount Ida   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NCAC   
   Ohio Wesleyan   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   Northwestern   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW Whitewater   

W&L seized control of the ODAC with their win over Randolph Macon last weekend.  Gallaudet's loss to Norwich sort of throws the ECFC into flux.  I've now projected Mount Ida there, but really you can use any ECFC placeholder as that is now going to be a one-bid league. 

Pool B: This bid comes down to Wesley/Huntingdon on 10/27 (btw, Huntingdon has two bye weeks heading into that game...that's a long layoff before stepping on the field with Wesley...at least they don't have to travel).  Birmingham Southern's loss to Trinity has pretty much knocked them out of this.  Carnegie Mellon and Millsaps are still lurking if Wesley loses and Huntingdon loses a non-Wesley game, but then Trinity's 2-loss resume actually starts to look good with lots of good wins.  I'm straying too far from the bid here.  Wesley is the pick until further notice. 

Pool C: Just to give you an idea of how fluid this projection is, three of my seven Pool C teams from last week lost their way out: SJF, Otterbein, Birmingham-Southern.  And none of those teams are even close at this point.  That's how valuable every game is.  Here are the picks for this week, in order of selection:

Willamette
UW-Oshkosh
Bethel
Heidelberg
Wabash
Huntingdon
RPI

The West gets really interesting in the next couple of weeks.  Oshkosh and Whitewater this weekend, Willamette and Linfield next weekend.  Only Whitewater doesn't have a game to play with; selection gets VERY interesting if Oshkosh beats  Whitewater and we have to consider a 2-loss team with an average SOS, just one quality win, and the last three natiional championships (which is not a criteria, but can people resist the urge to consider it). 

Selection was a little strange this week because Heidelberg's painful SOS forced me to consider 1-loss teams in front of them, despite their quality win over Otterbein.  Ultimately, Bethel made the cut in front of Heidelberg, Simpson/RPI/Huntingdon did not.  Alfred has played RPI's way onto the list and RPI was the last selection for me this week.  Last three on the table (in no particular order) were Simpson, Franklin & Marshall, and North Central.  This was a HARD choice and I think you could reasonably take North Central or F&M instead of RPI if you wanted to.  All three teams have a quality win and fairly similar SOS's at the moment.  Interestingly, I don't think any of these teams will be Pool C candidates after 11/10.  All three of these teams (NCC/RPI/F&M) are either going to win their league's AQ or wind up with too many losses to be legitimately involved in the Pool C process.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
Ok, now comes the test. Assuming Whitewater wins out, and assuming nothing wacky happens to Oshkosh, will the committee not invite Whitewater to the playoffs with two losses?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on October 20, 2012, 05:45:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
Ok, now comes the test. Assuming Whitewater wins out, and assuming nothing wacky happens to Oshkosh, will the committee not invite Whitewater to the playoffs with two losses?

I was thinking the same thing, I have seen many good teams in the past, including my Seagulls in 2008 get left out due to the other Pool C candidates either losing one game with the loses to good teams. I think the lost to Buffalo State hurts, considering where Buff St. is currently. The west currently has Cal Lutheran, Linfield, Oskosh, St. Thomas, Coe, (Miac runner-up), UMAC champion, Lake Forest.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 20, 2012, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: SUADC on October 20, 2012, 05:45:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
Ok, now comes the test. Assuming Whitewater wins out, and assuming nothing wacky happens to Oshkosh, will the committee not invite Whitewater to the playoffs with two losses?

I was thinking the same thing, I have seen many good teams in the past, including my Seagulls in 2008 get left out due to the other Pool C candidates either losing one game with the loses to good teams. I think the lost to Buffalo State hurts, considering where Buff St. is currently. The west currently has Cal Lutheran, Linfield, Oskosh, St. Thomas, Coe, (Miac runner-up), UMAC champion, Lake Forest.

Here's a weird thought, could Concordia-Moorehead get in with 2 losses (assuming UST beats them) before UWW? Especially given the nature of their 1st 'loss' to Bethel?

They'd probably have the better 'criteria' resume with results against two probable RR opponents and SOS (#23 v. #102 for UWW coming into this week). A lot depends on how they perform against UST in two weeks.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 20, 2012, 06:13:57 PM
West has 4 unbeatens left. UWO, UST, Linfield and Coe.

Cobbers defeat Augsburg and have a clash against UST in two weeks.

Whitewater picks up its second loss.

RPI and Alfred both have 2 losses now.

Simpson has a reality check with loss #2.

Rowan picks up its first DIII loss and now is in the Pool C mix.

Widener holds on, beats their last big regular season test and stays out of the Pool C mix.

OWU v. Wabash next week is a big one. Weird scenario if Wabash wins. 3 NCAC teams with one loss, but Wittenberg won't play OWU.

Willamette loses to PLU with Linfield still to play.

Hobart is impressing out East, and seem like a solid #1 option, but how do you leave 3-4 unbeatens in the West, 1-2 in the North and only 1 in the East?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 06:27:40 PM
The Wesley / Huntingdon loser could be on the board before UW-W. They will have two losses but two quality losses (UMHB for Wesley, BSC for Huntingdon). I think we'll need to see the first regional rankings, but UW-W definitely isn't in a good spot now.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 06:30:43 PM
Two losses is still not ideal, however, it seems like more and more teams are getting into the last three weeks of the season having lost once already.  It may be that we exhaust 1-loss teams before we get through Pool C selection in November. 

I'll have a new projection later tonight.  I need to at least wait until the 7:00 pm CCIW games are done.  Praise be to up-to-the-minute SOS figures from d3football.com! 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 06:37:35 PM
The question may be a bleah one-loss team (say, OWU if they lose to Wabash, as the Bishops won't have a great resume outside of CMU) or a two-loss team like Huntingdon.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 07:00:04 PM
I've overestimated the number of 1-loss teams left.  I've got 14 teams left with one loss on my Pool C list.  Some of those will wind up winning their league or falling out of Pool C, so the realistic number is probably slightly less than that.  Two loss teams are very likely to be in play on selection Sunday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HSCTiger74 on October 20, 2012, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 06:27:40 PM
The Wesley / Huntingdon loser could be on the board before UW-W. They will have two losses but two quality losses (UMHB for Wesley, BSC for Huntingdon). I think we'll need to see the first regional rankings, but UW-W definitely isn't in a good spot now.

After today's results there appears to be a little less quality in that loss than we thought.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 10:12:05 PM
Ooof.....BSC must have had a huge let-down, and the SAA may be one of those 'eat their own' conferences.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 20, 2012, 10:31:52 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 20, 2012, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: SUADC on October 20, 2012, 05:45:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
Ok, now comes the test. Assuming Whitewater wins out, and assuming nothing wacky happens to Oshkosh, will the committee not invite Whitewater to the playoffs with two losses?

I was thinking the same thing, I have seen many good teams in the past, including my Seagulls in 2008 get left out due to the other Pool C candidates either losing one game with the loses to good teams. I think the lost to Buffalo State hurts, considering where Buff St. is currently. The west currently has Cal Lutheran, Linfield, Oskosh, St. Thomas, Coe, (Miac runner-up), UMAC champion, Lake Forest.

Here's a weird thought, could Concordia-Moorehead get in with 2 losses (assuming UST beats them) before UWW? Especially given the nature of their 1st 'loss' to Bethel?

They'd probably have the better 'criteria' resume with results against two probable RR opponents and SOS (#23 v. #102 for UWW coming into this week). A lot depends on how they perform against UST in two weeks.

Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2012, 06:27:40 PM
The Wesley / Huntingdon loser could be on the board before UW-W. They will have two losses but two quality losses (UMHB for Wesley, BSC for Huntingdon). I think we'll need to see the first regional rankings, but UW-W definitely isn't in a good spot now.

Among two-loss teams, I'd put Pacific Lutheran at the top of the heap, followed by LC.

PLU's SoS number was No. 2 when I looked earlier this evening, and their losses are to two likely conf champs, in Cal Lu and Linfield, plus they actually beat somebody (Willamette).

LC's losses are to UMHB, Wesley, with wins vs. Sul Ross and they'd need to beat Hardin-Simmons. Won't be quite as impressive.

Huntingdon/Wesley loser could be in very good shape if Pool C is weak enough. No way to know that yet.

Then I see UW-W, et. al. ... a lot needs to happen to save the Warhawks, unless the committee simply looks the other way on the non-region game with Buff State, which is possible under the criteria. They might feel compelled to make the playoffs "fair" by including the Warhawks (though someone else might unfairly be excluded), but a lot depends on how teams finish and how strong the comparative resumes are.

Concordia-Moorhead should just beat St. Thomas. Problem solved.

Rowan is in effect a one-loss team, because of Merrimack.

The problem with leading the two-loss group after Week 8 is that they're going to get some company.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:43:31 PM
Projections through 10/20...

Pool A, changes from last week in bold:


   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Mount Ida   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Cortland State   
   NCAC   
   Ohio Wesleyan   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   Northwestern   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW-Oshkosh   

North Central, Cortland State, and UW-Oshkosh slide into Pool A this week.  I left W&L and Salve Regina in Pool A despite their losses this week...in reality, those leagues are likely one bid leagues at this point so it isn't super relevant to the at-large discussion below.  The changes that were made do have a major impact on Pool C as you'll see below. 

Pool B: Wesley remains the pick and they will be having a Pool B title game with Huntingdon in a couple of weeks.  Pool B, for all of the strength that we read into it at the beginning of the year has totally cannibalized itself.  We may not get the Pool B overflow into Pool C that looked imminent before. 

Pool C: The pool is shrinking...but we aren't too far away from the pool having shrunk to the point where we have to really consider 2-loss teams which of course crowds the pool all over again.  Here are the selections this week, in order:
Bethel
Huntingdon
Willamette
Heidelberg
Wabash
Rowan
Elmhurst

Despite the loss today, Willamette still has an overwhelming SOS and can't be ignored.  A second loss to Linfield will put them out of the salacious seven though.  Heidelberg is the only undefeated team left in the Pool C conversation.  So why weren't they first off the board?  Otterbein is no longer a quality win (that didn't take long) and their SOS is significantly less than the teams selected ahead of them (over 0.200 less which is massive).  So Heidelberg jams things up on the North tableau a bit (that'll change when they lose a game).  What else is there...ah yes.  Rowan.  Rowan has 2 losses, but one is D2 and we've set precedent that you can flatly ignore that result.  The only other 1-loss Pool C candidate in the East is Bridgewater State.  The résumés are closer than you might think, but Rowan gets the nod.  Finally, Elmhurst is the last team in.  IWU losing not only knocked them out of Pool A, but all the way out of the field.  Elmhurst's win against Wheaton (common opponent) and a superior SOS puts them ahead of IWU on the North tableau.  In fact, IWU actually falls behind Wittenberg on my North list.  The last three on the board are (in no particular order) Millsaps, Bridgewater State, and  Chapman.  Full disclosure, I did take some futures liberty with Concordia-Moorhead, which I should probably stop doing now that there aren't an abundance of 1-loss teams.  Next week I'll consider multiple teams from the same league. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:55:02 PM
So...whither the Warhawks? I currently have them buried in the West region.  If every Pool C team came from the West, the Warhawks would still not make my projected field.  I currently have them sitting behind the west teams in the salacious seven above as well as: Concordia-Moorhead, Chapman, Pacific Lutheran, Whitworth, and Illinois College.  I would entertain a debate about Whitewater being placed in front of IC, but there really isn't a good, criteria-based reason to have them any higher than that.  And that's just in the West. 

Other two loss teams (already noted PLU and Whitworth) that are on my Pool C radar that I think grade out better than Whitewater include (in no particular order):
SJF
Alfred
RPI
Lycoming
Louisiana College
Wheaton

There is the matter of Buffalo State being out of region.  It would be an absolute shame if the committee bent that rule in a way that unduly benefits Whitewater.  CWRU was very obviously kept out of last year's tournament because they lost an out of region game.  Wabash was kept out in 2010 because they lost an out of region game.  To do a 180 on that this year smacks of favoritism and I really, really hope that doesn't happen.  If in 22 days Whitewater has one of the best seven at-large résumés, then awesome.  But don't let it be because they choose to ignore a D3 result.  The idea of regionality is absurd in the current climate of "administrative regions".  Whitewater lost, at home, to a team that's going to finish in the bottom half of the E8.  The E8 isn't a bad league, but you just can't lose that game, plus another one, and expect to get in without an abundance of quality wins, which Whitewater does not have.  [/end rant]
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 20, 2012, 11:11:04 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 20, 2012, 06:13:57 PM
OWU v. Wabash next week is a big one. Weird scenario if Wabash wins. 3 NCAC teams with one loss, but Wittenberg won't play OWU.

They'll wish they had. Playing another team with a great record is a chance for a win over a regionally ranked opponent, and a big boost to SoS.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 11:25:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 20, 2012, 11:11:04 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 20, 2012, 06:13:57 PM
OWU v. Wabash next week is a big one. Weird scenario if Wabash wins. 3 NCAC teams with one loss, but Wittenberg won't play OWU.

They'll wish they had. Playing another team with a great record is a chance for a win over a regionally ranked opponent, and a big boost to SoS.

If I've done my NCAC homework and math correctly, if we do wind up with a Wabash/OWU/Witt tie atop the conference, Wabash goes to Pool A.  Wittenberg is in tough position.  Right now, Witt has a 0.008 advantage over OWU on SOS, which isn't much.  Witt's SOS is about to nosedive (Denison, Hiram, and Oberlin are left for the Tigers).  OWU will get a big boost next week, and then will more or less hold steady the final two weeks.  Plus, OWU has a win over Carnegie Mellon who may get into a regional ranking before this thing is over with.  Witt will not have any such win this season. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 20, 2012, 11:30:50 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:55:02 PM
CWRU was very obviously kept out of last year's tournament because they lost an out of region game.

Let's just remember, while we're revising history here, that Case lost to a team that St. John Fisher beat. Without the common opponent, might not be having this conversation again and again.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 11:40:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 20, 2012, 11:30:50 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:55:02 PM
CWRU was very obviously kept out of last year's tournament because they lost an out of region game.

Let's just remember, while we're revising history here, that Case lost to a team that St. John Fisher beat. Without the common opponent, might not be having this conversation again and again.

That's an excellent point and certainly one giant reason why SJF was in and CWRU was not.  I think most of us believe the out of region loss counted against them in comparison to Illinois College, as it should have I believe. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 21, 2012, 12:04:02 AM
Also, pre-empting any wally criticism ... these are the as-of-today rankings. Huntingdon is in Pool C now, but will either bump into Pool B or likely out entirely after the Wesley game, for example. Yes, he knows this.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on October 21, 2012, 12:57:01 AM
Birmingham So loss today doesn't help Wesley or Huntingdon. The first rankings will tell us more  regional
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 21, 2012, 09:03:44 AM
I know the above analysis is based on today's SoS numbers, but Heidelberg's will improve over the last 3 weeks.  Still won't be a strong schedule, but won't the absolute junk that it is right now after they play the final 3 against:
Mount Union 7-0
John Carroll 5-2
Baldwin Wallace 6-1

H'Berg is having a great season, especially rising from the ashes of their 32 game losing streak when Hallett took over, but there is no guarantee they finish 9-1 with the schedule so back loaded.  The biggest test for them in my mind is not letting the hangover from the Mount game affect them the next week against JCU. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on October 21, 2012, 12:00:27 PM
I know Wally has come up with an good detail of the criteria and what not. Nevertheless, I came up with a list of teams that are still in the hunt, even though for some it may take the world flipping upside down to happen.

East undefeated teams: Hobart & Widener
West undefeated teams: UW-O, Linfield, UST, & Coe
South undefeated teams: UMHB, Johns Hopkins, & Waynesburg
North undefeated teams: MUC, Concordia-Chicago, Ohio Wesleyan, & Heidelberg

East one loss teams: Salisbury, Cortland State, Mount Ida, Framingham State, Bridgewater State, Rowan,  & Salve Regina
West one loss teams:  Bethel, Cal Lutheran, Lake Forest, Willamette, Northwestern (Minn.), & Concordia-Moorhead
South one loss teams: Wesley, F&M, Huntingdon, & Millsaps
North one loss teams: North Central (Ill.), Elmhurst, Illinois Wesleyan, Adrian, Wabash, Wittenberg, & Baldwin Wallace, & Franklin

East two loss teams:  Kean, SJF, RPI, Utica, Alfred, Castleton State, Gallaudet, Norwich, Delaware Valley, Lycoming, Albright, Lebanon Valley,  & Endicott
West two loss teams: UW-W, Simpson, Wartburg, St. Norbert, Carroll, Pacific Lutheran, Whitworth, Chapman, St. Scholastica, St. Olaf, & Augsburg
South two loss teams: Louisiana College, Gettysburg, Muhlenberg, Ursinus, Carnegie Mellon, H-SC, W&L, Bridgewater (Va.), W&J, Centre, & Ferrum
North two loss teams: Wheaton, Hanover, Albion, Wisconsin Lutheran, John Carroll, Otterbein, & Greenville

Notables with more than two losses: CNU, La Verne, Redlands, Guilford, Kenyon, Allegheny, Concordia (Wis.), Monmouth, Trine, Union (N.Y.) & Hardin-Simmons.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 21, 2012, 07:27:01 PM
Wow. I could have saved you a lot of trouble by posting my work for last week's column. I updated it before casting my ballot this week.

That said, you have it broken down by region. I have it sorted with details on who the losses are against. I'm also partway finished updating it with quality wins, which sometimes get overlooked in all of our talk about one-loss and two-loss teams.

Also Rowan and Franklin are in the subtract one non-division loss club. For our purposes, both should be in the one-loss groups, even though they technically have two.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on October 21, 2012, 10:50:30 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 21, 2012, 07:27:01 PM
Also Rowan and Franklin are in the subtract one non-division loss club. For our purposes, both should be in the one-loss groups, even though they technically have two.

Yeah, that's true. Does the committee take those Non-D3 games into consideration at all?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2012, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: SUADC on October 21, 2012, 10:50:30 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 21, 2012, 07:27:01 PM
Also Rowan and Franklin are in the subtract one non-division loss club. For our purposes, both should be in the one-loss groups, even though they technically have two.

Yeah, that's true. Does the committee take those Non-D3 games into consideration at all?
Yes, as secondary criteria, if primary criteria does not give sufficent guidance.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 22, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Still waiting to see a handbook published by the NCAA, but we are closing in on some important dates.  We should see the first regional rankings published next Wednesday (10/31).  It was an important choice that was made last year to reduce the number of regional rankings from four to two.  Before last year, we would have seen regional rankings prior to the 10/20 games.  CMU may have been ranked.  Birmingham Southern may have been ranked.  RPI and Alfred may have been ranked.  Chapman may have been ranked.  Otterbein would have been ranked (would be huge for Heidelberg).  That's a lot of results against regionally ranked teams that never get factored in now.  Certainly some of those teams may still wind up in a ranking before we get through week 11, but many will not and that affects the résumés of a lot of at-large teams. 

Quote from: HScoach on October 21, 2012, 09:03:44 AM
H'Berg is having a great season, especially rising from the ashes of their 32 game losing streak when Hallett took over, but there is no guarantee they finish 9-1 with the schedule so back loaded.  The biggest test for them in my mind is not letting the hangover from the Mount game affect them the next week against JCU. 

Absolutely.  The OAC is a JCU or B-W win over H'berg away from sending just one team to the tournament.   Tying in to my point above, Heidelberg does get a bonus by the timing of the B-W/Mount Union game. B-W will be regionally ranked before they get fed to the beast on 11/3...probaby not afterward though.  If B-W plays Mount Union earlier in the season, Heidelberg may not get a chance to have a win over a regionally ranked team. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2012, 12:43:54 PM
I prefer Regional Rankings occurring four times and starting after Week #8. IMHO, it builds excitement and "buzz".

I don't mind that several teams are listed one-time in the rankings.  It gives more teams against whom you can compare in-region records.

The isolated parts of the country have very little overlap.  Also, conferences are getting bigger and trying to max out at 10-teams so that the schedules are easier to fill.  That leaves very few non-conference games. I would like to see a regional ranking after Week #8 and have four rankings to give me 12-13 teams that may have been ranked at least once. Since we only list the Top10 teams, you have already focused on the 4-6 teams that are fighting for Pool C bids. (Wesley has almost taken Pool B off the table.)

As for specifics, Chapman may not have been #10 at 4-2 after Week #8!  The teams that fade will be seen for that. The teams that fall out after week #8 and #9 are just off the radar, at #11 and #12 or even #13, and we know who they are.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 22, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
I think the South's "B" candidates self-cannibalization is going to hurt them vis-a-vis the regional rankings. BSC no longer in contention to be ranked. Millsaps may have one loss but no wins against RR opponents if Trinity doesn't get ranked. Centre probably won't be RRd.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 22, 2012, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 22, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
I think the South's "B" candidates self-cannibalization is going to hurt them vis-a-vis the regional rankings. BSC no longer in contention to be ranked. Millsaps may have one loss but no wins against RR opponents if Trinity doesn't get ranked. Centre probably won't be RRd.

Completely agree with this. The south has imploded amongst the B grouping. Huntingdon lost to BSC and has to play Wesley, BSC lost to Trinity, Wesley and Sewanee?, Wesley lost to UMHB, Trinity lost to UMHB, SRSU, and Centre, Centre lost to W&L and Millsaps, Millsaps lost to Huntingdon and still has to go to Trinity, and CMU lost to both good teams they faced so far...

It was going to be a really strong B/C candidate group if only 1 team was able to put it together. Now it is Wesley's B to lose against Huntingdon, or Huntingdon's to win against Wesley thanks to B-SC imploding, and other than Millsaps, who needs to go to San Antonio to win, there isn't a "C" candidate in the bunch. A 2 loss Huntingdon might be ok if B-SC hadn't imploded, but of course if B-SC hadn't imploded they would have been a C candidate.

A very strange year. CNU loses to LaGrange muddling the USAS, the ODAC is a mess of mediocrity, the PAC is just... odd. I mean, I keep voting for Waynesberg because they don't lose, but they haven't beat anyone and they barely beat everyone they've played. Close game after close game for them, but they keep winning. Outside of UMHB, Wesley, and Johns Hopkins, it just seems like the south is full of teams that can't put it together.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 23, 2012, 02:35:39 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2012, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: SUADC on October 21, 2012, 10:50:30 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 21, 2012, 07:27:01 PM
Also Rowan and Franklin are in the subtract one non-division loss club. For our purposes, both should be in the one-loss groups, even though they technically have two.

Yeah, that's true. Does the committee take those Non-D3 games into consideration at all?
Yes, as secondary criteria, if primary criteria does not give sufficent guidance.

And, in effect they are considered one way or the other when the language says "winning percentage against regional opponents."

In other words, the result might not be directly considered, but if one team is 9-1 against in-region D-IIIs and another is 7-1, it can be taken into consideration, but I can't think of a time when that's been the tipping point. The committees seem to understand the difficulties of scheduling games and just work with the data they have available.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 23, 2012, 02:38:16 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Still waiting to see a handbook published by the NCAA, but we are closing in on some important dates.  We should see the first regional rankings published next Wednesday (10/31).

It does exist. ATN this week is Pat and I taking a crack at regional rankings since people like yourselves need this kind of thing before Halloween, gosh darn it to heck.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 05:24:52 AM
Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2012, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 22, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
I think the South's "B" candidates self-cannibalization is going to hurt them vis-a-vis the regional rankings. BSC no longer in contention to be ranked. Millsaps may have one loss but no wins against RR opponents if Trinity doesn't get ranked. Centre probably won't be RRd.

Completely agree with this. The south has imploded amongst the B grouping. Huntingdon lost to BSC and has to play Wesley, BSC lost to Trinity, Wesley and Sewanee?, Wesley lost to UMHB, Trinity lost to UMHB, SRSU, and Centre, Centre lost to W&L and Millsaps, Millsaps lost to Huntingdon and still has to go to Trinity, and CMU lost to both good teams they faced so far...

It was going to be a really strong B/C candidate group if only 1 team was able to put it together. Now it is Wesley's B to lose against Huntingdon, or Huntingdon's to win against Wesley thanks to B-SC imploding, and other than Millsaps, who needs to go to San Antonio to win, there isn't a "C" candidate in the bunch. A 2 loss Huntingdon might be ok if B-SC hadn't imploded, but of course if B-SC hadn't imploded they would have been a C candidate.

A very strange year. CNU loses to LaGrange muddling the USAS, the ODAC is a mess of mediocrity, the PAC is just... odd. I mean, I keep voting for Waynesberg because they don't lose, but they haven't beat anyone and they barely beat everyone they've played. Close game after close game for them, but they keep winning. Outside of UMHB, Wesley, and Johns Hopkins, it just seems like the south is full of teams that can't put it together.

It's the above carnage, as well as lack of defeated teams in the CCIW and E-8 that makes me think that Wastewater has a good chance at a Pool C with 2 losses.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 23, 2012, 07:32:58 AM
Well, that's classy.  ???
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 07:50:06 AM
Oops.   Auto spell check on my smart phone.   

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ITH radio on October 23, 2012, 10:22:40 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2012, 02:38:16 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Still waiting to see a handbook published by the NCAA, but we are closing in on some important dates.  We should see the first regional rankings published next Wednesday (10/31).

It does exist. ATN this week is Pat and I taking a crack at regional rankings since people like yourselves need this kind of thing before Halloween, gosh darn it to heck.

^ likes this
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2012, 02:38:16 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Still waiting to see a handbook published by the NCAA, but we are closing in on some important dates.  We should see the first regional rankings published next Wednesday (10/31).

It does exist. ATN this week is Pat and I taking a crack at regional rankings since people like yourselves need this kind of thing before Halloween, gosh darn it to heck.

Is it on the NCAA publications website or am I terrible at google?  And I do need it.  This is becoming unhealthy. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 07:50:06 AM
Oops.   Auto spell check on my smart phone.
"UW-Wastewater"!

I spewed my soft drink onto the keyboard when I read this.

That goes into the Hall of Fame of team names (allegedly) butchered by "auto spell check".

That goes right up there with "Horrid Pain" for Howard Payne and "Hardened Sinners" for the Baptist univeristy Hardin-Simmons.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 05:24:52 AM
Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2012, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 22, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
I think the South's "B" candidates self-cannibalization is going to hurt them vis-a-vis the regional rankings. BSC no longer in contention to be ranked. Millsaps may have one loss but no wins against RR opponents if Trinity doesn't get ranked. Centre probably won't be RRd.

Completely agree with this. The south has imploded amongst the B grouping. Huntingdon lost to BSC and has to play Wesley, BSC lost to Trinity, Wesley and Sewanee?, Wesley lost to UMHB, Trinity lost to UMHB, SRSU, and Centre, Centre lost to W&L and Millsaps, Millsaps lost to Huntingdon and still has to go to Trinity, and CMU lost to both good teams they faced so far...

It was going to be a really strong B/C candidate group if only 1 team was able to put it together. Now it is Wesley's B to lose against Huntingdon, or Huntingdon's to win against Wesley thanks to B-SC imploding, and other than Millsaps, who needs to go to San Antonio to win, there isn't a "C" candidate in the bunch. A 2 loss Huntingdon might be ok if B-SC hadn't imploded, but of course if B-SC hadn't imploded they would have been a C candidate.

A very strange year. CNU loses to LaGrange muddling the USAS, the ODAC is a mess of mediocrity, the PAC is just... odd. I mean, I keep voting for Waynesberg because they don't lose, but they haven't beat anyone and they barely beat everyone they've played. Close game after close game for them, but they keep winning. Outside of UMHB, Wesley, and Johns Hopkins, it just seems like the south is full of teams that can't put it together.

It's the above carnage, as well as lack of defeated teams in the CCIW and E-8 that makes me think that Wastewater has a good chance at a Pool C with 2 losses.

It's a lot broader than just those 2 conferences. One of their biggest hurdles for 'Wastewater'  ;) :) will just be getting 'on the board' in a deep West region. Willamette's loss this week helps UWW, but what if they turn around and beat Linfield? And assuming Concordia loses to UST, there are legit criteria arguments to be made to put them, also at 2 losses, ahead of UWW. If Concordia beats UST, you have Cobbers with 1 loss and the Pool A. UST and Bethel with 1 loss and Pool C candidates.

UWW could certainly still get in. In no small part to the fact that history shows us the carnage probably hasn't stopped. This might be a year when multiple 2 loss teams get in. But there could be several 2 loss teams in the West region alone with better 'criteria' than UWW that might be regionally ranked ahead of them. If that's the case, they could be so buried in the West region C candidates that they never even make it into the discussion. One thing we can all agree on, it's shaping up to be an exciting final push to the end of the regular season!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
I wish that we had regional rankings after week #8.

I think that 2-loss Louisiana College (Losses to UMHB and Wesley and needing a win over HSU) needs some consideration in that group of strong Pool C teams. Right now, I think that they are the first team at the table from the South Region, after Wesley comes off as Pool B (and if Wesley beats Huntingdon this weekend.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 12:03:07 PM
^ Agree with both statements.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
I wish that we had regional rankings after week #8.

I think that 2-loss Louisiana College (Losses to UMHB and Wesley and needing a win over HSU) needs some consideration in that group of strong Pool C teams. Right now, I think that they are the first team at the table from the South Region, after Wesley comes off as Pool B (and if Wesley beats Huntingdon this weekend.)

Right now, I have LC behind Huntingdon, F&M, and Millsaps in the Pool C pecking order in the South.  Let's play the futures game with these teams...

Huntingdon - Will either beat Wesley and be the Pool B (which sets off some bad dominoes for LC...that would push Wesley into Pool C with 2 losses and the Wolverines would HAVE to be in front of LC because they beat LC) or they will lose to Wesley and fall back behind LC in the pecking order.

F&M - Will either beat JHU and be in Pool A or lose and be behind LC with 2-losses.  Of course, if they do beat JHU, that pushes JHU into Pool C, most likely in front of LC. 

Millsaps - If Millsaps gets to 9-1, they become an interesting case.  Is their win% advantage enough to keep them in front of Huntingdon who has a h2h win and a heavy SOS advantage over Millsaps?  If not, then Millsaps, as distasteful as that might be to LC fans, are probably in front of LC.  If Millsaps gets tagged behind Huntingdon, then they probably go behind LC as well.  Just depends on how that h2h result manifests itself in the regional rankings. 

LC's biggest problem is that they don't and won't have a win against a regionally ranked opponent.  There will be 2-loss teams that do.  LC's biggest reason for optimism is that if Wesley beats Huntingdon and JHU beats F&M and Millsaps loses either at Trinity or vs. B-SC, then LC may very well be at the top of the South region's at-large list and getting to the table is half the battle.  Doesn't seem likely that LC would get passed over 7 times.  But there's also the matter of week 11 vs. Hardin Simmons which is definitely not a gimme for LC. 

By comparison, UWW needs a lot more help to get into the serious conversation because the West isn't blowing itself up the same way the South is.  And right now LC is a better at-large candidate than UWW is.  The Warhawks really do need a lot of help in the next 18 days. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 12:44:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 07:50:06 AM
Oops.   Auto spell check on my smart phone.
"UW-Wastewater"!

I spewed my soft drink onto the keyboard when I read this.

That goes into the Hall of Fame of team names (allegedly) butchered by "auto spell check".

That goes right up there with "Horrid Pain" for Howard Payne and "Hardened Sinners" for the Baptist univeristy Hardin-Simmons.

I really wish I could take credit for naming them that on purpose.     

Though I may have to "accidentally" call them that every once in a while.......
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: njf1003 on October 23, 2012, 03:22:20 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
I wish that we had regional rankings after week #8.

I think that 2-loss Louisiana College (Losses to UMHB and Wesley and needing a win over HSU) needs some consideration in that group of strong Pool C teams. Right now, I think that they are the first team at the table from the South Region, after Wesley comes off as Pool B (and if Wesley beats Huntingdon this weekend.)

Right now, I have LC behind Huntingdon, F&M, and Millsaps in the Pool C pecking order in the South.  Let's play the futures game with these teams...

F&M - Will either beat JHU and be in Pool A or lose and be behind LC with 2-losses.  Of course, if they do beat JHU, that pushes JHU into Pool C, most likely in front of LC. 

F&M's would have to beat GBurg too at GBurg which I almost put as less likely than beating JHU, but we shall see.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 03:26:49 PM
Quote from: njf1003 on October 23, 2012, 03:22:20 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
I wish that we had regional rankings after week #8.

I think that 2-loss Louisiana College (Losses to UMHB and Wesley and needing a win over HSU) needs some consideration in that group of strong Pool C teams. Right now, I think that they are the first team at the table from the South Region, after Wesley comes off as Pool B (and if Wesley beats Huntingdon this weekend.)

Right now, I have LC behind Huntingdon, F&M, and Millsaps in the Pool C pecking order in the South.  Let's play the futures game with these teams...

F&M - Will either beat JHU and be in Pool A or lose and be behind LC with 2-losses.  Of course, if they do beat JHU, that pushes JHU into Pool C, most likely in front of LC. 

F&M's would have to beat GBurg too at GBurg which I almost put as less likely than beating JHU, but we shall see.

I'll defer to somebody with better knowledge of Centennial football than I, but the feeling I get is that Hopkins is the class of that league by a pretty wide margin.  I'd say that beating Hopkins at home or away or underwater is a more difficult task than beating Gettysburg.  But that's just the sense I get from the fringe. 

In either case, if F&M doesn't beat Hopkins, what they do against Gettysburg in week 11 is moot.  The Hopkins game is the one that really matters as far as F&M's postseason goes. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: cludad on October 23, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
Wouldnt PLu have a better shot than UWW if PLu wins out, their 2 loses are against a #3 and #8(assuming linfield and CLU win out also)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: cludad on October 23, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
Wouldnt PLu have a better shot than UWW if PLu wins out, their 2 loses are against a #3 and #8(assuming linfield and CLU win out also)

You could certainly make that argument. I wouldn't disagree with it. I'm not sure I'd pick PLU to beat UWW, but in terms of regional ranking and playoff criteria, they have better numbers in about every aspect. And PLU's SOS numbers are through the roof.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 23, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
Thinking that Linfield and CLU will be regionally ranked and the overall SOS of PLU should put them on the board ahead of UW-W unless the committee disregards the Buff State result - which they shouldn't if precedence holds.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
Problem is there is precedent for everything, and we never know which year's precedent they are going to choose. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
Problem is there is precedent for everything, and we never know which year's precedent they are going to choose. :)

So true! If there's one precedent that should trump all, it's that the committee has done and will do some surprising and unexpected stuff from time to time.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 23, 2012, 04:54:15 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
Problem is there is precedent for everything, and we never know which year's precedent they are going to choose. :)

So true! If there's one precedent that should trump all, it's that the committee has done and will do some surprising and unexpected stuff from time to time.


That is a true story :o ... "THEY HAVE"  :-[ just win baby  ;D, and it will take care of it's self..  We have been there for sure . :o ??? ::).
Go Cats
Go BIG D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Hawks88 on October 23, 2012, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
I wish that we had regional rankings after week #8.

I think that 2-loss Louisiana College (Losses to UMHB and Wesley and needing a win over HSU) needs some consideration in that group of strong Pool C teams. Right now, I think that they are the first team at the table from the South Region, after Wesley comes off as Pool B (and if Wesley beats Huntingdon this weekend.)

Right now, I have LC behind Huntingdon, F&M, and Millsaps in the Pool C pecking order in the South.  Let's play the futures game with these teams...

Huntingdon - Will either beat Wesley and be the Pool B (which sets off some bad dominoes for LC...that would push Wesley into Pool C with 2 losses and the Wolverines would HAVE to be in front of LC because they beat LC) or they will lose to Wesley and fall back behind LC in the pecking order.

F&M - Will either beat JHU and be in Pool A or lose and be behind LC with 2-losses.  Of course, if they do beat JHU, that pushes JHU into Pool C, most likely in front of LC. 

Millsaps - If Millsaps gets to 9-1, they become an interesting case.  Is their win% advantage enough to keep them in front of Huntingdon who has a h2h win and a heavy SOS advantage over Millsaps?  If not, then Millsaps, as distasteful as that might be to LC fans, are probably in front of LC.  If Millsaps gets tagged behind Huntingdon, then they probably go behind LC as well.  Just depends on how that h2h result manifests itself in the regional rankings. 

LC's biggest problem is that they don't and won't have a win against a regionally ranked opponent.  There will be 2-loss teams that do.  LC's biggest reason for optimism is that if Wesley beats Huntingdon and JHU beats F&M and Millsaps loses either at Trinity or vs. B-SC, then LC may very well be at the top of the South region's at-large list and getting to the table is half the battle.  Doesn't seem likely that LC would get passed over 7 times.  But there's also the matter of week 11 vs. Hardin Simmons which is definitely not a gimme for LC. 

By comparison, UWW needs a lot more help to get into the serious conversation because the West isn't blowing itself up the same way the South is.  And right now LC is a better at-large candidate than UWW is.  The Warhawks really do need a lot of help in the next 18 days.
Wally, I'm not so sure a two loss Huntingdon would be behind a two loss Louisiana College. HC would have the stronger SOS and would likely have wins over regionally ranked opponents(Millsaps, Hampden-Sydney(?), Wesley or Adrian). Whether or not we manage to beat Wesley, we still have the Adrian game to contend with week 11, who I imagine will be regionally ranked if they go ahead and win their conference.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 05:00:03 PM
Adrian doesn't look that good for a regional ranking right now.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Hawks88 on October 23, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 05:00:03 PM
Adrian doesn't look that good for a regional ranking right now.
I guess you're right. I just looked at their SOS. Kinda way down there aren't they?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 23, 2012, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
Thinking that Linfield and CLU will be regionally ranked and the overall SOS of PLU should put them on the board ahead of UW-W...
I hope you are right (of course).  PLU's losses so far were against 2 pretty darn good teams that deserve to be highly ranked.  But on the flip side, the Lutes are 0-2 against them.  Their best wins are over Willamette, Redlands, and (hopefullly) Whitworth.  Also, the Lutes play only 9 games and finish at Menlo (NAIA).  So at this point, a 6-2 D-3 record is the best possible outcome where other two-loss Pool C's may have as many as 8 D-3 wins.  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 07:46:41 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 23, 2012, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
Thinking that Linfield and CLU will be regionally ranked and the overall SOS of PLU should put them on the board ahead of UW-W...
I hope you are right (of course).  PLU's losses so far were against 2 pretty darn good teams that deserve to be highly ranked.  But on the flip side, the Lutes are 0-2 against them.  Their best wins are over Willamette, Redlands, and (hopefullly) Whitworth.  Also, the Lutes play only 9 games and finish at Menlo (NAIA).  So at this point, a 6-2 D-3 record is the best possible outcome where other two-loss Pool C's may have as many as 8 D-3 wins.  :-\

That's what will probably hurt you.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 07:53:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
I wish that we had regional rankings after week #8.

I think that 2-loss Louisiana College (Losses to UMHB and Wesley and needing a win over HSU) needs some consideration in that group of strong Pool C teams. Right now, I think that they are the first team at the table from the South Region, after Wesley comes off as Pool B (and if Wesley beats Huntingdon this weekend.)

Right now, I have LC behind Huntingdon, F&M, and Millsaps in the Pool C pecking order in the South.  Let's play the futures game with these teams...

Huntingdon - Will either beat Wesley and be the Pool B (which sets off some bad dominoes for LC...that would push Wesley into Pool C with 2 losses and the Wolverines would HAVE to be in front of LC because they beat LC) or they will lose to Wesley and fall back behind LC in the pecking order.

F&M - Will either beat JHU and be in Pool A or lose and be behind LC with 2-losses.  Of course, if they do beat JHU, that pushes JHU into Pool C, most likely in front of LC. 

Millsaps - If Millsaps gets to 9-1, they become an interesting case.  Is their win% advantage enough to keep them in front of Huntingdon who has a h2h win and a heavy SOS advantage over Millsaps?  If not, then Millsaps, as distasteful as that might be to LC fans, are probably in front of LC.  If Millsaps gets tagged behind Huntingdon, then they probably go behind LC as well.  Just depends on how that h2h result manifests itself in the regional rankings. 

LC's biggest problem is that they don't and won't have a win against a regionally ranked opponent.  There will be 2-loss teams that do.  LC's biggest reason for optimism is that if Wesley beats Huntingdon and JHU beats F&M and Millsaps loses either at Trinity or vs. B-SC, then LC may very well be at the top of the South region's at-large list and getting to the table is half the battle.  Doesn't seem likely that LC would get passed over 7 times.  But there's also the matter of week 11 vs. Hardin Simmons which is definitely not a gimme for LC. 

By comparison, UWW needs a lot more help to get into the serious conversation because the West isn't blowing itself up the same way the South is.  And right now LC is a better at-large candidate than UWW is.  The Warhawks really do need a lot of help in the next 18 days.
Yes.  I do think that Wesley and JHU win and Millsaps fades.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 24, 2012, 12:02:38 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 23, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 05:00:03 PM
Adrian doesn't look that good for a regional ranking right now.
I guess you're right. I just looked at their SOS. Kinda way down there aren't they?

Adrian is an interesting case.  Doing a quick and dirty look at the north region, Adrian is going to be behind the four remaining undefeateds (UMU, OWU, H'berg, Concordia-Chi.).  H'berg will lose before the rankings come out, but will almost certainly still be in front of Adrian.  Adrian also has a CCIW problem...they lost to Carthage and Carthage is losing to all of the teams at the top of the CCIW.  So they'll also be behind North Central and IWU who have a better result against the common opponent.  They'll also be behind Elmhurst.  So that's seven teams so far.  Wabash would rank ahead of Adrian today as well.  That's 8.  So we've got two spots left and these are the teams left to fill those spots:
Adrian
Franklin
Baldwin-Wallace
Wittenberg
Wheaton

Of these five teams jockeying for two spots, Franklin has the lowest SOS and zero quality wins and no common opponents (yet..B-W's purple whoopin' is coming...Adrian beat Defiance who is coming up soon for Franklin).  Adrian's SOS is basically the same as Franklin's, and they also don't have quality wins or common opponents (yet).  Wittenberg has the best SOS among this group but has zero quality wins (a common theme).  Adrian probably is ahead of Wheaton at this point and really should be if they beat Albion.  Today, I'd probably have Adrian sitting 11th or 12th in the region depending on how people choose to look at Franklin. 

The good news for Huntingdon is that we've got two weeks of games that will affect these rankings.  IWU could suffer a loss on Saturday that takes them out of these rankings (the Carthage thing is still sticky though).  B-W has a loss coming on 11/3.  Wabash has a dangerous game on Saturday.  Wittenberg isn't going to lose, but their SOS is going to plummet.  There's an outside shot that Adrian, with a pair of wins, could sneak into the regional rankings before the week 11 game with Huntingdon.  Definitely not a slam dunk though. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2012, 12:22:05 AM
Adrian has always been my #10 in the North Region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: tigerguy on October 24, 2012, 01:27:21 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is the highest ranked team to not make the playoffs? In the d3football.com poll era, that is.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on October 24, 2012, 01:50:54 PM
Quote from: tigerguy on October 24, 2012, 01:27:21 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is the highest ranked team to not make the playoffs? In the d3football.com poll era, that is.

I know Salisbury was #17 in 2008. I believe they have the top 25 going back to 2003, I believe you would look at week 11 and then look at the playoff bracket to see what team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 24, 2012, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: tigerguy on October 24, 2012, 01:27:21 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is the highest ranked team to not make the playoffs? In the d3football.com poll era, that is.

UMHB in 2003...ranked 11th and didn't get in to the field.  ONU in 2009 was ranked 13th and didn't get invited. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: roocru on October 25, 2012, 02:20:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2012, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: tigerguy on October 24, 2012, 01:27:21 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is the highest ranked team to not make the playoffs? In the d3football.com poll era, that is.

UMHB in 2003...ranked 11th and didn't get in to the field.  ONU in 2009 was ranked 13th and didn't get invited.

That year was a tough one (my son's junior year)!  However, the next year the Cru lost to Linfield in the Stagg Bowl!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bill McCabe on October 25, 2012, 02:40:39 PM
I still have heartburn over that slight.  >:(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2012, 04:12:57 PM
Thought it would be fun to see how my Pool C selections change given ATN's mock regional rankings.  Let's check it out...the selections, in order, using ATN's regional rankings:

Bethel - 6-1, .658 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO
Huntingdon - 4-1, .605 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO
Wabash - 4-1, .584 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO
Elmhurst - 6-1, .590 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO
**Heidelberg - 7-0, .371 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO
Rowan - 5-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO
Millsaps - 5-1, .545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO

With Wittenberg, RPI, and PLU left on the table. 

Here's what I projected Saturday night:
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:43:31 PM
Bethel
Huntingdon
Willamette
Heidelberg
Wabash
Rowan
Elmhurst

Six out of seven isn't too bad.  Millsaps in, Willamette out is the only difference in the final seven.  Explained by me subjectively keeping 1-loss Willamette ahead of 2-loss PLU despite the H2H result, while ATN put PLU in front of Willamette.  Some other subtle differences in the order of selections stem from things like Wheaton and CMU being regionally ranked and the treatment of Heidelberg's SOS in the mock up.  Good stuff. 

**BTW, this is where it gets really hard because Heidelberg is undefeated but the SOS is awful.  This is also where I either stick with my previous caveat of excluding a third MIAC team or go with the rankings.  I'll do both here, but first I'll exclude Concordia-Moorhead so that we get an apples to apples comparison. 

Now, let's not exclude Concordia-Moorhead this time.  Here's what I'd get:

Bethel - 6-1, .658 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO
Huntingdon - 4-1, .605 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO
Wabash - 4-1, .584 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO
Elmhurst - 6-1, .590 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO
Concordia-Moorhead - 5-1, .601 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO
Heidelberg - 7-0, .371 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO
Rowan - 5-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO

Millsaps, Wittenberg, and PLU left on the table here. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 25, 2012, 04:56:41 PM
Keep up the great analysis Wally. This will all shift, obscure and clarify for these teams in the weeks ahead, but this gives us a great snapshot of where we sit right now. +k
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 26, 2012, 11:57:56 AM
Just a heads up that I will probably hold off on projecting the field until the official regional rankings get released on Wednesday. 

The first rankings are usually pretty interesting.  Anxious to see what we get on Wednesday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 26, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:55:02 PM
I would entertain a debate about Whitewater being placed in front of IC, but there really isn't a good, criteria-based reason to have them any higher than that.  And that's just in the West. 

....

There is the matter of Buffalo State being out of region.  It would be an absolute shame if the committee bent that rule in a way that unduly benefits Whitewater.  CWRU was very obviously kept out of last year's tournament because they lost an out of region game.  Wabash was kept out in 2010 because they lost an out of region game.  To do a 180 on that this year smacks of favoritism and I really, really hope that doesn't happen.  If in 22 days Whitewater has one of the best seven at-large résumés, then awesome.  But don't let it be because they choose to ignore a D3 result.  The idea of regionality is absurd in the current climate of "administrative regions".  Whitewater lost, at home, to a team that's going to finish in the bottom half of the E8.  The E8 isn't a bad league, but you just can't lose that game, plus another one, and expect to get in without an abundance of quality wins, which Whitewater does not have.  [/end rant]

+K.  Well said.  Of course it'll be hard to leave the three-time defending champs out at 8-2, but barring an awful lot of carnage around the nation, it will be even more absurd to include a team with UWW's 2012 resume over the other Pool C candidates you've named above.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 26, 2012, 03:27:02 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 26, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:55:02 PM
I would entertain a debate about Whitewater being placed in front of IC, but there really isn't a good, criteria-based reason to have them any higher than that.  And that's just in the West. 

....

There is the matter of Buffalo State being out of region.  It would be an absolute shame if the committee bent that rule in a way that unduly benefits Whitewater.  CWRU was very obviously kept out of last year's tournament because they lost an out of region game.  Wabash was kept out in 2010 because they lost an out of region game.  To do a 180 on that this year smacks of favoritism and I really, really hope that doesn't happen.  If in 22 days Whitewater has one of the best seven at-large résumés, then awesome.  But don't let it be because they choose to ignore a D3 result.  The idea of regionality is absurd in the current climate of "administrative regions".  Whitewater lost, at home, to a team that's going to finish in the bottom half of the E8.  The E8 isn't a bad league, but you just can't lose that game, plus another one, and expect to get in without an abundance of quality wins, which Whitewater does not have.  [/end rant]

+K.  Well said.  Of course it'll be hard to leave the three-time defending champs out at 8-2, but barring an awful lot of carnage around the nation, it will be even more absurd to include a team with UWW's 2012 resume over the other Pool C candidates you've named above.

As much as I want to see UWW get a bid, they really have no business getting one. It shouldn't matter what they did in previous years.

I have no problems with the above teams getting in before Whitewater
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 26, 2012, 06:18:19 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 26, 2012, 03:27:02 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 26, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:55:02 PM
I would entertain a debate about Whitewater being placed in front of IC, but there really isn't a good, criteria-based reason to have them any higher than that.  And that's just in the West. 

....

There is the matter of Buffalo State being out of region.  It would be an absolute shame if the committee bent that rule in a way that unduly benefits Whitewater.  CWRU was very obviously kept out of last year's tournament because they lost an out of region game.  Wabash was kept out in 2010 because they lost an out of region game.  To do a 180 on that this year smacks of favoritism and I really, really hope that doesn't happen.  If in 22 days Whitewater has one of the best seven at-large résumés, then awesome.  But don't let it be because they choose to ignore a D3 result.  The idea of regionality is absurd in the current climate of "administrative regions".  Whitewater lost, at home, to a team that's going to finish in the bottom half of the E8.  The E8 isn't a bad league, but you just can't lose that game, plus another one, and expect to get in without an abundance of quality wins, which Whitewater does not have.  [/end rant]

+K.  Well said.  Of course it'll be hard to leave the three-time defending champs out at 8-2, but barring an awful lot of carnage around the nation, it will be even more absurd to include a team with UWW's 2012 resume over the other Pool C candidates you've named above.

As much as I want to see UWW get a bid, they really have no business getting one. It shouldn't matter what they did in previous years.

I have no problems with the above teams getting in before Whitewater

I will admit that it's hard - really hard - to just ignore past years' results because a single season IS kind of a small sample size.  Think about Division I (FBS) - if, say, Rutgers and Notre Dame both finish undefeated, the SEC champion has one loss, and the Big 12 champion has one loss, does anyone think the title game will actually be Rutgers vs. Notre Dame? 

The same kind of applies in Division III - there just isn't enough inter-regional play to possibly KNOW (based on one season's data alone) which conferences are the strongest.  So past knowledge does have to come into play in some cases.  I know this sounds like selective judgement, and it kind of is, but what are ya gonna do?

As we're all aware, if any other WIAC team went 8-2 with an out-of-region loss to a 4-6ish team, this wouldn't even be a conversation.  So I guess that's why I'm okay with dismissing past years' results in this case.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 26, 2012, 06:39:38 PM
At least in D-3, we have the best solution for teams wanting to avoid this:

Win Your League (or Win Your Games in Pool "B")
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: bleedpurple on October 26, 2012, 08:46:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 26, 2012, 06:39:38 PM
At least in D-3, we have the best solution for teams wanting to avoid this:

Win Your League (or Win Your Games in Pool "B")

That's how I have always felt. For those who get in with a pool c, they should be grateful for the second chance.  For those who don't get the second chance, begin doing everything you can to not need one next year!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 26, 2012, 09:07:08 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 26, 2012, 08:46:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 26, 2012, 06:39:38 PM
At least in D-3, we have the best solution for teams wanting to avoid this:

Win Your League (or Win Your Games in Pool "B")

That's how I have always felt. For those who get in with a pool c, they should be grateful for the second chance.  For those who don't get the second chance, begin doing everything you can to not need one next year!  ;)

Having been there that is why we said "LEAVE NO DOUBT"  IT WORKS TOO. :)

Go Cats
Go Big D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 05:11:49 PM
With the results thus far, the "B" contingent not named Wesley is pretty much wishing and hoping that there's more carnage everywhere.

And don't look now, but the NCAC is on it's way to a total cluster-flop with the potential of four teams tying for the league title and three of those teams being 9-1. Dios mio!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 09:35:12 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 07:50:06 AM
Oops.   Auto spell check on my smart phone.
"UW-Wastewater"!

I spewed my soft drink onto the keyboard when I read this.

That goes into the Hall of Fame of team names (allegedly) butchered by "auto spell check".

That goes right up there with "Horrid Pain" for Howard Payne and "Hardened Sinners" for the Baptist univeristy Hardin-Simmons.

Nice.

I definitely thought HS did that on purpose at first.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 11:13:14 AM
If Concordia beats UST, you have Cobbers with 1 loss and the Pool A. UST and Bethel with 1 loss and Pool C candidates.

I think MIAC could be a three-bid league this way. UST on the board before Bethel, in this case, most likely.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 09:39:14 PM
Quote from: cludad on October 23, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
Wouldnt PLu have a better shot than UWW if PLu wins out, their 2 loses are against a #3 and #8(assuming linfield and CLU win out also)

I know this is an old question, but PLU definitely has a shot ... but don't forget to consider who a team beat, not just how many and who its losses are too.

This is the main issue right now for LC and PLU. Beating Willamette could help PLU if they are regionally ranked at some point.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 23, 2012, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
I wish that we had regional rankings after week #8.

I think that 2-loss Louisiana College (Losses to UMHB and Wesley and needing a win over HSU) needs some consideration in that group of strong Pool C teams. Right now, I think that they are the first team at the table from the South Region, after Wesley comes off as Pool B (and if Wesley beats Huntingdon this weekend.)

Right now, I have LC behind Huntingdon, F&M, and Millsaps in the Pool C pecking order in the South.  Let's play the futures game with these teams...

Huntingdon - Will either beat Wesley and be the Pool B (which sets off some bad dominoes for LC...that would push Wesley into Pool C with 2 losses and the Wolverines would HAVE to be in front of LC because they beat LC) or they will lose to Wesley and fall back behind LC in the pecking order.

F&M - Will either beat JHU and be in Pool A or lose and be behind LC with 2-losses.  Of course, if they do beat JHU, that pushes JHU into Pool C, most likely in front of LC. 

Millsaps - If Millsaps gets to 9-1, they become an interesting case.  Is their win% advantage enough to keep them in front of Huntingdon who has a h2h win and a heavy SOS advantage over Millsaps?  If not, then Millsaps, as distasteful as that might be to LC fans, are probably in front of LC.  If Millsaps gets tagged behind Huntingdon, then they probably go behind LC as well.  Just depends on how that h2h result manifests itself in the regional rankings. 

LC's biggest problem is that they don't and won't have a win against a regionally ranked opponent.  There will be 2-loss teams that do.  LC's biggest reason for optimism is that if Wesley beats Huntingdon and JHU beats F&M and Millsaps loses either at Trinity or vs. B-SC, then LC may very well be at the top of the South region's at-large list and getting to the table is half the battle.  Doesn't seem likely that LC would get passed over 7 times.  But there's also the matter of week 11 vs. Hardin Simmons which is definitely not a gimme for LC. 

By comparison, UWW needs a lot more help to get into the serious conversation because the West isn't blowing itself up the same way the South is.  And right now LC is a better at-large candidate than UWW is.  The Warhawks really do need a lot of help in the next 18 days.
Wally, I'm not so sure a two loss Huntingdon would be behind a two loss Louisiana College. HC would have the stronger SOS and would likely have wins over regionally ranked opponents(Millsaps, Hampden-Sydney(?), Wesley or Adrian). Whether or not we manage to beat Wesley, we still have the Adrian game to contend with week 11, who I imagine will be regionally ranked if they go ahead and win their conference.

I love that we have multiple fans who can have these discussions now without us needing to lead them. Most everything discussed is spot on, and you guys are mentioning SoS and RROs ... I'm like a proud co-Dad.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 27, 2012, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 09:41:16 PM

I love that we have multiple fans who can have these discussions now without us needing to lead them. Most everything discussed is spot on, and you guys are mentioning SoS and RROs ... I'm like a proud co-Dad.

Was at the Huntingdon game with Hawks and DGPugh today. Between the three of us we've seen a lot of D3 football in a lot of places and it was really nice to have a good discussion with guys that had a solid grasp on how it all works. Between the site and this board, you can learn a lot in a short time and do it in a good environment. You should be pretty proud.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 27, 2012, 09:51:57 PM
Relevant to all of that is that everything pretty much came up roses for Louisiana College today.  They won, F&M lost and not to JHU which makes that whole scenario moot, Millsaps lost again so that scenario is dead AND may deprive Huntingdon of their RRO win, and Wesley did not get pushed into Pool C.  The Wildcats may have just surged to the top of the South's at-large list in one Saturday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 10:08:04 PM
In other words, the South is the cannibalistic region this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on October 27, 2012, 10:21:06 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 11:13:14 AM
If Concordia beats UST, you have Cobbers with 1 loss and the Pool A. UST and Bethel with 1 loss and Pool C candidates.

I think MIAC could be a three-bid league this way. UST on the board before Bethel, in this case, most likely.

This could happen. UST is the better team, but they are brutally beaten up right now. They've had as many as 11 starters out in one game over the last few weeks. 4-6 may be out for the season, and numerous regulars didn't play today in a big game against Augsburg. If they're not full strength Concordia could definitely make a run at them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 10:30:49 PM
Quote from: tigerguy on October 24, 2012, 01:27:21 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is the highest ranked team to not make the playoffs? In the d3football.com poll era, that is.

http://www.d3football.com/top25/previous

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index

I'm thinking a CCIW, MIAC, WIAC or OAC two-loss team in the past year or two. Rings a bell, but can't think of who. Look at the playoff brackets, then the Week 11 top 25 in the above links to find a match.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2012, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: tigerguy on October 24, 2012, 01:27:21 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is the highest ranked team to not make the playoffs? In the d3football.com poll era, that is.

UMHB in 2003...ranked 11th and didn't get in to the field.  ONU in 2009 was ranked 13th and didn't get invited.

Nevermind, I see this got addressed. What about the years Linfield and Whitworth got left out ('01 predates the poll, and '08 Whitworth had two losses, so nevermind again).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 10:34:52 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2012, 09:51:57 PM
Relevant to all of that is that everything pretty much came up roses for Louisiana College today.  They won, F&M lost and not to JHU which makes that whole scenario moot, Millsaps lost again so that scenario is dead AND may deprive Huntingdon of their RRO win, and Wesley did not get pushed into Pool C.  The Wildcats may have just surged to the top of the South's at-large list in one Saturday.

Looks pretty good for them. I was hoping to find wally's breakdown here so I could answer a similar question about Willamette (who might also be in good shape), but I guess I have to do my own work again. Darnit!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on October 27, 2012, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2012, 09:51:57 PM
Relevant to all of that is that everything pretty much came up roses for Louisiana College today.  They won, F&M lost and not to JHU which makes that whole scenario moot, Millsaps lost again so that scenario is dead AND may deprive Huntingdon of their RRO win, and Wesley did not get pushed into Pool C.  The Wildcats may have just surged to the top of the South's at-large list in one Saturday.

Agree with this completely. And for once, it actually ties out with who I think would win all those games. La Col is probably the best of those teams, though I think Huntingdon would give them a run for their money. Plus it's hard to argue against La Col at the top of the board considering their two losses are to what are probably the two best teams in the South. They were right there against Wesley, not so much UMHB. La Col's biggest problem is a lack of quality wins.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2012, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2012, 09:51:57 PM
Relevant to all of that is that everything pretty much came up roses for Louisiana College today.  They won, F&M lost and not to JHU which makes that whole scenario moot, Millsaps lost again so that scenario is dead AND may deprive Huntingdon of their RRO win, and Wesley did not get pushed into Pool C.  The Wildcats may have just surged to the top of the South's at-large list in one Saturday.

Agree with this completely. And for once, it actually ties out with who I think would win all those games. La Col is probably the best of those teams, though I think Huntingdon would give them a run for their money. Plus it's hard to argue against La Col at the top of the board considering their two losses are to what are probably the two best teams in the South. They were right there against Wesley, not so much UMHB. La Col's biggest problem is a lack of quality wins.

Yep. They are not going to have anything to compare with a team that has two losses but a really key victory or three, like say, Salisbury. Should have a good SoS though.

I wonder if LC had held on against Wesley and the shoe was on the other foot, the Wolverines with the two losses, how different it would all be. First of all Pool B would still be open, LC would be top 10-15 ranked and Wesley's close loss to UMHB ....

Ah, nevermind. Hypotheticals can be confusing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 27, 2012, 10:51:15 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 10:34:52 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2012, 09:51:57 PM
Relevant to all of that is that everything pretty much came up roses for Louisiana College today.  They won, F&M lost and not to JHU which makes that whole scenario moot, Millsaps lost again so that scenario is dead AND may deprive Huntingdon of their RRO win, and Wesley did not get pushed into Pool C.  The Wildcats may have just surged to the top of the South's at-large list in one Saturday.

Looks pretty good for them. I was hoping to find wally's breakdown here so I could answer a similar question about Willamette (who might also be in good shape), but I guess I have to do my own work again. Darnit!

Ballparking it right now, but Willamette probably has a tougher road to the tournament than LC does.  In the West right now, Willamette is probably sitting behind 1-loss Bethel and Concordia-Moorhead, and 2-loss PLU (which you guys had fleshed out already in your mock rankings).  Willamette would definitely be ahead of Whitworth at this point, and then you have the tricky situation of what to do with 1-loss Illinois College.  Is the 1-loss and zero wins over RRO and a bad SOS better than Willamette's two losses and monster SOS?  That's hard to say for sure.  We'll have an idea of how those things are being factored when the rankings come out on Wednesday.  Right now, I think that SOS advantage is so overwhelming that they would be ahead of IC in the pecking order. 

Anyway, all of that is to say that the South has butchered itself to the point where a 2-loss team with zero wins over RRO is probably the best at-large candidate while the West hasn't.  If the pick were LC or Willamette, Willamette might be a better choice than LC.  But Willamette, right now at least, probably wouldn't see the table whereas LC would be there from the beginning.  That's an interesting situation...or frustrating depending on your point of view.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 10:57:02 PM
Depending on the other regions, it's plausible that no team from the South gets a "C".
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 25, 2012, 04:12:57 PM
Thought it would be fun to see how my Pool C selections change given ATN's mock regional rankings.  Let's check it out...the selections, in order, using ATN's regional rankings:

Bethel - 6-1, .658 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO
Huntingdon - 4-1, .605 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO
Wabash - 4-1, .584 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO
Elmhurst - 6-1, .590 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO
**Heidelberg - 7-0, .371 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO
Rowan - 5-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO
Millsaps - 5-1, .545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO

With Wittenberg, RPI, and PLU left on the table. 

Here's what I projected Saturday night:
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:43:31 PM
Bethel
Huntingdon
Willamette
Heidelberg
Wabash
Rowan
Elmhurst

Six out of seven isn't too bad.  Millsaps in, Willamette out is the only difference in the final seven.  Explained by me subjectively keeping 1-loss Willamette ahead of 2-loss PLU despite the H2H result, while ATN put PLU in front of Willamette.  Some other subtle differences in the order of selections stem from things like Wheaton and CMU being regionally ranked and the treatment of Heidelberg's SOS in the mock up.  Good stuff. 

**BTW, this is where it gets really hard because Heidelberg is undefeated but the SOS is awful.  This is also where I either stick with my previous caveat of excluding a third MIAC team or go with the rankings.  I'll do both here, but first I'll exclude Concordia-Moorhead so that we get an apples to apples comparison. 

Now, let's not exclude Concordia-Moorhead this time.  Here's what I'd get:

Bethel - 6-1, .658 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO
Huntingdon - 4-1, .605 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO
Wabash - 4-1, .584 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO
Elmhurst - 6-1, .590 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO
Concordia-Moorhead - 5-1, .601 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO
Heidelberg - 7-0, .371 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO
Rowan - 5-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO

Millsaps, Wittenberg, and PLU left on the table here.

Just starting with this group of teams, and applying what we learned today ... OWU loses to Wabash, and I'm gonna assume Bash gets the NCAC AQ by virtue of something or other.

Heidelberg and Huntingdon lose. Berg and OWU join the Pool C discussion.

I'd have to give the entire field a closer look, but is it safe to assume our Pool C leaders are:
Bethel
C-Moorhead
Heidelberg
Elmhurst
Rowan
Wittenberg and/or OWU

and then the group of two-loss teams? LC, PLU, Willamette, etc. Huntingdon?

Who am I not thinking of?

I realize C-M and UST still play each other, that I didn't go around the board properly, and that there's plenty of time between now and recording of the podcast to actually sort this out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 11:01:25 PM
As we understand the NCAC tie-breakers (that were last seen in 2010, dug up by Wally and not published), K-Mack, Witt would get the AQ in a three-way or four-way tie. The H2H's don't factor in since OWU and Kenyon didn't play Witt (and Kenyon missed Wabash). Wabash is eliminated because they're the only team that lost to Allegheny (first common opponent). Kenyon has a road loss (OWU and Witt don't) so they're out and Witt has a higher power ranking. It's a mess, really.

Of course, that's conjecture since we don't know what the NCAC is cooking up for sure. A four-way tie at 6-1 is quite plausible.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 27, 2012, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 10:57:37 PM
Just starting with this group of teams, and applying what we learned today ... OWU loses to Wabash, and I'm gonna assume Bash gets the NCAC AQ by virtue of something or other.

Heidelberg and Huntingdon lose. Berg and OWU join the Pool C discussion.

I'd have to give the entire field a closer look, but is it safe to assume our Pool C leaders are:
Bethel
C-Moorhead
Heidelberg
Elmhurst
Rowan
Wittenberg and/or OWU

and then the group of two-loss teams? LC, PLU, Willamette, etc. Huntingdon?

Who am I not thinking of?

I realize C-M and UST still play each other, that I didn't go around the board properly, and that there's plenty of time between now and recording of the podcast to actually sort this out.

That would be what I've got.  Baldwin-Wallace has just the one loss, but I think we're kind of anticipating one more coming.  The other one-loss team sort of lurking around out there is Bridgewater State.  Of Salve Regina and Framingham State, one of them is going to qualify and one is going to be out.  But Bridgewater State can finish 9-1 and have a not-brutal SOS.  It's a longshot for them, but with the way things are going any 1-loss team may have a shot.  And I think we saw a NEFC Pool C team in that same situation a couple of years ago...Curry maybe?). 

In any case, as you can see from the list there, we've got two weeks left to play and not a ton of 1-loss teams left.  High quality two loss teams are very likely to be in play on 11/11. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 11:33:01 PM
Right you are, Wally. It was Curry, to the apoplexy of many, that got a "C" in 2008 and of course they won their first playoff game that year over Ithaca.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2012, 12:28:49 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 10:08:04 PM
In other words, the South is the cannibalistic region this year.

November 11th   HSU at LaCollege  We will have a couple of Regional Rankings to find out if this will be the 3rd or the 4th Regionally Ranked team for HSU this year.  HSU has played Linfield, Willamette and UMHB.


I also think that the East has done a good job of cannabilizing itself, too. Barring an upset in the last 2 weeks, all of the Pool C's in the East may have at least 2 in-region losses.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2012, 12:40:37 AM
As for LaCollege, "in-region results" means they went 0-2 against #1 and probably no worse than #3 (if JHU is at #2) in the regional rankings.

For the newbies on the board, 0-0 versus in-region ranked teams is considered less favorably than a team that schedules hard games...most of the time.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Upstate on October 28, 2012, 07:22:23 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 11:33:01 PM
Right you are, Wally. It was Curry, to the apoplexy of many, that got a "C" in 2008 and of course they won their first playoff game that year over Ithaca.

Was actually Curry's (as well as the conference's) second NCAA win that year. The year before Curry beat fellow Empire 8 team Hartwick in the first round if the NCAAs...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wesleydad on October 28, 2012, 09:01:27 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2012, 12:28:49 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 10:08:04 PM
In other words, the South is the cannibalistic region this year.

November 11th   HSU at LaCollege  We will have a couple of Regional Rankings to find out if this will be the 3rd or the 4th Regionally Ranked team for HSU this year.  HSU has played Linfield, Willamette and UMHB.


I also think that the East has done a good job of cannabilizing itself, too. Barring an upset in the last 2 weeks, all of the Pool C's in the East may have at least 2 in-region losses.

next weeks rowan/kean matchup could very well make that happen.  i think rowan is the favorite but i expect it to be a good game.  the east and south could be looking at being shut out in pool c if there are no 1 loss teams on the board.  that would be a shame because there are some really good 2 loss teams sitting there as of today, huntigdon and La college come to mind right away.  i think hardin simmons fits to since i believe 1 of their losses was not a d3 loss.  thats what makes this a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 28, 2012, 11:17:01 AM
HSU has lost to Linfield, Willamette, UMHB - three very good D3 teams! 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2012, 12:23:38 PM
Here are the 1-loss teams remaining in Pool C:

-Wabash or Wittenberg (one will likely win the AQ, the other goes to Pool C)
- OWU (hard to find a scenario that favors the Bishops for the NCAC AQ)
- Elmhurst
- Heidelberg
- Baldwin-Wallace (probably has a second loss coming via UMU)
- Rowan
- Bethel
- Concordia-Moorhead
- Illinois College

And that's it.  9 teams, one is almost certainly going to lose a second time (BW), another has a strong test coming (Concordia-Moorhead).  Elmhurst also has a game left with IWU which is not a gimme, especially if IWU can collect themselves a bit between now and 11/10. 

Re: Louisiana College and the South's at-large pecking order...Right now, I think Huntingdon may remain slightly ahead of LC.  The order there is going to really rely on whether or not Millsaps squeezes into the regional rankings this week or next.  If they do, Huntingdon almost certainly stays ahead of LC.  If not, then you could see LC as the first team on the board from the South region.  Huntingdon also has a game with 1-loss Adrian who could sneak into a regional ranking so keep an eye on that as well. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 28, 2012, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2012, 12:23:38 PM
Here are the 1-loss teams remaining in Pool C:

-Wabash or Wittenberg (one will likely win the AQ, the other goes to Pool C)
- OWU (hard to find a scenario that favors the Bishops for the NCAC AQ)
- Elmhurst
- Heidelberg
- Baldwin-Wallace (probably has a second loss coming via UMU)
- Rowan
- Bethel
- Concordia-Moorhead
- Illinois College

And that's it.  9 teams, one is almost certainly going to lose a second time (BW), another has a strong test coming (Concordia-Moorhead).  Elmhurst also has a game left with IWU which is not a gimme, especially if IWU can collect themselves a bit between now and 11/10. 

Re: Louisiana College and the South's at-large pecking order...Right now, I think Huntingdon may remain slightly ahead of LC.  The order there is going to really rely on whether or not Millsaps squeezes into the regional rankings this week or next.  If they do, Huntingdon almost certainly stays ahead of LC.  If not, then you could see LC as the first team on the board from the South region.  Huntingdon also has a game with 1-loss Adrian who could sneak into a regional ranking so keep an eye on that as well.

Heidelberg has a tough road to get to 9-1.   They have 6-2 John Carroll this week and then Baldwin Wallace to finish the season.   If they make it to 9-1, they'll be well prepared for their first ever playoff game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 28, 2012, 07:26:44 PM
FYI, just saw a tweet from the NCAC that 'it's the same tiebreakers as always'. I think Wally worked out on the NCAC board that Witt would win a three way knot and I guessed that it would win the AQ on a four way tie.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wabndy on October 28, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Are pool A bids seeded higher than pool C? Namely, if Wabash gets a pool C and Witt gets the AQ, would Witt probably get the higher seed? Pat- didn't someone on the committee tell you last year or the year before that they "never" released seedings?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2012, 09:27:46 PM
Quote from: wabndy on October 28, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Are pool A bids seeded higher than pool C? Namely, if Wabash gets a pool C and Witt gets the AQ, would Witt probably get the higher seed? Pat- didn't someone on the committee tell you last year or the year before that they "never" released seedings?

Pool A Wittenberg (10-0) got shipped off to Pool C ONU (9-1) a couple of years ago, so I don't think that's an absolute.  In this hypothetical, my guess is that there is essentially zero chance that Wabash would be seeded lower than Wittenberg.  As long as Wabash and Witt have the same record, and knowing Wabash beat Witt h2h, there just isn't a logical reason to seed Witt higher...and that's before we break down the other criteria, which strongly favor Wabash as well. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 28, 2012, 09:58:18 PM
Quote from: wabndy on October 28, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Are pool A bids seeded higher than pool C? Namely, if Wabash gets a pool C and Witt gets the AQ, would Witt probably get the higher seed? Pat- didn't someone on the committee tell you last year or the year before that they "never" released seedings?

Yes, someone told me that. It was laughable and I provided evidence that this person's predecessor released seedings to us directly.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wesleydad on October 28, 2012, 11:20:17 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 28, 2012, 11:17:01 AM
HSU has lost to Linfield, Willamette, UMHB - three very good D3 teams!

thanks ron for the correction.  that is one tough schedule, mirrors wesley's.  shame as they seem to be a rather strong team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Toby Taff on October 29, 2012, 12:37:49 AM
Quote from: wesleydad on October 28, 2012, 11:20:17 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 28, 2012, 11:17:01 AM
HSU has lost to Linfield, Willamette, UMHB - three very good D3 teams!

thanks ron for the correction.  that is one tough schedule, mirrors wesley's.  shame as they seem to be a rather strong team.
Stronger now than at the beginning of the year. Talking to one of the coaches today I found out that HSUs QB didn't transfer until 2 a days. If he had been with the team a little sooner they might have been a force
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2012, 11:57:45 AM
Current SOS rankings for the one loss "C" candidates:

Wabash -13
Wittenberg - 116
Ohio Wesleyan - 89
Elmhurst - 56
Heidelberg -208
Baldwin Wallace - 201
Rowan -93
Bethel -22
Concordia - Moorhead - 30
Illinois College -219

Others:
Pacific Lutheran - 9
Huntingdon - 12
Louisiana College - 49
Willamette - 4
Lycoming - 31
St. John Fisher - 46
UW - Platteville - 52
Centre - 115
Millsaps - 74
Kean - 131
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wabndy on October 29, 2012, 01:25:52 PM
OK - next pool C question.  This only applies to the first set of regional rankings.  As we know, the primary criteria includes "In-region results versus regionally ranked teams" and secondary criteria includes "Results versus all Division III ranked teams."

I understand the "once a ranked team, always a ranked team" thing.  For this first round of rankings, how does the committee get past the chicken and the egg problem?  Do they come up with a provisional list of rankings and then adjust based on results against regionally ranked opponents?  For the secondary criteria - does each regional committee share its draft rankings to the other regional committees?  Or are these particular criteria not given as much weight in the first round of regional rankings.  Wouldn't this chicken and egg problem still potentially affect round two or pre-selection rankings for teams who move into the regional rankings after the first set is released?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2012, 03:27:53 PM
Heh -- you have hit on one of the great conundrums and I am not sure we have an answer for it. I believe the regional rankings are shared across at the level of the national committee call but I am not sure any adjustment of those rankings goes on any longer. I think that part is definitely reactive, as in a week behind, from the first call.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on October 29, 2012, 08:22:17 PM
East undefeated teams: Hobart & Widener
West undefeated teams: UW-O, Linfield, UST, & Coe
South undefeated teams: UMHB, Johns Hopkins, & Waynesburg
North undefeated teams: MUC & Concordia-Chicago

East one loss teams: Cortland State, Mount Ida, Framingham State, Bridgewater State, Rowan, & Salve Regina
West one loss teams:  Bethel, Cal Lutheran, Lake Forest, Northwestern (Minn.), & Concordia-Moorhead
South one loss teams: Wesley
North one loss teams: North Central (Ill.), Elmhurst,  Adrian, Wabash, Wittenberg, Baldwin Wallace, Franklin, Ohio Wesleyan, and Heidelberg


East two loss teams:  SJF, RPI, Utica, Castleton State, Norwich, Delaware Valley, Lycoming, Albright, Endicott, and Salisbury
West two loss teams: St. Norbert, Carroll, Pacific Lutheran, Whitworth, Chapman, St. Scholastica, St. Olaf, and Willamette
South two loss teams: Louisiana College, Gettysburg, Muhlenberg, H-SC, W&L, Bridgewater (Va.), W&J, Centre, & Ferrum, F&M, Huntingdon, Millsaps
North two loss teams: Wheaton, Hanover, Albion, Wisconsin Lutheran, John Carroll, Otterbein, Greenville, and Illinois Wesleyan

Notables with more than two losses: CNU, Redlands, Kenyon, Concordia (Wis.), Trine, Union (N.Y.) & Hardin-Simmons.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 29, 2012, 08:38:54 PM
Sheesh - UWW can't even make your 'notables with more than two losses'?!!

How soon they forget the three-time repeat champ! 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
I assume that he's only including teams with a chance to make the playoffs in that "notables with more than two losses" - I didn't check all of them but I assume all are still alive for their conference's Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 29, 2012, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
I assume that he's only including teams with a chance to make the playoffs in that "notables with more than two losses" - I didn't check all of them but I assume all are still alive for their conference's Pool A.

That would be my guess as well, but he didn't SAY that! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
How about Kenyon being a notable but UWW isn't ??? And they have the same record... everyone who predicted that before the season, can now be released from the asylum.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2012, 09:21:51 PM
The coaches picked Kenyon to finish last in the NCAC. Yes, behind Hiram.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2012, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
How about Kenyon being a notable but UWW isn't ??? And they have the same record... everyone who predicted that before the season, can now be released from the asylum.
Sign of the end times...

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2012, 09:33:59 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2012, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
How about Kenyon being a notable but UWW isn't ??? And they have the same record... everyone who predicted that before the season, can now be released from the asylum.
Sign of the end times...

At least we're maintaining the purple quota up in here. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 30, 2012, 01:51:57 AM
Quote from: wabndy on October 28, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Are pool A bids seeded higher than pool C? Namely, if Wabash gets a pool C and Witt gets the AQ, would Witt probably get the higher seed? Pat- didn't someone on the committee tell you last year or the year before that they "never" released seedings?

Two separate issues. Once the 32 teams are selected, they are seeded accordingly no matter how they got in. So just because Witt might beat Bash in AQ tiebreaker scenarios SET BY THE CONFERENCES does not mean they will grade about better on the selection/seeding criteria USED BY THE COMMITTEE.

And to be clear, I have updated my position (and those of you who heard the podcast know) and it goes along with many of the posts I have read here: I think Witt is in line for the NCAC Pool A, but I think Wabash should be fine getting in via Pool C.

However, we shall see.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 30, 2012, 02:09:06 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2012, 11:57:45 AM
Current SOS rankings for the one loss "C" candidates:

Wabash -13
Wittenberg - 116
Ohio Wesleyan - 89
Elmhurst - 56
Heidelberg -208
Baldwin Wallace - 201
Rowan -93
Bethel -22
Concordia - Moorhead - 30
Illinois College -219

Others:
Pacific Lutheran - 9
Huntingdon - 12
Louisiana College - 49
Willamette - 4
Lycoming - 31
St. John Fisher - 46
UW - Platteville - 52
Centre - 115
Millsaps - 74
Kean - 131

Wabash, Bethel and Elmhurst are in easy, it looks like, at 9-1. Which would be right IMO.

What could get really hairy is if six one-loss teams get in, and then a seventh spot goes to a single two-loss team. There are four teams with an SoS in or around the top 50, and will have 1-2 losses to RROs, and maybe all have zero wins vs. RROs.

It could come down to which teams did and didn't make it to the board to discuss for the 7th spot, and that would give the Eastern and Southern teams (perhaps) an advantage because they'll be on the board to begin with, given the lack of one-loss Pool C candidates to discuss from those regions.

Could make for a great discussion/recreation. Or a bunch of teams could play their way out and make most of this moot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
While we wait for our regional top ten lists, it's a good time to examine Pool A I think.  This is what I see is going on...I'm almost certain to be wrong somewhere, so please correct me. 

ASC - UMHB needs one win in their last two to clinch this bid.  Probability: Certain. 
CC - Hopkins needs one win either this week against F&M or next week against winless McDaniel to clinch this bid. 
CCIW - North Central has a deathgrip on this thing.  Wheaton has to not only beat NCC, but they have to beat them by a lot for North Central to not win this bid. 
ECFC - Mount Ida and Castleton State will play for this bid on 11/10
E8 - Despite the loss to Ithaca, Salisbury can wrap this up with a win this Saturday against Utica.  If Utica wins, well, we'll just deal with that next week. 
HCAC - Hanover and Franklin will play for this bid, and their bell, on 11/10. 
IIAC - Coe has clinched a league title, but not a bid yet.  One more win by the Kohawks clinches a bid.  Or a Central loss against Wartburg on Saturday. 
LL - Hobart will wrap this up with one more win; they play winless St. Lawrence on Saturday. 
MAC - Widener clinches with two more wins or one win and a Del Val loss.  If Del Val beats Widener on 11/10, it may be a three way tie in the MAC. 
MWC - Lake Forest can clinch with a St. Norbert loss to Grinnell on Saturday or a win over St. Norbert on 11/10.  St. Norbert can force a three way tie by winning out which will apparently come down to the number of quarters led (INSANE).  (h/t to TitanPride for being on top of that)
MIAA - Adrian clinches with a win over Albion on Saturday.  If Albion wins, another potential three way tie. 
MIAC - St. Thomas clinches with a win against Concordia-Moorhead on Saturday.  A Cobbers win throws this into a three way tie and probably creates three playoff teams from this league. 
NEFC - Championship game between Framingham State and Salve Regina next Saturday. 
NJAC - Cortland State has clinched.  
NCAC - Super messy.  Possible four way tie exists here.  Most of the tiebreak scenarios appear to favor Wittenberg as the league's auto bid.  If Kenyon loses one of their last two, the tiebreak pendulum swings in favor of Wabash.  Tiebreak scenarios do NOT favor Kenyon or Ohio Wesleyan, so it looks like this will come down to the big red W's in the NCAC.  Stay tuned. 
NathCon - Concordia-Chicago clinches with one more win (they have 2-6 Lakeland and winless Maranatha Baptist left)
NWC - Linfield clinches with one more win (winless Puget Sound is next up)
OAC - Mount Union clinches with a victory over B-W.  A Baldwin-Wallace win sets the Jackets up...ah nevermind. 
ODAC - W&L and Hampden-Sydney are playing what looks like a de facto championship game on Saturday.  The winner may also need to win in week 11 to make sure.  ODAC's kind of messy at the moment. 
PAC - Waynesburg can clinch on their bye week with a W&J loss on Saturday.  If the Prez win, we get a winner take all game on 11/10 between Waynesburg and W&J. 
SCIAC - Cal Lutheran clinches with a Chapman loss or a pair of wins.  Chapman over Cal Lutheran on 11/10 could force a three way tie. 
UMAC - Championship game between Northwestern and Greenville on Saturday
USAC - Christopher Newport is in charge and clinches if they win out.
WIAC - UW-Oshkosh has clinched.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: dahlby on October 30, 2012, 11:03:34 AM
Wally:
Redlands could still garner the SCIAC auto-bid if  they win out and Cal Lu drops a game, which is doubtful, but they play the game for a reason. I believe the SCIAC has the "Rose Bowl" rule.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: TitanPride on October 30, 2012, 11:17:58 AM
Wally -- Love your work.  Thanks for doing this. 

You did leave out the MWC (I think that's the only Pool A bid that you are missing).  Lake Forest (8-0 in conf.) is in the driver's seat.  They are off this week but can clinch a bid with a St. Norbert loss to Grinnell this Saturday or by beating St. Norbert on 11/10 in De Pere. 

Should St. Norbert beat both Grinnell and Lake Forest (coupled with an Illinois College loss to Cornell or Carroll), St. Norbert would get the Pool A bid.  A 3 way tiebreaker based on quarters led during conference play would come into play if both St. Norbert and Illinois College win out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on October 30, 2012, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
While we wait for our regional top ten lists, it's a good time to examine Pool A I think.  This is what I see is going on...I'm almost certain to be wrong somewhere, so please correct me. 

ASC - UMHB needs one win in their last two to clinch this bid.  Probability: Certain. 
CC - Hopkins needs one win either this week against F&M or next week against winless McDaniel to clinch this bid. 
CCIW - North Central has a deathgrip on this thing.  Wheaton has to not only beat NCC, but they have to beat them by a lot for North Central to not win this bid. 
ECFC - Mount Ida and Castleton State will play for this bid on 11/10
E8 - Despite the loss to Ithaca, Salisbury can wrap this up with a win this Saturday against Utica.  If Utica wins, well, we'll just deal with that next week. 
HCAC - Hanover and Franklin will play for this bid, and their bell, on 11/10. 
IIAC - Coe has clinched a league title, but not a bid yet.  One more win by the Kohawks clinches a bid.  Or a Central loss against Wartburg on Saturday. 
LL - Hobart will wrap this up with one more win; they play winless St. Lawrence on Saturday. 
MAC - Widener clinches with two more wins or one win and a Del Val loss.  If Del Val beats Widener on 11/10, it may be a three way tie in the MAC. 
MIAA - Adrian clinches with a win over Albion on Saturday.  If Albion wins, another potential three way tie. 
MIAC - St. Thomas clinches with a win against Concordia-Moorhead on Saturday.  A Cobbers win throws this into a three way tie and probably creates three playoff teams from this league. 
NEFC - Championship game between Framingham State and Salve Regina next Saturday. 
NJAC - Cortland State has clinched.  
NCAC - Super messy.  Possible four way tie exists here.  Most of the tiebreak scenarios appear to favor Wittenberg as the league's auto bid.  If Kenyon loses one of their last two, the tiebreak pendulum swings in favor of Wabash.  Tiebreak scenarios do NOT favor Kenyon or Ohio Wesleyan, so it looks like this will come down to the big red W's in the NCAC.  Stay tuned. 
NathCon - Concordia-Chicago clinches with one more win (they have 2-6 Lakeland and winless Maranatha Baptist left)
NWC - Linfield clinches with one more win (winless Puget Sound is next up)
OAC - Mount Union clinches with a victory over B-W.  A Baldwin-Wallace win sets the Jackets up...ah nevermind. 
ODAC - W&L and Hampden-Sydney are playing what looks like a de facto championship game on Saturday.  The winner may also need to win in week 11 to make sure.  ODAC's kind of messy at the moment. 
PAC - Waynesburg can clinch on their bye week with a W&J loss on Saturday.  If the Prez win, we get a winner take all game on 11/10 between Waynesburg and W&J. 
SCIAC - Cal Lutheran clinches with a Chapman loss or a pair of wins.  Chapman over Cal Lutheran on 11/10 could force a three way tie. 
UMAC - Championship game between Northwestern and Greenville on Saturday
USAC - Christopher Newport is in charge and clinches if they win out.
WIAC - UW-Oshkosh has clinched.

This is why I love Division III Football, you never know until the last weekend and the last play of week 11. These next couple of weeks are going to be very very interesting. Good Job on the breakdown. +K
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 30, 2012, 11:21:47 AM
Quote from: dahlby on October 30, 2012, 11:03:34 AM
Wally:
Redlands could still garner the SCIAC auto-bid if  they win out and Cal Lu drops a game, which is doubtful, but they play the game for a reason. I believe the SCIAC has the "Rose Bowl" rule.
I don't think this is quite correct--the Rose Bowl Rule would only come into effect if there was a 3 way tie that could not be broken by several other criteria.  In the scenario you present, it's a two way tie with CalLu and Redlands both having one loss.  Cal Lu would have the head to head advantage and would therefore take the autobid.  Of course--if the one loss for CLU was to Chapman then you'd have that 3 way tie between Cal Lu/Redlands/Chapman---but then I would think the Rosebowl Rule would actually give Chapman the autobid....and actually I don't think the rosebowl rule would come into play because Chapman would have the the better overall record than Redlands (and the head to head vs. Cal Lu) which would give them the bid before the rosebowl rule is considered (I'm not 100% sure on the order of criteria for the SCIAC but this is what would happen if they use the same rules as the NWC).  This actually probably looks pretty good to you Dahlby, no?  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on October 30, 2012, 11:38:00 AM
The UMAC will pick a name out of a hat if Greenville beats Northwestern and Scholastica beats UM-Morris.

Also, assuming Concordia-Moorhead loses to St. Thomas what are their pool C chances?  Their already high SOS will get a boost from playing 10-0 St. Thomas and maybe Augsburg might sneak into the regional rankings at 7-3 giving them a regionally ranked win.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AM
An 8-2 Concordia-Moorhead would probably get onto the table but I don't know if we can assume we're going to get multiple two-loss teams in the field. Pacific Lutheran would probably be ahead of them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on October 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AM
An 8-2 Concordia-Moorhead would probably get onto the table but I don't know if we can assume we're going to get multiple two-loss teams in the field. Pacific Lutheran would probably be ahead of them.
Would Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 12:12:27 PM
I don't know -- they would be behind Willamette, though, and that would be an interesting NWC triangle.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 12:57:59 PM
It seems that if all goes right (or wrong) several conferences will have 'triangles' this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
MWC - Lake Forest can clinch with a St. Norbert loss to Grinnell on Saturday or a win over St. Norbert on 11/10.  St. Norbert can force a three way tie by winning out which will apparently come down to the number of quarters led (INSANE).

Gotta admit that I've never heard of this tiebreaker, but I really like it, although perhaps someone else will point out an obvious flaw that I've missed.  Allows some measure of "control of a game" but takes raw margin of victory out of the equation (i.e. removes any incentive to run up the score, plus the wacky OT-finish scenario from the ASC where a team lost the tiebreaker because they didn't kick a PAT after winning a game 20-14 in overtime).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AM
An 8-2 Concordia-Moorhead would probably get onto the table but I don't know if we can assume we're going to get multiple two-loss teams in the field. Pacific Lutheran would probably be ahead of them.
Would Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?

My feeling is that Whitworth would move ahead of the Cobbers if they beat PLU on Saturday, assuming PLU gets ranked tomorrow.  Both schools will have hefty SOS's, but Whitworth will have a RRO win.  Advantage Whitworth there. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 30, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AM
An 8-2 Concordia-Moorhead would probably get onto the table but I don't know if we can assume we're going to get multiple two-loss teams in the field. Pacific Lutheran would probably be ahead of them.
Would Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?

My feeling is that Whitworth would move ahead of the Cobbers if they beat PLU on Saturday, assuming PLU gets ranked tomorrow.  Both schools will have hefty SOS's, but Whitworth will have a RRO win.  Advantage Whitworth there.
But then Willamette would also have an RRO win (over Whitworth), the head-to-head win, and the same regional record as the Pirates.  I'd say a three-way tie for runner-up in the NWC probably keeps any of the three out of the playoffs (PLU for sure with their third loss).  Willamette would be at the top of the heap, though, over Whitworth.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 30, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AM
An 8-2 Concordia-Moorhead would probably get onto the table but I don't know if we can assume we're going to get multiple two-loss teams in the field. Pacific Lutheran would probably be ahead of them.
Would Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?

My feeling is that Whitworth would move ahead of the Cobbers if they beat PLU on Saturday, assuming PLU gets ranked tomorrow.  Both schools will have hefty SOS's, but Whitworth will have a RRO win.  Advantage Whitworth there.
But then Willamette would also have an RRO win (over Whitworth), the head-to-head win, and the same regional record as the Pirates.  I'd say a three-way tie for runner-up in the NWC probably keeps any of the three out of the playoffs (PLU for sure with their third loss).  Willamette would be at the top of the heap, though, over Whitworth.

Yes, a third loss for PLU takes them out for sure.  I think the pecking order in the West would be: Bethel, Willamette, Whitworth, Concorida-Moorhead if your scenario plays out (PLU loses to Whitworth and St. Thomas beats Concordia-Moorhead). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on October 30, 2012, 02:09:57 PM
To sum up: make sure the teams you beat schedule their toughest games for last so that they can be regionally ranked prior to losing to you or another team.  Augsburg at the end of the season may be stronger than Pacific Lutheran, but since Augsburg lost earlier in the season and wasn't regionally ranked, the Cobbers stay home.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 30, 2012, 02:13:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Yes, a third loss for PLU takes them out for sure.  I think the pecking order in the West would be: Bethel, Willamette, Whitworth, Concorida-Moorhead if your scenario plays out (PLU loses to Whitworth and St. Thomas beats Concordia-Moorhead).

Actually, 'my' scenario is that the Lutes win big and get some help with other Pool C teams losing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 30, 2012, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 02:09:57 PM
To sum up: make sure the teams you beat schedule their toughest games for last so that they can be regionally ranked prior to losing to you or another team.  Augsburg at the end of the season may be stronger than Pacific Lutheran, but since Augsburg lost earlier in the season and wasn't regionally ranked, the Cobbers stay home.

...or (to the Cobbers) beat St. Thomas and/or stay off the field until the game is over at Bethel.  Otherwise you are suggesting a third-place team deserves one of only 7 at large bids?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 02:09:57 PM
To sum up: make sure the teams you beat schedule their toughest games for last so that they can be regionally ranked prior to losing to you or another team.  Augsburg at the end of the season may be stronger than Pacific Lutheran, but since Augsburg lost earlier in the season and wasn't regionally ranked, the Cobbers stay home.

There's no doubt that there is some serendipity involved with the timing of games and the regional rankings.  The only way to circumvent that issue would be to remove the "once ranked, always ranked" clause.

Quote from: d-train on October 30, 2012, 02:13:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Yes, a third loss for PLU takes them out for sure.  I think the pecking order in the West would be: Bethel, Willamette, Whitworth, Concorida-Moorhead if your scenario plays out (PLU loses to Whitworth and St. Thomas beats Concordia-Moorhead).

Actually, 'my' scenario is that the Lutes win big and get some help with other Pool C teams losing.

My bad!  If I'm picking seven teams right now, PLU is leaning "in" for me right now, but some help would, hmm, help.  Maybe Kean over Rowan, JCU over Heidelberg, Allegheny over Ohio Wesleyan....plus you want Pool A to remain undisturbed.  St. Thomas, Widener, or Waynesburg losing here at the end here is bad.  Kenyon losing and getting Wabash out of Pool C is also good for PLU.  Win on Saturday though...first things first.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 30, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
Yup - win Saturday and then I'll take a peek at how other Pool C folks fared and what Week 11 looks like. The Lutes actually have a pretty tough roadie themselves that final week (at NAIA's Menlo College).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 03:28:48 PM
Of course, most teams have little control over their conference schedules unless they have a major rivalry game that has been played as the final game of the year since, well, forever.

The once-ranked always-ranked is pretty weak sauce on many levels. The rankings are late enough that you can exclude good teams that lost early. Unless they do top-secret RR's but then you could rank someone early on and then their season could just go totally south on them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 04:23:32 PM
Bad news for some:

Someone on the NCAC board followed up with the NCAC: H2H is not a factor in a Wabash / Witt / OWU three way tie since Witt and OWU didn't play each other. So if Wally's calculus is right (I'm sure it is) - Witt will be the "A" and Wabash and OWU would be cast into "C" land with 9-1 records (if they win out).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 04:32:38 PM
Our conference full of PBKs can't break a three way tie between 1-loss A, B, and C when A beat both B and C.  I'm embarassed by this, you guys.  Seriously. 

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredbarronradio.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2F101001_mariners_fan.jpg&hash=65d56184e2c13415274a1f1f3386f75a956302b6)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
A bombshell: Baldwin-Wallace has self-reported violations to the NCAA, and removed all athletic teams from postseason consideration for 2012-13!  Assuming they lose Saturday to UMU, they were at best a long shot for a pool C, but they otherwise almost certainly would be regionally ranked tomorrow.  I wonder if the regional ranking committee will note this and not include them?  It could mean the difference in a RRO opponent for anyone who played them, and anyone who played whoever now places 10th (or would have placed 10th if they still get ranked).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 30, 2012, 06:36:11 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
A bombshell: Baldwin-Wallace has self-reported violations to the NCAA, and removed all athletic teams from postseason consideration for 2012-13!  Assuming they lose Saturday to UMU, they were at best a long shot for a pool C, but they otherwise almost certainly would be regionally ranked tomorrow.  I wonder if the regional ranking committee will note this and not include them?  It could mean the difference in a RRO opponent for anyone who played them, and anyone who played whoever now places 10th (or would have placed 10th if they still get ranked).


Ypsi,  you are always looking ahead. 8-)

Go Cats
Go Big D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
A bombshell: Baldwin-Wallace has self-reported violations to the NCAA, and removed all athletic teams from postseason consideration for 2012-13!  Assuming they lose Saturday to UMU, they were at best a long shot for a pool C, but they otherwise almost certainly would be regionally ranked tomorrow.  I wonder if the regional ranking committee will note this and not include them?  It could mean the difference in a RRO opponent for anyone who played them, and anyone who played whoever now places 10th (or would have placed 10th if they still get ranked).

I think the only way they would have affected "C" would be if they beat Heidelberg, really. Otterbein would be ahead of them in the RR's IMHO.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
A bombshell: Baldwin-Wallace has self-reported violations to the NCAA, and removed all athletic teams from postseason consideration for 2012-13!  Assuming they lose Saturday to UMU, they were at best a long shot for a pool C, but they otherwise almost certainly would be regionally ranked tomorrow.  I wonder if the regional ranking committee will note this and not include them?  It could mean the difference in a RRO opponent for anyone who played them, and anyone who played whoever now places 10th (or would have placed 10th if they still get ranked).

I think the only way they would have affected "C" would be if they beat Heidelberg, really. Otterbein would be ahead of them in the RR's IMHO.

Like I said, I doubt THEY would have been a viable C candidate, but whether or not they are regionally ranked affects everyone they played AND everyone who played whoever would have been #10 if they are or aren't.  Whether or not they are ranked tomorrow COULD affect pool C selection, and certainly could affect seeding.

And if they somehow beat UMU ... WOW!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 07:14:36 PM
See, I never thought they'd be RR'd. Should have added that. Sloppy.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 07:25:33 PM
At 7-1, despite an SoS at #201, I assumed they'd be a slam-dunk (to mix my sports metaphors ;)).  But I haven't researched it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 07:27:56 PM
Ack, maybe I was already projecting the Mt. Union game. But they may be 11th anyway...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 09:44:47 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
A bombshell: Baldwin-Wallace has self-reported violations to the NCAA, and removed all athletic teams from postseason consideration for 2012-13!  Assuming they lose Saturday to UMU, they were at best a long shot for a pool C, but they otherwise almost certainly would be regionally ranked tomorrow.  I wonder if the regional ranking committee will note this and not include them?  It could mean the difference in a RRO opponent for anyone who played them, and anyone who played whoever now places 10th (or would have placed 10th if they still get ranked).

I think the only way they would have affected "C" would be if they beat Heidelberg, really. Otterbein would be ahead of them in the RR's IMHO.

Like I said, I doubt THEY would have been a viable C candidate, but whether or not they are regionally ranked affects everyone they played AND everyone who played whoever would have been #10 if they are or aren't.  Whether or not they are ranked tomorrow COULD affect pool C selection, and certainly could affect seeding.

And if they somehow beat UMU ... WOW!

My feeling on this is that they ought to still be ranked.  Ranked isn't selected and they aren't being punished by the NCAA (right now)...this is a self-imposed postseason ban. 

We have these rankings, in part, to help establish who played quality opponents.  The violations don't impact the quality of Baldwin-Wallace's football team, nor should it impact teams that have played Baldwin-Wallace.  Right now, the only team potentially impacted by Baldwin-Wallace not being ranked because of this (if that's what they choose to do) is Heidelberg.  Mount Union is going to be a top seed no matter what their SOS is or how many RR'd teams they played.  Heidelberg's selection chances and/or seeding probably would be impacted. 

Teams on the fringe of the North region rankings like say, oh I don't know, Adrian that could get in if B-W is disqualified from the rankings could have impact elsewhere as Huntingdon, who could desperately use a win over a RR'd team, plays Adrian in week 11. 

It's a shame that these student-athletes, all of them at B-W, get punished for somebody else's mistake.  These kids didn't do a thing wrong. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 10:35:02 AM
Today's the day!  My refresh button is going to hate me by the end of this day. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 10:35:02 AM
Today's the day!  My refresh button is going to hate me by the end of this day.

TRICK or treat. :)

trick for some , treat for others. ;D

Go
cats
Go big D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2012, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 10:35:02 AM
Today's the day!  My refresh button is going to hate me by the end of this day.
I will try to show some discipline and refrain from hitting it too frequently until after 5pm EDT.    :-\

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 31, 2012, 01:17:21 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 09:44:47 PM
It's a shame that these student-athletes, all of them at B-W, get punished for somebody else's mistake.  These kids didn't do a thing wrong.

I agree, and this sentiment can be extended to most, if not all, of the major college football scandals as well (USC, Penn State, and so forth).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 01:31:06 PM
They are out (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional_rankings).  Working on a projection right now...should have it ready shortly. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 01:55:32 PM
nice scoop wally  8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
Ok, here it goes.  First projection with published regional rankings...and some teams caught breaks here, some teams didn't.  More on that in a minute.  First, Pool A...changes from last week in bold, clinched bids in italics:


   League   
  Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Mount Ida   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Cortland State   
   NCAC   
   Wittenberg   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   Northwestern   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW-Oshkosh   

The NCAC tiebreak, for right now as I think I understand it, favors Wittenberg.  So they are projected in here.  That's the only real change from last week.  Cortland State and Oshkosh clinched their bids on Saturday. 

Pool B: Pool B was decided when Wesley defeated Huntingdon on Saturday.  Wesley's D3 résumé is now complete and there is no way that they will be surpassed by anybody for this bid.  Congrats, Wolverines. 

Pool C: Ok, I'm not excluding Concordia-Moorhead this week.  Here are the selections, in order of choice:

Wabash (7-1, 0.607 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)
Bethel (7-1, 0.658 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Concordia-Moorhead (7-1, .577 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Heidelberg (7-1, 0.430 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)

...which leaves PLU, Lycoming, and Louisiana College on the table when the pickin' is done. 

A couple of things to note here about Pool C. Huntingdon caught a huge break with Hampden-Sydney and Adrian being ranked this week.  Both could lose games on Saturday and disappear...but it matters not.  Huntingdon gets those results now and that's what is keeping them in front of LC in the South.  Not that LC didn't get thrown a bone here either because they did with Hardin-Simmons getting ranked.  Win that and LC becomes very attractive.  If any of those 2-loss teams left after the Heidelberg choice had a RRO win, I would have selected them instead.  PLU kind of got the short end of the stick here with Willamette and Whitworth both absent from these rankings. 

One thing that I'm doing here is really valuing quality wins.  If you've shown me that you can actually beat a quality team (as sort-of arbitrarily defined by these rankings), then you get a lot of traction with me.  Every team out here in Pool C and the Pool C bubble has proven that they can lose a game (or two)...they wouldn't be here if they didn't.  I think one of the biggest things that should separate those teams is whether or not they've proven that they can WIN games against good teams.  That's my subjective slant on this. 

So there it is for consumption.  Enjoy!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro (#3 linfield ,  # 8 CLU) and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Loss to RRO is not a criteria for selection my friend--as they say every year--it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat.  Oh it also has to do with how teams are selected--They are not all thrown in one pot based on the criteria but each Region brings their first team in and if that team is taken then the next team gets selected vs. other teams on the other regions list (or something like that).  I think PLU could still get in (if everything stayed the same as it is right now), but they could certainly use some help.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2012, 02:37:44 PM
Right -- losing to an RRO is better than not playing one at all (hence all those teams ranked ahead of Coe) but it's not better than beating one. Plus, not all RROs are the same and it's important to note that. Losing to No. 1 in a region is better than losing to No. 8.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: CalLuforLife on October 31, 2012, 02:39:03 PM
Thanks for doing that, Wally. Informative stuff...but I hope you're wrong about PLU  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 02:39:22 PM
Clearly PLU needs the Tommies to soundly defeat Concordia-Moorhead so they have a chance to get to the table right after Bethel is selected.  It wouldn't hurt if one or two of the other teams listed picked put another loss (like Rowan or Heidelberg).  Would also help if the Bearcats sneak in at #10 next week (or week 11?).  The Lutes do have that strong SOS, which won't drop this week by playing Whitworth.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:41:07 PM
I know there are a two week of football left before this all officially matters but are we looking (based on Wally's predictions) at flying a team to Oregon and to Texas? 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro (#3 linfield ,  # 8 CLU) and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   

Generally speaking, the selection commitees have valued not losing in front of losing twice, even if those losses are to RROs.  Hence my selections of Huntingdon (two losses, but did beat a RRO), Elmhurst (not two losses), Rowan (not two losses), and Heidelberg (not two losses) in front of PLU.  Right now, you could defnitely make a pretty solid case for PLU instead of Heidelberg because the SOS difference is so huge...but you could make a better case if PLU had a win over a RRO.  I know the criteria doesn't specify "wins" against RROs but rather "results" against RROs, but are PLU's losses to Linfield and Cal Lutheran any better or worse than Heidelberg's loss to Mount Union?  I don't think we can really judge that. 

As I noted, PLU probalby more than anybody got the short end of the deal with today's rankings.  No Willamette.  No Whitworth.  If either of those are ranked today, I'd probably project PLU in and not Heidelberg. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
MWC - Lake Forest can clinch with a St. Norbert loss to Grinnell on Saturday or a win over St. Norbert on 11/10.  St. Norbert can force a three way tie by winning out which will apparently come down to the number of quarters led (INSANE).

Gotta admit that I've never heard of this tiebreaker, but I really like it, although perhaps someone else will point out an obvious flaw that I've missed.  Allows some measure of "control of a game" but takes raw margin of victory out of the equation (i.e. removes any incentive to run up the score, plus the wacky OT-finish scenario from the ASC where a team lost the tiebreaker because they didn't kick a PAT after winning a game 20-14 in overtime).

I like it as well, and agree that it's barely used. It is weird because we're so used to absolutes and leading at the end of a quarter is something nobody thinks about midseason. I mean imagine if a team waited for a quarter to end so it didn't have to kick a field goal into the wind or something ... Yet I think it is a fair measure of how well a team has played, in case it lost on a fluke at the end or something.

Anyway ...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 02:49:44 PM
If Wally doesn't scoop me on this -- actually, probably even if he does -- I'll take today's regional rankings and go around the board, taking the Pool A likliehoods into account, and determine who would be discussed when and who would get in in Pool C for ATN.

Pat also promised a playoff analysis at some point in the week, so I'll try not to duplicate that. That would include a projection of seeds and matchups, and who's at home ... not just who is in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 31, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
I'm a bit surprised Huntingdon comes off as quickly as they do here. Heidelberg's SOS should improve after the next two weeks so they may go off the board earlier but they're still behind Wabash and Elmhurst.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
As I noted, PLU probalby more than anybody got the short end of the deal with today's rankings.  No Willamette.  No Whitworth.  If either of those are ranked today, I'd probably project PLU in and not Heidelberg.
Winning @ Redlands was also pretty solid for the Lutes...but they won't be ranked this year.  Hopefully Willamette sneaks in the West rankings with another win.  And of course, some things are bound to change with this weekend's results (out of Moorhead for example).

Thanks for the analysis, wally.  Forgive me if I hope you're wrong.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
Thoughts on Baldwin Wallace not being ranked?  Is this because of their financial aid violations or do we think they really just didn't rank above those 10 teams?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
I know the criteria doesn't specify "wins" against RROs but rather "results" against RROs, but are PLU's losses to Linfield and Cal Lutheran any better or worse than Heidelberg's loss to Mount Union?  I don't think we can really judge that.

PLU did lead in both their losses, and the final tally vs. Linfield was only -7.  Not sure that helps...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on October 31, 2012, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
Thoughts on Baldwin Wallace not being ranked?  Is this because of their financial aid violations or do we think they really just didn't rank above those 10 teams?

It may have, though their SOS isn't that great either and they lost to Otterbein, whilst Heidelberg has only lost to Mt. Union.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on October 31, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
Yeah but just like PLU, LC led both #2 UMHB and #5 Wesley- only lost to Wesley by 3. Plus got a huge boost with Hardin-Simmons being ranked 10th. This one folks, is going to come down to the week 11. Got to love it! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 03:14:26 PM
Yeah--still some big games for the potential Pool C teams.  Nearly all of those teams have at least one tough game left.  I think Wabash has the easiester road left (of Wally's pool C projections).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:15:58 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Loss to RRO is not a criteria for selection my friend--as they say every year--it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat.  Oh it also has to do with how teams are selected--They are not all thrown in one pot based on the criteria but each Region brings their first team in and if that team is taken then the next team gets selected vs. other teams on the other regions list (or something like that).  I think PLU could still get in (if everything stayed the same as it is right now), but they could certainly use some help.....

Mcat  it says "results..  which if i read it right?  means,  like the little guru says,  it is bette to play and lose than not to have ever played  at all ?  RRO,  + for PLU.. I still like PLU over the last three in the C group as of now.  They should kill the rats too. ++ this week .
Plus it will save a flight too.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:17:42 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
I know the criteria doesn't specify "wins" against RROs but rather "results" against RROs, but are PLU's losses to Linfield and Cal Lutheran any better or worse than Heidelberg's loss to Mount Union?  I don't think we can really judge that.

PLU did lead in both their losses, and the final tally vs. Linfield was only -7.  Not sure that helps...

Hey ccowbells,  it does in my book ..  Good luck if we get to dance again i want a nice slow willie song.  :-*
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on October 31, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
Yeah but just like PLU, LC led both #2 UMHB and #5 Wesley- only lost to Wesley by 3. Plus got a huge boost with Hardin-Simmons being ranked 10th. This one folks, is going to come down to the week 11. Got to love it! ;D

Yeah, that's a tough break for us.  The greater depth in the West keeps PLU's victory over Willamette from counting as a RRO.  I think most would agree that Willamette deserves to be ranked more than Hardin-Simmons does, right?  (Plus, you may have scored the first 3 vs. UMHB - but a 27 point loss isn't too hot.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:15:58 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Loss to RRO is not a criteria for selection my friend--as they say every year--it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat.  Oh it also has to do with how teams are selected--They are not all thrown in one pot based on the criteria but each Region brings their first team in and if that team is taken then the next team gets selected vs. other teams on the other regions list (or something like that).  I think PLU could still get in (if everything stayed the same as it is right now), but they could certainly use some help.....

Mcat  it says "results..  which if i read it right?  means,  like the little guru says,  it is bette to play and lose than not to have ever played  at all ?  RRO,  + for PLU.. I still like PLU over the last three in the C group as of now.  They should kill the rats too. ++ this week .
Plus it will save a flight too.
Yeah--you are right, it does say "results" but it seems like in the past years that winning those games matters while losing them doesn't--but Wally gave a pretty good rationale for his picks.  That being said, we've got 2 more weeks of games and plently of potential changes.....and then there is the potential wackyness that could ensue when they actually sit down and select and place teams into the bracket! :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:32:49 PM
they had a big surprise with two flights last year?  who knows what can happen this year.  8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 03:33:48 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:15:58 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Loss to RRO is not a criteria for selection my friend--as they say every year--it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat.  Oh it also has to do with how teams are selected--They are not all thrown in one pot based on the criteria but each Region brings their first team in and if that team is taken then the next team gets selected vs. other teams on the other regions list (or something like that).  I think PLU could still get in (if everything stayed the same as it is right now), but they could certainly use some help.....

Mcat  it says "results..  which if i read it right?  means,  like the little guru says,  it is bette to play and lose than not to have ever played  at all ?  RRO,  + for PLU.. I still like PLU over the last three in the C group as of now.  They should kill the rats too. ++ this week .
Plus it will save a flight too.
Yeah--you are right, it does say "results" but it seems like in the past years that winning those games matters while losing them doesn't--but Wally gave a pretty good rationale for his picks.  That being said, we've got 2 more weeks of games and plently of potential changes.....and then there is the potential wackyness that could ensue when they actually sit down and select and place teams into the bracket! :)

Also note that I'm not projecting future results here either.  Of the seven teams that I've picked for Pool C, 4 of them (Concorida-Moorhead, Elmhurst, Rowan, and Heidelberg) have difficult games remaining.  I would be shocked if all four of those teams get through the next two weeks without losing.  Huntingdon won't have a gimme with Adrian in week 11 either although I have a hard time seeing the Hawks give that one up if they need it to get in and Adrian has already punched their ticket to the playoffs. 

I'll acutally go through and give a breakdown of my thought process, pick by pick, later tonight when I have more time to type that all out. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:36:19 PM
great job wally ..
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on October 31, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
although it won't matter if Elmhurst wins out, they got hurt a little by not having Wheaton appear in the RR. If it was going to happen, this would have been the week. So Wheaton's loss to Albion hurts Elmhurst too!

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on October 31, 2012, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
I know the criteria doesn't specify "wins" against RROs but rather "results" against RROs, but are PLU's losses to Linfield and Cal Lutheran any better or worse than Heidelberg's loss to Mount Union?  I don't think we can really judge that.

PLU did lead in both their losses, and the final tally vs. Linfield was only -7.  Not sure that helps...

Heidelberg led Mount 7-0 after the 1st and trailed only 12-7 at the half. 

Their biggest accomplishment may have been to be the first team that scored on the Mount 1st string defense as well as the first to make Mount play an entire 4 quarters.  H'Berg has a very tough 2 weeks to get to 9-1, but if they make it, they're a good enough team to win a playoff game or two as long as they're not facing a #1 or #2 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on October 31, 2012, 04:00:58 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on October 31, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
Yeah but just like PLU, LC led both #2 UMHB and #5 Wesley- only lost to Wesley by 3. Plus got a huge boost with Hardin-Simmons being ranked 10th. This one folks, is going to come down to the week 11. Got to love it! ;D

Yeah, that's a tough break for us.  The greater depth in the West keeps PLU's victory over Willamette from counting as a RRO.  I think most would agree that Willamette deserves to be ranked more than Hardin-Simmons does, right?  (Plus, you may have scored the first 3 vs. UMHB - but a 27 point loss isn't too hot.)

Sorry wasn't trying to say PLU didn't deserve to be in. Was just stating a fact. Didn't mean to offend ya.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Loss to RRO is not a criteria for selection my friend--as they say every year--it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat.

OMG, someone IS listening.

+ many karma to Monrovia Cat. I was definitely getting ready to break that out again, although it's really Pat's baby.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Loss to RRO is not a criteria for selection my friend--as they say every year--it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat.

OMG, someone IS listening.

+ many karma to Monrovia Cat. I was definitely getting ready to break that out again, although it's really Pat's baby.
You guys say it enough--it had to stick somewhere ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on October 31, 2012, 04:00:58 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on October 31, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
Yeah but just like PLU, LC led both #2 UMHB and #5 Wesley- only lost to Wesley by 3. Plus got a huge boost with Hardin-Simmons being ranked 10th. This one folks, is going to come down to the week 11. Got to love it! ;D

Yeah, that's a tough break for us.  The greater depth in the West keeps PLU's victory over Willamette from counting as a RRO.  I think most would agree that Willamette deserves to be ranked more than Hardin-Simmons does, right?  (Plus, you may have scored the first 3 vs. UMHB - but a 27 point loss isn't too hot.)

Sorry wasn't trying to say PLU didn't deserve to be in. Was just stating a fact. Didn't mean to offend ya.

Not offended in the least.  I've got far thicker skin than that.  Your facts are correct and the last two weeks will be interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
hey Big guru,    It stuck many year ago . see schedule change when Redlands stopped answering the phone. :o

but , you need to play the stronger teams to get a better SOS  hence Linfield and PLU  this year ..  we were left out in the pass for a lower SOS too.  ? So what about willamette beating RRO  HS and PLU beating bearkitties .  to far out ?  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 04:28:49 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
hey Big guru,    It stuck many year ago . see schedule change when Redlands stopped answering the phone. :o

but , you need to play the stronger teams to get a better SOS  hence Linfield and PLU  this year ..  we were left out in the pass for a lower SOS too.  ? So what about willamette beating RRO  HS and PLU beating bearkitties .  to far out ?  :)

Tells me that the West RR's should go about 12 deep while the South should stop at 9!  Whitworth (and of course Willamette) deserves mention above Hardin-Simmons based on today's records.  Oh well, whadda do?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 05:34:26 PM
The other thing that is pretty interesting is the number of two-loss teams we are already talking about.  In 2010, PLU was 8-1 with a win over Cal-Lu (finishing runner up to Linfield for the Pool A).  But those Lutes were roughly 9th in line for 6 Pool C bids as the field of one-loss teams was very deep.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 05:34:26 PM
The other thing that is pretty interesting is the number of two-loss teams we are already talking about.  In 2010, PLU was 8-1 with a win over Cal-Lu (finishing runner up to Linfield for the Pool A).  But those Lutes were roughly 9th in line for 6 Pool C bids as the field of one-loss teams was very deep.

That year looks more and more like an anomaly, but it's also proof that even if you can control what you can control, the quality/depth of the rest of the field matters too. There was a year when 9-1 Cortland State and 9-1 Franklin were left out as well.

In those years, even if those teams had gotten in, the ones left out in their places would also have had legitimate gripes.

The one thing I can say for sure about this year is that this particular selection committee seems to be made up of guys who are very conscious of strength of schedule. I think PLU, UW-P, LC and Huntingdon are probably in better shape than many think they are.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 06:30:44 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Wally ,

With only three teams with wins vs rro , Plu has the best lose with rro and a . higher  SOS 6140. than the other Pool C teams  as i see it?   what did i miss?   
Loss to RRO is not a criteria for selection my friend--as they say every year--it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat.  Oh it also has to do with how teams are selected--They are not all thrown in one pot based on the criteria but each Region brings their first team in and if that team is taken then the next team gets selected vs. other teams on the other regions list (or something like that).  I think PLU could still get in (if everything stayed the same as it is right now), but they could certainly use some help.....

Not only that, but that's not true. LC lost to UMHB and Wesley.

With PLU at No. 9 on the SoS scale with just Whitworth left among D-III opponents though, that might be enough to put it ahead of LC. But LC would need to beat HSU to stay relevant in the discussion, giving it a win over a regionally-ranked opponent. Since Willamette closes with Pacific and UPS, and Whitworth would have to lose to PLU to stay relevant in this discussion, I don't know if PLU is really "ahead" of LC ...

PLU really needs some West teams to lose and let Willamette creep into the bottom of the West rankings, therefore giving it a win over an RRO.

Forgive if some of this has already been postulated. I'm not following the board very closely, as I want to have my own thoughts for ATN.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2012, 06:31:44 PM
SOUTH
1    Mary Hardin-Baylor    7-0    8-0  ASC
2    Wesley    5-1    7-1                   Pool B
3    Johns Hopkins    8-0    8-0        Centennial
4    Waynesburg    9-0    9-0          Pres AC
5    Huntingdon    4-2    5-2             Pool B/C
5    Washington and Lee    6-2    6-2  ODAC    Hosts Hampden-Sydney on 11/03
7    Louisiana College    4-2    6-2                 ASC   Finishes versus HSU  on 11/10
8    Muhlenberg    5-2    6-2                         Centennial
9    Hampden-Sydney    6-2    6-2                ODAC   Plays at Washington and Lee on 11/03
10    Hardin-Simmons    4-3    5-3                 ASC  Finishes at Louisiana College  on 11/10

Not listed is the USA South candidate.



Pool A conference leaders are in Bold
Wesley is the strongest Pool B candidate in the Region, and highest among the four regions.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 06:30:44 PM
PLU really needs some West teams to lose and let Willamette creep into the bottom of the West rankings, therefore giving it a win over an RRO.
Well, UST is favored over Concordia-Moorhead this weekend.  But that's quite a drop (all the way off the list) for a spot to open for Willamette.  And if one does open, maybe Northwestern (Minn.) grabs it with their one loss and a possible clinching of the UMAC bid (ugh). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 06:30:44 PM
PLU really needs some West teams to lose and let Willamette creep into the bottom of the West rankings, therefore giving it a win over an RRO.
Well, UST is favored over Concordia-Moorhead this weekend.  But that's quite a drop (all the way off the list) for a spot to open for Willamette.  And if one does open, maybe Northwestern (Minn.) grabs it with their one loss and a possible clinching of the UMAC bid (ugh).

I don't think eyes should be on the Cobbers. More like if Lake Forest or UW-Platteville loses, maybe in next week's rankings, Willamette will be the No. 10, and PLU would have a win over a RRO on its resume.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:13:10 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:32:49 PM
they had a big surprise with two flights last year?  who knows what can happen this year.  8-)

They were pushing to be allowed to do this for a few years, and word it was coming. There was the year Aurora was supposed to go to Willamette or Oxy and got sent to Wartburg instead, we think because the person who approves costs rejected the committee's original bracket. The sense then was that they should be allowed to afford a second flight to keep the competitive balance a little closer, and I think the D-III membership wanted it.

Sometimes circumstances will make multiple flights necessary, but also I think the flexibility is there for when it's not completely necessary, to make it so that the seeds don't have to be stretch too badly. We might still see some 3-5 games instead of 3-6, but when it's 7vs.8 and 1vs.3, that's not good. Or fair.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
Quote from: USee on October 31, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
although it won't matter if Elmhurst wins out, they got hurt a little by not having Wheaton appear in the RR. If it was going to happen, this would have been the week. So Wheaton's loss to Albion hurts Elmhurst too!

Yeah, I thought CCIW and Empire 8 were two of the bigger losers in how things shook out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2012, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
I don't think eyes should be on the Cobbers. More like if Lake Forest or UW-Platteville loses, maybe in next week's rankings, Willamette will be the No. 10, and PLU would have a win over a RRO on its resume.
Okay, we'll see.  UW-P's final two have two league wins between them.  Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.

What really stinks: if LC beats HSU, that counts as a win over a RRO even if though that would be the Cowboys 4th loss.  PLU could have victories over 8-2 Willamette, 7-3 Whitworth, and 6-3 Redlands that would (aparently) not mean as much because the West is deeper. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 07:20:32 PM
Wow, lots of chatter here.  My projection has already been buried!  Here's a link to that post if you want it: Wally's projected field of 32 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=7808.msg1458543#msg1458543)

Here are just my pool C picks...how I got there to follow:

QuoteWabash (7-1, 0.607 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)
Bethel (7-1, 0.658 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Concordia-Moorhead (7-1, .577 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Heidelberg (7-1, 0.430 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)

Round 1: On the board are...
- 4N Wabash (7-1, 0.607 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 4W Bethel (7-1, 0.658 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

Bethel leads in SOS amongst this group, but Wabash also has a stong SOS and has two RRO wins.  No common opponents or head to heads to consider here.  Wabash is the pick. 

Round 2: On the board are...
- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 4W Bethel (7-1, 0.658 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

Bethel was close to being the first pick, so we know they look better than Huntingdon and Rowan.  Newbie Elmhurst doesn't grade out as well as Bethel, so the Royals are in.  Bethel has the best SOS here plus a RRO win. 

Round 3: On the board are...
- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5W Concordia-Moorhead (7-1, .577 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)

It gets fun here because now we have to start considering multiple loss teams with good SOS's and good wins.  Huntingdon caught a huge break with Hampden-Sydney being ranked.  My pick here is going to be Concordia-Moorhead.  I'm favoring the win pct and the SOS over Huntingdon's RRO win and I think Concordia-Moorhead probably gets some special dispensation for the Bethel incident. 

Round 4: On the board are...

- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

It's your time Huntingdon.  The SOS is strong, the quality win is there which the rest of the teams lack.  Huntingdon gets favored here over the 1-loss teams because of the SOS and RRO win.  PLU, which will be a common theme, really needed Willamette to get into the rankings. 

Round 5: On the board are...

- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 7S Louisiana College (6-2, 0.554 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

I'm out of teams with good wins.  So now I kind of default back to win pct and SOS.  If you've got 2 losses and no good wins, you kind of drift to the back here.  Elmhurst is my selection with one loss and a better SOS than Rowan. 

Round 6: On the board are...

- 6N Heidelberg (7-1, 0.430 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 7S Louisiana College (6-2, 0.554 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

Our new player doesn't have a quality win, so by the same logic as Round 5, Rowan is the selection...just one loss, better SOS than the other one loss team here. 

Round 7: On the board are...
- 6N Heidelberg (7-1, 0.430 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 7S Louisiana College (6-2, 0.554 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
- 6E Lycoming (6-2, 0.577 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

Again, my two loss teams available are without a quality win.  Heidelberg has just the one loss, that to Mount Union, so I'm selecting Heidelberg based primarily on win pct here. 

So that's how I got where I got.  I think the first six picks are pretty solid.  I think there is a debate to be had about whether or not PLU or Louisiana College could be selected instead of Heidelberg based on SOS and "results" vs. RRO. 

It's amazing how much this changes if Hampden-Sydney is not ranked and Willamette is.  Huntingdon probably falls behind LC in the South and never hits the board while PLU is probably picked up on the 4th or 5th selection. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
I don't think eyes should be on the Cobbers. More like if Lake Forest or UW-Platteville loses, maybe in next week's rankings, Willamette will be the No. 10, and PLU would have a win over a RRO on its resume.
Okay, we'll see.  UW-P's final two have two league wins between them.  Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.

What really stinks: if LC beats HSU, that counts as a win over a RRO even if though that would be the Cowboys 4th loss.  PLU could have victories over 8-2 Willamette, 7-3 Whitworth, and 6-3 Redlands that would (aparently) not mean as much because the West is deeper.

That would seem to be the case, which stinks, but they have to draw a line somewhere.  And who knows...this year's committee may value PLU's schedule and select them in front of a team like Elmhurst or Heidelberg or Rowan.  That's the unpredictable part of the equation...never know who the committee's groupthink will play out. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 09:11:30 PM
wally, nice work on all this.  going to throw a what if out there in the east.  what if del val beats widener to win the mac, would widener bump the last team out?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 09:23:38 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 09:11:30 PM
wally, nice work on all this.  going to throw a what if out there in the east.  what if del val beats widener to win the mac, would widener bump the last team out?

My guess would be yes.  Widener may still be in front of Rowan in that scenario, so Widener would probably come off the board in front of Huntingdon, which would put Rowan on the board and then it flows down from there, essentially pushing Heidelberg out.  If Rowan were to be ahead of Widener, I'd think Widener would come off after the Rowan pick in the seventh round there.  Widener certainly wouldn't fall any further back in the rankings than that as they'd have to be ahead of Lycoming. 

Pool C teams right now don't want to see new players here, like Widener or St. Thomas.  Pool C teams would also hope that the NCAC applies things like logic and reason to a possible Wabash/OWU/Wittenberg tie and award Wabash the AQ.  Good two loss teams could get in over those two if it came to that. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 31, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
This may or may not be relevant to pool C, but I noted on the NJAC board that the Cortland @ Willy Pat game for Saturday has been canceled (and will not be re-scheduled) due to aftereffects of 'Frankenstorm'.  Any word on any other cancellations?  Any stadia that might have hosted tourney games too badly damaged to host?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:03:04 PM
Damn dude.

I guess I'd be wasting my time doing essentially the same exercise for Around the Nation.

Instead of feeling like I got my Halloween candy taken though, I'll look at it like we've educated fans enough over the years that no longer are we needed to do these exercises when those with the time to beat us to it can do it, and credibly.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 07:20:32 PM
Wow, lots of chatter here.  My projection has already been buried!  Here's a link to that post if you want it: Wally's projected field of 32 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=7808.msg1458543#msg1458543)

Here are just my pool C picks...how I got there to follow:

QuoteWabash (7-1, 0.607 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)
Bethel (7-1, 0.658 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Concordia-Moorhead (7-1, .577 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Heidelberg (7-1, 0.430 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)

Round 1: On the board are...
- 4N Wabash (7-1, 0.607 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 4W Bethel (7-1, 0.658 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

Bethel leads in SOS amongst this group, but Wabash also has a stong SOS and has two RRO wins.  No common opponents or head to heads to consider here.  Wabash is the pick. 

Round 2: On the board are...
- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 4W Bethel (7-1, 0.658 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

Bethel was close to being the first pick, so we know they look better than Huntingdon and Rowan.  Newbie Elmhurst doesn't grade out as well as Bethel, so the Royals are in.  Bethel has the best SOS here plus a RRO win. 

Round 3: On the board are...
- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5W Concordia-Moorhead (7-1, .577 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)

It gets fun here because now we have to start considering multiple loss teams with good SOS's and good wins.  Huntingdon caught a huge break with Hampden-Sydney being ranked.  My pick here is going to be Concordia-Moorhead.  I'm favoring the win pct and the SOS over Huntingdon's RRO win and I think Concordia-Moorhead probably gets some special dispensation for the Bethel incident. 

Round 4: On the board are...

- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 5S Huntingdon (5-2, .605 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

It's your time Huntingdon.  The SOS is strong, the quality win is there which the rest of the teams lack.  Huntingdon gets favored here over the 1-loss teams because of the SOS and RRO win.  PLU, which will be a common theme, really needed Willamette to get into the rankings. 

Round 5: On the board are...

- 5N Elmhurst (7-1, 0.545 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 7S Louisiana College (6-2, 0.554 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

I'm out of teams with good wins.  So now I kind of default back to win pct and SOS.  If you've got 2 losses and no good wins, you kind of drift to the back here.  Elmhurst is my selection with one loss and a better SOS than Rowan. 

Round 6: On the board are...

- 6N Heidelberg (7-1, 0.430 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 7S Louisiana College (6-2, 0.554 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
- 4E Rowan (6-2...6-1 in D3, 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

Our new player doesn't have a quality win, so by the same logic as Round 5, Rowan is the selection...just one loss, better SOS than the other one loss team here. 

Round 7: On the board are...
- 6N Heidelberg (7-1, 0.430 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 7S Louisiana College (6-2, 0.554 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
- 6E Lycoming (6-2, 0.577 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
- 8W Pacific Lutheran (5-2, 0.612 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)

Again, my two loss teams available are without a quality win.  Heidelberg has just the one loss, that to Mount Union, so I'm selecting Heidelberg based primarily on win pct here. 

So that's how I got where I got.  I think the first six picks are pretty solid.  I think there is a debate to be had about whether or not PLU or Louisiana College could be selected instead of Heidelberg based on SOS and "results" vs. RRO. 

It's amazing how much this changes if Hampden-Sydney is not ranked and Willamette is.  Huntingdon probably falls behind LC in the South and never hits the board while PLU is probably picked up on the 4th or 5th selection.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 09:11:30 PM
wally, nice work on all this.  going to throw a what if out there in the east.  what if del val beats widener to win the mac, would widener bump the last team out?

I think so.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 31, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
This may or may not be relevant to pool C, but I noted on the NJAC board that the Cortland @ Willy Pat game for Saturday has been canceled (and will not be re-scheduled) due to aftereffects of 'Frankenstorm'.  Any word on any other cancellations?  Any stadia that might have hosted tourney games too badly damaged to host?

It's not relevant, and I am asking around. So far three games affected but just the one cancelled. Looking at the map and where Sandy hit, really SUNY-Maritime is the one I think might have gotten it the worst, and I'd like to check in with them if possible.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2012, 10:08:25 PM
If Louisiana College beats HSU on 11/10, that will be the 3rd game against RRO. They will be 1-2 versus RRO.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
I don't think eyes should be on the Cobbers. More like if Lake Forest or UW-Platteville loses, maybe in next week's rankings, Willamette will be the No. 10, and PLU would have a win over a RRO on its resume.
Okay, we'll see.  UW-P's final two have two league wins between them.  Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.

What really stinks: if LC beats HSU, that counts as a win over a RRO even if though that would be the Cowboys 4th loss.  PLU could have victories over 8-2 Willamette, 7-3 Whitworth, and 6-3 Redlands that would (aparently) not mean as much because the West is deeper.

That would seem to be the case, which stinks, but they have to draw a line somewhere.  And who knows...this year's committee may value PLU's schedule and select them in front of a team like Elmhurst or Heidelberg or Rowan.  That's the unpredictable part of the equation...never know who the committee's groupthink will play out.

I don't agree re: Hardin-Simmons. They would have losses to UMHB (No. 2), Linfield (No. 3), Willamette and LC, which so far are two-loss teams who are in the playoff discussion. They will have essentially scheduled themselves out of the playoff discussion by playing Linfield and Willamette, but also a win against one or two of those teams and they are sitting pretty.

Having watched much of the UMHB-HSU game, I can say that the Cowboys would beat IMO a handful of teams who are going to make the field. It's not at all an injustice to have them in the 10 spot as of today, even though they don't really have a signature win (and that is a problem for a lot of teams who won't get selected, but since HSU isn't on the cusp, I don't think there's the same outrage).

Basically if HSU had scheduled Southwest Assemblies of God and Haskell Indian Nations instead of trying to challenge itself by playing Linfield and Willamette, they would be 7-1 right now and playing LC for a chance to remain in the Pool C discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
I don't think eyes should be on the Cobbers. More like if Lake Forest or UW-Platteville loses, maybe in next week's rankings, Willamette will be the No. 10, and PLU would have a win over a RRO on its resume.
Okay, we'll see.  UW-P's final two have two league wins between them.  Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.

What really stinks: if LC beats HSU, that counts as a win over a RRO even if though that would be the Cowboys 4th loss.  PLU could have victories over 8-2 Willamette, 7-3 Whitworth, and 6-3 Redlands that would (aparently) not mean as much because the West is deeper.

That would seem to be the case, which stinks, but they have to draw a line somewhere.  And who knows...this year's committee may value PLU's schedule and select them in front of a team like Elmhurst or Heidelberg or Rowan.  That's the unpredictable part of the equation...never know who the committee's groupthink will play out.

I don't agree re: Hardin-Simmons. They would have losses to UMHB (No. 2), Linfield (No. 3), Willamette and LC, which so far are two-loss teams who are in the playoff discussion. They will have essentially scheduled themselves out of the playoff discussion by playing Linfield and Willamette, but also a win against one or two of those teams and they are sitting pretty.

Having watched much of the UMHB-HSU game, I can say that the Cowboys would beat IMO a handful of teams who are going to make the field. It's not at all an injustice to have them in the 10 spot as of today, even though they don't really have a signature win (and that is a problem for a lot of teams who won't get selected, but since HSU isn't on the cusp, I don't think there's the same outrage).

Basically if HSU had scheduled Southwest Assemblies of God and Haskell Indian Nations instead of trying to challenge itself by playing Linfield and Willamette, they would be 7-1 right now and playing LC for a chance to remain in the Pool C discussion.
And saved the athletic department a boat-load of change!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 09:11:30 PM
wally, nice work on all this.  going to throw a what if out there in the east.  what if del val beats widener to win the mac, would widener bump the last team out?

I think so.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 31, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
This may or may not be relevant to pool C, but I noted on the NJAC board that the Cortland @ Willy Pat game for Saturday has been canceled (and will not be re-scheduled) due to aftereffects of 'Frankenstorm'.  Any word on any other cancellations?  Any stadia that might have hosted tourney games too badly damaged to host?

It's not relevant, and I am asking around. So far three games affected but just the one cancelled. Looking at the map and where Sandy hit, really SUNY-Maritime is the one I think might have gotten it the worst, and I'd like to check in with them if possible.

rowan website has game being changed to sunday at 12.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:38:10 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 09:11:30 PM
wally, nice work on all this.  going to throw a what if out there in the east.  what if del val beats widener to win the mac, would widener bump the last team out?

I think so.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 31, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
This may or may not be relevant to pool C, but I noted on the NJAC board that the Cortland @ Willy Pat game for Saturday has been canceled (and will not be re-scheduled) due to aftereffects of 'Frankenstorm'.  Any word on any other cancellations?  Any stadia that might have hosted tourney games too badly damaged to host?

It's not relevant, and I am asking around. So far three games affected but just the one cancelled. Looking at the map and where Sandy hit, really SUNY-Maritime is the one I think might have gotten it the worst, and I'd like to check in with them if possible.

rowan website has game being changed to sunday at 12.

That's one of the three. The others that I am aware of are SUNY-M vs. Norwich and Cortland State/WPU.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:39:26 PM
Just saw the tweets about FDU-F and Widener. Make it four that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 10:40:45 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:13:10 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:32:49 PM
they had a big surprise with two flights last year?  who knows what can happen this year.  8-)

They were pushing to be allowed to do this for a few years, and word it was coming. There was the year Aurora was supposed to go to Willamette or Oxy and got sent to Wartburg instead, we think because the person who approves costs rejected the committee's original bracket. The sense then was that they should be allowed to afford a second flight to keep the competitive balance a little closer, and I think the D-III membership wanted it.

Sometimes circumstances will make multiple flights necessary, but also I think the flexibility is there for when it's not completely necessary, to make it so that the seeds don't have to be stretch too badly. We might still see some 3-5 games instead of 3-6, but when it's 7vs.8 and 1vs.3, that's not good. Or fair.

we have already been there .. :'( 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on October 31, 2012, 10:53:21 PM
Wally, Everything you are doing here is superb. It's awesome to read as a D3 fan and I am glad someone is so dedicated to take the time to do that on these boards. I can't believe your karma isn't through the roof (not that it matters). Lots of +K from me coming!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 11:10:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 09:23:38 PM
Pool C teams right now don't want to see new players here, like Widener or St. Thomas.  Pool C teams would also hope that the NCAC applies things like logic and reason to a possible Wabash/OWU/Wittenberg tie and award Wabash the AQ.  Good two loss teams could get in over those two if it came to that.

St. Thomas wouldn't affect things all that much since either C-Moorhead or Bethel would be replacing them, and you're currently taking both of them. Same with whoever wins the NCAC AQ; the second team seems to be in good enough shape that the two-loss teams at the bottom of Pool C wouldn't be affected either way.

Widener, however, would be a problem because that's putting Del Val (or Lyco) in the field, a team that currently isn't there, and then handing an undefeated team its first loss. Widener, now a game short with the cancellation of FDU-F, actually benefits a little in terms of SoS but that number would still be bad, I'm guessing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2012, 11:19:32 PM
Oh no, I disagree. St. Thomas beating Concordia-Moorhead more or less knocks Moorhead out. (Not entirely but pretty close.) St. Thomas losing practically guarantees two MIAC Pool C teams. St. Thomas winning practically guarantees just one.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 01, 2012, 12:31:17 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2012, 11:19:32 PM
Oh no, I disagree. St. Thomas beating Concordia-Moorhead more or less knocks Moorhead out. (Not entirely but pretty close.) St. Thomas losing practically guarantees two MIAC Pool C teams. St. Thomas winning practically guarantees just one.

Right. I was reading the phrase "Pool C teams don't want to see new players here, like Widener and St. Thomas" to only consider the St. Thomas loses scenario against Wally's current projections, which take both Bethel and C-M.

I understand what you're saying, something is going to happen either way after Saturday.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 01, 2012, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 31, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
This may or may not be relevant to pool C, but I noted on the NJAC board that the Cortland @ Willy Pat game for Saturday has been canceled (and will not be re-scheduled) due to aftereffects of 'Frankenstorm'.  Any word on any other cancellations?  Any stadia that might have hosted tourney games too badly damaged to host?

It's not relevant, and I am asking around. So far three games affected but just the one cancelled. Looking at the map and where Sandy hit, really SUNY-Maritime is the one I think might have gotten it the worst, and I'd like to check in with them if possible.

While I haven't followed pool C as intensely as Wally (has anyone?), I knew the Cortland/Willy Pat game was not relevant per se (might matter for seeding, giving them one less game, but actually improves Cortland's SoS ;)), but wondered about other games that would directly matter.  You seem to be on top of the situation - good work.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: BashDad on November 01, 2012, 08:45:02 AM
Quote from: pg04 on October 31, 2012, 10:53:21 PM
Wally, Everything you are doing here is superb. It's awesome to read as a D3 fan and I am glad someone is so dedicated to take the time to do that on these boards. I can't believe your karma isn't through the roof (not that it matters). Lots of +K from me coming!

Agreed. This is fantastic work.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 01, 2012, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 01, 2012, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 31, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
This may or may not be relevant to pool C, but I noted on the NJAC board that the Cortland @ Willy Pat game for Saturday has been canceled (and will not be re-scheduled) due to aftereffects of 'Frankenstorm'.  Any word on any other cancellations?  Any stadia that might have hosted tourney games too badly damaged to host?

It's not relevant, and I am asking around. So far three games affected but just the one cancelled. Looking at the map and where Sandy hit, really SUNY-Maritime is the one I think might have gotten it the worst, and I'd like to check in with them if possible.

While I haven't followed pool C as intensely as Wally (has anyone?), I knew the Cortland/Willy Pat game was not relevant per se (might matter for seeding, giving them one less game, but actually improves Cortland's SoS ;)), but wondered about other games that would directly matter.  You seem to be on top of the situation - good work.

I only meant it is irrelevant to Pool C since Cortland has clinched and is now a Pool A team.

Speaking of good work, I couldn't find the MIAA tiebreaker last night, and it was 2 a.m. so I couldn't call the MIAA office to clarify. Lo and behold a post of yours from 2007, located on these very boards but through Google, finally answered my question after about 15 minutes of searching.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2012, 08:47:18 PM
Just looked and D3F now has the Kean-Rowan game as cancelled.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2012, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2012, 08:47:18 PM
Just looked and D3F now has the Kean-Rowan game as cancelled.

That hurts. Means it came from Kean, since we use the same website platform and share schedule and results data. It's reliable then.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 01, 2012, 09:31:22 PM
Wally, does the cancellation of Kean/Rowan affect your prediction?  (You had Rowan in as the sixth pick; was that JUST as of week 9, or were you assuming a win over Kean?)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 01, 2012, 09:31:22 PM
Wally, does the cancellation of Kean/Rowan affect your prediction?  (You had Rowan in as the sixth pick; was that JUST as of week 9, or were you assuming a win over Kean?)

No, it doesn't affect what I did this week and it won't affect Rowan too much going forward as Kean isn't likely to get ranked.  Rowan may have gotten a slight SOS boost from the game, but it's really pretty negligible. 

Where this cancellation could manifest itself is in the hypothetical...specifically that this was a game Rowan could lose which would open the door for Lycoming or SJF or maybe even Bridgewater State.  Incidentally, the Widener/FDU cancellation has opened the door for Lycoming to bypass all of this Pool C business, which introduces Widener as a serious player to Pool C. 

If Widener does lose to Del Val and does wind up in Pool C as a result, it will be interesting to see how the East lines up their teams.  Widener will have a quality win and a better regional win pct., but Rowan will have a better SOS and a better result against a common opponent (Del Val).  It's an interesting situation because I think Widener probably is probably a better Pool C candidate (quality win) but they could very well get caught behind Rowan who could take some time to get picked. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
Just killing time till Saturday at this point but here's a hypothetical:  What if St. Olaf beats Bethel and St. Thomas beats Concordia MH?  Do either of those teams (Bethel/CM) still make it?  Or does St. Olaf then jump into the picture?  Of course then there is next week when St. Olaf plays St. Thomas...if they managed to win that.....Could, potentially have St. Thomas still with Pool A but then 3-way tie for 2nd.....that could get quite muddy.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 02, 2012, 10:32:04 AM
If Widener gets booted to a "C" and St. Thomas takes care of C-M, and nothing else out of the ordinary happens (HAH!) then I think that Widener will just replace C-M in the grand scheme of things.

Of course, I'll leave the final calculations to the Nate Silver of "Pool C". I argued with him last year and he was right about CWRU.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 10:53:20 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
Just killing time till Saturday at this point but here's a hypothetical:  What if St. Olaf beats Bethel and St. Thomas beats Concordia MH?  Do either of those teams (Bethel/CM) still make it?  Or does St. Olaf then jump into the picture?  Of course then there is next week when St. Olaf plays St. Thomas...if they managed to win that.....Could, potentially have St. Thomas still with Pool A but then 3-way tie for 2nd.....that could get quite muddy.....

Man, this is messy.  It all depends on if St. Olaf gets ranked by beating Bethel.  If they do, then Moorhead gets a RRO win and then I have no idea how you properly order Bethel/Moorhead/St. Olaf.  My guess is that you'd still have the order Bethel-Moorhead-St. Olaf using common opponent results (namely the Augsburg results), but then what happens to Concordia-Moorhead changes completely if St. Olaf does get ranked. 

Without St. Olaf being ranked, I think Concordia-Moorhead probably gets knocked just out of Pool C.  I think they'd probably fall behind 2-loss PLU in the West and I'd have a hard time seeing a third 2-loss team from one region being selected.  If the Oles do get ranked, Concordia-Moorhead stays ahead of PLU and will be fighting it out with 1-loss teams without quality wins for that last golden ticket.   

Now if St. Olaf managed to beat both Bethel and St. Thomas and got to 8-2 that way, I think the Oles jump to the top of the West board.  That's two strong wins against RROs and it's happening in the last 25% of the season which can also be taken into consideration. 

Lots of interesting possibilities in the MIAC right now. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
What's really fun is that in a little over 24 hours, everything we've talked about in here since Wednesday afternoon gets scratched and we start all over again.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on November 02, 2012, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
What's really fun is that in a little over 24 hours, everything we've talked about in here since Wednesday afternoon gets scratched and we start all over again.   :)

nice job wally keep it up  8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 04:10:52 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
What's really fun is that in a little over 24 hours, everything we've talked about in here since Wednesday afternoon gets scratched and we start all over again.   :)
Yup--and then the next week, it happens again and you have to work even quicker because they announce the actual brackets and you can't really post possible selections after the real thing is out :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2012, 04:54:42 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 04:10:52 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
What's really fun is that in a little over 24 hours, everything we've talked about in here since Wednesday afternoon gets scratched and we start all over again.   :)
Yup--and then the next week, it happens again and you have to work even quicker because they announce the actual brackets and you can't really post possible selections after the real thing is out :)

Actually, fans of those teams who almost got in do it every year! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 07:34:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2012, 04:54:42 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 04:10:52 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
What's really fun is that in a little over 24 hours, everything we've talked about in here since Wednesday afternoon gets scratched and we start all over again.   :)
Yup--and then the next week, it happens again and you have to work even quicker because they announce the actual brackets and you can't really post possible selections after the real thing is out :)

Actually, fans of those teams who almost got in do it every year! ;D
LOL, +K spot on!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2012, 03:59:13 PM
Well, scratch one off the board at least. Wabash was totally outplayed by Oberlin. Oberlin has some talent, but man, this was an awful loss for Wabash. Still a three-way NCAC tie possibility with Witt, OWU and Kenyon and I believe Witt will have the AQ still. OWU is probably legit on the board now as a "C" contender.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2012, 03:59:13 PM
Well, scratch one off the board at least. Wabash was totally outplayed by Oberlin. Oberlin has some talent, but man, this was an awful loss for Wabash. Still a three-way NCAC tie possibility with Witt, OWU and Kenyon and I believe Witt will have the AQ still. OWU is probably legit on the board now as a "C" contender.
Bethel loses and Corcordia will be offically lost in a few minutes----either of them still gonna get in?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 03, 2012, 05:51:02 PM
LC rolled over Mississippi College today 70-28 and Hardin-Simmons defeated TLU in 2 OT, setting up a huge game next week. Can't wait!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2012, 06:15:10 PM
In the CCIW, NCC lost to Wheaton, but a late TD kept them close enough that they still win the AQ - IF it is a 3-way tie of Wheaton, NCC, and Elmhurst.  IF Elmhurst loses to IWU next week (which no longer seems likely, as the Titans seem in total freefall since losing their qb), Wheaton would have the AQ by h-to-h (in which case NCC would join the 2-loss bubble teams for pool C).  (Assuming, of course, that NCC regroups against suddenly resurgent Augustana.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2012, 06:19:35 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
What's really fun is that in a little over 24 hours, everything we've talked about in here since Wednesday afternoon gets scratched and we start all over again.   :)

This turned out to be an understatement, with Wabash, Bethel, and C-M all getting whacked! :o
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 03, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2012, 03:59:13 PM
Well, scratch one off the board at least. Wabash was totally outplayed by Oberlin. Oberlin has some talent, but man, this was an awful loss for Wabash. Still a three-way NCAC tie possibility with Witt, OWU and Kenyon and I believe Witt will have the AQ still. OWU is probably legit on the board now as a "C" contender.
Bethel loses and Corcordia will be offically lost in a few minutes----either of them still gonna get in?

Both are precarious at this point. But St. Olaf is now a two loss team in the discussion because they picked up a win over a RRO. I doubt they beat UST, next week. But if they get ranked this week (outside shot, but they have some criteria arguments) it would give UST, Bethel and Concordia another RR result. In this scenario UST could potentially end up 3-0, Bethel 1-2 and Moorehead 1-2 against RRO.

Bottom line, this week just shows us that nothing is clear yet. Definitely some 2 loss team likely to get in, but if enough teams lose still today or next week things could get real crazy.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 03, 2012, 07:41:55 PM
Rough day for the Top 25.  This week's regional rankings are going to include quite a few 2 loss teams.  Weird year in D3.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 08:20:21 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
Just killing time till Saturday at this point but here's a hypothetical:  What if St. Olaf beats Bethel and St. Thomas beats Concordia MH?  Do either of those teams (Bethel/CM) still make it?  Or does St. Olaf then jump into the picture?  Of course then there is next week when St. Olaf plays St. Thomas...if they managed to win that.....Could, potentially have St. Thomas still with Pool A but then 3-way tie for 2nd.....that could get quite muddy.....

No longer a hypothetical.

I think we have to let all the dust from today settle, and then figure everything out.

I actually came to this thread to find mention of the nine one-loss teams and see how many are actually still afloat ... but I got two jobs I should be doing right now instead, including updating the front page.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 08:34:44 PM
Updated.

OWU and Ill. Coll ... and Bridgewater State, which Wally did not mention and who is 9-1 but is guarded from losing in the NEFC championship game by not participating in it (Fram vs. Salve), might actually be today's big winners. We shall see.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2012, 12:23:38 PM
Here are the 1-loss teams remaining in Pool C:

- Wabash or Wittenberg (one will likely win the AQ, the other goes to Pool C)
- OWU (hard to find a scenario that favors the Bishops for the NCAC AQ)
- Elmhurst
- Heidelberg
- Baldwin-Wallace (probably has a second loss coming via UMU)
- Rowan
- Bethel
- Concordia-Moorhead
- Illinois College

And that's it.  9 teams, one is almost certainly going to lose a second time (BW), another has a strong test coming (Concordia-Moorhead).  Elmhurst also has a game left with IWU which is not a gimme, especially if IWU can collect themselves a bit between now and 11/10.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PM
I know this committee is very aware of PLU, LC, Huntingdon, UW-Platteville and other two-loss teams. But if they just went by one-loss teams (which they likely won't) all of the 2-L teams aren't past the brink yet.

It's now only a three-way tie in the NCAC between OWU, Witt and Kenyon ... not yet sure who comes out of that one with the AQ, but OWU might now have a shot in Pool C.

Rowan
Elmhurst (vs. 6-2 IWU)
Heidelberg (8-1 vs. 7-2 BW)
Witt/OWU
IC
Bridgewater State 9-1

Top-ranked 2-loss team.

Quite possible, given some of these less-than-impressive resumes (Do any of these teams have a win vs. an RRO?) that the two-loss teams get on the board and/or in ahead of them.

PLU gains a win vs. RRO is Willamette creeps into the West rankings.
LC gains one with a win vs. HSU.
UW-P is going to be 0-1 vs. RRO but have
North Central could be a fringe Pool C if it loses out on the AQ by virtue of Elmhurst losing. Win against Elmhurst would still count as one over an RRO.
Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?

Said all that w/out looking at SoS, which is HUGE.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PM

Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Win over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PM

Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Win over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.

Brain fried. I knew there were some. If Adrian sneaks in, you guys might be the first South at-large on the board.

Agree with you, Ypsi, about IWU playing without Gallik. 0-2 and outscored 74-7.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:18:12 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PM

Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Win over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.

Brain fried. I knew there were some. If Adrian sneaks in, you guys might be the first South at-large on the board.

Agree with you, Ypsi, about IWU playing without Gallik. 0-2 and outscored 74-7.
Dude, Adrian's already in.  ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:18:12 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PM

Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Win over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.

Brain fried. I knew there were some. If Adrian sneaks in, you guys might be the first South at-large on the board.

Agree with you, Ypsi, about IWU playing without Gallik. 0-2 and outscored 74-7.
Dude, Adrian's already in.  ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.

Dude, I mean sneak in to the regional rankings. Try to keep up.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2012, 10:08:40 PM
Wabash is 2-0 against RR teams which may help against other two-loss teams. But will the committee overlook the two losses to Allegheny and Oberlin?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2012, 10:15:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2012, 10:08:40 PM
Wabash is 2-0 against RR teams which may help against other two-loss teams. But will the committee overlook the two losses to Allegheny and Oberlin?

AND overlook that they may well finish FOURTH in a lackluster conference?

(Personally, I'm rooting for them to get in, but facts is facts.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: NCF on November 03, 2012, 10:18:25 PM
If NC, Elmhurst and Wheaton all win next week, what are the odds all three would make the play-offs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2012, 10:29:22 PM
Quote from: newcardfan on November 03, 2012, 10:18:25 PM
If NC, Elmhurst and Wheaton all win next week, what are the odds all three would make the play-offs.

For NCC, 100% (AQ).  For Elmhurst, probably at least 90% (only one loss).  For Wheaton, VERY doubtful (pretty sure there are several 2-loss teams with more impressive resumes by the criteria).

(CCIW teams are hurt by the fore-shortened ranking process; one week earlier, IWU would definitely have been ranked.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: newcardfan on November 03, 2012, 10:18:25 PM
If NC, Elmhurst and Wheaton all win next week, what are the odds all three would make the play-offs.

I don't think all three are going to make it. If Wheaton hadn't lost to Albion, and they all won last next week, and everything else around the country was the same, then probably yes.

It's either gonna be Wheaton, if it wins and IWU wins, or NCC/Elmhurst.

If Wheaton wins and Elmhurst loses, then NCC has a shot in Pool C, but not a great one. We'll take a closer look tomorrow or throughout the week at the two-loss teams and corresponding scenarios.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: NCF on November 03, 2012, 10:42:45 PM
Thanks, that's exactly what I thought.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 03, 2012, 11:11:34 PM
Wheaton will likely appear in this weeks regional rankings which will strengthen Elmhursts resume.  Wheaton is now a team w a win over a RRO.  Interesting stuff. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2012, 11:37:50 PM
Quote from: USee on November 03, 2012, 11:11:34 PM
Wheaton will likely appear in this weeks regional rankings which will strengthen Elmhursts resume.  Wheaton is now a team w a win over a RRO.  Interesting stuff.

Yeah, and if the regional rankings had followed the traditional schedule, NCC, Wheaton, and Elmhurst would all have an additional result, since (as I mentioned earlier) IWU would clearly have been ranked in those first rankings.  If only our expected #2 qb had not quit the team - geez, I hate going from 6-0 to a probable 6-4!  (I think Tyler Hook will eventually be just fine, but right now he is a hs qb going against men.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 03, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
Here's the thing, especially in the North right now...you've got a few one-loss teams and now some newly minted two-loss teams but those two-loss teams have h2h wins over those one-loss teams.  This is extremely difficult to predict because I honestly have no idea how to order these teams right now. 

As far as what's going on here in the North, I think you project North Central as Pool A right now because Elmhurst is going to be a favorite against IWU (can the Titans rebound...sure they can, but would you bank on it...not me).  Thank the heavens for garbage time touchdowns, am I right Cards fans?!  So that throws Wheaton as a serious Pool C player right now because when the rankings come out Wheaton almost HAS to be in front of North Central...identical records, Wheaton has the h2h.  Seems an obvious move to me.  That'll make Wheaton 1-1, Elmhurst, and NCC all 1-1 vs RRO.  I think the relative order here has to be Elmhurst then Wheaton then NCC. 

Then what to do with Wabash...and consequently OWU and Wittenberg?  Wabash is 2-0 against RROs (THOSE RROs specifically).  Wabash also has a stronger SOS (strongest SOS of North region playoff hopefuls actually).  Do the h2h's, results vs RROs, and SOS trump the extra loss?  And then once you sort that all out, how do you mesh it all together into a ranking?  And the kicker here is that I don't think there is a right answer.  If Wabash winds up behind OWU and Witt and NCC and Wheaton it's completely understandable.  It's also understandable if Wabash winds up in front of all of those teams.  And anywhere in between.  And the same goes for the other teams...there's just no obvious way to order this thing right now. 

And that's just the North.  The West is muddy now, the South is a little less clear with F&M getting a big win.  The East seems to be less disturbed by today, but there's still some confusion over there (welcome to the party Bridgewater State). 

One thing that we do know for certain: there will be a 2-loss Pool C team this year.  Counting Rowan who has technically lost twice but not for oru purposes here, we've only got six 1-loss Pool C teams left. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Hawks88 on November 04, 2012, 12:10:13 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:18:12 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PM

Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Win over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.

Brain fried. I knew there were some. If Adrian sneaks in, you guys might be the first South at-large on the board.

Agree with you, Ypsi, about IWU playing without Gallik. 0-2 and outscored 74-7.
Dude, Adrian's already in.  ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.

Dude, I mean sneak in to the regional rankings. Try to keep up.  ;)
Dude, they are in the regional rankings. You try to keep up.  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 04, 2012, 12:18:23 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 04, 2012, 12:10:13 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:18:12 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PM

Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Win over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.

Brain fried. I knew there were some. If Adrian sneaks in, you guys might be the first South at-large on the board.

Agree with you, Ypsi, about IWU playing without Gallik. 0-2 and outscored 74-7.
Dude, Adrian's already in.  ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.

Dude, I mean sneak in to the regional rankings. Try to keep up.  ;)
Dude, they are in the regional rankings. You try to keep up.  ;) ;D

Keith, he got you there - Adrian was #8 North in the first rankings. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2012, 12:27:28 AM
If Huntingdon beats Adrian and LaCollege beats HSU, then I see Wesley getting the Pool B and Huntingdon and LaCollege getting the Pool C bids from the South Region.

Does the East Region get more than 1 Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 04, 2012, 12:31:56 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2012, 12:27:28 AM
If Huntingdon beats Adrian and LaCollege beats HSU, then I see Wesley getting the Pool B and Huntingdon and LaCollege getting the Pool C bids from the South Region.

Does the East Region get more than 1 Pool C bid?

I don't think so. I think Rowan is probably the only team in the conversation.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 04, 2012, 12:35:43 AM
However I do wonder if one more could sneak in if Widener lost. That may be the only other scenario.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mugsy on November 04, 2012, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
As far as what's going on here in the North, I think you project North Central as Pool A right now because Elmhurst is going to be a favorite against IWU (can the Titans rebound...sure they can, but would you bank on it...not me).  Thank the heavens for garbage time touchdowns, am I right Cards fans?!  So that throws Wheaton as a serious Pool C player right now because when the rankings come out Wheaton almost HAS to be in front of North Central...identical records, Wheaton has the h2h.  Seems an obvious move to me.  That'll make Wheaton 1-1, Elmhurst, and NCC all 1-1 vs RRO.  I think the relative order here has to be Elmhurst then Wheaton then NCC. 

Quite an obscure scenario. 

Wheaton would miss out of playoffs even though they might be ranked higher than NCC, because NCC has the AQ on point differential.  Wheaton needed to beat NCC by 20 to lead the point differential.  While leading 35-14 with just under 5 minutes remaining, Wheaton went to softer coverage to avoid allowing a quick TD.  Wheaton was allowing the short underneath passes and NCC drove down for the TD, thus taking the lead in point differential.

NCC destroyed Elmhurst, Elmhurst edged out Wheaton, and Wheaton handled NCC.  Weird year...

Elmhurst will likely be ranked highest of the 3, though virtually all but the BlueJay faithful view NCC and Wheaton as stronger teams. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2012, 12:05:50 PM
So Wally, you gonna take a stab at this before regional rankings come out?  Bethel, Wabash, and Concordia really muddied this up for us!  PLU gets a boost and I think CLU may have just gained a first round home game....unless the committee insists on seeing the CLU to Linfield rematch again.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on November 04, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
Is the time updated on the site?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 04, 2012, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on November 04, 2012, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
As far as what's going on here in the North, I think you project North Central as Pool A right now because Elmhurst is going to be a favorite against IWU (can the Titans rebound...sure they can, but would you bank on it...not me).  Thank the heavens for garbage time touchdowns, am I right Cards fans?!  So that throws Wheaton as a serious Pool C player right now because when the rankings come out Wheaton almost HAS to be in front of North Central...identical records, Wheaton has the h2h.  Seems an obvious move to me.  That'll make Wheaton 1-1, Elmhurst, and NCC all 1-1 vs RRO.  I think the relative order here has to be Elmhurst then Wheaton then NCC. 

Quite an obscure scenario. 

Wheaton would miss out of playoffs even though they might be ranked higher than NCC, because NCC has the AQ on point differential.  Wheaton needed to beat NCC by 20 to lead the point differential.  While leading 35-14 with just under 5 minutes remaining, Wheaton went to softer coverage to avoid allowing a quick TD.  Wheaton was allowing the short underneath passes and NCC drove down for the TD, thus taking the lead in point differential.

NCC destroyed Elmhurst, Elmhurst edged out Wheaton, and Wheaton handled NCC.  Weird year...

Elmhurst will likely be ranked highest of the 3, though virtually all but the BlueJay faithful view NCC and Wheaton as stronger teams.

Agree with both wally and mugsy here on pretty much all counts. In the poll this week, I actually had it Wheaton, Elmhurst, NCC, but as was mentioned, there is no right answer, especially because the Albion loss in hindsight doesn't look as bad for Wheaton, while the UW-La Crosse loss kind of does. So for polling purposes, the answer might be a little different than for regional ranking purposes, for which the criteria is clear, and that might be different than for AQ purposes.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 04, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
This feels like a handy place to do this ... as many of the Pool C possbilities (plus B/Wesley) as I can think of (I know all these teams don't have a real shot, and some would have to lose to be in Pool C, so save it) and where they sit in the SoS rankings:

Team    Regional
record    Regional
win %    OWP (rank)    OOWP    NCAA

1 Wesley    5-1    .833    .7561 (2)    .5538    0.689
4 Willamette    6-2    .750    .6604 (4)    .5582    0.626
5 Pacific Lutheran    6-2    .750    .6545 (5)    .5664    0.625
9 Concordia-Moorhead    6-2    .750    .6190 (13)    .5730    0.604
10 Huntingdon    4-2    .667    .6512 (7)    .5058    0.603
14 Bethel    7-2    .778    .5942 (24)    .5669    0.585
27 Endicott    8-2    .800    .6023 (20)    .4846    0.563
31 Wabash    5-2    .714    .6111 (17)    .4601    0.561
33 Wheaton (Ill.)    7-2    .778    .5714 (39)    .5315    0.558
45 Muhlenberg    6-2    .750    .5625 (49)    .5176    0.548
46 Hardin-Simmons    5-3    .625    .5472 (58)    .5477    0.547
49 North Central (Ill.)    7-2    .778    .5507 (53)    .5310    0.544
55 Franklin and Marshall    7-2    .778    .5352 (68)    .5419    0.537
56 Lycoming    7-2    .778    .5652 (43)    .4783    0.536
62 Elmhurst    8-1    .889    .5211 (77)    .5486    0.530
63 UW-Platteville    7-2    .778    .5152 (83)    .5607    0.530
64 Lake Forest    8-1    .889    .5493 (54)    .4906    0.530
80 Cal Lutheran    7-1    .875    .5098 (94)    .5263    0.515
82 St. Olaf    6-2    .750    .4754 (147)    .5936    0.515
85 Ohio Wesleyan    8-1    .889    .5161 (81)    .5009    0.511
87 Bridgewater State    9-1    .900    .5116 (88)    .5097    0.511
89 Rowan    6-1    .857    .5098 (95)    .5048    0.508
96 Louisiana College    5-2    .714    .4889 (128)    .5360    0.505
106 Otterbein    6-2    .750    .4921 (123)    .5138    0.499
115 Greenville    7-2    .778    .5000 (103)    .4860    0.495
119 UW-Whitewater    6-2    .750    .4630 (164)    .5524    0.493
120 St. Scholastica    8-2    .800    .4938 (117)    .4893    0.492
139 Kean    5-2    .714    .4808 (138)    .4917    0.484
140 Northwestern (Minn.)    8-2    .800    .4815 (136)    .4867    0.483
144 Castleton State    7-2    .778    .4783 (142)    .4888    0.482
149 Gallaudet    5-2    .714    .4909 (127)    .4528    0.478
158 Baldwin-Wallace    7-2    .778    .4493 (171)    .5275    0.475
166 Franklin    7-1    .875    .4677 (157)    .4764    0.471
167 Delaware Valley    7-2    .778    .4638 (162)    .4842    0.471
169 Framingham State    9-1    .900    .4483 (174)    .5095    0.469
170 Salve Regina    9-1    .900    .4419 (181)    .5219    0.469
175 Millsaps    6-2    .750    .4444 (176)    .5069    0.465
187 Wisconsin Lutheran    7-2    .778    .4429 (178)    .4715    0.452
194 Heidelberg    8-1    .889    .4118 (206)    .5253    0.450
197 Thomas More    6-2    .750    .4426 (180)    .4489    0.445
211 Hanover    6-2    .750    .4000 (211)    .4844    0.428
214 Mount Ida    7-2    .778    .3857 (217)    .4945    0.422
216 Carroll    7-2    .778    .3889 (215)    .4852    0.421
218 Wittenberg    8-1    .889    .3692 (224)    .5217    0.420
220 Kenyon    6-2    .750    .3770 (222)    .5010    0.418
221 Washington and Jefferson    6-2    .750    .3833 (218)    .4844    0.417
223 Illinois College    7-1    .875    .3692 (225)    .5035    0.414
224 Ferrum    6-2    .750    .3667 (226)    .4951    0.410
227 Waynesburg    9-0    1.000    .3529 (228)    .4991    0.402
228 St. Norbert    7-1    .875    .3538 (227)    .4835    0.397
229 Chapman    6-2    .750    .3396 (229)    .5121    0.397

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 04, 2012, 03:28:32 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2012, 12:05:50 PM
So Wally, you gonna take a stab at this before regional rankings come out?

To do that, he (or anyone else who wanted to take a stab) would first have to take a stab at projecting the regional rankings, so then we could have that info to use to make the Pool C selections.

I think that's step one, to re-do the RR based on what we know now.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 04, 2012, 04:25:04 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 08:34:44 PM
Updated.

OWU and Ill. Coll ... and Bridgewater State, which Wally did not mention and who is 9-1 but is guarded from losing in the NEFC championship game by not participating in it (Fram vs. Salve), might actually be today's big winners. We shall see.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2012, 12:23:38 PM
Here are the 1-loss teams remaining in Pool C:

- Wabash or Wittenberg (one will likely win the AQ, the other goes to Pool C)
- OWU (hard to find a scenario that favors the Bishops for the NCAC AQ)
- Elmhurst
- Heidelberg
- Baldwin-Wallace (probably has a second loss coming via UMU)
- Rowan
- Bethel
- Concordia-Moorhead
- Illinois College

And that's it.  9 teams, one is almost certainly going to lose a second time (BW), another has a strong test coming (Concordia-Moorhead).  Elmhurst also has a game left with IWU which is not a gimme, especially if IWU can collect themselves a bit between now and 11/10.

I remember pointing out Bridgewater State to you last weekend on "In the HuddLLe" -- I really think there are two things that make it different from the Endicott scenario last year:

1) The Springfield win was a lot better than the OOC wins Endicott had in 2011.  For subjective strength reasons, this helps Bridgewater; and

2) There are just a lot less one-loss teams on the board this year.  How many times can the Committee pass over a one-loss team when no other one-loss teams exist on the board?  Bridgewater State is likely the second East team on the board.  That means after Rowan is the 1st or 2nd Pool C team picked (assuming a win next week), Bridgewater State will be sitting there for 5 or 6 picks.

That said, this could cause a real chaotic problem in bracketing.  Mount Union is assumed to be a #1 seed atop the East-centric bracket.  Yet, if the NEFC winner, the ECFC winner and Bridgewater State are 6, 7 and 8 in the bracket, Mount Union would be forced to face #5 in the bracket in the First Round to avoid a flight.  The New England teams are all 500+ miles away, and the more teams we see from New England, the uglier the matchups will look in terms of quality teams being ousted in the first round at the hands of the Mount Unions of the fields.  I think the Committee is going to be pained in choosing Bridgewater State, knowing the geographic Twister the pick could cause.  However, I believe it becomes unavoidable under the projected status of the board currently (which can only get better from Bridgewater State in the clubhouse right now at 9-1).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 04, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2012, 12:05:50 PM
So Wally, you gonna take a stab at this before regional rankings come out?  Bethel, Wabash, and Concordia really muddied this up for us!  PLU gets a boost and I think CLU may have just gained a first round home game....unless the committee insists on seeing the CLU to Linfield rematch again.....

Oh no.  Like last week, I'll wait to project anything until the rankings come out on Wednesday.  Once we get to the point where official rankings are being released, I think it's best to just wait on those instead of trying to guess at what those rankings will look like and projecting off of that guess.   

That, and I don't have the foggiest idea how to order these teams right now, especially in the North.  I don't think we get much change in the South...I think Huntingdon is still just slightly ahead of LC.  I think the East is still probably Rowan-Lyco-Bridgewater State.  North and West though...your guess is as good as mine. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 04, 2012, 05:31:43 PM
It used to be, before the days of published criteria, SOS and regional rankings, that the committee really favored home vs away records and winning streaks.

For example, losing in the last 2 weeks of the season was often the death blow for a team's pool C chances. That is not a published criteria now but, may be  a way to differentiate teams and rank them.

For example, Wheaton's win yesterday over a RRO was on the road, while they lost to Elmhurst and Albion on the road. Elmhurst's only loss is @NCC and they will have won 6 straight with a win over IWU Saturday. NCC will have 2 losses at home and a loss in the last 2 weeks of the season.

If the committee had the freedom to look at those types of things, they may be able to separate some of the 2 loss teams, etc.

The regional rankings will be huge this week.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 04, 2012, 05:44:08 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2012, 12:05:50 PM
So Wally, you gonna take a stab at this before regional rankings come out?  Bethel, Wabash, and Concordia really muddied this up for us!  PLU gets a boost and I think CLU may have just gained a first round home game....unless the committee insists on seeing the CLU to Linfield rematch again.....

Oh no.  Like last week, I'll wait to project anything until the rankings come out on Wednesday.  Once we get to the point where official rankings are being released, I think it's best to just wait on those instead of trying to guess at what those rankings will look like and projecting off of that guess.   

That, and I don't have the foggiest idea how to order these teams right now, especially in the North.  I don't think we get much change in the South...I think Huntingdon is still just slightly ahead of LC.  I think the East is still probably Rowan-Lyco-Bridgewater State.  North and West though...your guess is as good as mine.

Remember that Lyco plays a winless team this week.  That means its SOS will likely plunge below Bridgewater State, whose OOWP will rise based on the NEFC Championship game most likely.  Subjectivity and games vs. RRO would be the only counterbalance for the Lyco as #2 at-large scenario even if this week's numbers put Lyco above Bridgewater State again.  It's another case of football's SOS numbers being too fluid due to lack of sample size, making the ordering in the East a tough game to guess.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wesleydad on November 04, 2012, 06:14:13 PM
if del val beats widener and gets the mac AQ, does that make the committees job easier since widener would likely be the second team on the board after rowan in the east.  sending a 5 to mount would really be unfair since the 5 would likely beat any of the teams in the 6 - 8 spots in the mount bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2012, 06:23:28 PM
After last year I wouldn't be surprised about what the committee will do. I think we need to see the field first before kvetching about seeds and travel! (I speculated last week about a possible North bracket- ooperdy!)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 04, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on November 04, 2012, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
As far as what's going on here in the North, I think you project North Central as Pool A right now because Elmhurst is going to be a favorite against IWU (can the Titans rebound...sure they can, but would you bank on it...not me).  Thank the heavens for garbage time touchdowns, am I right Cards fans?!  So that throws Wheaton as a serious Pool C player right now because when the rankings come out Wheaton almost HAS to be in front of North Central...identical records, Wheaton has the h2h.  Seems an obvious move to me.  That'll make Wheaton 1-1, Elmhurst, and NCC all 1-1 vs RRO.  I think the relative order here has to be Elmhurst then Wheaton then NCC. 

Quite an obscure scenario. 

Wheaton would miss out of playoffs even though they might be ranked higher than NCC, because NCC has the AQ on point differential.  Wheaton needed to beat NCC by 20 to lead the point differential.  While leading 35-14 with just under 5 minutes remaining, Wheaton went to softer coverage to avoid allowing a quick TD.  Wheaton was allowing the short underneath passes and NCC drove down for the TD, thus taking the lead in point differential.

NCC destroyed Elmhurst, Elmhurst edged out Wheaton, and Wheaton handled NCC.  Weird year...

Elmhurst will likely be ranked highest of the 3, though virtually all but the BlueJay faithful view NCC and Wheaton as stronger teams.

Even some of the BlueJay faithful agree with that! ;)

Nonetheless, one loss trumps two losses most of the time: I finally crossed my fingers and went Elmhurst, NCC, Wheaton on my poll ballots, but it is impossible to find a single logical way to untangle the CCIW 'triplets'! ::)

If only IWU's Gallik hadn't gotten hurt - we could be debating the 'quadruplets'! 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 04, 2012, 10:24:37 PM
North RR should look like this IMO

mt Union
CUC
Elmhurst
Heidelberg
Witt
Adrian
OWU
Franklin
Wheaton
Wabash
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 05, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Pat and I just went HARD on Pool C in the podcast. 16-17 teams, especially if Kenyon ends up with the NCAC AQ, in contention. Four in each region. Kinda cool to look at them as a group side by side.

But because we've got a site to run, and we need to sleep, we'll roll this stuff out during the week. I'm promising a bonus Pool C blog post, and Pat will do another playoff projection.

As i said on the podcast, we've had two seasons where things go haywire in Week 11 and two-loss Pool C teams get to the board ... but I don't think we've ever had this many who believe in their chances (or this few one-loss teams; I count five, maybe six, depending on who clinches the NCAC) and barring losses by undefeated teams that cost them AQs and drop them into Pool C (Widener, Waynesburg).

All in all, this just got pretty awesome. Week 11 here we come.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 05, 2012, 12:56:06 PM
Quote from: USee on November 04, 2012, 10:24:37 PM
North RR should look like this IMO

mt Union
CUC
Elmhurst
Heidelberg
Witt
Adrian
OWU
Franklin
Wheaton
Wabash

That's is a VERY winnable region for Oshkosh once Mount heads east again.  I would expect UWO to be placed here to break up the Linfield/St Thomas/Oshkosh grouping.   Most dangerous team to UWO in the North is probably NCC which probably won't be regionally ranked.  H'Berg has some talent, but they're VERY young and this will be their first ever playoff appearance.   Hard to imagine they'll do much damage beyond Round 1.  I realize UWO is making their first appearance too, but big difference between Nate Wara and Co's experience versus the sophomores at H'Berg.   Whereas NCC is battle tested, though inconsistent.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 05, 2012, 03:34:21 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 04, 2012, 04:25:04 PM
this could cause a real chaotic problem in bracketing.  Mount Union is assumed to be a #1 seed atop the East-centric bracket.  Yet, if the NEFC winner, the ECFC winner and Bridgewater State are 6, 7 and 8 in the bracket, Mount Union would be forced to face #5 in the bracket in the First Round to avoid a flight.  The New England teams are all 500+ miles away, and the more teams we see from New England, the uglier the matchups will look in terms of quality teams being ousted in the first round at the hands of the Mount Unions of the fields.  I think the Committee is going to be pained in choosing Bridgewater State, knowing the geographic Twister the pick could cause.  However, I believe it becomes unavoidable under the projected status of the board currently (which can only get better from Bridgewater State in the clubhouse right now at 9-1).

Wouldn't the committee choose to do something similar to what they did last year?  They could construct an eastern-most bracket where UMU played Adrian or Lake Forest in the first round and then mostly East Region teams from there on.  New England teams could play at Hobart or Widener and MAC/NJAC teams could play in the southern-most bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 05, 2012, 03:34:21 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 04, 2012, 04:25:04 PM
this could cause a real chaotic problem in bracketing.  Mount Union is assumed to be a #1 seed atop the East-centric bracket.  Yet, if the NEFC winner, the ECFC winner and Bridgewater State are 6, 7 and 8 in the bracket, Mount Union would be forced to face #5 in the bracket in the First Round to avoid a flight.  The New England teams are all 500+ miles away, and the more teams we see from New England, the uglier the matchups will look in terms of quality teams being ousted in the first round at the hands of the Mount Unions of the fields.  I think the Committee is going to be pained in choosing Bridgewater State, knowing the geographic Twister the pick could cause.  However, I believe it becomes unavoidable under the projected status of the board currently (which can only get better from Bridgewater State in the clubhouse right now at 9-1).

Wouldn't the committee choose to do something similar to what they did last year?  They could construct an eastern-most bracket where UMU played Adrian or Lake Forest in the first round and then mostly East Region teams from there on.  New England teams could play at Hobart or Widener and MAC/NJAC teams could play in the southern-most bracket.

I think this year's bracketing makes things tough in that respect.

1) Mount Union
2) Hobart
3) Widener
4) Cortland St.
5) Rowan
6) Salve Regina/Framingham St.
7) Bridgewater St.
8) Mt. Ida/Castleton St.

The only way it would be feasible would be to roll Rowan out of the East and into the South with a Rowan/Wesley matchup in the First Round.  However, bringing in a really low-profile team with three or four losses would make the bracket extremely imbalanced.  I'm not saying it would be impossible.  However, something's gotta give if Bridgewater is indeed a Pool C team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Nothing will have to give because Bridgewater State will not be a Pool C team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Nothing will have to give because Bridgewater State will not be a Pool C team.

Because...?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 05, 2012, 04:18:59 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Nothing will have to give because Bridgewater State will not be a Pool C team.

Because...?
Strength of Schedule
Pacific Lutheran: .625
Bethel: .585
Wabash: .561
Wheaton: .558
Bridgewater State: 0.511
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 05, 2012, 04:21:13 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 05, 2012, 03:34:21 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 04, 2012, 04:25:04 PM
this could cause a real chaotic problem in bracketing.  Mount Union is assumed to be a #1 seed atop the East-centric bracket.  Yet, if the NEFC winner, the ECFC winner and Bridgewater State are 6, 7 and 8 in the bracket, Mount Union would be forced to face #5 in the bracket in the First Round to avoid a flight.  The New England teams are all 500+ miles away, and the more teams we see from New England, the uglier the matchups will look in terms of quality teams being ousted in the first round at the hands of the Mount Unions of the fields.  I think the Committee is going to be pained in choosing Bridgewater State, knowing the geographic Twister the pick could cause.  However, I believe it becomes unavoidable under the projected status of the board currently (which can only get better from Bridgewater State in the clubhouse right now at 9-1).

Wouldn't the committee choose to do something similar to what they did last year?  They could construct an eastern-most bracket where UMU played Adrian or Lake Forest in the first round and then mostly East Region teams from there on.  New England teams could play at Hobart or Widener and MAC/NJAC teams could play in the southern-most bracket.

I think this year's bracketing makes things tough in that respect.

1) Mount Union
2) Hobart
3) Widener
4) Cortland St.
5) Rowan
6) Salve Regina/Framingham St.
7) Bridgewater St.
8) Mt. Ida/Castleton St.

The only way it would be feasible would be to roll Rowan out of the East and into the South with a Rowan/Wesley matchup in the First Round.  However, bringing in a really low-profile team with three or four losses would make the bracket extremely imbalanced.  I'm not saying it would be impossible.  However, something's gotta give if Bridgewater is indeed a Pool C team.

One of the New England schools could go to Wesley, another to Hobart and the last to Widener (assuming they're undefeated).  Mount Union gets a North or West team in the first round.  Cortland could get JHU in the "east" and Rowan could go to Salisbury in the "south".  I liked what the committee did last year and hope they mix and match regions again.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 05, 2012, 04:22:15 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Nothing will have to give because Bridgewater State will not be a Pool C team.

Because...?

I think because Bridgewater State was buried behind a bunch of two loss East teams.  You can wipe SJF off of those in the way of Bridgewater State after Saturday.  But still in the way are Rowan and whoever is left over from the MAC (Widener or Lycoming and/or possibly Delaware Valley if they win on Saturday).  I think it's just too many teams in Bridgewater State's way for them to be selected. 

Unless they totally jumble the regional rankings from last week.  Why not?  Let's keep it interesting.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:29:20 PM
Quote from: AO on November 05, 2012, 04:18:59 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Nothing will have to give because Bridgewater State will not be a Pool C team.

Because...?
Strength of Schedule
Pacific Lutheran: .625
Bethel: .585
Wabash: .561
Wheaton: .558
Bridgewater State: 0.511

Two things, though:  one loss vs. two losses accounts for some offset.  Also, Bridgewater will benefit in SOS from the NEFC Championship Game.  The only offset to that would be Springfield's result vs. WPI (Springfield win helps, loss hurts).  I guess we're going to learn how much RRO stats mean in these scenarios at the end of the day -- this will be interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 05, 2012, 04:44:28 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:29:20 PM
Quote from: AO on November 05, 2012, 04:18:59 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Nothing will have to give because Bridgewater State will not be a Pool C team.

Because...?
Strength of Schedule
Pacific Lutheran: .625
Bethel: .585
Wabash: .561
Wheaton: .558
Bridgewater State: 0.511

Two things, though:  one loss vs. two losses accounts for some offset.  Also, Bridgewater will benefit in SOS from the NEFC Championship Game.  The only offset to that would be Springfield's result vs. WPI (Springfield win helps, loss hurts).  I guess we're going to learn how much RRO stats mean in these scenarios at the end of the day -- this will be interesting.

I'm estimating here, but I don't think Bridgewater is going to get a significant bump in SOS from the NEFC title game happening.  Follow me here...

Bridgewater State played Frahmingham State who could get an extra win.  That pushes BSU's OWP up by one game.  BSU's OWP right now is .5116 which if I assume all of their opponents have regional games it means those opponents are 46-45 currently.  One more win makes BSU's opponents 47-45 for a .5165 OWP. 

Now, if we assume BSU's opponent's opponents have all regional games, then their record currently is something on the order of 413-397.  If we add another 9-1 record on to that, we get 422-398 or a OOWP of .5146 compared to .5097 before the NEFC title game. 

Add up 2/3 of OWP and 1/3 of OOWP and you get a new SOS of 0.516 compared to 0.511.  This is all estimation and there will be a game here or there that I'm not accounting for, but one game here or there isn't going to give BSU the 0.05 or so SOS boost they need to start leaping teams that the RAC has already decided are in front of them. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:52:27 PM
Springfield also plays WPI this week. I suspect that's going to cancel out pretty much anything that BW State would gain from Framingham playing Salve.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:52:27 PM
Springfield also plays WPI this week. I suspect that's going to cancel out pretty much anything that BW State would gain from Framingham playing Salve.

If Springfield wins, that would help OWP, no?  Also remember that most of Bridgewater St.'s opponents and opponents' opponents are in the clubhouse.  So, there isn't going to be much movement in the SOS for Bridgewater St. aside from what's been specifically mentioned.  Lycoming has an 0-9 team to go, which means at least an 0.03 drop in SOS overall, with everything else being equal.  I'm pretty confident there's no way Lyco's SOS would remain above Bridgewater St.'s barring some really extreme results in the OOWS numbers on both sides.

(Wally, you might be forgetting that only two teams in the NEFC play this weekend -- and most of the NEFC schedules overlap themselves.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 05:51:34 PM
By one game it would help OWP but it would hurt OOWP the same amount that Salve would help it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 05, 2012, 06:46:24 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:52:27 PM
Springfield also plays WPI this week. I suspect that's going to cancel out pretty much anything that BW State would gain from Framingham playing Salve.

If Springfield wins, that would help OWP, no?  Also remember that most of Bridgewater St.'s opponents and opponents' opponents are in the clubhouse.  So, there isn't going to be much movement in the SOS for Bridgewater St. aside from what's been specifically mentioned.  Lycoming has an 0-9 team to go, which means at least an 0.03 drop in SOS overall, with everything else being equal.  I'm pretty confident there's no way Lyco's SOS would remain above Bridgewater St.'s barring some really extreme results in the OOWS numbers on both sides.

(Wally, you might be forgetting that only two teams in the NEFC play this weekend -- and most of the NEFC schedules overlap themselves.)

No, I'm aware of who is playing on Saturday.  BSU's SOS just isn't going to move much because they're in the clubhouse.  They'll be adding just two results to their OWP and the OOWP size is so big at this point that movement there is negligible. 

Even with the drop in SOS for Lycoming, I think it's hard for the RAC to have BSU jump Lycoming when BSU doesn't play, assuming Lycoming wins of course. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2012, 12:26:12 AM
A clarification, please, on SoS.  Both OWP and OOWP are calculated for all d3 opponents (whether in or out of region), but only for d3 opponents - correct?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2012, 12:39:39 AM
Regional SOS is only regional numbers, so it's your regional record, the opponents' regional record and their opponents' regional record, calculated for your games that are in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2012, 01:01:46 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2012, 12:39:39 AM
Regional SOS is only regional numbers, so it's your regional record, the opponents' regional record and their opponents' regional record, calculated for your games that are in-region.

Thanks - I didn't realize that SoS was also only in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 06, 2012, 09:10:21 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2012, 06:46:24 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 05, 2012, 04:52:27 PM
Springfield also plays WPI this week. I suspect that's going to cancel out pretty much anything that BW State would gain from Framingham playing Salve.

If Springfield wins, that would help OWP, no?  Also remember that most of Bridgewater St.'s opponents and opponents' opponents are in the clubhouse.  So, there isn't going to be much movement in the SOS for Bridgewater St. aside from what's been specifically mentioned.  Lycoming has an 0-9 team to go, which means at least an 0.03 drop in SOS overall, with everything else being equal.  I'm pretty confident there's no way Lyco's SOS would remain above Bridgewater St.'s barring some really extreme results in the OOWS numbers on both sides.

(Wally, you might be forgetting that only two teams in the NEFC play this weekend -- and most of the NEFC schedules overlap themselves.)

No, I'm aware of who is playing on Saturday.  BSU's SOS just isn't going to move much because they're in the clubhouse.  They'll be adding just two results to their OWP and the OOWP size is so big at this point that movement there is negligible. 

Even with the drop in SOS for Lycoming, I think it's hard for the RAC to have BSU jump Lycoming when BSU doesn't play, assuming Lycoming wins of course.

I don't look at it as an idle team jumping.  I look at it as an active team slipping.  There's actually a difference there beyond semantics.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 06, 2012, 12:45:20 PM
it may not be relevant to what you are discussing but an actual example from 2008 was that in the week before the final games the regional rankings for the North came out and had Wooster ahead of Wheaton (both with 2 losses). Both teams won their final game and Wheaton ended up the last team picked while Wooster stayed home. Wheaton ended up in the semifinals against Mt Union. Clearly Wheaton jumped Wooster in the regional rankings in order to get to the table. Something similar may have happened last year with SJF.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 06, 2012, 09:15:28 PM
Pat's point on the podcast, re: Bridgewater State, is that they have an h2h loss to Framingham, which means they won't jump them. Then, because one of the criteria is results in postseason contests, and theory that a bad result is better than no result, Salve would still have to get in before Bridgewater.

I don't think I started out thinking that way, but I am more convinced than before that Bridgewater State is up against it, and their 9-1 might not be judged better than the NEFC title game loser's 9-2.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 05:41:12 AM
My pre-regional-ranking guide to Pool C:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/?p=2034
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 07, 2012, 06:15:02 AM
Good projection.   I can't shoot any holes in the 7 teams you picked.   Now the fun will be re-calculating this after Saturday's games screw it all up.....

Who are your #1 seeds, in seeded order?   Mine would be:
#1 Mount Union (east)
#2 MHB (south)
#3 Linfield (west)
#4 Oshkosh (north)

Based on schedule, I could also see MHB being the overall #1 instead of Mount.   IMHO, Oshkosh is a clear #4 overall. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: thewaterboy on November 07, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
My #1 seeds would be:

#1 UMHB (south)
#2 Mount Union (east)
#3 Linfield (west)
#4 Oshkosh (north)

I kind of anticipate UMHB going as the #1 because of SOS, but mostly because of their out-of-conference win over Wesley. IMO, that has given them the #1 seed after that W alone. The committee seems to look to SOS to determine those seeds (Remember 2010, Wesley got the #1 overall seed and had the best SOS).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 08:38:34 AM
I know we saw a 2 loss team jump a 1 loss team last year but I just have a hard time believing that will happen in the North this year. Do you guys really think Witt and OWU with 1 loss will be ahead of Wheaton? I would love that but my head tells me no way.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 10:30:26 AM
That's a really good piece, Keith.  It's really tough to try and order these teams while trying to balance win percentage, h2h results, results vs RROs and SOS.  Usually, it falls into place pretty well (see: last week). Not so much right now. 

I thought we'd kick off Regional Rankings day wiht a Pool A recap.  Here's what I've got so far in Pool A...new teams to list are in italics, teams that have clinched bids are bolded.   


   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Castleton State   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Cortland State   
   NCAC   
   Kenyon   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   St. Scholastica   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW-Oshkosh   

Everybody who hasn't clinched is in a win and in situation with the following exceptions:
North Central- Needs an Elmhurst win to force a three-way tiebreak. 
Kenyon - Strangley, Kenyon needs Witt and OWU to both win to force a three way tie. Or just Witt..I guess Kenyon probably wins a tiebreak with Wittenberg also.  I don't know.  It's screwy. 

I guess we can also talk about Pool B before the rankings are released.  Wesley will be granted the Pool B bid.  They hold advantages on win pct, RRO results, SOS, and h2h against their only real Pool B challenger, Huntingdon. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 10:41:42 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 10:30:26 AM
That's a really good piece, Keith.  It's really tough to try and order these teams while trying to balance win percentage, h2h results, results vs RROs and SOS.  Usually, it falls into place pretty well (see: last week). Not so much right now. 

I thought we'd kick off Regional Rankings day wiht a Pool A recap.  Here's what I've got so far in Pool A...new teams to list are in italics, teams that have clinched bids are bolded.   


   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Castleton State   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Cortland State   
   NCAC   
   Kenyon   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   St. Scholastica   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW-Oshkosh   

Everybody who hasn't clinched is in a win and in situation with the following exceptions:
North Central- Needs an Elmhurst win to force a three-way tiebreak. 
Kenyon - Strangley, Kenyon needs Witt and OWU to both win to force a three way tie. Or just Witt..I guess Kenyon probably wins a tiebreak with Wittenberg also.  I don't know.  It's screwy. 

I guess we can also talk about Pool B before the rankings are released.  Wesley will be granted the Pool B bid.  They hold advantages on win pct, RRO results, SOS, and h2h against their only real Pool B challenger, Huntingdon.

Wally,

Awesome stuff.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 10:56:14 AM
I think St. Thomas will get the top seed over Linfield if it wins. Linfield's SOS will continue to slide and St. Thomas' will climb. St. Thomas' recent postseason history gives them the nod in that unbeaten-team tiebreaker that was put in last year.

Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
My #1 seeds would be:

#1 UMHB (south)
#2 Mount Union (east)
#3 Linfield (west)
#4 Oshkosh (north)

I kind of anticipate UMHB going as the #1 because of SOS, but mostly because of their out-of-conference win over Wesley. IMO, that has given them the #1 seed after that W alone. The committee seems to look to SOS to determine those seeds (Remember 2010, Wesley got the #1 overall seed and had the best SOS).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 11:37:00 AM
I still don't know how Kenyon gets the NCAC AQ? Will the NCAC issue a definitive statement?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on November 07, 2012, 11:51:23 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 10:56:14 AM
I think St. Thomas will get the top seed over Linfield if it wins. Linfield's SOS will continue to slide and St. Thomas' will climb. St. Thomas' recent postseason history gives them the nod in that unbeaten-team tiebreaker that was put in last year.

Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
My #1 seeds would be:

#1 UMHB (south)
#2 Mount Union (east)
#3 Linfield (west)
#4 Oshkosh (north)

I kind of anticipate UMHB going as the #1 because of SOS, but mostly because of their out-of-conference win over Wesley. IMO, that has given them the #1 seed after that W alone. The committee seems to look to SOS to determine those seeds (Remember 2010, Wesley got the #1 overall seed and had the best SOS).

So how much weight or consideration does the committee give teams for past playoff apperances? Which holds more weight, SOS or recent playoff appearances?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
Past playoff appearances only matter when considering unbeaten teams and i think it's a secondary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 12:24:48 PM
Sort of playing around a bit with SOS numbers in the North region...we can do some estimation on this since Saturday's games won't be factored in to OWPs. 

I did a little more than estimate with Wabash.  Wabash enters Saturday with an OWP of .6111 (opponent's regional record less results vs. Wabash is 33-21, FYI).  To that number, Wabash is going to add DePauw's 1-5 record (boo), Witt/Oberlin/OWU/Wooster will add two wins and two losses no matter how those games go.  That leaves results from Hanover (vs. Franklin), Denison (vs. Kenyon), and Allegheny (vs. Hiram) to factor in.  I'll go ahead and count Allegheny as a win.  I think we have to project Denison and Hanover as losses.  Add it all up and Wabash is going to add 4 wins and 9 losses to their OWP, which translates to a 37-30 opponents' record.   What does it do to Wabash's SOS... [(33/54) *(2/3)] - [(37/67) * (2/3)] = .0392.  Wabash stands to lose about .0392 on their SOS, which really stinks.  That's a big hit.  Now, DePauw's OWP of .5652 (give or take this weekend's results) is going to get lumped in to Wabash's OOWP of .4601, so some of that loss will be offset, but it's still going to be a net loss for Wabash's SOS.  If Denison can beat Kenyon, that loss gets cut to 0.029.  If Hanover and Denison win, it shrinks further to just 0.019.  Just something to watch for. 

I did the extra math for Wabash because I have an extra interest there, obviously.  One other thing to note here is that the effect of DePauw's record on Wabash's SOS is magnified because Wabash's aggregregate regional record is smaller because Washington and Carnegie Mellon are ridiculously not factored in. 

Anyway, looking and estimating what to expect from other SOS's this week amongst our North region hopefuls...

Elmhurst - Probably the big winner this weekend (unless they lose of course).  IWU will bump their OWP, and later today I'd almost bet the farm that Wheaton will pop up as a regional win for them.  IWU's OWP will ding the Jays' OOWP just a smidge.  Elmhurst's opponents are probably looking at a 1-2 weekend which also doesn't help, but overall this is going to be a net win for Elmhurst this weekend.  I think the Titans get about a 0.01 or so boost...new estimate 0.540.


Wheaton - North Park's 1-8 record plus non-league opponent's results are probably going to knock down Wheaton's SOS by somewhere around 0.03 points...kind of in the same boat as Wabash.  New estimate - 0.530

North Central - Augustana will keep their OWP about the same.  UWs Stout and LaCrosse are likely losers this weekend.  Redlands is a likely winner.  Net result here is that North Central's SOS shouldn't move too much, maybe a touch lower if anything.  New estimate - 0.540

Witt - Oberlin will actually bump Witt's SOS but it's really pretty marginal.  New estimate - 0.425

OWU - Wooster does not help OWU's SOS.  Bishops are looking at a drop of 0.025 or so.  New estimate - 0.485

Heidelberg - Gets a boost from B-W.  I'm estimating about 0.025.  But the Berg's SOS is still very low.  New estimate - 0.475

And for completeness, I'm estimating Wabash's SOS to land somewhere around 0.525. 

What's it all mean?  Mostly, I think it means Wittenberg is in trouble if they don't get the NCAC AQ.  For everybody else, I think it means you can order these teams in almost any way you want and so justifiably.  Whether you like win pct or quality wins or schedule strength, there is a wildly different way to order these teams that fits any preference.  This is going to be super interesting to see what happens this afternoon.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: short on November 07, 2012, 12:43:09 PM
Wally, are you saying that if Witt doesn't get the AQ OWU and Wabash would be in front of them as Pool B at large teams? 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 12:57:55 PM
Quote from: short on November 07, 2012, 12:43:09 PM
Wally, are you saying that if Witt doesn't get the AQ OWU and Wabash would be in front of them as Pool B at large teams?

Pool C teams, just so that we're accurate.  You could certainly make a case that OWU and Wabash would be in front of Witt in the North Region.  I doubt that will happen.  Despite the h2h results and superior SOS, my feeling is that Wabash is going to get hammered for losing a second game.  Thems the breaks. 

Wittenberg doesn't have a Wabash problem right now as much as I think they've got an everybody else problem.  Witt has a poor SOS that won't get better on Saturday.  They will not have any quality wins to hang their hat on.  The best thing Witt can say about their schedule is that they beat two teams that Wabash lost to and at that point you're really starting to get into some pretty skinny arguments when trying to get selected in front of teams like Bethel (strong SOS, quality win), Huntingdon (same as Bethel), or even a team like PLU who has a monster SOS without a quality win.  Witt's SOS right now ranks as 218 out of 229 which wins them zero favors from a selection committee.  That's the bottom line for Wittenberg I think. 

We'll know what's up with Witt when the rankings come out.  They will be behind Elmhurst and Heidelberg.  They may be behind Wheaton as well.  And there is a slim chance that they get behind Wabash also.  I think if Witt winds up behind Wheaton they have basically zero chance at selection.  They'll have a slim chance if they stay ahead of Wheaton.  Witt really needs Elmhurst or Heidelberg to lose to feel good about getting an invitation to the tournament. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: USee on November 07, 2012, 08:38:34 AM
I know we saw a 2 loss team jump a 1 loss team last year but I just have a hard time believing that will happen in the North this year. Do you guys really think Witt and OWU with 1 loss will be ahead of Wheaton? I would love that but my head tells me no way.

See chart.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2012/11/07/your-handy-guide-to-pool-c/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:03:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 11:37:00 AM
I still don't know how Kenyon gets the NCAC AQ? Will the NCAC issue a definitive statement?

In discussion on ATN board. They have been cooperative, but I would not call the statement definitive. I think I walked through how I get Kenyon either there or in the post.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 10:56:14 AM
I think St. Thomas will get the top seed over Linfield if it wins. Linfield's SOS will continue to slide and St. Thomas' will climb. St. Thomas' recent postseason history gives them the nod in that unbeaten-team tiebreaker that was put in last year.

Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
My #1 seeds would be:

#1 UMHB (south)
#2 Mount Union (east)
#3 Linfield (west)
#4 Oshkosh (north)

I kind of anticipate UMHB going as the #1 because of SOS, but mostly because of their out-of-conference win over Wesley. IMO, that has given them the #1 seed after that W alone. The committee seems to look to SOS to determine those seeds (Remember 2010, Wesley got the #1 overall seed and had the best SOS).

I definitely think St. Thomas grades out above UW-Oshkosh, and if there was a way they could do it, both UST and Linfield would get the 1 seeds, along with UMHB and UMU.

Interesting with UMHB as overall 1. Hadn't thought about that, but makes sense ... and a difference, playing in December in Ohio, Minn/Wisc, Delaware, or TEXAS :lol:
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:03:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 11:37:00 AM
I still don't know how Kenyon gets the NCAC AQ? Will the NCAC issue a definitive statement?

In discussion on ATN board. They have been cooperative, but I would not call the statement definitive. I think I walked through how I get Kenyon either there or in the post.

It definitely seems like Kenyon gets the AQ if everybody who we think should win wins.  I don't know why common opponents matter when examining, top to bottom, who you beat but then common opponents don't matter when examining, bottom to top, who you lost to. 

The office is probably fairly mum on this because you kind of have to wait for all of the results to come in before you can say who wins what tiebreak.  For instance, if Witt and Kenyon win and OWU loses, then it matters who wins the tie for third between Wabash and OWU (Wabash does, I think, but that applies logic and reason which has no place in the NCAC's tiebreak rules so who really knows).  There are probably just too many permutations here to say who wins in what scenario.  If it were an either/or situation it probably would've been in the weekly release or blasted out in a tweet by now. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
I added record and opponent this weekend to Wally's data here.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 10:30:26 AM
That's a really good piece, Keith.  It's really tough to try and order these teams while trying to balance win percentage, h2h results, results vs RROs and SOS.  Usually, it falls into place pretty well (see: last week). Not so much right now. 

I thought we'd kick off Regional Rankings day wiht a Pool A recap.  Here's what I've got so far in Pool A...new teams to list are in italics, teams that have clinched bids are bolded.   


   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB (9-0, v Miss College, 2-7)   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins (7-1, v. McDaniel, 0-8)   
   CCIW   
   North Central (7-2, @ Augustana, 5-4)   
   ECFC   
   Castleton State (7-2, v Mount Ida, 7-2)   
   E8   
   Salisbury (7-2, @Frostburg St, 3-6)   
   HCAC   
   Franklin (7-2, v Hanover, 6-3)   
   IIAC   
   Coe (9-0, v Central, 5-4)   
   LL   
   Hobart (9-0, v Rochester, 4-4)    
   MIAA   
   Adrian (8-1, @Huntington, 6-2)   
   MAC   
   Widener (8-0, v Delaware Valley, 7-2)   
   MWC   
   Lake Forest (8-1, @ St Norbert, 7-2)   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas (9-0, v St Olaf, 7-2)   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina (9-1, @ Framingham St, 9-1)   
   NJAC   
   Cortland State (7-1, v Ithaca, 6-3)   
   NCAC   
   Kenyon (6-3, v Denison, 3-6)   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago (9-0, @ Maranatha, 0-9)   
   NWC   
   Linfield (8-0, v Pacific, 3-5)   
   OAC   
   Mount Union (9-0, @ John Carroll, 6-3)   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee (7-2, v Shenandoah, 1-8)   
   PAC   
   Waynesburg (9-0 v Wash and Jeff, 7-2)   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran (7-1, v Chapman, 6-2)   
   UMAC   
   St. Scholastica (8-2, @ Minn Morris, 6-4)   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport (6-3, v Methodist, 4-5)   
   WIAC   
   UW-Oshkosh (9-0, v Stout, 3-6)   

Everybody who hasn't clinched is in a win and in situation with the following exceptions:
North Central- Needs an Elmhurst win to force a three-way tiebreak. 
Kenyon - Strangley, Kenyon needs Witt and OWU to both win to force a three way tie. Or just Witt..I guess Kenyon probably wins a tiebreak with Wittenberg also.  I don't know.  It's screwy. 

I guess we can also talk about Pool B before the rankings are released.  Wesley will be granted the Pool B bid.  They hold advantages on win pct, RRO results, SOS, and h2h against their only real Pool B challenger, Huntingdon.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 02:16:49 PM
Remember when the rankings were posted at around 12:30 last week?  Good times.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on November 07, 2012, 02:29:53 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 10:56:14 AM
I think St. Thomas will get the top seed over Linfield if it wins. Linfield's SOS will continue to slide and St. Thomas' will climb. St. Thomas' recent postseason history gives them the nod in that unbeaten-team tiebreaker that was put in last year.

Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
My #1 seeds would be:

#1 UMHB (south)
#2 Mount Union (east)
#3 Linfield (west)
#4 Oshkosh (north)

I kind of anticipate UMHB going as the #1 because of SOS, but mostly because of their out-of-conference win over Wesley. IMO, that has given them the #1 seed after that W alone. The committee seems to look to SOS to determine those seeds (Remember 2010, Wesley got the #1 overall seed and had the best SOS).

I definitely think St. Thomas grades out above UW-Oshkosh, and if there was a way they could do it, both UST and Linfield would get the 1 seeds, along with UMHB and UMU.

Interesting with UMHB as overall 1. Hadn't thought about that, but makes sense ... and a difference, playing in December in Ohio, Minn/Wisc, Delaware, or TEXAS :lol:

It is so unfortunate that both UST and Linfield cannot get #1 seeds due to economic circumstances. I am not going to lie, I would donate to the cost that would allow each team to garner a #1 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2012, 02:40:17 PM
Quote from: SUADC on November 07, 2012, 02:29:53 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 10:56:14 AM
I think St. Thomas will get the top seed over Linfield if it wins. Linfield's SOS will continue to slide and St. Thomas' will climb. St. Thomas' recent postseason history gives them the nod in that unbeaten-team tiebreaker that was put in last year.

Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
My #1 seeds would be:

#1 UMHB (south)
#2 Mount Union (east)
#3 Linfield (west)
#4 Oshkosh (north)

I kind of anticipate UMHB going as the #1 because of SOS, but mostly because of their out-of-conference win over Wesley. IMO, that has given them the #1 seed after that W alone. The committee seems to look to SOS to determine those seeds (Remember 2010, Wesley got the #1 overall seed and had the best SOS).

I definitely think St. Thomas grades out above UW-Oshkosh, and if there was a way they could do it, both UST and Linfield would get the 1 seeds, along with UMHB and UMU.

Interesting with UMHB as overall 1. Hadn't thought about that, but makes sense ... and a difference, playing in December in Ohio, Minn/Wisc, Delaware, or TEXAS :lol:

It is dso unfortunate that both UST and Linfield cannot get #1 seeds due to economic circumstances. I am not going to lie, I would donate to the cost that would allow each team to garner a #1 seed.
I'd rather donate to the fund that would allow Linfield to get a new oponent in round 1 of the playoffs instead of a team they've already played this year and the last several years (Cal Lu or PLU), but I'd settle for St. Thomas being in a different bracket.  Actually, go ahead and send them and OshKosh to the North :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 02:42:34 PM
Rankings are out:

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 02:49:28 PM
What is this economic restraint that people are referring to that won't allow Linfield to be #1 in the West, and St. Thomas #1 in the North?

Is that because it'll be cheaper to fly Linfield into the midwest, rather than numerous midwest schools flying out west?

I guess I assumed this:
1 West - Linfield
1 North - St. Thomas (two and three being UWO and *NCC - what a region that would be)
1 East - UMU
1 South - MHB

*Or, with two losses, they might tell NCC to fly out west to play Cal Luth and/or Linfield
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:52:40 PM
Regional rankings are out:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2012/11/07/second-2012-ncaa-regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 02:49:28 PM
What is this economic restraint that people are referring to that won't allow Linfield to be #1 in the West, and St. Thomas #1 in the North?

Is that because it'll be cheaper to fly Linfield into the midwest, rather than numerous midwest schools flying out west?

I guess I assumed this:
1 West - Linfield
1 North - St. Thomas (two and three being UWO and *NCC - what a region that would be)
1 East - UMU
1 South - MHB

*Or, with two losses, they might tell NCC to fly out west to play Cal Luth and/or Linfield

Problem is that when you get your 32 schools, it's hard to center enough of them within 500 miles of UST. Unless we have an entire bracket that has to fly anyway ... and that would have to contain both Linfield and UMHB, which is an even worse solution.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 02:55:33 PM
Witt being 5th in the RR makes me feel that they're pretty secure in their spot, though if all plays out they'll still be 3rd on the potential "C" table in the North.

Wabash not being RR'd makes is a tough road for the LG's. I'm sure Wally will formalize his punditry on this ("guaranteed more accurate than Dick Morris or your money back")
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 03:02:03 PM
With Wheaton being the likely #4 Pool C team out of the North, their Pool C hopes are on life support. Only way to the dance for them is AQ via an IWU win Saturday.

Interesting that in the North, the committee's ranked straighline 1 loss teams then 2 loss teams. But they change up their order of 1 loss teams with OWU, and Adrian. Not sure why they would do that as Adrian is already in as AQ so it shouldn't matter. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 02:49:28 PM
What is this economic restraint that people are referring to that won't allow Linfield to be #1 in the West, and St. Thomas #1 in the North?

Is that because it'll be cheaper to fly Linfield into the midwest, rather than numerous midwest schools flying out west?

I guess I assumed this:
1 West - Linfield
1 North - St. Thomas (two and three being UWO and *NCC - what a region that would be)
1 East - UMU
1 South - MHB

*Or, with two losses, they might tell NCC to fly out west to play Cal Luth and/or Linfield

Problem is that when you get your 32 schools, it's hard to center enough of them within 500 miles of UST. Unless we have an entire bracket that has to fly anyway ... and that would have to contain both Linfield and UMHB, which is an even worse solution.

So are you saying that UST might be shipped out West?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 02:49:28 PM
What is this economic restraint that people are referring to that won't allow Linfield to be #1 in the West, and St. Thomas #1 in the North?

Is that because it'll be cheaper to fly Linfield into the midwest, rather than numerous midwest schools flying out west?

I guess I assumed this:
1 West - Linfield
1 North - St. Thomas (two and three being UWO and *NCC - what a region that would be)
1 East - UMU
1 South - MHB

*Or, with two losses, they might tell NCC to fly out west to play Cal Luth and/or Linfield

Problem is that when you get your 32 schools, it's hard to center enough of them within 500 miles of UST. Unless we have an entire bracket that has to fly anyway ... and that would have to contain both Linfield and UMHB, which is an even worse solution.

So are you saying that UST might be shipped out West?
Likely St. Thomas would be #2 seed in the west and would only be shipped to the real west in round 3 (assuming they and Linfield were the last teams left in the west)---They'd have home games probably before that....The West bracket is always a problem because you always have at least 2 teams (possibly 3 this year) that are really in the West (insted of the midwest)---and those teams usually have to play each other regardless of their rankings......
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 03:12:09 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 02:49:28 PM
What is this economic restraint that people are referring to that won't allow Linfield to be #1 in the West, and St. Thomas #1 in the North?

Is that because it'll be cheaper to fly Linfield into the midwest, rather than numerous midwest schools flying out west?

I guess I assumed this:
1 West - Linfield
1 North - St. Thomas (two and three being UWO and *NCC - what a region that would be)
1 East - UMU
1 South - MHB

*Or, with two losses, they might tell NCC to fly out west to play Cal Luth and/or Linfield

Problem is that when you get your 32 schools, it's hard to center enough of them within 500 miles of UST. Unless we have an entire bracket that has to fly anyway ... and that would have to contain both Linfield and UMHB, which is an even worse solution.

So are you saying that UST might be shipped out West?
Likely St. Thomas would be #2 seed in the west and would only be shipped to the real west in round 3 (assuming they and Linfield were the last teams left in the west)---They'd have home games probably before that....The West bracket is always a problem because you always have at least 2 teams (possibly 3 this year) that are really in the West (insted of the midwest)---and those teams usually have to play each other regardless of their rankings......

So that leaves Oshkosh No. 1 in the North with probably Wittenberg and NCC. That would be a favorable draw for Oshkosh.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
Alright, I laid out Pools A and B a little earlier.  Here's my current Pool C projection based on today's regional ranking:

3N Elmhurst, 8-1, 0.530 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO
5E Rowan, 6-2 (6-1 in D3), 0.508 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO
4N Heidelberg, 8-1, 0.450 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO
5S Huntingdon, 6-2, 0.602 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO
6W Pacific Lutheran, 6-2, 0.627 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO
7W Bethel, 7-2, 0.585 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO
8W Concordia-Moorhead, 7-2, 0.604 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO

...with Wittenberg, Louisiana College, and Lycoming left on the table. 

So what happened here?  The rankings buried Wheaton behind both Witt and OWU which kills their shot at getting to the board.  OWU sits behind Witt which makes some sense, but also kills their shot.  Why?  Because Wittenberg is a hard choice wth that 0.420 SOS.  Every team that Witt is lumped with either has an SOS of over .600, a win vs RRO, or both. 

So why did I pick Heidelberg who also has a poor SOS and zero quality wins?  I think Heidelberg's SOS will tick up enough after this Saturday that they'll be a fairly easy choice as a 9-1 OAC runner up.  I know that what league you play in is not criteria, but does anybody really believe that the 9-1 OAC runner up won't get in?  But after Heidelberg comes off, Witt clogs up the North board in a big way.  At least that's how I see it. 

Big losers here I think are Wheaton and North Central.  If either or both wind up in Pool C they are hopelessly buried behind other at-large teams.  PLU wins by jumping up over the MIAC losers from last week, but they really could have used Willamette getting ranked to make their candidacy a lock.  One other loser here I think is F&M.  F&M now has a 2-1 record vs RRO (Wabash is the only other Pool C-ish team out there with 2 wins vs. RRO) but did not jump Muhlenberg.  That's big because there's a chance that Lycoming wins the MAC and puts a third East at-large team in play (after Rowan and Widener if Lycoming wins the MAC).  And of course the biggest loser of the day is probably Wabash.  The Oberlin result negated the good work they did at Wittenberg and OWU and the LGs are out of the rankings entirely and barring total armageddon on Saturday are not in the playoff conversation.  Oh and Lycoming.  Endicott being ranked and not Delaware Valley is no good for Lycoming.  That's purely an SOS play there for Endicott. 

One other thing to note here...if the national committee loves a win pct as much as the North RAC does, then you'd likely see Witt and OWU both get peeled off the board before Huntingdon.  Which brings Wheaton and probably North Central into play and could very well knock out the two MIAC teams here.  Certainly Concordia-Moorhead. 

And what of Lousiana College?  The SOS just isn't there.  They obviously need to beat HSU to stay relevant in Pool C, but they need the RRO result even more.  Give the Cougars a RRO win and they'd be selected before Concordia-Moorhead here. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
The other thing that is a possibility is that Wheaton's appearance on the board is a prelude to a further jump over Witt and OWU. It's unlikely but not unprecedented. It seems a bit unfair to see 2 loss teams jump 1 loss teams in other regions and not in the North. There may be a bit of Regional Committee arbitrage here. So seeing 3 west teams with 2 losses get in while none are considered in the North would be interesting. Interesting developments.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 04:05:43 PM
Also, Wally, what happens if Kenyon loses to Denison and Witt gets the AQ (which should happen if the D3 powers do what's fair)? If Wheaton can jump OWU in the final secret squirrel regional ranking regalia, then we may see a scenario closer to what Keith outlined?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: lakeshore on November 07, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
wow Wheaton really got nailed in the regional rankings...what gives?  I sense the committee is not done with these yet and once Wheaton's resume is compared with that of OWU and Witt more thoroughly we could very well see the jump Usee is talking about. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: art76 on November 07, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Wally,

I appreciate the thoroughness of the discussion you give to the process. I hope you plan to recalculate or recalibrate as needed after Saturday's "bubble" games are finished.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 04:36:32 PM
Quote from: USee on November 07, 2012, 04:05:43 PM
Also, Wally, what happens if Kenyon loses to Denison and Witt gets the AQ (which should happen if the D3 powers do what's fair)? If Wheaton can jump OWU in the final secret squirrel regional ranking regalia, then we may see a scenario closer to what Keith outlined?

If Kenyon does lose to Denison, I think Witt gets the league's AQ, but I can say that with only about 4.5% certainty.  I'm giving up on trying to figure out how they arbirtrarily apply the already arbitrary tiebreak "rules".  But IF Kenyon lose and IF Witt wins and IF Witt gets the NCAC's ticket to the show, then You'd still have to see Wheaton magically jump over OWU.  IF that were to happen, then yes, you'd wind up with what Keith projected in his DD post this morning. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 07, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
wow Wheaton really got nailed in the regional rankings...what gives?  I sense the committee is not done with these yet and once Wheaton's resume is compared with that of OWU and Witt more thoroughly we could very well see the jump Usee is talking about.

You guys might be right.  I certainly don't think anything is impossible as we've seen last minute changes here before.  The thing that gives me pause is that I don't know what could happen on Saturday, other than OWU or Witt losing, that changes what we already know about Witt/OWU/Wheaton/NCC.  Nobody is playing a ranked team, nobody is going to get significant positive SOS inertia from Saturday's game (Wheaton will actually take a decent hit)...I just don't know why, if the regional committee thinks or is harboring thoughts that Wheaton and/or NCC should be ranked ahead of Witt/OWU that they wouldn't have done it today.  Saturday's results (barring upsets) really shouldn't move the needle much here. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 07, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Wally,

I appreciate the thoroughness of the discussion you give to the process. I hope you plan to recalculate or recalibrate as needed after Saturday's "bubble" games are finished.

I probably will project the 32 sometime Saturday night/Sunday morning just to finish out this little journey that I've been on for a month or so now.  But really be sure to check out the full bracket projection that the gurus do here...that'll be the most complete picture that you'll get before the official bracket is announced on Sunday night. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wesleydad on November 07, 2012, 04:57:47 PM
great job Wally et al.  excellent reading for those of us who like to follow the national scene and not just our own little world of d3. +1 to you.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 04:58:23 PM
Wally,

I am not saying some mythical jump is probable, but it isn't unprecedented. We have seen it more than once. Why did Adrian get jumped by OWU in this weeks rankings? several teams jumped others in the east/west with similar results. From my discussions with coaches and people familiar with the Regional Committee's, those coaches know who the best teams are and really try to position them for success at the national table. I am not saying I like it (because each region seems to be ranking teams inconsistently) but I think its a reality. You will remember in 2008 when Wheaton jumped Wooster in the final rankings that no one saw. Both teams won their last game and somehow Wheaton got picked and Wooster stayed home, even though Wooster was ranked higher the week before and both teams had same records with similar results. Again, I don't count on it, but it has happened.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 07, 2012, 05:01:00 PM
Wally...excellent work.

There's still a lot to get played out this week. As Keith notes, several Regional Ranked teams finish against each other. Other Pool C candidates have challenges left.

Finally, it sucks that we don't get to see the final rankings, but it's important to keep in mind that even if everyone wins that we expect to win, SoS numbers will still shift and could affect those final Regional Rankings.

Can't wait for Saturday...and then Sunday!! Great time of year to be a D3 fan
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2012, 05:10:29 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
PLU wins by jumping up over the MIAC losers from last week, but they really could have used Willamette getting ranked to make their candidacy a lock. 
I was just looking at some things and was kind of suprised that Willamette didn't crack the rankings.  They have the same record as Platville but a much higher SOS and a win against a team that is ranked (but not in their own region) in Hardin Simmons.    Platville has not beat a team with a winning record and Willamette has beat 2 teams with winning records (HSU and Whitworth).  So any thoughts on why Platville is ranked 9 in Region and Willamette doesn't make the list?  (and I'm a Linfield guy so I'm certainly not holding any unrealistic hopes for Willamette to make the playoffs or anything though I do think PLU should be a lock).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
One other loser here I think is F&M.  F&M now has a 2-1 record vs RRO (Wabash is the only other Pool C-ish team out there with 2 wins vs. RRO) but did not jump Muhlenberg.

Because Muhlenberg beat F&M, 21-0. This is the correct call.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
PLU wins by jumping up over the MIAC losers from last week, but they really could have used Willamette getting ranked to make their candidacy a lock.

I've definitely made this point, and after reading MonroviaCat's argument, Willamette might be getting a bit jobbed on this one.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
And what of Lousiana College?  The SOS just isn't there.  They obviously need to beat HSU to stay relevant in Pool C, but they need the RRO result even more.  Give the Cougars a RRO win and they'd be selected before Concordia-Moorhead here.

Wildcats.

LC, though it played an ambitious schedule, is going to regret having two NAIAs early in the season. If it could have played a B-SC or a Millsaps and received the SoS boost from beating a six- or seven-win team, that would have helped.

Also actually winning the Wesley game would have too.

Re: Wheaton, I went into the numbers thinking the Thunder didn't really have a shot. Anecdotally I would take LC first, and maybe C-M, although Wheaton looks good every time I watch them (fourth qtr vs. IWU, much of the NCC game) and I wouldn't have a problem with them getting in.

Wheaton, while guaranteeing (basically) itself a win by playing North Park, also is going to go backwards in SoS, and probably enough to make the difference between it and the teams it was playing a negotiable one.

I don't know who to really endorse here. A lot of these two-loss teams who don't grade out definitively on the criteria are ones I'd like to see play in the postseason.

Also the NCAC needs to have one of its legit teams win the tiebreak.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 07, 2012, 07:03:07 PM
The biggest beef I have with Wheaton (my alma mater) is their scheduling. They have the ability to schedule WIAC teams which would significantly help their SOS most years. I understand (and agree to some degree) they don't need to schedule the UWW and Oshkosh type WIAC teams but I would think scheduling a middle of the pack WIAC team would seriously help their SOS (by virtue of OOWP) and prepare them for the CCIW season more so than Luther! So, while I hope they squeak in, the reality is they made their own bed through playing as well as scheduling and are now bystanders in the process.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: d-train on November 07, 2012, 07:13:29 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
PLU wins by jumping up over the MIAC losers from last week, but they really could have used Willamette getting ranked to make their candidacy a lock.

I've definitely made this point, and after reading MonroviaCat's argument, Willamette might be getting a bit jobbed on this one.

I too was hoping for Willamette to sneak in at #9 or 10 (to boost PLU's chances) and was thinking the HSU result might matter a bit more.  But the Bearcats are an ugly 1-2 over the past 3 weeks (barely getting that win).  Maybe the West raters are having a hard time with that.

I was also going to say that they seem to be suggesting that including teams down to 2nd place in a conference is plenty for a regional ranking.  But that doesn't really account for the MIAC schools, unless they are viewing them as MIAC 2a and 2b (just ahead of WIAC 2) because of the way that head-to-head ended?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 07:23:42 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 07, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
wow Wheaton really got nailed in the regional rankings...what gives?  I sense the committee is not done with these yet and once Wheaton's resume is compared with that of OWU and Witt more thoroughly we could very well see the jump Usee is talking about.

You guys might be right.  I certainly don't think anything is impossible as we've seen last minute changes here before.  The thing that gives me pause is that I don't know what could happen on Saturday, other than OWU or Witt losing, that changes what we already know about Witt/OWU/Wheaton/NCC.  Nobody is playing a ranked team, nobody is going to get significant positive SOS inertia from Saturday's game (Wheaton will actually take a decent hit)...I just don't know why, if the regional committee thinks or is harboring thoughts that Wheaton and/or NCC should be ranked ahead of Witt/OWU that they wouldn't have done it today.  Saturday's results (barring upsets) really shouldn't move the needle much here.

What did it for me, re: Wheaton was the huge SoS difference (.558 to .511 OWU and .420 Witt), plus having beaten North Central while those two hadn't beaten any RROs. But then if those are the factors that allow an 8-2 to jump the 9-1s, those would also be the factors that get Wabash (.560, 2-0) above all three teams.

As Wally said, I think you can justify it any which way here.

The good news is there are other paths for all of these teams, based on what happens in the CCIW and NCAC on Saturday, so there's no guarantee any of this will come to pass.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 07, 2012, 07:13:29 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
PLU wins by jumping up over the MIAC losers from last week, but they really could have used Willamette getting ranked to make their candidacy a lock.

I've definitely made this point, and after reading MonroviaCat's argument, Willamette might be getting a bit jobbed on this one.

I too was hoping for Willamette to sneak in at #9 or 10 (to boost PLU's chances) and was thinking the HSU result might matter a bit more.  But the Bearcats are an ugly 1-2 over the past 3 weeks (barely getting that win).  Maybe the West raters are having a hard time with that.

I was also going to say that they seem to be suggesting that including teams down to 2nd place in a conference is plenty for a regional ranking.  But that doesn't really account for the MIAC schools, unless they are viewing them as MIAC 2a and 2b (just ahead of WIAC 2) because of the way that head-to-head ended?

Three Centennial teams deep, four NEFC teams ... I think it's strictly on the numbers, not conferences, at least in the three regions.

In the north, it sounds like 9-1 is going to trump 8-2 regardless.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 07:27:06 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
One other loser here I think is F&M.  F&M now has a 2-1 record vs RRO (Wabash is the only other Pool C-ish team out there with 2 wins vs. RRO) but did not jump Muhlenberg.

Because Muhlenberg beat F&M, 21-0. This is the correct call.

I hope I didn't come off as criticizing the Muhlenberg/F&M ranking.  2-loss Muhlenberg absolutely should be ranked ahead of 2-loss F&M.  F&M may have held out some hope that the RRO results they have banked would be enough to edge them in front of Muhlenberg which is why I pointed to them as a "loser" in today's rankings. 

MonroviaCat-

I'll echo what Keith has said about Willamette here.  Willamette looks better per the criteria than Platteville and Concordia-Moorhead.  I think they should be in that West top 10 somewhere.  That they aren't doesn't help PLU, but PLU's placement today puts them in a pretty good spot heading into Sunday.  I know that the Menlo game doesn't show up in the SOS or in the regional record anywhere, but I don't think PLU wants to lose that game.  There are some D3 results there on Menlo's schedule that could give the RAC something to rethink if PLU doesn't show well there.  The Lutes can solidify their spot atop the West tableau with a result that compares favorably to what Linfield and Wesley did against them. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: USee on November 07, 2012, 07:03:07 PM
The biggest beef I have with Wheaton (my alma mater) is their scheduling. They have the ability to schedule WIAC teams which would significantly help their SOS most years. I understand (and agree to some degree) they don't need to schedule the UWW and Oshkosh type WIAC teams but I would think scheduling a middle of the pack WIAC team would seriously help their SOS (by virtue of OOWP) and prepare them for the CCIW season more so than Luther! So, while I hope they squeak in, the reality is they made their own bed through playing as well as scheduling and are now bystanders in the process.

They played Albion/UW-Platteville/Olivet in 2010-11 and Concordia (Wis.)/Bethel/Hope in 2008-09.

Benedictine/Albion/Luther is definitely not their best work.

Bethel, UW-Platteville and Wheaton would all have benefitted by winning a non-con game against one another this season. (Although by winning it, it might have knocked them from the regional rankings, which would lessen the benefit. but there's still SoS)

Mature and true:
"they made their own bed through playing as well as scheduling"
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2012, 09:06:46 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 07, 2012, 07:13:29 PM

I too was hoping for Willamette to sneak in at #9 or 10 (to boost PLU's chances) and was thinking the HSU result might matter a bit more.  But the Bearcats are an ugly 1-2 over the past 3 weeks (barely getting that win).  Maybe the West raters are having a hard time with that.

I was also going to say that they seem to be suggesting that including teams down to 2nd place in a conference is plenty for a regional ranking.  But that doesn't really account for the MIAC schools, unless they are viewing them as MIAC 2a and 2b (just ahead of WIAC 2) because of the way that head-to-head ended?
Yeah--wanted to see Willamette there for PLU's sake and it would only bolster Linfield's #1 ranking (by adding another win over a RR team).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2012, 09:08:46 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 07:27:06 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
One other loser here I think is F&M.  F&M now has a 2-1 record vs RRO (Wabash is the only other Pool C-ish team out there with 2 wins vs. RRO) but did not jump Muhlenberg.

Because Muhlenberg beat F&M, 21-0. This is the correct call.

I hope I didn't come off as criticizing the Muhlenberg/F&M ranking.  2-loss Muhlenberg absolutely should be ranked ahead of 2-loss F&M.  F&M may have held out some hope that the RRO results they have banked would be enough to edge them in front of Muhlenberg which is why I pointed to them as a "loser" in today's rankings. 

MonroviaCat-

I'll echo what Keith has said about Willamette here.  Willamette looks better per the criteria than Platteville and Concordia-Moorhead.  I think they should be in that West top 10 somewhere.  That they aren't doesn't help PLU, but PLU's placement today puts them in a pretty good spot heading into Sunday.  I know that the Menlo game doesn't show up in the SOS or in the regional record anywhere, but I don't think PLU wants to lose that game.  There are some D3 results there on Menlo's schedule that could give the RAC something to rethink if PLU doesn't show well there.  The Lutes can solidify their spot atop the West tableau with a result that compares favorably to what Linfield and Wesley did against them.
Yeah--Menlo is a pretty good team this year---it would be an interesting test of the ranking committees implementation of the criteria if PLU did lose but I'd like to see the Lutes make the field so I'm pulling for them to win it (and I think they should).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 07, 2012, 09:09:01 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 07:29:42 PM

Bethel, UW-Platteville and Wheaton would all have benefitted by winning a non-con game against one another this season. (Although by winning it, it might have knocked them from the regional rankings, which would lessen the benefit. but there's still SoS)


True enough. Although I think Bethel scheduled Wartburg for just this reason. Most didn't expect the Knights to struggle like they have.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Schedules are usually done a few years in advance for many teams so you never can tell if one team is going to be good (or bad) when you play them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Schedules are usually done a few years in advance for many teams so you never can tell if one team is going to be good (or bad) when you play them.

True, but as to what Hazz is saying, Wartburg usually contends, so that was a safe bet.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Schedules are usually done a few years in advance for many teams so you never can tell if one team is going to be good (or bad) when you play them.

True, but as to what Hazz is saying, Wartburg usually contends, so that was a safe bet.

Oh, I understand. Just saying that 'safe' bets sometimes aren't.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 10:05:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Schedules are usually done a few years in advance for many teams so you never can tell if one team is going to be good (or bad) when you play them.

True, but as to what Hazz is saying, Wartburg usually contends, so that was a safe bet.

Oh, I understand. Just saying that 'safe' bets sometimes aren't.

A better example might be someone who scheduled Oshkosh three years ago thinking it was getting a middling WIAC team and got KAPOWNateWaraSuckas!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: matblake on November 08, 2012, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 10:05:45 PM
KAPOWNateWaraSuckas!

That needs to be a Twitter hashtag.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 08, 2012, 11:48:10 AM
Quote from: matblake on November 08, 2012, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 10:05:45 PM
KAPOWNateWaraSuckas!

That needs to be a Twitter hashtag.

Yes it does!

If D3 were like our FBS cousins, this may have already become a Gagliardi Award campaign slogan  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 08, 2012, 01:17:46 PM
Wally- You do great work and I appreciate your insight and your willingness to crunch the SOS numbers.

I'm interested in opinions on the idea of consideration of a team's largest loss to a D3 opponent.  So much is made of wins/losses and SOS.  Wins and losses are controllable, SOS not always as previously mentioned.  Teams like Bethel, Elmhurst, LA Coll, Willamette and OH Wes have lost D3 games by margins ranging from 28-37 points.  A 4-touchdown spread is a blow-out.  If one of the goals of Pool C selection is to ensure the best competition possible, a team that was beaten that badly has made a statement. 
Conversely, there are teams like Rowan, Huntingdon, Pac Luth, Concord-Mor, Witt, Wheaton and North Central (up for debate a bit) that have been in every game.  The spreads of loss for these teams is no greater than 14 points down to 3.  If I was on the selection committee, I'd want the greatest assurance that my Pool C selections will be competitive- and I'd look to their actual results on the field.       
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 01:35:01 PM
I don't know about comparing scores like that. Sometimes the ball rolls downhill and you just can't stop it. Sometimes you have a bad game. Elmhurst's blowout against North Central doesn't really say anything except Elmhurst had a horrible day and North Central probably played their best game. If they played again, it'd be competitive.

Elmhurst lost 44-10 to North Central who lost 35-21 to Wheaton. Of course, Elmhurst BEAT Wheaton.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 08, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2012, 01:17:46 PM
Wally- You do great work and I appreciate your insight and your willingness to crunch the SOS numbers.

I'm interested in opinions on the idea of consideration of a team's largest loss to a D3 opponent.  So much is made of wins/losses and SOS.  Wins and losses are controllable, SOS not always as previously mentioned.  Teams like Bethel, Elmhurst, LA Coll, Willamette and OH Wes have lost D3 games by margins ranging from 28-37 points.  A 4-touchdown spread is a blow-out.  If one of the goals of Pool C selection is to ensure the best competition possible, a team that was beaten that badly has made a statement. 
Conversely, there are teams like Rowan, Huntingdon, Pac Luth, Concord-Mor, Witt, Wheaton and North Central (up for debate a bit) that have been in every game.  The spreads of loss for these teams is no greater than 14 points down to 3.  If I was on the selection committee, I'd want the greatest assurance that my Pool C selections will be competitive- and I'd look to their actual results on the field.     

It's worth discussing.

But does considering margin of loss then bring margin of victory in the back door? Does it create a scenario where teams are encouraged to run up the score? I hate that sort of activity in the DI world.

And what should hurt you more. A bad loss to a very good team or a close loss to an average-to-bad team?

Bethel and North Central are a good case study here.

BU's losses are by 37 points and 7 points. NCC's are by 14 and 4. By the blowout loss criteria, Bethel is the worse candidate (note: I'm not really arguing here about who would win a H2H between the two teams).

But look closer. Bethel loses 37-0 to an undefeated, #4 ranked UST squad on the road and by 7 to a 2 loss St. Olaf team on the road, giving up the lead with 2 minutes left to play. North Central lost at home by 4 to a 4-5 UWL team (who also has several blowout losses on their resume if you're going to apply the criteria consistently) and by 14 at home to Wheaton. In the latter game, they were down by 21 points on two occasions in the 4th quarter and only drew within 14 by scoring a touchdown with 2 minutes left. So what does margin of loss really tell us about these two teams and their playoff worthiness?

To me, margin of loss and victory is only helpful when comparing common opponents between two teams with no H2H, also taking into consideration home v. away of the CO results. After that, there's just a lot of variables involved that make it a very slippery tool.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 08, 2012, 01:42:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 01:35:01 PM
I don't know about comparing scores like that. Sometimes the ball rolls downhill and you just can't stop it. Sometimes you have a bad game. Elmhurst's blowout against North Central doesn't really say anything except Elmhurst had a horrible day and North Central probably played their best game. If they played again, it'd be competitive.

Elmhurst lost 44-10 to North Central who lost 35-21 to Wheaton. Of course, Elmhurst BEAT Wheaton.
Yeah--way too many reasons for a lopsided loss that do not necessarily indicate a team's quality.  Home vs Road, weather, coaches decision on when to bring reserve players into a game, and even when in the season a game was played. 

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 08, 2012, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 01:35:01 PM
I don't know about comparing scores like that. Sometimes the ball rolls downhill and you just can't stop it. Sometimes you have a bad game. Elmhurst's blowout against North Central doesn't really say anything except Elmhurst had a horrible day and North Central probably played their best game. If they played again, it'd be competitive.

Elmhurst lost 44-10 to North Central who lost 35-21 to Wheaton. Of course, Elmhurst BEAT Wheaton.

I'd be careful about "what if's" here Smed. I think NCC beats Elmhurst 10 out of 10 and 8 of those times by a similar margin. Elmhurst beat an average Augie team at home by scoring with 6 seconds left and beat a winless (in conference) Millikin in OT because Millikin fumbled at the 1 while going in for the winning TD. Their win over Wheaton was after giving up 600 yds in part because Wheaton had 2 assignment errors on 3rd and goal at the 2 and was stopped on 4th down and another assignment error that led to a blindside hit on the qb for a pick 6. Elmhurst is living large and deserves what they are getting because they won those games but when the playoffs arrive, we will all see the emperor has no clothes IMO.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2012, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2012, 01:17:46 PM
Wally- You do great work and I appreciate your insight and your willingness to crunch the SOS numbers.

I'm interested in opinions on the idea of consideration of a team's largest loss to a D3 opponent.  So much is made of wins/losses and SOS.  Wins and losses are controllable, SOS not always as previously mentioned.  Teams like Bethel, Elmhurst, LA Coll, Willamette and OH Wes have lost D3 games by margins ranging from 28-37 points.  A 4-touchdown spread is a blow-out.  If one of the goals of Pool C selection is to ensure the best competition possible, a team that was beaten that badly has made a statement. 
Conversely, there are teams like Rowan, Huntingdon, Pac Luth, Concord-Mor, Witt, Wheaton and North Central (up for debate a bit) that have been in every game.  The spreads of loss for these teams is no greater than 14 points down to 3.  If I was on the selection committee, I'd want the greatest assurance that my Pool C selections will be competitive- and I'd look to their actual results on the field.       

Oh no no no no.  We don't want to wade into MOVs as being indicative of much of anything when considering a season's worth of games and data.  If we have learned anything this year (and really, teams everywhere learn this one way or another every year) it is that every week in the season is a unique experience.  The ONLY time I would be even semi-comfortable looking at score margins in cherry-picked games would be for common opponents (a rarity when we get to one team per region at one time during the selection process) and even then I don't feel great about it.  I happen to think Ohio Wesleyan is better than Wittenberg at this moment.  The rankings don't reflect that, most people's gut feeling won't buy that, and it isn't supported by those teams' scores against their best common measuring stick (Wabash), but I think OWU is better.  OWU's score (zero) wasn't entirely representative of their offensive ability and Witt's score (24) I think over-represents their ability against Wabash.  Just my personal feeling from having watched those games and just one example of where common scores may not accurately represent teams' relative strength. 

I digress...I think it's dangerously shortsighted to pluck one game out of a ten game schedule and say these bums lost by 4 TDs; get 'em out of the tournament.  I mean where do you draw the line on what constitutes a "blowout"?  Is it 17...21...30?  Plus every game has it's own unique context.  How were points accumulated?  How were points NOT scored in some cases.  It's just a slippery slope and I think it's too hard to judge teams from different regions and without common opponents that way.  Here in the Pool C we all know these teams can lose.  They wouldn't be here otherwise.  I'm much more interested in who these teams have proven they can beat than I am who they lost to. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 08, 2012, 03:06:47 PM
Good point Wally. An example of that is 2005 when Capital lost @ Mt Union 32-12 in the regular season and then played them in the playoffs @ Mt Union and led late before losing 17-14. The first game wasn't that competitive and the playoff game was a nail biter.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: @d3jason on November 08, 2012, 03:34:48 PM
Another good example would be Wesley in 2005 losing 47-0 at Brockport. Beating undefeated Salisbury 63-28 the next week, defending Stagg Bowl runner up UMHB in the second round and not losing until the semis to UWW.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 08, 2012, 04:31:57 PM
Quote from: @d3jason on November 08, 2012, 03:34:48 PM
Another good example would be Wesley in 2005 losing 47-0 at Brockport. Beating undefeated Salisbury 63-28 the next week, defending Stagg Bowl runner up UMHB in the second round and not losing until the semis to UWW.

This is a good example.  However, the loss margin wouldn't be a sole determining factor. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 04:48:35 PM
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2012, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 01:35:01 PM
I don't know about comparing scores like that. Sometimes the ball rolls downhill and you just can't stop it. Sometimes you have a bad game. Elmhurst's blowout against North Central doesn't really say anything except Elmhurst had a horrible day and North Central probably played their best game. If they played again, it'd be competitive.

Elmhurst lost 44-10 to North Central who lost 35-21 to Wheaton. Of course, Elmhurst BEAT Wheaton.

I'd be careful about "what if's" here Smed. I think NCC beats Elmhurst 10 out of 10 and 8 of those times by a similar margin. Elmhurst beat an average Augie team at home by scoring with 6 seconds left and beat a winless (in conference) Millikin in OT because Millikin fumbled at the 1 while going in for the winning TD. Their win over Wheaton was after giving up 600 yds in part because Wheaton had 2 assignment errors on 3rd and goal at the 2 and was stopped on 4th down and another assignment error that led to a blindside hit on the qb for a pick 6. Elmhurst is living large and deserves what they are getting because they won those games but when the playoffs arrive, we will all see the emperor has no clothes IMO.

You sure NC isn't the one with no clothes? They lost to a completely meh LaCrosse team and a Wheaton team that lost to Albion who lost to Benedictine that lost to Aurora. We could do this all day.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 08, 2012, 06:03:08 PM
Maybe. My point is really that Elmhurst is likely one and done with their defense. NCC may be right behind them. We will see
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: shepherd on November 08, 2012, 10:22:48 PM
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2012, 06:03:08 PM
Maybe. My point is really that Elmhurst is likely one and done with their defense. NCC may be right behind them. We will see
USEE - You had some great incites from your previous posts.

I was at the NCC Wheaton game and got to see behind the scenes.  I saw a lot of key players and positions of North Central players limping off the field.  Joey Michal's was taken out of the game with trainers working on his leg.  Maybe its not as bad as it appeared I don't know but if I saw that from Wheaton I would be worried. 

Second point about Wheaton defense.  The defense was beating themselves early in the season over pursuing too soon leaving gaps in the defense for runners to move to the open hole.  In no way did I see a Wheaton defense that was being overpowered.  They fixed the mistakes and it was no coincidence or luck what they did against NCC's running game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 11:12:35 PM
Well, Usee really "incited" me with his "insights"!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: shepherd on November 09, 2012, 12:20:20 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 11:12:35 PM
Well, Usee really "incited" me with his "insights"!  ;)
Bad spelling and pain killers. ::) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 08:47:40 AM
Pat, et. al.

OWU DID play a regionally ranked team. Wabash was regionally ranked last week. I assume 'once ranked, always ranked' still holds.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 10:10:52 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

...
Great analysis in any case.
Agreed---looks pretty good.  And I think you are right that PLU drives to Linfield not only because it saves the flight, but because if they did try to avoid the conference rematch by sending them to CLU it would just be a non-conference rematch between CLU and PLU.  I guess if they really wanted to avoid first round rematches they could send PLU to MHB and St. Scholastica to Linfield and keep Huntington at CLU......but I think the Linfield/PLU rematch is most likely....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out.  In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.       
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2012, 11:45:09 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

It is a plug-in, basically. But I don't have an NCAC team getting an at-large bid so I felt plugging one team in would get it done.

I don't know why East/North ranks one way and West/South ranks another. I know East lost both of its co-chairs from last year so they may lack a little institutional knowledge.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out.  In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

Heidelberg, in the biggest game of their season, got blown out.  Should we throw them out, too?  Point differentials, cherry picked from whatever game(s) you've arbitrarily decided are important, just don't tell a very accurate story. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out.  In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

Heidelberg, in the biggest game of their season, got blown out.  Should we throw them out, too?  Point differentials, cherry picked from whatever game(s) you've arbitrarily decided are important, just don't tell a very accurate story.

They tell a very important part of a story.  I'm not saying they tell the whole story.  If you want Pool C to consist of teams that have a reasonable chance of playing with the best teams in the country (presumably the Pool A teams)- don't look at SOS- look at how they actually played the best teams on their regular season schedule.   
I'm not "cherry picking" a game, I'm picking the biggest game of each team's regular season- which to some degree can be indicative of how they might perform in the next biggest game of their season- a playoff game.  If the decision is between two teams, each with two losses- then I look at how they performed against the best team on their schedules.  I'd rather choose on their actual performance criteria than base it on the luck of the SOS draw.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out.  In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

Heidelberg, in the biggest game of their season, got blown out.  Should we throw them out, too?  Point differentials, cherry picked from whatever game(s) you've arbitrarily decided are important, just don't tell a very accurate story.

They tell a very important part of a story.  I'm not saying they tell the whole story.  If you want Pool C to consist of teams that have a reasonable chance of playing with the best teams in the country (presumably the Pool A teams)- don't look at SOS- look at how they actually played the best teams on their regular season schedule.   
I'm not "cherry picking" a game, I'm picking the biggest game of each team's regular season- which to some degree can be indicative of how they might perform in the next biggest game of their season- a playoff game.  If the decision is between two teams, each with two losses- then I look at how they performed against the best team on their schedules.  I'd rather choose on their actual performance criteria than base it on the luck of the SOS draw.   

Maybe the matchup stinks.  Maybe the conditions were terrible which could also lend istelf to a deceptively close score (see the UMU/ONU game last year).  Should we reward a team for losing a game to a good team by a close score because the game was in a monsoon?  Maybe players were injured.  Do you account for stuff like that, or do you just assume that because a team lost by a certain margin one time that they aren't playoff material?  It's a really, really arbitrary analysis in my view.  Dangerously so. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out. In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     
So, if I'm reading this correctly,  pull Bethel off the board because they lost big to St. Thomas leave Concordia on the Board because they lost to Bethel in a close one????  Huh??????????
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: short on November 09, 2012, 01:04:55 PM
I choose NOT to look at the Oberlin game (too many things just didn't go Wabash's way) but please do look at the OWU game.  If you look at SOS #'s and Wins vs RRO Wabash's look pretty good!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:06:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out.  In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

Heidelberg, in the biggest game of their season, got blown out.  Should we throw them out, too?  Point differentials, cherry picked from whatever game(s) you've arbitrarily decided are important, just don't tell a very accurate story.

They tell a very important part of a story.  I'm not saying they tell the whole story.  If you want Pool C to consist of teams that have a reasonable chance of playing with the best teams in the country (presumably the Pool A teams)- don't look at SOS- look at how they actually played the best teams on their regular season schedule.   
I'm not "cherry picking" a game, I'm picking the biggest game of each team's regular season- which to some degree can be indicative of how they might perform in the next biggest game of their season- a playoff game.  If the decision is between two teams, each with two losses- then I look at how they performed against the best team on their schedules.  I'd rather choose on their actual performance criteria than base it on the luck of the SOS draw.   

Maybe the matchup stinks.  Maybe the conditions were terrible which could also lend istelf to a deceptively close score (see the UMU/ONU game last year).  Should we reward a team for losing a game to a good team by a close score because the game was in a monsoon?  Maybe players were injured.  Do you account for stuff like that, or do you just assume that because a team lost by a certain margin one time that they aren't playoff material?  It's a really, really arbitrary analysis in my view.  Dangerously so.

Wally, what part of your argument doesn't apply to SOS? 
Every team plays for the conference championship - every team knows who the top conference team to beat is. Judge me by how I performed in the biggest game and not by how many games my opponents and their opponents won.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 01:11:45 PM
It's pure horse-hockey to do the MOV thing and totally ignore the entire body of work.

Do you really think that each and every team knows THE TEAM before the games are played? Did anyone ever think Kenyon or Ohio Wesleyan would be in title contention for the NCAC when the season started? NO! Some conferences don't know the story they're telling until more than halfway through the season.

Here's the data point that KILLS this argument:

9/22 - UW - Whitewater 34, UW - Stevens Point 7
10/27 - UW - Stevens Point 17, UW - Whitewater 14

*drops mic*

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out. In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

So, if I'm reading this correctly,  pull Bethel off the board because they lost big to St. Thomas leave Concordia on the Board because they lost to Bethel in a close one????  Huh??????????

Absolutely. They have equal records. The game between them clearly could go either way. Based on actual performance, which of these teams is most likely to give a strong opponent a good game?  Apparently you would prefer to rely on SOS, I prefer to rely on actual performance against a very good team- St Thomas.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2012, 01:15:49 PM
The NCAC office broke down tiebreaker scenarios:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2012/11/09/north-coast-athletic-conference-tiebreakers/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out. In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

So, if I'm reading this correctly,  pull Bethel off the board because they lost big to St. Thomas leave Concordia on the Board because they lost to Bethel in a close one????  Huh??????????

Absolutely. They have equal records. The game between them clearly could go either way. Based on actual performance, which of these teams is most likely to give a strong opponent a good game?  Apparently you would prefer to rely on SOS, I prefer to rely on actual performance against a very good team- St Thomas.

I prefer not to cherry pick my data points when doing an analysis. If I take results against a team, say, Gustavus as my data points then I see Bethel as better than St. Thomas.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:26:48 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 01:11:45 PM
It's pure horse-hockey to do the MOV thing and totally ignore the entire body of work.

Here's the data point that KILLS this argument:

9/22 - UW - Whitewater 34, UW - Stevens Point 7
10/27 - UW - Stevens Point 17, UW - Whitewater 14

*drops mic*

Huh?  Did somebody say "totally ignore the entire body of work"? 
It helps to argue the actual point.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:31:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out. In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

So, if I'm reading this correctly,  pull Bethel off the board because they lost big to St. Thomas leave Concordia on the Board because they lost to Bethel in a close one????  Huh??????????

Absolutely. They have equal records. The game between them clearly could go either way. Based on actual performance, which of these teams is most likely to give a strong opponent a good game?  Apparently you would prefer to rely on SOS, I prefer to rely on actual performance against a very good team- St Thomas.

I prefer not to cherry pick my data points when doing an analysis. If I take results against a team, say, Gustavus as my data points then I see Bethel as better than St. Thomas.

What does Gustavus have to do with this?  Again, the committee is trying to decide between two teams w equal records. In this case both play in the same conference. IMO I put significantly more weight in their performance against the best team in their conference than I do SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2012/week10-playoff-projection

Pat, a couple of questions:

I didn't see anywhere you addressed the NCAC tie breaker but Witt is your AQ. Is that just a plug until the air clears? Also, I really liked the way you broke the field up for travel and consistency. I certainly hope the committee uses this kind of flexibility (similar to last year). Why do you think there is such a discrepancy with the regional committees rankings of the teams? I am referring to the East and West, who have clearly placed good 2-loss teams in position over 1 loss teams with inferior criteria. It seems to me that if a team like Wheaton could be at the table to compare to Bethel, Conc Moorehead, etc they would have a decent shot at a bid (7-2, somewhere near a .535 SOS, 1-1 v RRO) but they are buried behind OWU and Witt.

Great analysis in any case.

Loss differential, properly used, easily weeds some of this out. In the biggest game of the regular season for Bethel, which is the same as a playoff game, they lost to the #1 team in their conference by 37 points.  Bad game nothing, this was their playoff game, they knew it, and they got crushed.  Pull them off the board.  Ohio Wes- in the biggest game of their season- just like a playoff game, were beat by Wabash by 28 points- pull them off the board.  That leaves Conc Moor (lost to Bethel by a 2 point conversion) and Wheaton-in the biggest game of their regular season they beat the #1 team in their conference.
Loss differential isn't a sole determiner, but how do we justify Bethel and Oh Wes given what they did in the biggest games of their regular seasons?  Do you really write that off "as a bad game" when they both knew it was the biggest games of their seasons?  Use all the data out there.     

So, if I'm reading this correctly,  pull Bethel off the board because they lost big to St. Thomas leave Concordia on the Board because they lost to Bethel in a close one????  Huh??????????

Absolutely. They have equal records. The game between them clearly could go either way. Based on actual performance, which of these teams is most likely to give a strong opponent a good game?  Apparently you would prefer to rely on SOS, I prefer to rely on actual performance against a very good team- St Thomas.
I get what you are saying (I think) but I just don't think ignoring a head to head matchup make much sense even if it was a close game.  I still think there are way too many factors that affect scores that trying to use score differential vs. common opponents doesn't work out.  Perhaps as a tie breaker where everything else is pretty much the same....but in the case of Bethel and Concordia Moorhead-- they played each other and one team won (though barely).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
Those tie-breaker posts r about as Witt bias as you can posiblly get!!!!!...This is a joke right?!!!!

Kenyon all do respect needs to take a seat....shouldn't even be in the conversation!!!!!

OWU beats CM in Pitt...totally out ranks Capital and Chicago that Witt played.....and owu beat Kenyon.....

It has to be a strong arm from the NCAA NOT TO PAY for OWU to travel to the game because of the 500 mile radius!!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:26:48 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 01:11:45 PM
It's pure horse-hockey to do the MOV thing and totally ignore the entire body of work.

Here's the data point that KILLS this argument:

9/22 - UW - Whitewater 34, UW - Stevens Point 7
10/27 - UW - Stevens Point 17, UW - Whitewater 14

*drops mic*

Huh?  Did somebody say "totally ignore the entire body of work"? 
It helps to argue the actual point.

No, it doesn't.

Again, slowly...

One single data point is useless. Gustavus IS germaine in your scenario, it's a common H2H opponent. And if Bethel played St. Thomas again, it could be a different ball game. See above, which illustrates my point clearly.



Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
Those tie-breaker posts r about as Witt bias as you can posiblly get!!!!!...This is a joke right?!!!!

Kenyon all do respect needs to take a seat....shouldn't even be in the conversation!!!!!

OWU beats CM in Pitt...totally out ranks Capital and Chicago that Witt played.....and owu beat Kenyon.....

It has to be a strong arm from the NCAA NOT TO PAY for OWU to travel to the game because of the 500 mile radius!!!!!

Oh, come on now. You cannot blame Kenyon for this. They didn't write the scenarios. The NCAA doesn't care at all who makes it. And OWU would probably be on the bus to Heidelberg or with their low SOS instead of hosting Adrian. The 500-mile radius isn't much of a factor in OWU's region since a lot of teams are nearby.

You can either blame the coaches that wrote this tiebreaker that was a little sketchy, or blame yourself for losing to Wabash.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2012, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
Those tie-breaker posts r about as Witt bias as you can posiblly get!!!!!...This is a joke right?!!!!

Kenyon all do respect needs to take a seat....shouldn't even be in the conversation!!!!!

OWU beats CM in Pitt...totally out ranks Capital and Chicago that Witt played.....and owu beat Kenyon.....

It has to be a strong arm from the NCAA NOT TO PAY for OWU to travel to the game because of the 500 mile radius!!!!!

Oh, come on now. You cannot blame Kenyon for this. They didn't write the scenarios. The NCAA doesn't care at all who makes it. And OWU would probably be on the bus to Heidelberg or with their low SOS instead of hosting Adrian. The 500-mile radius isn't much of a factor in OWU's region since a lot of teams are nearby.

You can either blame the coaches that wrote this tiebreaker that was a little sketchy, or blame yourself for losing to Wabash.

Bishops#1Fan -- welcome to the board but you have to learn about the NCAA system before you throw around stuff like that. OWU would NEVER have a problem with the 500-mile radius IN ANY SPORT because Ohio is practically the epicenter of Division III.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 09, 2012, 02:26:33 PM
Not going to quote (or read) the entire thing, but to a degree I support emma17 in this. I see the other side too, with the Wesley-Brockport example and the 'one bad day doesn't wipe out the other 9' arguments.

IMO, though, Pool C should primarily be reprieve for teams who would have gone undefeated/earned the AQ if not for being squeezed by one single result. And to be honest, Cortland State losing to Rowan in overtime and being 9-1 in (07 or whatever year it was) should be an automatic Pool C, but the criteria favored teams who had been blown out instead. I think there is a difference between being one play away from conference champion and one day away from conference champion.

That said, I don't have a great suggestion for how to apply this (in poll voting, I use three breakdowns, was it a blowout (21+), 8-20 points (2-3 scores) or a game that could have gone either way, and I usually look at midway or early in the fourth quarter, just so late scores don't skew my thinking) and I think it also runs concurrent to my logic in a discussion with USee about home and road wins each being just "wins" so I'll just leave it at that:

There is a difference between being one play away from conference champion and one day away from conference champion.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 09, 2012, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PM

Absolutely. They have equal records. The game between them clearly could go either way. Based on actual performance, which of these teams is most likely to give a strong opponent a good game?  Apparently you would prefer to rely on SOS, I prefer to rely on actual performance against a very good team- St Thomas.

Ok, I'll bite.

Bethel lost badly to UST on the road. They got beat. But some weird things made the score skewed (punt bounces off a blockers leg on UST's second possession and they recover on the 10 & score when it could have still been 0 - 0, etc.).

Several weeks later Concordia loses at home to UST. The loss is closer than the Bethel game, but UST is also playing without more than a half dozen starters - out due to injury - who played against Bethel. UST was crazy banged up at that point and still won handily on a long road trip. And even per Keith's criteria, UST was up by 21 until late in the 4th.

Bottom line, like everyone else is saying, there are lots of variables, too many in fact. Even just the way teams A and B may match up differently with team C affects things.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2012, 01:17:46 PM
I'm interested in opinions on the idea of consideration of a team's largest loss to a D3 opponent.
Mission accomplished :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 09, 2012, 02:40:33 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2012, 02:26:33 PM

There is a difference between being one play away from conference champion and one day away from conference champion.

The issue still stands though. Let's say Team A and Team B are the last legit one loss teams on the board for the final Pool C slot. Both lost to a RRO.

If team A is 9-1 and lost 48-10 at home and Team B is 9-1 and lost 27-24 in OT on the road emma's logic is that Team B gets the bid. MOV must be considered. But what if Team A lost to a final 4 caliber team and Team B lost to the Pool A winner of a fairly week conference. We've all seen the gap between the top 2-6 teams in D3 in a given year and the 35th best. It can get ugly real fast. What if Team A had their QB go down mid 2nd quarter or Team B knocked the other teams QB out of the game. The variables go on and on.

What initially looks like Team A being a day away and Team B being a play away just isn't that cut and dry.

Not to mention, this year we are talking about bubble squads that are either one loss teams with really weak SoS numbers or two loss teams. None of these two loss teams can claim to have been a play away from the playoffs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
Those tie-breaker posts r about as Witt bias as you can posiblly get!!!!!...This is a joke right?!!!!

Kenyon all do respect needs to take a seat....shouldn't even be in the conversation!!!!!

OWU beats CM in Pitt...totally out ranks Capital and Chicago that Witt played.....and owu beat Kenyon.....

It has to be a strong arm from the NCAA NOT TO PAY for OWU to travel to the game because of the 500 mile radius!!!!!

No, it isn't Witt biased.  These are the rules that have been in place in the NCAC for a long, long time.  There weren't made up on the fly last week. 

I'm not sure how OWU fits into the 500 mile travel rule here either.  Here's the list of teams that OWU could travel to (or vice versa) based on the current D3football.com projection:

Mount Union
Adrian
Wittenberg
Concordia-Chicago
Heidelberg
North Central
Franklin
Waynesburg
Elmhurst
Washington & Lee
USAC champion
Lake Forest
Johns Hopkins
Widener
Hobart
SUNY Cortland

That's half the field.  They can find a place for OWU to not fly to. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:49:43 PM
Ok...first....I wasn't blaming Kenyon for anything....infact...if you RE-READ I gave them kudos for a good season....Second I do realize that Ohio and D3's epicenter......instead of stating the obvious answer the SOS on OWU and WItt!!!!!.....your going to disagree that beating Carnegie Mellon in Pitt is not bigger than Witt beating Capital and Chicago?!!!!....Yeah lets get back to this calculation...

Thanks for the welcome....

Also how do you bring a team in with a 6-3 overall record decides the tie-breaker of  two teams with a 8-1 record overall and tied for first?!!!!!!....seriously?!!!!!.......what ever happen to simply the best record wins and if the top 2 end up in a tie at the end....split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:49:43 PM
split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all
Not gonna say I like (or don't like) the system being used but.......The purpose of the tie-breaker is to decide which team gets the auto bid to the playoffs.  You can't split that.  As for a tiebraker game, when do they play this tie breaker game?  Playoff brackets are made Saturday night or Sunday morning....seems a little hard to me.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 02:58:50 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:49:43 PM

Also how do you bring a team in with a 6-3 overall record decides the tie-breaker of  two teams with a 8-1 record overall and tied for first?!!!!!!....seriously?!!!!!.......what ever happen to simply the best record wins and if the top 2 end up in a tie at the end....split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all

To answer your question, Conference Title means Conference Title, not Conference + Non-Conference games. So non-conference game don't count toward winning the conference title. The conferences' themselves decide on tie-breakers, so this mess was dreamed up by the people involved, not forced on them by anyone else. Finally, there is no time to play a tie breaker. The playoffs start the following weekend. Some conferences do SPLIT the title, but there must still be a way of deciding who gets the automatic qualifier. One of the conferences decided it last week based on a coin flip...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:00:24 PM
Here is some FUZZY MATH on your part....I'm interested in seeing your reply on this......going to use your OWN data for this.....

You say that OWU has a low strength of schedule so that will keep them out. But when you look at the SOS listing OWU is in at #86 with .511 while Wittenberg is in at #218 with .420

In the article you talk about Bethel being 7-2 but having a SOS 74 points better than OWU so they should get the nod. But OWU's score is 90 higher than Wittenberg.

I am listening very very closly!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:02:26 PM
Again I don't see Kenyon anywhere around these #'s?!!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:49:43 PM
Ok...first....I wasn't blaming Kenyon for anything....infact...if you RE-READ I gave them kudos for a good season....Second I do realize that Ohio and D3's epicenter......instead of stating the obvious answer the SOS on OWU and WItt!!!!!.....your going to disagree that beating Carnegie Mellon in Pitt is not bigger than Witt beating Capital and Chicago?!!!!....Yeah lets get back to this calculation...

Thanks for the welcome....

Also how do you bring a team in with a 6-3 overall record decides the tie-breaker of  two teams with a 8-1 record overall and tied for first?!!!!!!....seriously?!!!!!.......what ever happen to simply the best record wins and if the top 2 end up in a tie at the end....split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all

We're getting a little bit off of the Pool C topic here, but they DO have co-championships.  If OWU wins their game tomorrow, they'll get a conference championship trophy.  They might even get one right there on the field.  The tiebreak doesn't decide who is THE champion...the tiebreak decides which team gets the NCAC's bid to the tournament because there is only one of those and it is indivisible. 

Now, back to at-large selection.  As far as the relative ranking of Witt and OWU go, you have to dive into the criteria a bit.  OWU has an SOS advantage.  And that's about where it stops.  Comparing in-region results vs. common in-region opponents is part of the criteria and is very applicable.  Wittenberg has performed slightly better against basically the same schedule, ergo, Wittenberg winds up ahead of OWU.  I'm on record in here as saying that I think OWU is better than Wittenberg, but the criteria don't necessarily agree. 

And so what of OWU's result against Carnegie Mellon?  Couldn't matter less, aside from the fact that the Bishops didn't lose.  Carnegie Mellon isn't a common opponent with Wittenberg, they aren't regionally ranked...really at this point CMU is only a faceless contributor to OWU's OWP. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wartknight on November 09, 2012, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Schedules are usually done a few years in advance for many teams so you never can tell if one team is going to be good (or bad) when you play them.

True, but as to what Hazz is saying, Wartburg usually contends, so that was a safe bet.

Oh, I understand. Just saying that 'safe' bets sometimes aren't.
I would have thought it a safe bet also!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2012, 03:06:11 PM
Hi, Bishop -- you are so far off the path with what you're complaining about that I'm not even sure I can help you. But here's the basics.

1. We projected Wittenberg to get the automatic bid, because we had to project someone and also because that's who the NCAA, not us, ranked higher in their regional poll.

2. When talking about OWU, we are talking in relation to other at-large candidates. Comparing OWU's  numbers to teams with automatic bids is irrelevant and not part of the discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 03:06:48 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?
It would be fine if that's what the NCAC rule-book stated was the protocal...but it's not..... 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?

Namely your conference has chosen not to use that as a tie-breaker for the AQ. They have different rules. Plus coin flips are hard to do when there is a 3-way tie. I don't have a 3-sided coin to use and it isn't fair to do 2 teams first, leaving the third team only facing one elimination instead of two. The probability of the winner of the first flip also winning the second is significantly lower...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:15:27 PM
If Witt gets the AQ, OWU has to be stacked up against the other "C" teams and they don't look that great against them. They'll be third in line in the North probably, maybe 4th if the North re-does their RRs before the selection. They have to get to the table first, then be compared against two-loss teams (probably) with excellent credentials.

It's tricky, but that's the breaks.

And to be honest, I don't think OWU (or Witt) are better than Heidelberg, Elmhurst, or Wheaton. They may be equal to Rowan but Rowan has a better at-large resume. They're probably not as good as Bethel or C-M or PLU or Huntingdon (and the Hawks' golf coach may go on a ramage if a very good Huntingdon team doesn't make it  ;) ) They're probably not as good as Louisiana College. So 9-1 for OWU and Witt in a weak-ish NCAC that had a bad record against the UAA and other conferences and saw it's best team lose an inexplicable game (Allegheny) and another where they under-estimated a decent opponent (Oberlin with Mandel is decent) to me smells like a one-bid league.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:33:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:26:48 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 01:11:45 PM
It's pure horse-hockey to do the MOV thing and totally ignore the entire body of work.

Here's the data point that KILLS this argument:

9/22 - UW - Whitewater 34, UW - Stevens Point 7
10/27 - UW - Stevens Point 17, UW - Whitewater 14

*drops mic*

Huh?  Did somebody say "totally ignore the entire body of work"? 
It helps to argue the actual point.

No, it doesn't.

Again, slowly...

One single data point is useless. Gustavus IS germaine in your scenario, it's a common H2H opponent. And if Bethel played St. Thomas again, it could be a different ball game. See above, which illustrates my point clearly.

I know this horse is almost dead.  Let me clarify.  The reason I don't feel Gustavus is germaine- or any other game not featuring the best team on someone's schedule, is because the playoffs are a one and done event-against what should be one of the best teams in the country.  Playing the best team in your conference for the right to be the conference champion is also a one and done event.  I can accept a blowout to a middle of the road conference opponent more than I can the conference champion- Why?  Because the game vs. the conference champion most resembles the finality of a playoff game.  When it comes to Pool C,  I am looking for teams that are most likely to give the best game in a one and done environment.  I absolutely cannot do that by looking at SOS.  Every single arguement that posters have made about "bad game/unlucky breaks, etc" also applies to the teams that make up the SOS. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 09, 2012, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
Those tie-breaker posts r about as Witt bias as you can posiblly get!!!!!...This is a joke right?!!!!

You're calling Wabash fans Wittenberg-biased?

Look, the community here would be more than happy to help you understand what's really going on if you are willing to put in the work of actually reading and comprehending the rules.

If you're just mad because your son's team may not win the tiebreaker and you want clog up our boards by venting, well, that's nice and all, and obviously people are humoring you. But you're not adding anything to the discussion, and you're certainly not educating yourself as to the process.

If you're looking for someone to blame here (and it pretty clearly seems like you are, even though a bunch of the tiebreakers favor OWU), start with the Battling Bishops schedule-maker, and then go back to the game where they lost by 28 and failed to put themselves on a clear path to the automatic bid.

We can all agree that the bid shouldn't go to Kenyon, although it might, but after that, both OWU and Witt would have made this much easier by, you know, playing each other.

Also, the NCAC coaches wrote the tiebreaker procedures.

And yes, let's bring this discussion back to Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 09, 2012, 03:34:56 PM
It's always been clear to me that the more exclamation points you put on the end of a sentence, the more help your point tends to need.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 09, 2012, 03:35:02 PM
I'd take St. Olaf before OWU.   Better SOS, common opponent DePauw was dispatched by the Oles 31-10 while the Bishops would have won by 1 without a last minute field goal.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:37:23 PM
Emma,

Let me make this clear. You don't know what the conference championship game will be in Week 1, Week 4, or Week 7. You may think you know, but you don't know for sure.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:37:53 PM
Quote from: AO on November 09, 2012, 03:35:02 PM
I'd take St. Olaf before OWU.   Better SOS, common opponent DePauw was dispatched by the Oles 31-10 while the Bishops would have won by 1 without a last minute field goal.

AND OWU lost by 28 points to the best team on their schedule.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:37:23 PM
Emma,

Let me make this clear. You don't know what the conference championship game will be in Week 1, Week 4, or Week 7. You may think you know, but you don't know for sure.

You're right Smed.  Bethel had not idea St Thomas was such an important game.  OWU had no idea Wabash was such an important game.  Elmhurst had no idea NCC was such an important game.  Willamette had no idea Linfield was such an important game.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:40:34 PM
That team also lost to a team OWU beat 34-7 just last week. That team also lost to a team OWU beat 29-17 (with a key injury to its QB at the half).

Comparing scores? Hah.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:37:23 PM
Emma,

Let me make this clear. You don't know what the conference championship game will be in Week 1, Week 4, or Week 7. You may think you know, but you don't know for sure.

You're right Smed.  Bethel had not idea St Thomas was such an important game.  OWU had no idea Wabash was such an important game.  Elmhurst had no idea NCC was such an important game.  Willamette had no idea Linfield was such an important game.   

If OWU played Wabash in week 2, it wouldn't have been a big deal, really, that Wabash beat them 28-0. Could Elmhurst have REALLY known that they would only lose to North Central, given their past in the CCIW?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 09, 2012, 03:47:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:15:27 PM
If Witt gets the AQ, OWU has to be stacked up against the other "C" teams and they don't look that great against them. They'll be third in line in the North probably, maybe 4th if the North re-does their RRs before the selection. They have to get to the table first, then be compared against two-loss teams (probably) with excellent credentials.

It's tricky, but that's the breaks.

And to be honest, I don't think OWU (or Witt) are better than Heidelberg, Elmhurst, or Wheaton. They may be equal to Rowan but Rowan has a better at-large resume. They're probably not as good as Bethel or C-M or PLU or Huntingdon (and the Hawks' golf coach may go on a ramage if a very good Huntingdon team doesn't make it  ;) ) They're probably not as good as Louisiana College. So 9-1 for OWU and Witt in a weak-ish NCAC that had a bad record against the UAA and other conferences and saw it's best team lose an inexplicable game (Allegheny) and another where they under-estimated a decent opponent (Oberlin with Mandel is decent) to me smells like a one-bid league.

I agree 100%.   Even in the best of years, the NCAC is barely worthy of being a 2 team league.  This year it looks like they barely warrant their AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 03:49:19 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:37:53 PM
Quote from: AO on November 09, 2012, 03:35:02 PM
I'd take St. Olaf before OWU.   Better SOS, common opponent DePauw was dispatched by the Oles 31-10 while the Bishops would have won by 1 without a last minute field goal.

AND OWU lost by 28 points to the best team on their schedule.

You should let the North region RAC know that...they seem to have completely forgotten. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 09, 2012, 03:47:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:15:27 PM
If Witt gets the AQ, OWU has to be stacked up against the other "C" teams and they don't look that great against them. They'll be third in line in the North probably, maybe 4th if the North re-does their RRs before the selection. They have to get to the table first, then be compared against two-loss teams (probably) with excellent credentials.

It's tricky, but that's the breaks.

And to be honest, I don't think OWU (or Witt) are better than Heidelberg, Elmhurst, or Wheaton. They may be equal to Rowan but Rowan has a better at-large resume. They're probably not as good as Bethel or C-M or PLU or Huntingdon (and the Hawks' golf coach may go on a ramage if a very good Huntingdon team doesn't make it  ;) ) They're probably not as good as Louisiana College. So 9-1 for OWU and Witt in a weak-ish NCAC that had a bad record against the UAA and other conferences and saw it's best team lose an inexplicable game (Allegheny) and another where they under-estimated a decent opponent (Oberlin with Mandel is decent) to me smells like a one-bid league.

I agree 100%.   Even in the best of years, the NCAC is barely worthy of being a 2 team league.  This year it looks like they barely warrant their AQ.

I disagree based on the traditional strength of Wittenberg. Not everyone is the OAC, as you always forget.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 03:49:19 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:37:53 PM
Quote from: AO on November 09, 2012, 03:35:02 PM
I'd take St. Olaf before OWU.   Better SOS, common opponent DePauw was dispatched by the Oles 31-10 while the Bishops would have won by 1 without a last minute field goal.

AND OWU lost by 28 points to the best team on their schedule.

You should let the North region RAC know that...they seem to have completely forgotten.

But they lost TWICE!!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2012, 03:57:33 PM
About St. Olaf -- I wasn't surprised they weren't in the regional rankings this week but they will be Saturday night with a win. If they don't win Saturday night, St. Olaf discussion is moot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: art76 on November 09, 2012, 04:18:02 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?

Plus coin flips are hard to do when there is a 3-way tie. I don't have a 3-sided coin to use and it isn't fair to do 2 teams first, leaving the third team only facing one elimination instead of two. The probability of the winner of the first flip also winning the second is significantly lower...

Statistically, whenever you flip a coin the results will eventually even out to a 50% chance - regardless how many times you flip it. It may "seem" like the team that won the first flip doesn't have as good a chance on the second flip, but they do. Really.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 09, 2012, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2012, 03:57:33 PM
About St. Olaf -- I wasn't surprised they weren't in the regional rankings this week but they will be Saturday night with a win. If they don't win Saturday night, St. Olaf discussion is moot.
If Olaf figured out a way to stop Ayrton Scott and Augsburg the criteria might have supported 4 teams from the MIAC getting bids.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 04:19:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:40:34 PM
That team also lost to a team OWU beat 34-7 just last week. That team also lost to a team OWU beat 29-17 (with a key injury to its QB at the half).

Comparing scores? Hah.

You are drifting into mulitple layers of comparative scores, which is the same problem SOS has.  It's not that complicated (like me).  When comparing similar record teams for entry into Pool C, look at how they did in the biggest game on their schedule, because that game is most like a playoff game.  When you have two teams from the same conference vying for Pool C- it's even simpler.   Ok, so UST had injuries when they played C-M and therefore, theoretically the score wasn't lopsided, what does that have to do with Bethel getting beat by 37 points by UST?  Bethel had their chance to show how they stack up vs a very good team- and they didn't come through. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 09, 2012, 04:22:04 PM
Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 09, 2012, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:33:34 PM
I know this horse is almost dead.

When has beating a dead horse every stopped any of us posting on these boards  ;D 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 09, 2012, 04:22:04 PM
Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 09, 2012, 04:18:02 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?

Plus coin flips are hard to do when there is a 3-way tie. I don't have a 3-sided coin to use and it isn't fair to do 2 teams first, leaving the third team only facing one elimination instead of two. The probability of the winner of the first flip also winning the second is significantly lower...

Statistically, whenever you flip a coin the results will eventually even out to a 50% chance - regardless how many times you flip it. It may "seem" like the team that won the first flip doesn't have as good a chance on the second flip, but they do. Really.
While you are correct, I think he was trying to say that your probability of winning both flips is less than your probability of only winning 1.  Each flip gives you a 1 out 2 chance but over two flips that becomes a 1 out of 4 chance that you get them both........but I'm pretty sure we've gone off track a tiny little bit here.......
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:47:37 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 09, 2012, 04:18:02 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?

Plus coin flips are hard to do when there is a 3-way tie. I don't have a 3-sided coin to use and it isn't fair to do 2 teams first, leaving the third team only facing one elimination instead of two. The probability of the winner of the first flip also winning the second is significantly lower...

Statistically, whenever you flip a coin the results will eventually even out to a 50% chance - regardless how many times you flip it. It may "seem" like the team that won the first flip doesn't have as good a chance on the second flip, but they do. Really.
While you are correct, I think he was trying to say that your probability of winning both flips is less than your probability of only winning 1.  Each flip gives you a 1 out 2 chance but over two flips that becomes a 1 out of 4 chance that you get them both........but I'm pretty sure we've gone off track a tiny little bit here.......

+K
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 04:51:58 PM
At any rate...many teams will enter...only seven will leave...The POOL "C" ZONE!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 09, 2012, 04:22:04 PM
Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.

What is it the Judge said?  "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out answer".  Plus K and thanks for the post, even though I understand you aren't saying you favor using loss differential as one factor.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 09, 2012, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 09, 2012, 04:22:04 PM
Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.

I guess what i typed and what i meant was two different things. UMHB won the game. Played better then LC on ALL phases that day, for 2 halves, 4 quarters, thus winning on the scoreboard. Not what i was arguing. What I was arguing was scores can sometimes be misleading, thus if MOV was taken into consideration, you would have to go back and watch every game to see if the score was the actual spread between the two teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 09, 2012, 06:43:20 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 09, 2012, 04:22:04 PM
Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.

What is it the Judge said?  "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out answer".  Plus K and thanks for the post, even though I understand you aren't saying you favor using loss differential as one factor.

+k for the My Cousin Vinnie reference.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2012, 07:27:42 PM
I prefer the wording that is in the handbook..."result".

I think that most years that committee is able to use that wording to get it right, but it is always messy for the last 1-2 rounds of Pool C, which is what we want.

At 7 (or even 6) Pool C bids, we can basically get the next 1-2 teams in each region who should be in the tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Hawks88 on November 09, 2012, 09:02:37 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:15:27 PM
They're probably not as good as Bethel or C-M or PLU or Huntingdon (and the Hawks' golf coach may go on a ramage if a very good Huntingdon team doesn't make it  ;) )
Had no idea what you were talking about when I first read this. Just heard the audio a little while ago. As of today he is no longer the Hawks' golf coach.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2012, 09:11:26 PM
One thing that has not really been discussed in the effects of the foreshortened regional ranking schedule (since "once ranked, always ranked").  All three CCIW contenders would have an extra "win against RRO" (or in Elmhurst's case at least a result, since the game is not until tomorrow) on their resume if the schedule this year had been the traditional one, since IWU would clearly have been ranked even one week earlier.  (I'm sure that this is probably true of some other teams as well, but I haven't checked all the schedules to guesstimate who else might have been ranked except for losses in weeks seven and/or eight - Otterbein perhaps?  UWW?  Other examples?)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:43:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2012, 09:11:26 PM
One thing that has not really been discussed in the effects of the foreshortened regional ranking schedule (since "once ranked, always ranked").  All three CCIW contenders would have an extra "win against RRO" (or in Elmhurst's case at least a result, since the game is not until tomorrow) on their resume if the schedule this year had been the traditional one, since IWU would clearly have been ranked even one week earlier.  (I'm sure that this is probably true of some other teams as well, but I haven't checked all the schedules to guesstimate who else might have been ranked except for losses in weeks seven and/or eight - Otterbein perhaps?  UWW?  Other examples?)

Carnegie Mellon was in range.  One or both of the Ws in the NWC maybe.  Birmingham-Southern also.  I'd have research the East region a little more to find one or two from out there. 

There is no doubt that there is a lot of luck when it comes to the regional rankings and how their release syncs up with schedules.  The once ranked, always ranked (can we call it ORAR?) thing is also a concept that I go back and forth on.  I wouldn't mind seeing a provision in the criteria for results against other playoff teams.  There wouldn't be a ton of those results out there, but it would address (pretty directly) some of what emma17 was getting at earlier today regarding trying to figure out how teams fare against playoff caliber opponents.  I realize that it becomes a circular argument at some point when you start selecting at-large teams, but it would be something else to consider in the "who did you beat" part of the equation. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2012, 11:54:59 PM
Couldn't think which other teams to check, but if the regional rankings had started one week earlier, Ott still wouldn't have made it (they already had their two losses), but UWW almost certainly would have (the debacle against UWSP did not happen 'til after - though only 5-2 overall, being 5-1 in-region and the 3-time defending champ, while not a part of the criteria, I've gotta think they'd have been in).  TWO weeks earlier (like they used to always do), OTT would not yet have lost to UMU and UWW would not yet have lost to UWP.

One more highly likely: Willamette was 6-0 as of when they used to start the RRs.

Wally, Wabash WAS ranked (their Oberlin debacle occurred after the first set of rankings).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2012, 12:14:13 AM
I definitely like the 'once ranked, always ranked' rule - injuries (or occasionally other factors) can turn a legitimately good win early into something different if done later on.  Beating IWU WITH Rob Gallik (and a seemingly on-the-mend T J Strinde) was a very good accomplishment (even Wheaton's win by 5 where Gallik went down for the season with 29 seconds left MIGHT have been different without the injury - his replacement immediately threw an INT - no one else had beaten them); beating IWU now seems to be quite routine! :'(

It's true that some teams who look good early turn out to be pretenders; it is also true that some teams that it would be a MAJOR accomplishment to beat early turn into a M*A*S*H unit, and become cannon fodder. :P

(And yes, I know DEPTH is a sign of an elite team, but why punish the opponent of an excellent but shallow team?)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 12:21:49 AM
Wait, I think we're confused.  Did I say Wabash wasn't ranked?  I hope not...I certainly knew better. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2012, 12:55:57 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 12:21:49 AM
Wait, I think we're confused.  Did I say Wabash wasn't ranked?  I hope not...I certainly knew better.

You didn't SAY they weren't ranked, but I'm trying to figure out which teams WOULD have been ranked if the rankings began at their previously normal starting time.  You mentioned both W teams, but Wabash was ranked, and Wittenberg IS ranked.

I've so far come up with IWU (definitely), Willamette (almost definitely), and UWW (highly probable).  The change in the RR scheduling has definite implications for their opponents.  I'm wondering if there are others?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: TheOsprey on November 10, 2012, 02:22:29 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 12:21:49 AM
Wait, I think we're confused.  Did I say Wabash wasn't ranked?  I hope not...I certainly knew better.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: TheOsprey on November 10, 2012, 02:24:52 AM
feelin' good!  Rowan's in Pool C--  right!!!(for Keith)

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: TheOsprey on November 10, 2012, 02:27:01 AM
or shouled I say--  Rowan's in, right!  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 04:55:12 PM
Huntingdon loses to Adrian and drops to 3 losses. Adrian just helped their seeding out as well.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on November 10, 2012, 04:56:41 PM
and W&J beats Waynesburg, making Waynesburg a 9-1 Pool C candidate from the south with quite possibly the worst SOS to go on the board. HSU is 8 points down to LC late in the 4th, so that could also play a role.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Pool C is getting a little easier with Kenyon's loss (allowing 9-1 Witt to take the NCAC berth) And Adrian's win over Huntingdon (presumay eliminating Huntingdon from consideration, plus St Thomas' win over St Olaf (who might have had a case if they'd upset UST). Heidelberg and Bethel both survived close games today and presumably should get in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2012, 05:03:36 PM
Finals from the South Region.

LaCollege 45 HSU 37
Adrian 17,  Huntingdon 16
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on November 10, 2012, 05:04:27 PM
LC holds on for a win. Be interesting to know if 8-2 LC with a decent SOS gets on the board before 9-1 Waynesburg with a miserable SOS when the South puts them forward. As F&M and Huntingdon both lost today, Muhlenberg is probably the only other team the South can even consider. How Huntingdon gave up 17 points in the fourth quarter, leading 16-0 at home in a make or break game, is completely beyond me.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 05:16:26 PM
Wow. So is OWU back in the mix now too? Holy cow. It will be quite intriguing to see what the committee does.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2012, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 10, 2012, 05:04:27 PM
LC holds on for a win. Be interesting to know if 8-2 LC with a decent SOS gets on the board before 9-1 Waynesburg with a miserable SOS when the South puts them forward. As F&M and Huntingdon both lost today, Muhlenberg is probably the only other team the South can even consider. How Huntingdon gave up 17 points in the fourth quarter, leading 16-0 at home in a make or break game, is completely beyond me.
LaCollege went 1-2 versus Regionally Ranked teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:21:02 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Heidelberg and Bethel both survived close games today and presumably should get in.

Don't know that I'd call the Bethel game 'close' or one they 'survived.' They were in control from the start and never felt threatened IMO. The late TD with :11 to play made it appear closer. Even the Johnnie posters didn't have much hope on our board in the 2nd half.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 10, 2012, 05:27:11 PM
All three CCIW teams hold serve. Elmhurst survives a late scare from IWU and wins 35-31.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:27:59 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:21:02 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Heidelberg and Bethel both survived close games today and presumably should get in.

Don't know that I'd call the Bethel game 'close' or one they 'survived.' They were in control from the start and never felt threatened IMO. The late TD with :11 to play made it appear closer. Even the Johnnie posters didn't have much hope on our board in the 2nd half.

Agreed. I clicked on the box after seeing that it was 27-22 and saw that the last Johnnie touchdown came with 11 seconds to go. My b. Point is, Bethel is probably safe. I think.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:33:22 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 10, 2012, 04:56:41 PM
and W&J beats Waynesburg, making Waynesburg a 9-1 Pool C candidate from the south with quite possibly the worst SOS to go on the board.

Waynesburg resume is tough:

1 loss
0 - 0 v. RRO
.436 SoS

Do they stay ahead of LC and Muhlenburg, both with 2 losses (but 3 of the 4 are against RRO teams) and drastically better SoS.

If Waynesburg remains ahead of LC & Muhl. do they all get burried during the selections?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:35:24 PM
And what happens if Cal Lutheran loses.

They'd drop to 2 losses and have SoS numbers below PLU, Bethel and Concordia out West. Not to mention the rest of the two loss pool.

This isn't over yet. Exciting day!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 10, 2012, 05:37:38 PM
Wheaton is going to have the following resume:

.535 SOS (approx)
1-1 v RRO (both playoff teams, both road games)
7-2 record (5-0 at home)

Unless the North RAC ranks them ahead of OWU they will never get to the table. It's a real bummer there is no consistency between regional committees on the application of the criteria.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:35:24 PM
And what happens if Cal Lutheran loses.

They'd drop to 2 losses and have SoS numbers below PLU, Bethel and Concordia out West. Not to mention the rest of the two loss pool.

This isn't over yet. Exciting day!!

Who would win a three way tie between Chapman, Cal Lu, and Redlands?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:35:24 PM
And what happens if Cal Lutheran loses.

They'd drop to 2 losses and have SoS numbers below PLU, Bethel and Concordia out West. Not to mention the rest of the two loss pool.

This isn't over yet. Exciting day!!

Who would win a three way tie between Chapman, Cal Lu, and Redlands?

If they utilize the Rosebowl rule, 2 loss Chapman, with its .397 SoS  :o
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: shepherd on November 10, 2012, 05:53:30 PM
Is my list right with only 3 one loss teams in pool c?  Rowan in the east, Elmhurst and Heidelberg in the North.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2012, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 10, 2012, 05:53:30 PM
Is my list right with only 3 one loss teams in pool c?  Rowan in the east, Elmhurst and Heidelberg in the North.

Also OWU in the North.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: jknezek on November 10, 2012, 05:59:22 PM
Waynesburg in the south 9-1
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 06:00:32 PM
And now we see what matters most to this committee (and each regional committee). One loss or better SOS with results against RR teams...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 06:01:28 PM
Cal Lutheran not pulling out a win here could be interesting.

Assuming this happens...

PLU, Bethel, Concordia would all have better SoS numbers than CalLu. By a decent margin I think.

Cal Lutheran would have the H2H against PLU, the team with the best SoS.

Bethel, Concordia and CalLu would all be 1-1 against RRO (CalLu could be 1-2 if Chapman snuck in for the final ranking, but they have horrendous SoS numbers, so unlikely) and PLU 0-2.

How badly does losing the last game hurt CalLu? How do you order and separate out those 4 2 loss teams?

Does it just become CalLu, PLU, Bethel, Concordia?

Would Bethel and Concordia ever jump PLU and CalLu? Or is that just wishful Bethel/MIAC thinking?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:35:24 PM
And what happens if Cal Lutheran loses.

They'd drop to 2 losses and have SoS numbers below PLU, Bethel and Concordia out West. Not to mention the rest of the two loss pool.

This isn't over yet. Exciting day!!

Who would win a three way tie between Chapman, Cal Lu, and Redlands?

If they utilize the Rosebowl rule, 2 loss Chapman, with its .397 SoS  :o

That's why I asked...these teams will have VERY different at large resumes, so IF Chapman actually pulls it out vs Cal Lu, that really changes up the West board. Score still tied at 21 in that game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 06:11:25 PM
Cal Lutheran just went up 28 - 21
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
And Chapman fumbles the KR, CalLu recovers and has the ball on the 15

EDIT: FG CalLu 31 - 21 with 10 to play
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 06:19:37 PM
Presumably this is a relief to the rest of Pool C, since Chapman & Redlands don't look like strong C candidates, everyone else wants to see Cal Lu take the auto bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 06:28:05 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 06:19:37 PM
Presumably this is a relief to the rest of Pool C, since Chapman & Redlands don't look like strong C candidates, everyone else wants to see Cal Lu take the auto bid.

Absolutely.

What will be interesting is what the Regional Committee's do with Waynesburg and OWU.

And then what the Selection Committee does with those results.

It's going to be a very telling Sunday: SoS/RRO v. W/L
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 06:40:42 PM
BTW, Bridgewater in the East has just one loss. So that's six one-loss teams in "C"

The North has already hinted that it favors W/L over anything else. The question is how far Waynesburg tumbles.

In my gut, the seven are:

Rowan
Heidelberg
Elmhurst
LC
PLU
Bethel
C-M

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: shepherd on November 10, 2012, 07:05:39 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 06:40:42 PM
BTW, Bridgewater in the East has just one loss. So that's six one-loss teams in "C"

The North has already hinted that it favors W/L over anything else. The question is how far Waynesburg tumbles.

In my gut, the seven are:

Rowan
Heidelberg
Elmhurst
LC
PLU
Bethel
C-M

I think Heidelburg is either stuck on the table at #169 9-1 .473 or they get jumped by Wheaton #71 8-2 .521  also Wabash #36 8-2 .540 per D3 SOS page. http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2012/schedule?tmpl=sos-template
with Endicott #21 8-2 .561 making the pool c selection.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 07:10:37 PM
Heidelberg's #4 in the North RR. Wheaton was 9th and even behind OWU (#6) That's a lot of jumping. Endicott was behind Bridgewater.

I know SOS is a factor, but Heidelberg ran the table of the OAC save Mt. Union. That's going to count for something.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 07:19:21 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 07:10:37 PM
Heidelberg's #4 in the North RR. Wheaton was 9th and even behind OWU (#6) That's a lot of jumping. Endicott was behind Bridgewater.

I know SOS is a factor, but Heidelberg ran the table of the OAC save Mt. Union. That's going to count for something.

Agreed, smed. The SOS numbers count for something, but some qualitative judgement has to come into play here.  If anyone really wants to argue that Wabash, with losses to Oberlin and Allegheny, deserves to come to the board before Heidelberg, then I have no faith at all in the Pool C process.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Projection forthcoming as soon as get the post all edited and what have you.  What's that?  Willamette is still playing?  Ummm...we'll go ahead and say this is my 32 team projection with 99% of the precincts reporting.   :)

Will have it up in a few minutes.  Early tease...what I came up with surprised me. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2012, 08:37:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Projection forthcoming as soon as get the post all edited and what have you.  What's that?  Willamette is still playing?  Ummm...we'll go ahead and say this is my 32 team projection with 99% of the precincts reporting.   :)

Will have it up in a few minutes.  Early tease...what I came up with surprised me.

Wally, did your team at least make it back into the discussion, or were they hopelessly trapped behind the team they beat 28-0? :P
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2012, 09:06:12 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Projection forthcoming as soon as get the post all edited and what have you.  What's that?  Willamette is still playing?  Ummm...we'll go ahead and say this is my 32 team projection with 99% of the precincts reporting.   :)

Will have it up in a few minutes.  Early tease...what I came up with surprised me.
I think Willamette is like Hawaii for Obama or Texas for Romney--you can just call that a win for the Bearcats, cuz UPS aint mounting a comeback from 27 down. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:14:44 PM
Here's my final (sort of) projection for the field of 32.  I've ordered things the way I think the RACs will order them after today's results.  I may revisit the Pool C selections by ranking teams per the way I apply the criteria, but for now, we can consider this my "what I think the committee will do" final projection.  Let's get on with it. 

First the Pool A's.  Here they are, in all of their kick-your-feet-up-and-relax-on-Sunday glory. 


   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Mount Ida   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Coe   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   MAC   
   Widener   
   MWC   
   St. Norbert   
   MIAC   
   St. Thomas   
   NEFC   
   Framingham State   
   NJAC   
   Cortland State   
   NCAC   
   Wittenberg   
   NAC   
   Concordia-Chicago   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Washington & Lee   
   PAC   
   Washington & Jefferson   
   SCIAC   
   Cal Lutheran   
   UMAC   
   St. Scholastica   
   USAC   
   Christopher Newport   
   WIAC   
   UW-Oshkosh   

I know CNU is still playing, but I'm giving the USAC.  If they lose, there isn't a trickle effect into the at-large process, so no harm no foul if they don't win tonight. 

Pool B- Wesley.  Slam dunk.  As discussed previously. 

Pool C.  This is why we're here.  First, I'll give you how I've ordered the teams that are in play in each region.  This is built from the regional rankings published Wednesday, adjusted somewhat for today's results.  I think the only adjustment is Waynesburg.  Everybody else here won today. 

East: Rowan, Lycoming, Bridgewater State (then Endicott if you want, but we're not getting that deep in this pool)
South: Louisiana College, Waynesburg, Muhlenberg (Huntingdon was in easy...gut punch loss there)
North: Elmhurst, Heidelberg, OWU, Wheaton
West: Pacific Lutheran, Bethel, Concordia-Moorhead, UW-Platteville

Here we go.  I hope we know the process here at this point. 

Round 1 - Elmhurst.  Easy pick.  9-1, 0.531 SOS, 1-1 vs RROs.  Welcome to the dance, Jays.  Heidelberg, please step to the table. 

Round 2 - Rowan.  Rowan is 7-1 in D3, 0.506 SOS, 0-1 vs RROs.  I'm favoring 1-loss here above a good RRO record (Louisiana College) and a monster SOS (PLU).  This seems consistent with how past committees have done this.  Lycoming, you're on the board now.

Round 3 - Heidelberg.  Starting to wade into some murky SOS waters here, but the win percentage carries the day.  The Berg have a 0.471 SOS and are '0-1 vs RROs.  The argument for Rowan basically applies for the Berg here.  Ohio Wesleyan, you're now at the table. 

Round 4 - Ohio Wesleyan.  9-1, 0.483 SOS, 0-1 vs RROs.  You know what's different about OWU and Heidelberg as far as the criteria are concerned?  Nothing.  Not a darn thing.  So OWU is in.  Wheaton comes to the table. 

Round 5 - Louisiana College.  The North had to run out of 1-loss teams eventually.  LC is 8-2, 0.515 SOS, and they got a HUGE RRO result today.  For the last couple of weeks, the lack of an RRO win kept them out.  They got that today, and they got help from Adrian to get to the top of the South's list.  Waynesburg, you are at the table. 

Round 6 - Wheaton.  8-2, 0.517 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO.  So why not Waynesburg and their 9-1 record?  0-0 vs RROs and an SOS of 0.441...one of the worst in all of D3.  Waynesburg is a hard pick to make now without any RRO results of note and that SOS.  Yes, the Berg and OWU got in, but they have SOSs that are significantly higher than Waynesburg. 

Ok, so I'm out of ranked North teams to replace Wheaton with.  Let's find one.  Right now, I think you're looking at either 8-2 Wabash or 8-2 Otterbein.  If you're ranking those two teams, 8-2 Wabash has a 0.540 SOS and is 2-0 vs RROs while 8-2 Otterbein has a 0.495 SOS and is 0-2 vs RROs.  Wabash, you're at the table. 

Round 7 - Wabash.  The résumé is spelled out above.  2-0 vs RROs is the whole enchilada here. 

Which leaves Waynesburg (9-1, 0.441 SOS, 0-0 vs RRO), Lycoming (8-2, 0.496 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO), and PLU (7-2, 0.625 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO), on the table. 

Wow.  Did not expect that.  PLU has an SOS  of 0.625.  PLU is also 0-2 vs RROs.  Now here's the thing...Lake Forest lost today.  Lake Forest was your #10 team in the West.  If Willamette wins tonight (they're gonna) and if Willamette gets onto the not-for-our-eyes rankings and PLU gets an RRO win, then the whole thing changes and it changes in a bad, bad way for Wheaton and Wabash as  Bethel and Concordia-Moorhead would/should both be picked before Wheaton.  The difference between PLU and the other two loss teams that got picked in front of them here are quality wins.  And that's why PLU got stranded on my board (and Bethel and Concordia-Moorhead got caught in the logjam and never got a chance). 

I hope this doesn't look like a homer play.  I've tried to approach this objectively from the start (when I started I believed wholeheartedly that Wabash was going to qualify automatically!) and apply the criteria the same way each and every week.  This is what happened organically as I went through the process.  Surprised me,  to say the least. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 10, 2012, 09:27:13 PM
So you think with the RRO win today for LC that we should hear their name called tomorrow? Even if PLU gets in? Btw this is the first year i've followed D3 football, and having people on here like Wally have really helped me to get hooked and make me a life-long d3 fan. Thanks for all you have done!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Schwami on November 10, 2012, 09:27:34 PM
Wally, I did not know the national committee could go beyond the ten ranked teaqms from each region?  Doesn't the North region play itself out when they run out of teams?  (Hoping I'm wrong, and you're right, of course  ;))
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 10, 2012, 09:30:16 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:14:44 PM
Wow.  Did not expect that.  PLU has an SOS  of 0.625.  PLU is also 0-2 vs RROs.  Now here's the thing...Lake Forest lost today.  Lake Forest was your #10 team in the West.  If Willamette wins tonight (they're gonna) and if Willamette gets onto the not-for-our-eyes rankings and PLU gets an RRO win, then the whole thing changes and it changes in a bad, bad way for Wheaton and Wabash as  Bethel and Concordia-Moorhead would/should both be picked before Wheaton.  The difference between PLU and the other two loss teams that got picked in front of them here are quality wins.  And that's why PLU got stranded on my board (and Bethel and Concordia-Moorhead got caught in the logjam and never got a chance). 
Willamette is now up 34-0 with 5min left in the 3rd quarter.  They are easily the best team not currently in the West regional rankings according to the criteria, currently 6th best SOS, regionally ranked win over Hardin Simmons.  St. Norbert's SOS is currently 205th.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 10, 2012, 09:34:27 PM
I love you Wally!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 

For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:44:23 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 10, 2012, 09:27:13 PM
So you think with the RRO win today for LC that we should hear their name called tomorrow? Even if PLU gets in? Btw this is the first year i've followed D3 football, and having people on here like Wally have really helped me to get hooked and make me a life-long d3 fan. Thanks for all you have done!

Yes I do, regardless of what they do with PLU.  PLU getting in quickly just gets Bethel in quickly.  Concordia-Moorhead isn't quite the slam dunk that Bethel is because they are 0-2 vs RROs. 

LCs path to the playoffs was a three-pronged situation:
- Hardin Simmons got regionally ranked with 3 losses...not a thing against HSU's fine team, but that was a surprise
- LC beat HSU to get a win against an RRO team
- Adrian beat Huntingdon and got them out of LC's way

Now, while I think LC is fairly safe, their selection is going to rely on where the committee ranks Waynesburg relative to LC and then how long it takes Waynesburg to get picked if they do wind up first in line from the South.  I don't think Waynesburg will be first in line, but it's definitely something that could happen. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2012, 09:45:53 PM
I have a hard time leaving the #1 Pool C candidate in the West Region on the table for all 7 rounds.

I think that PLU is in. They are on an island, but played the toughest schedule that they could.

They play the champ and runner-up in the SCIAC and only lose to the #1 team in the region by a TD.

Now how they seed the West will be interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 09:49:30 PM
Wally, I think this is certainly a defensible projection. But I sure hope you are wrong.

The 2 major variables, as I see them.

1. Does the West Region Committee rank Willamette. The Lake Forest loss opens the door and I think they do. Keep in mind Terry Horan (HC at Concordia-Moorhead) is on the committee. While he won't be on the phone to discuss his own team, you know he's going to lobby hard for two things, or he should. Willamette getting ranked and Bethel staying above UWP and Willamette.

2. W/L v. SoS & RRO results. Wally's projections bear out what happens if the Selection committee leans towards the former.

The curveball is really variable 1.

If Willamette gets ranked, PLU is a monster SoS and now 1-2 v. RRO. In this scenario, they come off the board no later than Rd 5, possibly as early Rd 4 (Rd 3 would be a bit of a stretch). Let's assume Rd 5.

Now the dominoes might start falling. Bethel probably comes to the board next. Wheaton, LC, Bethel and Lycoming are all in play. Bethel has equal to better results v. RRO at 1-2 and the best SoS numbers.

Welcome Concordia-Moorhead to the board. Like Bethel, they the best SoS numbers, but are 0-2* RRO results. I'd say it's either LC or Concordia-Moorhead here.

Left on the board are LC/C-M, Lycoming and Wheaton. Waynesburg never gets to the table.

Basically, these are the two variables that push things either Wally's direction or this one. And really, the major variable is what the West committee does with Willamette
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 10, 2012, 10:00:38 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 09:49:30 PM
Wally, I think this is certainly a defensible projection. But I sure hope you are wrong.

The 2 major variables, as I see them.

1. Does the West Region Committee rank Willamette. The Lake Forest loss opens the door and I think they do. Keep in mind Terry Horan (HC at Concordia-Moorhead) is on the committee. While he won't be on the phone to discuss his own team, you know he's going to lobby hard for two things, or he should. Willamette getting ranked and Bethel staying above UWP and Willamette.

2. W/L v. SoS & RRO results. Wally's projections bear out what happens if the Selection committee leans towards the former.

The curveball is really variable 1.

If Willamette gets ranked, PLU is a monster SoS and now 1-2 v. RRO. In this scenario, they come off the board no later than Rd 5, possibly as early Rd 4 (Rd 3 would be a bit of a stretch). Let's assume Rd 5.

Now the dominoes might start falling. Bethel probably comes to the board next. Wheaton, LC, Bethel and Lycoming are all in play. Bethel has equal to better results v. RRO at 1-2 and the best SoS numbers.

Welcome Concordia-Moorhead to the board. Like Bethel, they the best SoS numbers, but are 0-2* RRO results. I'd say it's either LC or Concordia-Moorhead here.

Left on the board are LC/C-M, Lycoming and Wheaton. Waynesburg never gets to the table.

Basically, these are the two variables that push things either Wally's direction or this one. And really, the major variable is what the West committee does with Willamette
I'm not as familiar with how it all works, but with quite a few teams that are all really close in the criteria, might the committee start to look at geography when deciding between some teams....  For instance, say team A could be driven to a first round game and team b) would be flown---since it's so close, give it to team a????  Just curious if that is factor...(?)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 10:04:09 PM
^ It's not supposed to be. They are supposed to select the Pool C's based on the published criteria and geography is not one of them.

Now I think there was a year when they sent their bracket to the NCAA and it had an extra flight. The NCAA sent it back and said rearrange things to remove the flight. At least I remember something along these lines.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 10:40:46 PM
Huntingdon and Waynesburg are rueing today. I just can't see Waynesburg making it even though they're 9-1. I still don't feel confident about OWU making it, especially if PLU gets off the board early if they get that RR win which opens up the West's floodgates.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on November 10, 2012, 10:44:46 PM
plu should go high,,  sos.. good .
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 11:01:36 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 10, 2012, 10:44:46 PM
plu should go high,,  sos.. good .

Lemon, wet, good.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Dr. Acula on November 10, 2012, 11:19:13 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 07:10:37 PM
Heidelberg's #4 in the North RR. Wheaton was 9th and even behind OWU (#6) That's a lot of jumping. Endicott was behind Bridgewater.

I know SOS is a factor, but Heidelberg ran the table of the OAC save Mt. Union. That's going to count for something.

Exactly.  It's become sort of a given...if you go 9-1 in the OAC you're in.  You have to go back 16 yrs to find a case to the contrary.  IMO, Heidelberg is easily in regardless of SOS.  And I agree with ExTartan, if they're really discussing Berg or Endicott because of letter of the law criteria we have major problems.  Use them, but use some common sense.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on November 10, 2012, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: Dr. Acula on November 10, 2012, 11:19:13 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2012, 07:10:37 PM
Heidelberg's #4 in the North RR. Wheaton was 9th and even behind OWU (#6) That's a lot of jumping. Endicott was behind Bridgewater.

I know SOS is a factor, but Heidelberg ran the table of the OAC save Mt. Union. That's going to count for something.

Exactly.  It's become sort of a given...if you go 9-1 in the OAC you're in.  You have to go back 16 yrs to find a case to the contrary.  IMO, Heidelberg is easily in regardless of SOS.  And I agree with ExTartan, if they're really discussing Berg or Endicott because of letter of the law criteria we have major problems.  Use them, but use some common sense.

Not if we go by recent playoff appearances. But, I think they would use some type of judgement disregarding the criteria. However, the criteria is the criteria, without it we would be moving to the BCS (which got shaken up today). Berg definitely should be in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: lakeshore on November 10, 2012, 11:54:11 PM
Wheaton has never lost a first round playoff game in 8 appearances... that will come into play
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:03:03 AM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 10, 2012, 11:54:11 PM
Wheaton has never lost a first round playoff game in 8 appearances... that will come into play

That's neat, but it will in no way, shape, form, or fashion have anything to do with 2012 championship tournament selection.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 10:04:09 PM
^ It's not supposed to be. They are supposed to select the Pool C's based on the published criteria and geography is not one of them.

Now I think there was a year when they sent their bracket to the NCAA and it had an extra flight. The NCAA sent it back and said rearrange things to remove the flight. At least I remember something along these lines.

This happened, but the penny-pinching was on the final bracket AFTER the 32 teams are chosen.

I honestly believe geography has no effect on who gets in. Remember that the 8 national committee members are coaches and conf commissioners who wouldn't want their own teams screwed over and would gain nothing by doing it to someone else.

Well, Terry Horan could gain something but I'm thinking he won't be involved in the Pool C part of this at all.

Just remember to keep separate the committee's two major jobs ... Picking the 7 at large teams, and making the 32 teams into a bracket.

Geography is a stipulation in the second job, not the first. The committee is on our side. Those guys want a great bracket and all the praise that comes with it. What do they have to gain by screwing somebody based on geography?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 12:09:34 AM
^ I was actually trying to say the same thing re: the Pool C criteria being all they consider for the at large bids. Georgraphy just comes into play with the 32. Obviously didn't say it well or clearly.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:18:56 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)
If we work at it maybe we could come up with a system that includes computers and voters to pick the two teams to play in the National Championship.............oh wait that's how D1 does it. 

With all it's flaws I still like d3's better.

I see your point though.  Would only credit teams for beating good teams, not just playing them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:31:15 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)
One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 
If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)
Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:34:12 AM
I know it won't happen but I'd like the following:

1. PLU in.
2. UW-Plateville at Linfield
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:31:15 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)
One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 
If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)
Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

Totally fair point.  But the NCAA has directed us to look specifically at results against regionally ranked teams.  Those are the special games that get singled out.  Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 12:52:39 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually.

I actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.

I'd wager each region probably averages 12 teams ranked when it's all said and done. Those 48 teams would be right at 20% of D3. That seems about right to me. How did you fair in competition against the top 5th of the division?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin! ;D :P

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:02:36 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 
If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)
While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin! ;D :P
Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.
Still Tomorrow by a few hours for some of us.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:10:20 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 12:52:39 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually.
I actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.
I'd wager each region probably averages 12 teams ranked when it's all said and done. Those 48 teams would be right at 20% of D3. That seems about right to me. How did you fair in competition against the top 5th of the division?
Top 5th of the Division?  Or of the Region?  RR analyzes how you did against the top 5th of your region, not the division.  SOS combined with RR helps bring that into perspective.
Respectfully submitted.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin! ;D :P

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

Yeah, I know.  I really do hope that we're not reading my projected 32 as a Wabash thing.  I didn't sit down after the games today and set out to figure out what Wabash's path to the tournament would be (I was going to do that later by reordering the teams with some lasers and hand waving  :) )
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:17:09 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin! ;D :P

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

Yeah, I know.  I really do hope that we're not reading my projected 32 as a Wabash thing.  I didn't sit down after the games today and set out to figure out what Wabash's path to the tournament would be (I was going to do that later by reordering the teams with some lasers and hand waving  :) )
I'm not.  I thought it was a well thought out process you took.  I'm just hoping that's not the process that the selection committee takes.  That and there is not much else to do while I watch Oregon rack up another 40 or so points.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:17:09 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin! ;D :P

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

Yeah, I know.  I really do hope that we're not reading my projected 32 as a Wabash thing.  I didn't sit down after the games today and set out to figure out what Wabash's path to the tournament would be (I was going to do that later by reordering the teams with some lasers and hand waving  :) )
I'm not.  I thought it was a well thought out process you took.  I'm just hoping that's not the process that the selection committee takes.  That and there is not much else to do while I watch Oregon rack up another 40 or so points.

I think you'll be safe.  I think Elmhurst and Rowan and probably Heidelberg are safe in some kind of order.  After that, there are honestly so many different ways that you can break these teams down and apply the criteria that it is very unlikely that the end result that I came to will be the same as what the gurus come up with here and what they come up with probably won't be the same as what the committee comes up.  And the thing is that it's all logical and justifiable.  Lots of different ways to navigate this maze this year. 

I think Keith said it in here or on Twitter or maybe in a different forum on the site, but this is probably the most challenging Pool C that the committee has had to deal with in the AQ era. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:35:12 AM
I'm thinking Willamette has as good an arguement to be in as Concordia-Morehead.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 02:21:51 AM
Here's my take:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2012/final-playoff-projection
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2012, 06:58:16 AM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 10, 2012, 11:54:11 PM
Wheaton has never lost a first round playoff game in 8 appearances... that will come into play
NO!  That is not a criterion.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 08:21:14 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:10:20 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 12:52:39 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually.
I actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.
I'd wager each region probably averages 12 teams ranked when it's all said and done. Those 48 teams would be right at 20% of D3. That seems about right to me. How did you fair in competition against the top 5th of the division?
Top 5th of the Division?  Or of the Region?  RR analyzes how you did against the top 5th of your region, not the division.  SOS combined with RR helps bring that into perspective.
Respectfully submitted.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I thought results against RRO was for anyone RR, regardless of region. After the first RR come out doesn't each committee then include the other 30 RR teams when they calculate that criteria?

Either way. top 20% of your region or the entire division is getting at the same thing, its just the size of the pie that's changing.

Not only that, but if we go beyond 10 teams you're going to start seeing some teams 'ranked' who have no business there. The once ranked always ranked criteria means that 6-4 Hardin-Simmons is a RRO. Going to 12 teams or more in each region would only proliferate the number of faux quality wins that become criteria. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 08:21:53 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 02:21:51 AM
Here's my take:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2012/final-playoff-projection

As an utterly biased Bethel and MIAC fan, I like your take  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 08:59:15 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:35:12 AM
I'm thinking Willamette has as good an arguement to be in as Concordia-Morehead.
I agree---but there is not a reason based on yesterdays results for them to leapfrog CM in the regional rankings.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:01:33 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)
I think we agree--the point I was trying to make (not so clearly after a long day) was that SOS could be improved by changing it to SOS of games won (i.e. take out the games you lost because losing to a good team <or a bad team> seems less important than beating a good team).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2012, 09:43:40 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:01:33 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)
I think we agree--the point I was trying to make (not so clearly after a long day) was that SOS could be improved by changing it to SOS of games won (i.e. take out the games you lost because losing to a good team <or a bad team> seems less important than beating a good team).

This is a nice idea, but I see a major flaw: it will ultimately hurt a lot of teams that choose to play a tough schedule, and in truth will incentivize easier scheduling. For example, LaCollege would get no credit in their SOS for playing two of the top 10 teams in Division III. Under your system, I believe that playoff-bubble-type teams would be discouraged from scheduling games of that type because they'd know unless they WON they get nothing out of it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 10:05:29 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2012, 09:43:40 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:01:33 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.
I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow! :)

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)
I think we agree--the point I was trying to make (not so clearly after a long day) was that SOS could be improved by changing it to SOS of games won (i.e. take out the games you lost because losing to a good team <or a bad team> seems less important than beating a good team).

This is a nice idea, but I see a major flaw: it will ultimately hurt a lot of teams that choose to play a tough schedule, and in truth will incentivize easier scheduling. For example, LaCollege would get no credit in their SOS for playing two of the top 10 teams in Division III. Under your system, I believe that playoff-bubble-type teams would be discouraged from scheduling games of that type because they'd know unless they WON they get nothing out of it.
Good point--nothing is perfect that is for sure.  I think the current regional ranking system is a little off--especially the once ranked, always ranked component of it (though I'm sure there is a good reason for this as well).  I was just throwing out another idea but your point makes sense.  I'm really just killing time.... :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 11, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 11, 2012, 10:35:06 AM
Congrads OWU for the win yesterday and the 2012 NCAC Division Championship!!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 10:43:02 AM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 11, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

You're barking up the wrong tree. Your beef is with the conference and their tie-breaker rules when there is no H2H. Take it up with them. The NCAA and d3football.com aren't to blame.

But bottom line, if you'd beaten Wabash it would be a non-issue. Same as my team having taken care of business against UST and St. Olaf. Now we both await the mercy of the committee
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 11, 2012, 11:19:58 AM
I agree w jazz been. Owu vs Witt is a non issue because the conference decided Witt is the AQ. So they are not being compared on the criteria as only OWU is a pool C candidate. You may have a beef if Witt was a pool c but they aren't.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 11, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

This is literally one of the stupidest posts ever. You may want to learn a thing or two about the playoff selection process before posting such nonsense. And I have been a "Bishop backer" for much of the season, just check the NCAC board archives.

The argument of Witt vs OWU head to head is moot at this point, but just for kicks, I'll point out that Witt lost by 3 to Bash (OWU by 28) and Witt blew out some common opponents that OWU "beat" but didn't crush.  I truly HATE using margin of victory this way, but qualitatively Witt passes the eyeball test more easily than OWU does.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: short on November 11, 2012, 11:50:38 AM
The tie was broken by preseason power rankings. 
Preseason power ranks work like this
#1 team (wabash) doesn't play #10team (Kenyon) and #9 team (Hiram) in hopes that the league will avoid a blow out
#2 team (witt) doesn't play #10 team (Kenyon) and #8 team (OWU) in hopes that the leage will be more competitive
#3 team doesn't play #9 and #8
#4 Team doesn't play #7 and #6
#5 Team Doesn't play #7 and #6
#6 Team doesn't play #5 and #4
#7 Team doesn't play #4 and #5
#8 Team (OWU) doesn't play #2 and #3
#9 Team (Hiram) doesn't play #1 and #3
10 Team (Kenyon) Doesn't play #1 and #2

So Witt wins the tie because the NCAC was letting OWU out of playing Witt. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 12:00:13 PM
I find hilariously ironic that the geniuses in the NCAC are the only ones that could come up with such a screwed up schedule & tie breaker ruling that could have given the AQ to Kenyon if they'd have beaten Denison.

Thank goodness they lost and saved us the horror of Kenyon facing a #1 seed.

Witt is worthy participant and should once again compete well.   It worked out for the best with them as the AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:03:52 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 11, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

It's really hard to respond to this because it's pretty clear that you don't understand the selection process.  I highly recommend a thorough reading of the playoff FAQ, easily found on the main page. 

If the question is why is Witt ranked higher than OWU in the regional rankings despite OWU's SOS advantage, then the answer is results vs. common opponents.  If you're not sure how SOS is calculated, that is also spelled out in the playoff FAQ. 

If the question is why did Witt get the NCAC's automatic bid and not OWU, then the answer is because that's what the NCAC's tiebreak rules determined. 

I like the enthusiasm, but you've go to know that there isn't a conspiracy to keep OWU out of the playoffs or to make sure Witt gets in to the playoffs. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 12:00:13 PM
I find hilariously ironic that the geniuses in the NCAC are the only ones that could come up with such a screwed up schedule & tie breaker ruling that could have given the AQ to Kenyon if they'd have beaten Denison.

Thank goodness they lost and saved us the horror of Kenyon facing a #1 seed.

Witt is worthy participant and should once again compete well.   It worked out for the best with them as the AQ.

Coach, are you saying that you would not have been thrilled to go see the new and improved Kenyon in person at Mount Union Stadium next Saturday?  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:03:52 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 11, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

It's really hard to respond to this because it's pretty clear that you don't understand the selection process.  I highly recommend a thorough reading of the playoff FAQ, easily found on the main page. 

If the question is why is Witt ranked higher than OWU in the regional rankings despite OWU's SOS advantage, then the answer is results vs. common opponents.  If you're not sure how SOS is calculated, that is also spelled out in the playoff FAQ. 

If the question is why did Witt get the NCAC's automatic bid and not OWU, then the answer is because that's what the NCAC's tiebreak rules determined. 

I like the enthusiasm, but you've go to know that there isn't a conspiracy to keep OWU out of the playoffs or to make sure Witt gets in to the playoffs.
And to be clear---NCAC is NOT the NCAA!  NCAC chooses how they determine their conference championship (not NCAA or d3football.com).  Then that champion automatically goes to the playoffs.  d3football.com then places that conference champion (as determined by the conference's criteria) in their projected bracket.  Then NCAA releases the actual bracket (later today) which will include the actual teams.  d3football.com has no say in who gets in just like NCAA has no say in who gets the pool A (auto-bid) spots in the playoffs.....  So to paraphrase someone else--the only one to blame for a perceived bias in selection is the conference from which said teams came.  sheesh.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 01:11:32 PM
Thankfully, there will be a round-robin next year in the NCAC. Of course, that won't eliminate ties but there will be common opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
Also, Bishop#1Fan, we posted the scenarios for the NCAC on Friday:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2012/11/09/north-coast-athletic-conference-tiebreakers/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 12:00:13 PM
I find hilariously ironic that the geniuses in the NCAC are the only ones that could come up with such a screwed up schedule & tie breaker ruling that could have given the AQ to Kenyon if they'd have beaten Denison.

Thank goodness they lost and saved us the horror of Kenyon facing a #1 seed.

Witt is worthy participant and should once again compete well.   It worked out for the best with them as the AQ.


It was the coaches, you know, not the administrators. So football guys determined this tiebreaker.

Kenyon would be no worse than other past #8 seeds and some contemporary participants. Kenyon's power ranking before yesterday was #163 according to Massey. St. Norbert was #162. St. Scholastica was 160.

Everyone who gets an AQ is "worthy". They did their job.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ITH radio on November 11, 2012, 05:33:13 PM
Call us crazy and we hope we're wrong but we have a funny feeling that Bridgewater State will make the field. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 05:35:37 PM
Crazy.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: njf1003 on November 11, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
Someone messed up:
http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/football_d3_2012.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 05:57:56 PM
Quote from: njf1003 on November 11, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
Someone messed up:
http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/football_d3_2012.pdf
interesting.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:07:53 PM
Not so crazy!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: njf1003 on November 11, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
Someone messed up:
http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/football_d3_2012.pdf

I see we weren't the only ones who noticed. Sure made the instant analysis easier.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 11, 2012, 06:50:50 PM
when will the game times be announced?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 06:52:02 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 11, 2012, 06:50:50 PM
when will the game times be announced?

Up until the semifinals, all games are noon local time.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 11, 2012, 06:52:37 PM
Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 06:54:46 PM
Despite being annoyed by two teams from NEFC, this is still better than the BCS!  :P
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 06:54:46 PM
Despite being annoyed by two teams from NEFC, this is still better than the BCS!  :P

Way, Way better!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 11, 2012, 06:59:17 PM
Quote from: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 06:54:46 PM
Despite being annoyed by two teams from NEFC, this is still better than the BCS!  :P

Way, Way better!
The BCS system of strength of schedule computer ranking plus human polls would be much better than the D3 system if the BCS picked 32 teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2012, 06:59:17 PM
Quote from: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 06:54:46 PM
Despite being annoyed by two teams from NEFC, this is still better than the BCS!  :P

Way, Way better!
The BCS system of strength of schedule computer ranking plus human polls would be much better than the D3 system if the BCS picked 32 teams.

Not unless they un-neuter the computer rankings and put back in real MOV and SOS calculations. The computer rankings the BCS uses are weak sauce and those who even run the systems admit that it's not representative of their work.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: owudad on November 11, 2012, 07:10:19 PM
OWU has the #1 QB in ALL of D3 football and a better SOS... something is wrong here!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: owudad on November 11, 2012, 07:10:19 PM
OWU has the #1 QB in ALL of D3 football and a better SOS... something is wrong here!!!!

You're right.  You play in a weak conference and you didn't win it. 

That's what's wrong.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 07:12:16 PM
Quote from: owudad on November 11, 2012, 07:10:19 PM
OWU has the #1 QB in ALL of D3 football and a better SOS... something is wrong here!!!!

Better SOS than whom?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 07:13:28 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: owudad on November 11, 2012, 07:10:19 PM
OWU has the #1 QB in ALL of D3 football and a better SOS... something is wrong here!!!!

You're right.  You play in a weak conference and you didn't win it. 

That's what's wrong.

Although this is true for Bridgewater State too and somehow they made it in!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:13:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:07:53 PM
Not so crazy!  ;)

Oh, still crazy - but accurate! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:14:08 PM
Better SOS than who that was left on the table in "C"? The auto-bid is all on the NCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: owudad on November 11, 2012, 07:10:19 PM
OWU has the #1 QB in ALL of D3 football and a better SOS... something is wrong here!!!!

You're right.  You play in a weak conference and you didn't win it. 

That's what's wrong.

They DID win it, just weren't the "A". And the OAC shouldn't REALLY talk about SOS this year, so that argument is invalid.

Heidelberg's SOS was 168 against the VAUNTED OAC. Yeesh.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 07:24:49 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 

For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

6 out of 7 (I picked OWU here, the committee picked BSU) and in hindsight I probably should have just assumed an RRO win for PLU after Saturday's results. 

I did not get 6 out of 7 when I didn't assume a PLU RRO win.  4 out of 7 there. 

I'd be curious as to why and how BSU jumped over Lycoming.  I know the ITH guys have been hammering on that as a possibility, but there isn't a good reason that I can find for it to have happened. 

In any case, congrats to everybody who got in and good luck over the next five weeks.  I'll spend some time this week going over the evolution of my pool C analyses and post anything interesting in here.  It's been fun digging a little deeper into this this year.  Lots of really, really good discussion in here over the last few weeks. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 07:27:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 07:24:49 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PM
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 

For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

6 out of 7 (I picked OWU here, the committee picked BSU) and in hindsight I probably should have just assumed an RRO win for PLU after Saturday's results. 

I did not get 6 out of 7 when I didn't assume a PLU RRO win.  4 out of 7 there. 

I'd be curious as to why and how BSU jumped over Lycoming.  I know the ITH guys have been hammering on that as a possibility, but there isn't a good reason that I can find for it to have happened. 

In any case, congrats to everybody who got in and good luck over the next five weeks.  I'll spend some time this week going over the evolution of my pool C analyses and post anything interesting in here.  It's been fun digging a little deeper into this this year.  Lots of really, really good discussion in here over the last few weeks.

Yeah -- I mean, I get that they heard that and we heard that too, but that doesn't make it the right choice. We won't put the wrong choice out there. Conference postseason results are part of the criteria and they should be considered when they're available.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:28:14 PM
Wally,

Maybe Waynesburg was on the board and not Lycoming. That would make Bridgewater a better candidate?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:28:14 PM
Wally,

Maybe Waynesburg was on the board and not Lycoming. That would make Bridgewater a better candidate?

Lycoming is East, Waynesburg South.  The thing is that Bridgewater State was behind Lycoming in the East in the RRs on Wednesday.  Today, something changed.  I don't know what.  It must have been the SOS movement on Saturday, but I really don't think that is significant enough a change to shuffle the order of the rankings. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:28:14 PM
Wally,

Maybe Waynesburg was on the board and not Lycoming. That would make Bridgewater a better candidate?

Lycoming is East, Waynesburg South.  The thing is that Bridgewater State was behind Lycoming in the East in the RRs on Wednesday.  Today, something changed.  I don't know what.  It must have been the SOS movement on Saturday, but I really don't think that is significant enough a change to shuffle the order of the rankings.

Whoops, got my regions mixed up...

Could the East have 'gamed' the system. As in "We don't think a 2-loss Lycoming will get in but a 1-loss Bridgewater may so let's put them ahead of Lycoming?"
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:20:20 PM
They could have. But I had Salve on my board, not Lyco, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wone3 on November 11, 2012, 09:06:54 PM
 For the reason against Lyco, I would guess it had to do with SOS. Using that kind of stinks because the MAC in the past 2 years added a new team that hasn't had football and between the 2 in the past 2 years has only won 3 games (Stevenson was 1-X last year and 2-x this year, Misercordia was 0-10). I wonder if the committee took that in consideration? Granted 1 of Lyco's 2 losses was quality (loss in last min to Widener the AQ for the conference) and the other was an ugly week 1 lost to Brockport (24-2). Lyco had it in its hands to control and couldn't close out the Widener game. I can accept being left out because of the record and the Widener game since they couldn't close it out but I am wondering if it was looked at close.

(I am speaking this as a Lyco alum)

Pat, I am curious tho if you could find out why they paired UMHB and Mt Union together, because in mine and many people's opinions that should be the championship game if you want to showcase your best. I'm not saying the other side couldn't present a challenge but the stat odds were that UMHB and Mt Union would be the best 2.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: motorman on November 11, 2012, 10:55:56 PM

[/quote]

Heidelberg's SOS was 168 against the VAUNTED OAC. Yeesh.
[/quote]

You want to compare Heidelberg's 1 loss to OWU? Berg gave the #1 team in the country their closest game, closer than AQ Franklin. OWU's loss was 28-0 to 2 loss Wabash.

OWU's SOS at .483 to Berg's .471 isn't a huge difference against the equally VAUNTED NCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:31:15 AM
Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:09:52 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:31:15 AM
Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)
Get rid of the wins over regionally ranked teams criteria altogether.  Bridgewater doesn't deserve double credit for playing/beating Endicott.    The good wins are already reflected in the SOS.  Your boost for beating other good teams will be reflected in the regional rankings when you get ranked ahead of the other team despite maybe having the same record. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 02:52:34 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:31:15 AM
Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)
My comments were intended to put more weight on SOS and less on RRO.  To use them together.  It seemed that Wally_Wabash was putting to much weight on RRO in his projection.  Using SOS should help negate the effect of wins in a weak region being treated equally to wins in a strong region.  At least that's what I was trying to say. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 05:33:27 AM
The inherent problem with the SoS is that it's simply a mathematical calculation of wins & losses, not the STRENGTH of the opponents.  It's a reasonable tool to help evaluate teams across the country that don't play, but it isn't the end all.   All 8-2 records are not the same. Do you honestly think 8-2 Carroll playing in the MWC is just as strong as 8-2 UW-Platteville playing in the WIAC? 

And the number of teams in your conference GREATLY impacts your final SoS number.  A conference like the CCIW which plays 3 non-conference games has a much greatly opportunity to improve their collective SoS.  Whereas the OAC gets only one non-conference game which is why Mount's SoS is always right around .500

Don't get me wrong, the SoS is great tool.  It just isn't the most important or fail safe measuring stick.  I think regionally ranked is a better gauge, though I think they waited too long to do it this season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 09:53:33 AM
Quote from: motorman on November 11, 2012, 10:55:56 PM

Quote

Heidelberg's SOS was 168 against the VAUNTED OAC. Yeesh.

You want to compare Heidelberg's 1 loss to OWU? Berg gave the #1 team in the country their closest game, closer than AQ Franklin. OWU's loss was 28-0 to 2 loss Wabash.

OWU's SOS at .483 to Berg's .471 isn't a huge difference against the equally VAUNTED NCAC.

I wasn't vaunting the NCAC. Just saying the OAC wasn't all that this year in the SOS calculations. a 5-5 non-conference record isn't what I expected from them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:32:19 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 02:52:34 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:31:15 AM
Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

But at some point, that's pretty much the same thing as SoS, minus the bad teams you beat.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere that recognizes teams who schedule and beat other good teams, and it can't be "teams in the field" to put teams in the field.

I'm all for hearing some better ideas. Rank down to 12? Fifteen might be a little much, we were already putting 7-3 teams in the regional rankings (approx. national top 40)
My comments were intended to put more weight on SOS and less on RRO.  To use them together.  It seemed that Wally_Wabash was putting to much weight on RRO in his projection.  Using SOS should help negate the effect of wins in a weak region being treated equally to wins in a strong region.  At least that's what I was trying to say.

RRO wins do carry a ton of weight with me.  A LOT.  The credit you get just for showing to a game agaisnt regionally ranked teams (all of whom will have very good records) shows up in the SOS math.  What really separates teams out here on the bubble, for me at least, is whether or not you actually BEAT one of those teams.  Just playing good teams doesn't necessarily make a team worth of invitation, in my view.  Beating good teams does though, especially when other teams in the same comparison group have not done so. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 10:43:52 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 05:33:27 AM
The inherent problem with the SoS is that it's simply a mathematical calculation of wins & losses, not the STRENGTH of the opponents.  It's a reasonable tool to help evaluate teams across the country that don't play, but it isn't the end all.   All 8-2 records are not the same. Do you honestly think 8-2 Carroll playing in the MWC is just as strong as 8-2 UW-Platteville playing in the WIAC? 

And the number of teams in your conference GREATLY impacts your final SoS number.  A conference like the CCIW which plays 3 non-conference games has a much greatly opportunity to improve their collective SoS.  Whereas the OAC gets only one non-conference game which is why Mount's SoS is always right around .500

Don't get me wrong, the SoS is great tool.  It just isn't the most important or fail safe measuring stick.  I think regionally ranked is a better gauge, though I think they waited too long to do it this season.
Regionally ranked wins are a terrible gauge as not all regions are created equal.  Don't give the committee the excuse of a regionally ranked win to put someone in who doesn't deserve to be there by the other criteria.  Make those who would vote for Bridgewater look into their entire schedule and make an argument.  You start with the stated numbers for Bridgewater, Platteville, Wheaton and Concordia, but then you've got to make a subjective adjustment based upon actual football knowledge of what went into the number.  The gap between Bridgewater and Concordia is great to begin with, but when we compare the entire schedule game by game rather than just the 1 or 2 games against "regionally ranked opponents" it's no contest.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:11:49 AM
How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really? You can only play the teams on your schedule and the teams around you. By not including RR wins as a criteria, we could get a self-perpetuating "C" pool that no one can break through, and that's just not right.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:15:51 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:11:49 AM
How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really?
Just because Bridgewater doesn't play anyone of the caliber of the the West teams, doesn't mean no knowledge of their football ability exists. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 11:19:51 AM
I agree with both points actually. While there should be some knowledge of the prior performance and Bridgewater probably isn't nearly on par with most of the rest of the field, you can't get in a situation where you are picking the same teams/conferences -- I think "self perpetuating" as Wally calls it. There has to be better balance. Where that is, I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 11:28:29 AM
Which is exactly why the AQ's are the key to what we do here.  These "lesser" teams have an avenue into the playoffs where they get the opportunity on the field to prove they aren't really lesser after all.  Once you lose a game, then all bets are off and it becomes a crap shoot.  We all have our opinion on which criteria should be selectively applied to what teams in which region, and we'd all like to see the "best" Pool C teams make it, but with such little inter-regional play in D3 it's impossible to KNOW which teams are the best or more deserving.  We might have a really high understanding, but until the games are played we don't know for sure.  And just because a team or conference has recently struggled in the playoffs, that doesn't guarantee this season's representative will also be weak.  Many here might not remember, but there was a time not too long ago where the WIAC was considered a likely one & done conference.   It also hasn't been too long since the entire 16 team field was a popularity contest with no defined path to the playoffs.

Things change in time.   Maybe this is the year someone else steps up.  Maybe not.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:15:51 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:11:49 AM
How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really?
Just because Bridgewater doesn't play anyone of the caliber of the the West teams, doesn't mean no knowledge of their football ability exists.

Right, but you can't just it on 'gut' or 'tradition'. You have to have criteria and use the same criteria. Otherwise, again, no one has a chance to prove or disprove themselves, and then no one gets a chance that isn't 'proven' because they haven't proved themselves.

It seems we have the same argument every year with teams that seem stronger but don't get it - they pick on the little guys in D-3 that got in through no fault of their own. That's seemingly contra to what I think D-3 should be about.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 11:19:51 AM
I agree with both points actually. While there should be some knowledge of the prior performance and Bridgewater probably isn't nearly on par with most of the rest of the field, you can't get in a situation where you are picking the same teams/conferences -- I think "self perpetuating" as Wally calls it. There has to be better balance. Where that is, I'm not sure.
We could call it "affirmative football action".   If a team isn't good enough, just keep putting them out there in the hopes that they will improve.  Don't give them an incentive to schedule tougher opponents.  Make sure the good teams rethink their currently difficult schedules.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 11:36:35 AM
I know it was like multiple years ago but the NEFC got 2 teams in and both won their first round matchup. I wonder if that has gotten them (still) some credibility. While most of us who focus on the East Region know that they are a step down from the other conferences, I almost wonder if that year continues the perception that the NEFC does actually have some chance.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
What, you want teams from the NEFC to fly around everywhere to play the WIAC or SCIAC? They have very limited travel budgets as it is! Be sensible - this is D3 and you tend to play teams in your neighborhood. Add to that many teams have fairly locked in conference schedules without a lot of flexibility and you grab games when you can.

Your implication, AO, is also like past implications that some teams and leagues 'dodge' games. There are myriad factors in developing a schedule and as discussed before, a 'tough' schedule for three years down the road may not pan out for several reasons.

So tell me, please, how teams with limited travel budgets and limited non-conference opportunities can all fill their schedules with elite non-conference games where those 'elite' also have the same budget and schedule limitations....

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:41:17 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
What, you want teams from the NEFC to fly around everywhere to play the WIAC or SCIAC? They have very limited travel budgets as it is! Be sensible - this is D3 and you tend to play teams in your neighborhood.


You can't complain about not being able to find good teams if you're Bridgewater.  You don't need to fly to Wisconsin to find someone who can beat you.  The NEFC is attempting to wall itself off from the rest of D3 in order to insure more victories for its schools with the side effect of giving them a greater shot at at-large bids.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
I want to say something obvious, but it's worth reminding ourselves at this juncture.

Every team in Pool C had a chance to make it into the playoffs through Pool A. 

Yes, we can quibble all day that some teams played harder schedules than other teams did, or play in a conference with a powerhouse that no one can beat...but the ultimate purpose of the playoffs is to crown a national champion.  If you are the best team in the nation, the vast majority of the time you will win your conference and qualify through Pool A (although it weakens my argument, I must acknowledge that last year Alabama lost to LSU in the regular season and then won a rematch for the FBS national title; that's a discussion for another time and place).

Once we're arguing the merits of various 8-2 teams against one another, we're probably past the point of teams that are realistic contenders to take the national crown, since each of them has at least one major wart (either a blowout loss to a really good playoff team, or any loss to a non-playoff team) which suggests that they are unlikely to go all the way.

Yes, I think it's ridiculous that Bridgewater State got in, and  I'd have much preferred to see Ohio Wesleyan, Concordia-Moorhead, Lycoming, and several others receive that last Pool C bid in their stead.  But ultimately, I can live with our system.  You don't like it?  Get in through Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
What, you want teams from the NEFC to fly around everywhere to play the WIAC or SCIAC? They have very limited travel budgets as it is! Be sensible - this is D3 and you tend to play teams in your neighborhood. Add to that many teams have fairly locked in conference schedules without a lot of flexibility and you grab games when you can.

Your implication, AO, is also like past implications that some teams and leagues 'dodge' games. There are myriad factors in developing a schedule and as discussed before, a 'tough' schedule for three years down the road may not pan out for several reasons.

So tell me, please, how teams with limited travel budgets and limited non-conference opportunities can all fill their schedules with elite non-conference games where those 'elite' also have the same budget and schedule limitations....
My implication is that if you don't schedule that tougher competition, don't expect a pool C bid.  You certainly don't have to schedule the better competition, you will still have an opportunity through pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 11:54:38 AM
I also don't think the scheduling issue is linear for all teams. I know for a fact that Wheaton could schedule Mt Unioin or UWW, etc for non-conference games but they choose not to because the CCIW is such a tough conference. They try to schedule to prepare their team for a brutal conference slate while giving them the best chance to get in with 1 or 2 losses. This year it bit them as they had Luther, Benedictine and Albion. The reality is if they had beaten Albion they are in the playoffs with 1 loss. But if they had beaten Bethel, UWP, or Coe, instead of Luther, their SOS may have given them a chance at the end of the selections yesterday.

The system rewards teams with weaker schedules. But if your goal is to simply get into the playoffs you can get there in a weak conference with a weak schedule. If you want to win a few games and have a chance in the playoffs, you need to prepare against tougher opponents. CCIW teams get that prep during the season and I believe their success during the post season comes from that (we will test that theory this year!) NATHcon teams do not benefit from playing weak scheduls. CUC is going to get a beat down this weekend of epic proportions from a 2 loss Bethel team IMO.

It really is a two-edged sword.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 12:11:59 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 11:54:38 AM
This year it bit them as they had Luther, Benedictine and Albion. The reality is if they had beaten Albion they are in the playoffs with 1 loss. But if they had beaten Bethel, UWP, or Coe, instead of Luther, their SOS may have given them a chance at the end of the selections yesterday.
exactly.  The D3 philosophy should encourage the scheduling of a wide variety of opponents.  The way the system is set up, you want to win the most possible games.  D3 should be about more than winning/losing.  If Wheaton schedules Mount Union, for purposes of pool C, a 7-3 Wheaton should be considered to be an 8-2 Wheaton when comparing them to everyone else who didn't play Mount.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 12:42:18 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:41:17 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
What, you want teams from the NEFC to fly around everywhere to play the WIAC or SCIAC? They have very limited travel budgets as it is! Be sensible - this is D3 and you tend to play teams in your neighborhood.


You can't complain about not being able to find good teams if you're Bridgewater.  You don't need to fly to Wisconsin to find someone who can beat you.  The NEFC is attempting to wall itself off from the rest of D3 in order to insure more victories for its schools with the side effect of giving them a greater shot at at-large bids.

Bridgewater faced a pretty good LL team in their non-conference slate and then played two other NEFC conference teams, one if which has a decent reputation (Endicott). Who is close by for them that has a game to give and can be reasonable for travel expenses? It can't be any NESCAC teams, for sure.  And you'd scream and holler if they scheduled any ECFC teams.

Plus scheduling is a two-way street. You have to find opponents that WANT to play them.

The way the system is set up is to provide opportunities for student-athletes to participate in the post-season and reward teams for success. It's unfair to tar some teams by claiming they WANT to play weaker schedules when there is no guarantee for a post-season unless you WIN you league, and really unfair to have knee-jerk reactions in this, the most anomalous year of all.

You cant penalize teams because they can't afford to play a Mt. Union or some team that requires an overnight stay. Many of these New England state schools have a very limited budget for travel and expenses (so I read last year) and thus can't venture out too far from home out of their conference.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 12:42:18 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:41:17 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
What, you want teams from the NEFC to fly around everywhere to play the WIAC or SCIAC? They have very limited travel budgets as it is! Be sensible - this is D3 and you tend to play teams in your neighborhood.


You can't complain about not being able to find good teams if you're Bridgewater.  You don't need to fly to Wisconsin to find someone who can beat you.  The NEFC is attempting to wall itself off from the rest of D3 in order to insure more victories for its schools with the side effect of giving them a greater shot at at-large bids.

Bridgewater faced a pretty good LL team in their non-conference slate and then played two other NEFC conference teams, one if which has a decent reputation (Endicott). Who is close by for them that has a game to give and can be reasonable for travel expenses? It can't be any NESCAC teams, for sure.  And you'd scream and holler if they scheduled any ECFC teams.

Plus scheduling is a two-way street. You have to find opponents that WANT to play them.

The way the system is set up is to provide opportunities for student-athletes to participate in the post-season and reward teams for success. It's unfair to tar some teams by claiming they WANT to play weaker schedules when there is no guarantee for a post-season unless you WIN you league, and really unfair to have knee-jerk reactions in this, the most anomalous year of all.

You cant penalize teams because they can't afford to play a Mt. Union or some team that requires an overnight stay. Many of these New England state schools have a very limited budget for travel and expenses (so I read last year) and thus can't venture out too far from home out of their conference.
Salve Regina managed to play Union and Montclair State.   There are games out there for teams who want to be considered for pool C despite being in a area of the country with a lot of poor D3 teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 12:58:55 PM
Salve's not a state school. What I read last year is that the MA publics really don't have a lot of budget flexibility.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 01:01:03 PM
Bishop #1 Fan,

1. There are answers all over this thread AND on the NCAC board on why Witt was the AQ. We've kept responding and responding.
2. HSCoach is an OAC (I am assuming Mt. Union) fan and holds Witt with a low amount of regard.
3. I have no idea what the rest of your rant was. Can you take a breath and use spell check?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 01:02:31 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!
Classic.   ::)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 01:04:06 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!

Please educate yourself on the system before coming on here and bitching and moaning about the process. It's obvious what happened, and you have been told (as previously mentioned) numerous times.

Also, please educate yourself in general. Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 01:07:03 PM
So Pat, I know your busy and all....but have you considered a time-out box for "serial stupid" in addition to "serial smiter"?  ;)  Just sayin.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!

Bish- I appreciate your gusto. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
Hey Mr. Road Toad!!!!!.....Seems that allot more of us"STUPID" people have the same questions and aren't getting ANY EDUCATED answers that make sense!!!!...I am done with you!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 01:19:54 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
I am done with you!!!!
We can only hope that this is a promise I guess.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:23:14 PM
Sure is Moron cat.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:32:33 PM
Bishopfan--

Dude, take some prozac and settle down! You are getting answers, just not answers you seem to want to hear. I guess OWU fans wouldn't have to be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get them!

Let's set aside for a second the fact that Witt lost to a team by 5 that OWU lost to by 28. Witt and OWU are similar based on the criteria. The problem is the criteria ONLY apply to Pool C, not Pool A. You are complaining about Witt v OWU when they are not in the same pools.

HSCoach is speaking about Witt because they actually have a playoff history and have accounted well for themselves. He is a fan of Mt Union and isn't speaking on behalf of the NCAC, NCAA, or OAC.

It's ok to be frustrated your team didn't get selected (believe me, I know the feeling) but try to have a rationale thought in the process and take it up with someone who 1-can help you ( I suggest AA meetings) or 2-actually cares more than HSC (used as a proxy for most posters on here).

Either way, good luck on your journey. Live long and prosper.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 12, 2012, 01:34:59 PM
Mr. Bishop- The bottom line is this- not one single person on this board has any part of deciding the playoffs/tie-breakers. All D3.com and the users on here can do is inform you of the tie-breaker rules and move on. So bashing people on here is doing nothing but waste everyone's time. I understand that you are upset, as i'm sure many other fans just like you are/would be, but getting on this site and demanding answers is a negative reflection of yourself, and frankly of the school you are defending. As stated in the podcast last night, the committee members read the comments us fans put on this site. Ever stop to think maybe they could form a negative opinion about your school? (not saying they would, just offering an opinion). Like i said I get that you are upset, but life is to short to spend it bashing random fans that have no dog in the hunt.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
Smed-
I've noticed a pattern in some of your posts in that you are taking on somewhat of a Robbin Hood role.  You fear that student athletes that play on teams from weaker conferences won't get the opportunity to experience playoff football through Pool C as they won't be able to "break through" a sort of self-perpetuating Pool C group.

IMO, the best way for these types of teams to enjoy the playoff experience is to win their weaker conference- get in as an AQ- and then show the D3 world how good they really are. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
Usee,

It's worth noting that the only "bad apples" in the OWU barrel are some of the more recent additions that have come out of the woodwork AFTER the playoff bracket was announced.  Several OWU fans who engaged in dialogue on the NCAC boards all season have been disappointed, but reasonable in their reactions.  This guy and owudad are the only guys who are way out of line.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
Usee,

It's worth noting that the only "bad apples" in the OWU barrel are some of the more recent additions that have come out of the woodwork AFTER the playoff bracket was announced.  Several OWU fans who engaged in dialogue on the NCAC boards all season have been disappointed, but reasonable in their reactions.  This guy and owudad are the only guys who are way out of line.

I get it. I have been on these boards since inception so have seen them all. I read the NCAC board regularly as well so have a pretty good feel for the wheat and the chaff.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:41:45 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 01:02:31 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!
Classic.   ::)
Classically ridiculous.....and I am a WIAC poster!   :o 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!

Bish- I appreciate your gusto.
I think he drank all the gusto in Oshkosh before he posted....     ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:43:59 PM
usee....what do u determine as history?....and I would like to clarify in order not to sound stupid (not being sarcastic)....Is it school history from then till now or overall apperances by the school....could you clarify that for me please?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Bishop #1Fan

You are obviously a relative newcomer.  Take some time, go back and read the boards.  Learn from posts by people that have  5 or 6 or more stars next to their screenname.   They have been around D3 a long time.   The pairings are never perceived as being fair to everyone.  Two years ago, UWW the reigning national champion went undefeated and did not get a number one seed and had to travel for the quarter finals and semi-finals.   It happens.  Don't take your frustrations out on other posters who are more knowledgeable than you just because you don't like the answer.  Learn from it.......
WarhawkDad
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:54:08 PM
LaCollegeFan....I appriciated the constructive advise and I accept....It is frustrating to see a struggling program put in hard work and dedication and kinda just get looked over. Then when questions r asked and you get 3-4 diff answers and u prove them false...it gets frustrating as heck....and I wasn't here bashing these people right off the bat...I guess I am not one to sit back and just take crap. I apologize to whomever I offended meaninglessly....and never would I want to give the program a bad name or face.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:55:26 PM
I can't speak for HSC (though I will), I am pretty sure he is remembering Witt's appearance in the playoffs in 2009 when they won their first 2 rounds and gave UWW possibly their stiffest test of the season en route to a national title. Those kind of games in the post season give teams their reputation. Two other examples would be North Central in 2010. UWW fans remember them as their toughest game. And Wheaton in 2008 who was the last pool C taken and made it to the semifinals, winning on the road @ Trine, @Wabash, @Franklin. (In fact Wheaton has never lost a 1st round game in the post season and has only lost 1x to a team other than Mt Union). It's these types of performances that end up lasting in people's minds. Witt created that in the post season. I say people which means Fans. It does not, in any way, mean coaches or administrators involved in the selection process. You have to remember that HSC is also an ex-Olineman so he has had his head bashed a few too many times. LOL.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Bishop #1Fan

You are obviously a relative newcomer.  Take some time, go back and read the boards.  Learn from posts by people that have  5 or 6 or more stars next to their screenname.   They have been around D3 a long time.   The pairings are never perceived as being fair to everyone.  Two years ago, UWW the reigning national champion went undefeated and did not get a number one seed and had to travel for the quarter finals and semi-finals.   It happens.  Don't take your frustrations out on other posters who are more knowledgeable than you just because you don't like the answer.  Learn from it.......
WarhawkDad

WHD,

I am deeply offended by the omission. Since I only have 3 stars (like you) are our opinions meaningless. And to think all along I have been adding value........there's no place like home, there's no place like home....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Bishop #1Fan

You are obviously a relative newcomer.  Take some time, go back and read the boards.  Learn from posts by people that have  5 or 6 or more stars next to their screenname.   They have been around D3 a long time.   The pairings are never perceived as being fair to everyone.  Two years ago, UWW the reigning national champion went undefeated and did not get a number one seed and had to travel for the quarter finals and semi-finals.   It happens.  Don't take your frustrations out on other posters who are more knowledgeable than you just because you don't like the answer.  Learn from it.......
WarhawkDad

WHD,

I am deeply offended by the omission. Since I only have 3 stars (like you) are our opinions meaningless. And to think all along I have been adding value........there's no place like home, there's no place like home....

It just means each of your posts are worth more than those of us with a large number of posts.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Bishop #1Fan

You are obviously a relative newcomer.  Take some time, go back and read the boards.  Learn from posts by people that have  5 or 6 or more stars next to their screenname.   They have been around D3 a long time.   The pairings are never perceived as being fair to everyone.  Two years ago, UWW the reigning national champion went undefeated and did not get a number one seed and had to travel for the quarter finals and semi-finals.   It happens.  Don't take your frustrations out on other posters who are more knowledgeable than you just because you don't like the answer.  Learn from it.......
WarhawkDad

WHD,

I am deeply offended by the omission. Since I only have 3 stars (like you) are our opinions meaningless. And to think all along I have been adding value........there's no place like home, there's no place like home....

It just means each of your posts are worth more than those of us with a large number of posts.  :D
You should also note how much karma every poster has when determining whether to believe their arguments or not.  If you have too much positive karma, you're probably just a brown noser, and if you have a lot of negative karma, you're probably on the right track.   8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 02:07:14 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Bishop #1Fan

You are obviously a relative newcomer.  Take some time, go back and read the boards.  Learn from posts by people that have  5 or 6 or more stars next to their screenname.   They have been around D3 a long time.   The pairings are never perceived as being fair to everyone.  Two years ago, UWW the reigning national champion went undefeated and did not get a number one seed and had to travel for the quarter finals and semi-finals.   It happens.  Don't take your frustrations out on other posters who are more knowledgeable than you just because you don't like the answer.  Learn from it.......
WarhawkDad

WHD,

I am deeply offended by the omission. Since I only have 3 stars (like you) are our opinions meaningless. And to think all along I have been adding value........there's no place like home, there's no place like home....

It just means each of your posts are worth more than those of us with a large number of posts.  :D
You should also note how much karma every poster has when determining whether to believe their arguments or not.  If you have too much positive karma, you're probably just a brown noser, and if you have a lot of negative karma, you're probably on the right track.   8-)

You can only hope that's true!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 02:09:15 PM
AO,

to quote one of my favorite movie lines, "...if Karma were people, you'd be China". Impressive display of human hatred!

I actually have several thousand posts under an alias so I should be more credible than I appear.....really, it's true!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:12:13 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
Smed-
I've noticed a pattern in some of your posts in that you are taking on somewhat of a Robbin Hood role.  You fear that student athletes that play on teams from weaker conferences won't get the opportunity to experience playoff football through Pool C as they won't be able to "break through" a sort of self-perpetuating Pool C group.

IMO, the best way for these types of teams to enjoy the playoff experience is to win their weaker conference- get in as an AQ- and then show the D3 world how good they really are.

But if Pool C is a viable alternative way to get it in, it shouldn't only be reserved for those with a 'reputation' because that's totally self-perpetuating. "Oh, they were good last year so they get a pass" isn't the way it should work. This year is this year and should be the only factor.

It wasn't Bridgewater's fault that a lot of the typical "C" teams had two losses and were blocked on the RR board by teams with lousy SOSs and mediocre criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
One thing is clear, and while it doesn't help Bishop#1 it is the reality of the situation:

Reputation or not, Wittenberg would not have received a "C" bid either. After Wabash lost to Oberlin and the subsequent RRs it was clear that it was going to be tough for the NCAC to get two bids unless other strange things happened. They really needed for PLU NOT to have a RR win over Willamette. I was thinking that Huntingdon's loss would have helped the NCAC "C" cause but all that did was bring Louisiana College up to the plate.

Just think, last year we were focused on CWRU not getting a "C" with one loss while someone who got into the tournament had two. We were also discussing a playoff bid from a weaker NE conference (though their "A" bid, not a "C", but still...). The more things change.... ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 02:23:48 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:54:08 PM
LaCollegeFan....I appriciated the constructive advise and I accept....It is frustrating to see a struggling program put in hard work and dedication and kinda just get looked over. Then when questions r asked and you get 3-4 diff answers and u prove them false...it gets frustrating as heck....and I wasn't here bashing these people right off the bat...I guess I am not one to sit back and just take crap. I apologize to whomever I offended meaninglessly....and never would I want to give the program a bad name or face.
O.K.--so you've finally calmed down enough to post something more understandable.  I think we can all understand frustration about your team not being selected (most of us have been there).  However, if you go back and read the posts over the past several days you will see that people have tried to answer your questions and explain how things work several different times.  If you still don't understand something, try posting a very specific question instead of continuing to post incoherent complaints about the perceived slight to your team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:12:13 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
Smed-
I've noticed a pattern in some of your posts in that you are taking on somewhat of a Robbin Hood role.  You fear that student athletes that play on teams from weaker conferences won't get the opportunity to experience playoff football through Pool C as they won't be able to "break through" a sort of self-perpetuating Pool C group.

IMO, the best way for these types of teams to enjoy the playoff experience is to win their weaker conference- get in as an AQ- and then show the D3 world how good they really are.

But if Pool C is a viable alternative way to get it in, it shouldn't only be reserved for those with a 'reputation' because that's totally self-perpetuating. "Oh, they were good last year so they get a pass" isn't the way it should work. This year is this year and should be the only factor.

It wasn't Bridgewater's fault that a lot of the typical "C" teams had two losses and were blocked on the RR board by teams with lousy SOSs and mediocre criteria.
A reputation can be earned through first getting into the field through Pool A.  It also occurs to me that you're not giving Concordia the same scheduling breaks that you're giving Bridgewater.  Why should Concordia be penalized for not traveling all the way to Lake Forest or Willamette to find a regionally ranked opponent worse than them?  Their SOS is already much better than Bridgewater's as it is and their wins are also better despite not being regionally ranked wins.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 02:39:57 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:54:08 PM
LaCollegeFan....I appriciated the constructive advise and I accept....It is frustrating to see a struggling program put in hard work and dedication and kinda just get looked over. Then when questions r asked and you get 3-4 diff answers and u prove them false...it gets frustrating as heck....and I wasn't here bashing these people right off the bat...I guess I am not one to sit back and just take crap. I apologize to whomever I offended meaninglessly....and never would I want to give the program a bad name or face.

I think you just need a bit of perspective. This season has been one of the best ever in the history of OWU. The story is better against the backdrop of the last handful of years there in Delaware. But, and this is important, there are about 240 D3 football teams. It's a big, big pond.

Ohio Wesleyan didn't get looked over this weekend. They just didn't get picked. There's a difference.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:12:13 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
Smed-
I've noticed a pattern in some of your posts in that you are taking on somewhat of a Robbin Hood role.  You fear that student athletes that play on teams from weaker conferences won't get the opportunity to experience playoff football through Pool C as they won't be able to "break through" a sort of self-perpetuating Pool C group.

IMO, the best way for these types of teams to enjoy the playoff experience is to win their weaker conference- get in as an AQ- and then show the D3 world how good they really are.

But if Pool C is a viable alternative way to get it in, it shouldn't only be reserved for those with a 'reputation' because that's totally self-perpetuating. "Oh, they were good last year so they get a pass" isn't the way it should work. This year is this year and should be the only factor.

It wasn't Bridgewater's fault that a lot of the typical "C" teams had two losses and were blocked on the RR board by teams with lousy SOSs and mediocre criteria.
A reputation can be earned through first getting into the field through Pool A.  It also occurs to me that you're not giving Concordia the same scheduling breaks that you're giving Bridgewater.  Why should Concordia be penalized for not traveling all the way to Lake Forest or Willamette to find a regionally ranked opponent worse than them?  Their SOS is already much better than Bridgewater's as it is and their wins are also better despite not being regionally ranked wins.

So only those who succeed in "A" can get a "C"? Not in my book. Reputations should be left at the door for "C" bids. It's this year that counts.

I don't think Bridgewater scheduled to find a team 'worse' than them that would be RR'd. No one can predict that's how it's going to play out. If you think there's some conspiracy that Bridgewater set its schedule in order to sneak into the playoffs, then have at it. They upgraded their schedule this year by adding Springfield and swapped Plymouth State for Endicott. That's not a team that was looking to cruise for easy wins.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 02:52:15 PM
wally....I believe it or not...I do realize that....and I guess again it is dishearting seeing the strides to turn this program around and then not get the nod......and here I guess is the real kicker.......we sent what "6" seniors off Sat?!!!!!!!.....the talent has been there over the years it just wasn't utilized proper.....Again sorry to all...sometimes emotions come out the wrong way in the heat of battle.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:12:13 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
Smed-
I've noticed a pattern in some of your posts in that you are taking on somewhat of a Robbin Hood role.  You fear that student athletes that play on teams from weaker conferences won't get the opportunity to experience playoff football through Pool C as they won't be able to "break through" a sort of self-perpetuating Pool C group.

IMO, the best way for these types of teams to enjoy the playoff experience is to win their weaker conference- get in as an AQ- and then show the D3 world how good they really are.

But if Pool C is a viable alternative way to get it in, it shouldn't only be reserved for those with a 'reputation' because that's totally self-perpetuating. "Oh, they were good last year so they get a pass" isn't the way it should work. This year is this year and should be the only factor.

It wasn't Bridgewater's fault that a lot of the typical "C" teams had two losses and were blocked on the RR board by teams with lousy SOSs and mediocre criteria.
A reputation can be earned through first getting into the field through Pool A.  It also occurs to me that you're not giving Concordia the same scheduling breaks that you're giving Bridgewater.  Why should Concordia be penalized for not traveling all the way to Lake Forest or Willamette to find a regionally ranked opponent worse than them?  Their SOS is already much better than Bridgewater's as it is and their wins are also better despite not being regionally ranked wins.

So only those who succeed in "A" can get a "C"? Not in my book. Reputations should be left at the door for "C" bids. It's this year that counts.

I don't think Bridgewater scheduled to find a team 'worse' than them that would be RR'd. No one can predict that's how it's going to play out. If you think there's some conspiracy that Bridgewater set its schedule in order to sneak into the playoffs, then have at it. They upgraded their schedule this year by adding Springfield and swapped Plymouth State for Endicott. That's not a team that was looking to cruise for easy wins.
I'm not taking issue with the strength of schedule, we already know that Concordia would have been selected based upon that criteria.  I'm taking issue with the idea of a regionally ranked win for Bridgewater over Endicott.  The committee has the right to devalue that criteria if they rightly acknowledge that it doesn't mean as much in this particular case. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!

Wow.  I go back to work for a few hours and I'm now a Witt fan?   Don't tell Mount or I'll lose my gig.

After catching up, I realize Bishop's blood pressure has come finally dropped under 200 so I'll let the last 3 pages slide past.  But I just couldn't resist the Witt thing.  I've been called many things since D3 opened for business, but a Witt fan hasn't been one of them.  Until today.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
I'm not taking issue with the strength of schedule, we already know that Concordia would have been selected based upon that criteria.  I'm taking issue with the idea of a regionally ranked win for Bridgewater over Endicott.  The committee has the right to devalue that criteria if they rightly acknowledge that it doesn't mean as much in this particular case.

But it is a regional ranked win for Bridgewater State over Endicott.  That's not really a disputable thing. 

I'm really not sympathetic to Concordia-Moorhead for not being in this tournament.  NOBODY who got left out shot themselves in the foot more directly than did the Cobbers.  There's not a more gut wrenching way for a team to lose a game than that (mutliplied by roughly 100,000x since it is also THE reason that they aren't in the field), but that result just doesn't get swept under the rug because it was gut wrenching and doesn't happen every day. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 04:47:03 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
I'm not taking issue with the strength of schedule, we already know that Concordia would have been selected based upon that criteria.  I'm taking issue with the idea of a regionally ranked win for Bridgewater over Endicott.  The committee has the right to devalue that criteria if they rightly acknowledge that it doesn't mean as much in this particular case.

But it is a regional ranked win for Bridgewater State over Endicott.  That's not really a disputable thing. 

I'm really not sympathetic to Concordia-Moorhead for not being in this tournament.  NOBODY who got left out shot themselves in the foot more directly than did the Cobbers.  There's not a more gut wrenching way for a team to lose a game than that (mutliplied by roughly 100,000x since it is also THE reason that they aren't in the field), but that result just doesn't get swept under the rug because it was gut wrenching and doesn't happen every day.
It's not disputable but as Pat and Brad noted, it is something to be weighed by the committee members based on their subjective judgment.  Their judgment was poor.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 12, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
Bishop #1Fan

You are obviously a relative newcomer.  Take some time, go back and read the boards.  Learn from posts by people that have  5 or 6 or more stars next to their screenname.   They have been around D3 a long time.   The pairings are never perceived as being fair to everyone.  Two years ago, UWW the reigning national champion went undefeated and did not get a number one seed and had to travel for the quarter finals and semi-finals.   It happens.  Don't take your frustrations out on other posters who are more knowledgeable than you just because you don't like the answer.  Learn from it.......
WarhawkDad

WHD,

I am deeply offended by the omission. Since I only have 3 stars (like you) are our opinions meaningless. And to think all along I have been adding value........there's no place like home, there's no place like home....
LOL, nah we do have opinions, but those who have been around longer are more sage.....at least most of them.... :o 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:59:11 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 04:47:03 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
I'm not taking issue with the strength of schedule, we already know that Concordia would have been selected based upon that criteria.  I'm taking issue with the idea of a regionally ranked win for Bridgewater over Endicott.  The committee has the right to devalue that criteria if they rightly acknowledge that it doesn't mean as much in this particular case.

But it is a regional ranked win for Bridgewater State over Endicott.  That's not really a disputable thing. 

I'm really not sympathetic to Concordia-Moorhead for not being in this tournament.  NOBODY who got left out shot themselves in the foot more directly than did the Cobbers.  There's not a more gut wrenching way for a team to lose a game than that (mutliplied by roughly 100,000x since it is also THE reason that they aren't in the field), but that result just doesn't get swept under the rug because it was gut wrenching and doesn't happen every day.
It's not disputable but as Pat and Brad noted, it is something to be weighed by the committee members based on their subjective judgment.  Their judgment was poor.

I think the quarrel is with the East RAC and the way they ordered their teams. Which I agree with you is questionable.  I think the process can start to get dicey if the committee is free to totally disregard the regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 04:47:03 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
I'm not taking issue with the strength of schedule, we already know that Concordia would have been selected based upon that criteria.  I'm taking issue with the idea of a regionally ranked win for Bridgewater over Endicott.  The committee has the right to devalue that criteria if they rightly acknowledge that it doesn't mean as much in this particular case.

But it is a regional ranked win for Bridgewater State over Endicott.  That's not really a disputable thing. 

I'm really not sympathetic to Concordia-Moorhead for not being in this tournament.  NOBODY who got left out shot themselves in the foot more directly than did the Cobbers.  There's not a more gut wrenching way for a team to lose a game than that (mutliplied by roughly 100,000x since it is also THE reason that they aren't in the field), but that result just doesn't get swept under the rug because it was gut wrenching and doesn't happen every day.
It's not disputable but as Pat and Brad noted, it is something to be weighed by the committee members based on their subjective judgment.  Their judgment was poor.

And in that interview Brad specifically stated that their goal is to create the most competitive playoff field they can.  IF that truly is the goal, then a greater degree of subjectivity would help since winning percentage and SOS does not tell the whole story.  I do favor inclusion of the D3 rankings in some manner. 

I would love to have heard a discussion amongst the committee regarding Bridgewater vs. Concordia-Moorehead. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2012, 05:26:14 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PM
Hey Mr. HSCOACH........Witt plays in the same WEAK Conf.!!!!!!.....playing the same WEAK teams AND have a lower SOS than OWU and always get talked about and put on a pedestal?!!!!!...Yes I ask this Friday and got no response and it doesn't suprise me!!!!!!....OWU SOS .511 and WITT .428?!!!!!!...what will the excuse be in the coming years when OWU pees on your Witt parade?!!!!!!.....I'm sure it will be officials or field conditions or we didn't get the right nutrients that day!!!!!....this whole process is a losers joke!!!!....you have a conference that does it 2 diff ways in four regends!!!!......continue to let the moroons run the ship and this is what we get!!!!!

Wow.  I go back to work for a few hours and I'm now a Witt fan?   Don't tell Mount or I'll lose my gig.

LOL -- we always suspected this of you, hscoach.  I'm going to enjoy working with Brienza next year in the Booth.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: art76 on November 12, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
All right, curiosity got the better of me and I have put together a process or formula, if you will, for determining Pool C bids that is subjectively objective. And you have to bite on a couple of premises, which are these: First, that the D3 and AFCA polls for the top 25 are large enough pools of votes to statistically be valid. The second, and perhaps larger pill to swallow, is that the NCAA selection committee would ever allow the control of the selection to be so objectified and taken out of their hands.

So here's my proposal, take both of the polls and list out every team that gets at least one vote and rank them from 1 to however many teams there are in the last poll. For example, this year in the D3 poll there are 38 with Willamette being the final vote getter. There were also ties in the mix and those teams get the same score. Then add the two columns (one from each poll), divide by two to get the average. Voilà, you have an objective ranking of the best teams in the country. So for example, Mt. Union is the top team in both polls so they get 1+1 /2 =1 the top ranking.

So I did this for all the teams that were listed in each of the polls. If a team was not listed in the other poll, it got a maximum score. For example, Muhlenburg is listed in the AFCA poll but not the D3 poll, so their formula looked liked this: 39 (max in D3) plus 37 (AFCA) divided by 2 for a ranking of 38.

If two teams got tied average scores I simply used SoS to rank them. Then I removed all the Pool A and Pool B schools and here's what I came up with (with their average score behind them) as the top teams not in Pool A or Pool B:

Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
North Central 14
Wheaton 17
Wittenberg 19
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21

Yeah, it's a game changer. The biggest caveat to this whole scenario is that the selection committee would not be able to select using the last week's rankings, because they come out so late. (The AFCA poll is posted on Monday afternoons.)

While I recognize that this formula cannot be used by the selection committee as it is, you would think that someone, somewhere could come up with a better way of objectifying the Pool C bids to get "the best" remaining schools into the mix. (Some have heard me sing this song in the past.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: sigma one on November 12, 2012, 06:31:37 PM
This is way overly-simplistic.  If OWU had beaten Wabash, at home on Homecoming, no one would be involved in this discussion.  And 28-0 is not a nail-biter.  And with the score tied 0-0 at half, the opportunity was there.  That's the RRO they needed.  Maybe Wittenberg, too, but the conference didn't permit it.  I am certainly not a fan of the power-rated schedule that the NCAC has been using (thank goodness that ends), but the Battling Bishops got a break in not having Wittenberg on the schedue (though I know the argument is at least that OWU would have had the chance to face them), and didn't take advantage. 
     I hear the frustration loud and clear; remember Wabash being on the bubble, first team left on the table that time.  Small potatoes, but if OWU loses only 6 seniors, they have the chance to prove themselves next year when mano on mano occurs. 
     Yes, heartbreaking for those 6 who are leaving after sticking with it for four years, three of them disappointing.  You just can't predict what will happen when a lot of fine teams are hanging there and the committee has a several tough choices to make.  I am amazed every year that Pat and the others at d3fb, Wally, and one or two others so closely predict the field.  And whatever happens in the selection process, someone is always supremely ticked off.  How many times have we heard it's not the best 32 teams, or the most deserving.  Whether OWU was among the most deserving is questionable; fans' emotions understandable after a long wait.  Great to see passion and participation from the OWU fans.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2012, 06:47:47 PM
art,

You need to do your homework more carefully - NCC and Witt were both pool A teams!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 12, 2012, 06:57:16 PM
@art

And calling the combination of two human polls "objective" criteria is quite the leap in logic. They are, by their very definition, a subjective interpretation of objective results. Heck, North Central is ranked ahead of Wheaton, who killed them at the end of the season.

And while the regional rankings have their issues, I also have more faith in coaches and AD knowing their region than coaches and AD's voting in a national poll. I've found this out first hand doing the d3fan poll. I feel fairly confident about the West Region teams, but even there, how I sort out teams with H2H and common opponents is merely subjective opinion. But when I have to rank East and South teams in particular, I'm acutely aware of how much less 'expertise' I have.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 07:28:30 PM
Letting the d3football.com polls decide or even allowing them to have a glimmer of the decision this is just calling for chaos. That will allow for even MORE gaming of the system no matter what the East may have done to goose up Bridgewater (if they did so).

I love Pat's Top 25 but it shouldn't be anywhere near the selection process. The issue is that there's not a lot of data points in football but there never will be.

The issue lies with the RACs getting themselves in sync. It definitely isn't giving favoritism to those ranked in a poll or conferences that MAY have done better in the past or have a reputation.


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 07:30:43 PM
I shudder at the idea of the AFCA poll being 50% of anything that contributes to important decisions. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 07:50:29 PM
Pollsters have agendas.   Not a good idea.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:06:33 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
Your implication, AO, is also like past implications that some teams and leagues 'dodge' games. There are myriad factors in developing a schedule and as discussed before, a 'tough' schedule for three years down the road may not pan out for several reasons.

You're trying to reason with a dude who has a negative 884 karma.

That's basically what the karma figures are for, man, to save you the trouble.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:06:33 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
Your implication, AO, is also like past implications that some teams and leagues 'dodge' games. There are myriad factors in developing a schedule and as discussed before, a 'tough' schedule for three years down the road may not pan out for several reasons.

You're trying to reason with a dude who has a negative 884 karma.

That's basically what the karma figures are for, man, to save you the trouble.

I had free time today...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: art76 on November 12, 2012, 08:22:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2012, 06:47:47 PM
art,

You need to do your homework more carefully - NCC and Witt were both pool A teams!

Dang - I tried to make sure I didn't do that - ugh.

And, I know it's subjective criteria that I'm trying to objectify. It seems to me, at least, that's what we all are trying to do - objectify/verify the process so that the better teams get in. Please don't throw me under the bus for merely suggesting a concept. There are way too many holes in it for it to ever be considered as it is - but is there something better that could be put together that can be done fairly?

I think that's all any of us really want here.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on November 12, 2012, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:06:33 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
Your implication, AO, is also like past implications that some teams and leagues 'dodge' games. There are myriad factors in developing a schedule and as discussed before, a 'tough' schedule for three years down the road may not pan out for several reasons.

You're trying to reason with a dude who has a negative 884 karma.

That's basically what the karma figures are for, man, to save you the trouble.

Hey Big Guru,  are you kidding me? ???  I am a serial smiter by little guru's def, 8-) and i NEVER gave the guy a single negative smite? :'(
Just because you don't see eye to eye.  everyone has their own O ;) :'( :-*

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: art76 on November 12, 2012, 08:35:53 PM
Oh, and if you were wondering who it really should have been in my scenario, here they are:

Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
Wheaton 17
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21
Bethel 22
Pacific Lutheran 24
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2012, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 12, 2012, 08:35:53 PM
Oh, and if you were wondering who it really should have been in my scenario, here they are:

Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
Wheaton 17
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21
Bethel 22
Pacific Lutheran 24

I agree with the comments about the problems with including polls in the decision-making.  However, I certainly could live with that pool C lineup!

Notice, however, that 4 of your 7 ARE pool C selections. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:58:22 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 11:19:51 AM
I agree with both points actually. While there should be some knowledge of the prior performance and Bridgewater probably isn't nearly on par with most of the rest of the field, you can't get in a situation where you are picking the same teams/conferences -- I think "self perpetuating" as Wally calls it. There has to be better balance. Where that is, I'm not sure.

Yup. This was a major issue with the old system. A team that had been undefeated before was always ahead of a team that hadn't, so the door wasn't even open for new teams to prove themselves.

There are examples of conferences that have come up. The SCIAC didn't get a bid from 1994 til the AQ, and didn't win a game until 2004, when Occidental beat Willamette at home, and Concordia-Moohead on the road, before losing at eventual champion Linfield in Round 3.

Since then, the SCIAC has progressed to where two of its teams can get in, if they earn it appropriately.

If there's too much subjectivity, teams have much less opportunity to earn respect for their conferences. This way, the AQ gives every conference a shot every year, and after that, nobody is entitled to an at-large bid.

We are seeing a shift toward rewarding SoS ... and believe it or not, that was a factor for Bridgewater State even though it's hard to believe that schedule compares to what Wheaton or C-M play.

The committee too feels a responsibility to give a fair shot to teams, and going by perceptions of conference strength too much, while it feels right to us, doesn't work for someone whose goal is to give teams who stack up on the criteria, regardless of conference or region, a fair shot. There would not have been much of an outcry had the Bears been left out, but if they are sitting there with a .510 or .520 and 1-1 vs. RROs and someone who is 0-1 with a sub-.500 (or whatever) gets in.

Based on the comments I've heard, I have to believe there was strong sentiment for Concordia-Moorhead, and whoever was on the board out of Wheaton and Wabash, and maybe Lycoming at the end. Perhaps the sentiment was so strong for some of these teams that it split the vote, and Bridgewater more or less backed in, by being say ... the No. 2 team on everyone's final vote, while C-M was No. 1 on some and No. 4 on others ... I don't know, but I bet it was probably a pretty slim margin.

Quote from: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 11:28:29 AM
Which is exactly why the AQ's are the key to what we do here.  These "lesser" teams have an avenue into the playoffs where they get the opportunity on the field to prove they aren't really lesser after all.  Once you lose a game, then all bets are off and it becomes a crap shoot.

This x 100.

Quote from: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 11:28:29 AMWe all have our opinion on which criteria should be selectively applied to what teams in which region, and we'd all like to see the "best" Pool C teams make it, but with such little inter-regional play in D3 it's impossible to KNOW which teams are the best or more deserving.  We might have a really high understanding, but until the games are played we don't know for sure.  And just because a team or conference has recently struggled in the playoffs, that doesn't guarantee this season's representative will also be weak.  Many here might not remember, but there was a time not too long ago where the WIAC was considered a likely one & done conference.   It also hasn't been too long since the entire 16 team field was a popularity contest with no defined path to the playoffs.

Things change in time.   Maybe this is the year someone else steps up.  Maybe not.

Bravo, sir.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:11:28 PM
Skimming through the last 10 pages (since Saturday's games ended). Some favorites/karma given out:

Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 04:51:58 PM
At any rate...many teams will enter...only seven will leave...The POOL "C" ZONE!

Tagline keeper.

Quote from: TheOsprey on November 10, 2012, 02:24:52 AM
feelin' good!  Rowan's in Pool C--  right!!!(for Keith)

!!!

Re: Ypsi and Wally on earlier release of RROs, you guys hit the major teams. It is sort of arbitrary where the line is drawn, but it's also drawn pretty far from the end of the playoff field, meaning any team with a stone-cold case to get in should be in the discussion for other reasons as well (overall record, SoS, common opponents, etc.).

Also I think this is a good place for subjectivity. Brad said that on the calls, the national committee looks at the regional committee's top 10s and considers teams that might have been just outside the RR top 10. So the Willamette, IWU and DelVals of the world may get considered, although it's circumstantial evidence rather than something iron-clad the committee can point to.

ORAR :D

Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

MORE TO COME ...

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:18:56 AM
With all its flaws I still like d3's better.

+1

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AM
One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   :)

+1

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 07:19:21 PM
Agreed, smed. The SOS numbers count for something, but some qualitative judgement has to come into play here.  If anyone really wants to argue that Wabash, with losses to Oberlin and Allegheny, deserves to come to the board before Heidelberg, then I have no faith at all in the Pool C process.

+1

Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 10, 2012, 09:27:13 PM
So you think with the RRO win today for LC that we should hear their name called tomorrow? Even if PLU gets in? Btw this is the first year i've followed D3 football, and having people on here like Wally have really helped me to get hooked and make me a life-long d3 fan. Thanks for all you have done!

Score one for the boards. And Wally.

Quote from: USee on November 10, 2012, 09:34:27 PM
I love you Wally!

Lol.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:03:03 AM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 10, 2012, 11:54:11 PM
Wheaton has never lost a first round playoff game in 8 appearances... that will come into play

That's neat, but it will in no way, shape, form, or fashion have anything to do with 2012 championship tournament selection.

Handling the light work. Nice!

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
I think Keith said it in here or on Twitter or maybe in a different forum on the site, but this is probably the most challenging Pool C that the committee has had to deal with in the AQ era.

Said it somewhere, and it's not even all that close. There was (02?) where Week 11 was crazy, and ('04/5?) when 9-1 Cortland State and 9-1 Franklin got left out, and ('09?) when there were nine one-loss teams for six spots.

Common denominator there is that there were too many one-loss teams who were a play or a day away from being unbeaten, and had wins over good teams, etc ... This is the first year we had to consider six to eight two-loss teams, alongside three 9-1 teams with shaky resumes for the final four Pool C spots.

No matter what the committee did, some people were going to be unhappy. The right 7th team IMO was probably C-M (but I'm biased subjectively because of the way the Bethel game ended), and I would have loved to see Platteville against some of the teams that got in. Man we could actually have a nice eight-team NIT with UW-P, C-M, Wheaton, Wabash hosting OWU, Waynesburg, Salve Regina and Muhlenberg (or whatever) ... Willamette too.

Could you imagine if C-M had gotten in. Even though Horan was not allowed to participate in the Pool C part of the call, somebody would have been lobbing accusations.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2012, 09:46:06 PM
Keith, to clarify, I brought the RR dates up to point out that opponents of those teams were hurt by them not being ranked (which they would have been if the rankings began earlier, like in previous years).  Once QB Gallik went down on a freak accident (he wasn't even touched, but landed wrong with 29 seconds remaining in the Wheaton game), and RB T J Stinde's attempted comeback was thwarted by injury, added to all the other injury losses, IWU was only a shadow of the former team and went from 6-0 to 6-4.  They were not even remotely close to selection by the end, but NCC, Elmhurst, and Wheaton all having another RRO win might have affected seeding (and selection, in Wheaton's case).  Likewise, UWW would have been ranked if rankings began the same time as previously, since the UWSP debacle was still in the future.  THEY eventually had no chance of selection, but it might have affected their opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2012, 09:46:06 PM
Keith, to clarify, I brought the RR dates up to point out that opponents of those teams were hurt by them not being ranked (which they would have been if the rankings began earlier, like in previous years).  Once QB Gallik went down on a freak accident (he wasn't even touched, but landed wrong with 29 seconds remaining in the Wheaton game), and RB T J Stinde's attempted comeback was thwarted by injury, added to all the other injury losses, IWU was only a shadow of the former team and went from 6-0 to 6-4.  They were not even remotely close to selection by the end, but NCC, Elmhurst, and Wheaton all having another RRO win might have affected seeding (and selection, in Wheaton's case).  Likewise, UWW would have been ranked if rankings began the same time as previously, since the UWSP debacle was still in the future.  THEY eventually had no chance of selection, but it might have affected their opponents.

I thought that was a very good point when you made it the first time, and I still do.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2012, 09:46:06 PM
Keith, to clarify, I brought the RR dates up to point out that opponents of those teams were hurt by them not being ranked (which they would have been if the rankings began earlier, like in previous years).  Once QB Gallik went down on a freak accident (he wasn't even touched, but landed wrong with 29 seconds remaining in the Wheaton game), and RB T J Stinde's attempted comeback was thwarted by injury, added to all the other injury losses, IWU was only a shadow of the former team and went from 6-0 to 6-4.  They were not even remotely close to selection by the end, but NCC, Elmhurst, and Wheaton all having another RRO win might have affected seeding (and selection, in Wheaton's case).  Likewise, UWW would have been ranked if rankings began the same time as previously, since the UWSP debacle was still in the future.  THEY eventually had no chance of selection, but it might have affected their opponents.

I thought that was a very good point when you made it the first time, and I still do.

OK, I wasn't trying to belabor the point, but thought you thought I was whining on behalf of IWU (and UWW, etc.)! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:11:28 PM
Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

I get why Bridgewater State was picked if they were on the board with OWU, C-M, and Waynesburg.  That's probably the right pick per the criteria (even if we don't believe that BSU was the "best" team available in that spot).  The thing that I don't get is why they jumped Lycoming on the East's list between Wednesday's rankings and Sunday night.  The answer is obviously the SOS shift (Lyco took a big hit from their last game), but in my view the SOS change wasn't big enough to move an idle team up and over a team that won their week 11 game 38-0.  That's the curious part to me.  I really try not to fuel the conspiracy stuff, but is it possible that somebody on the East RAC crunched some numbers and realized that BSU had better selection criteria than Lycoming and shuffled accordingly?  That's not too far out there.  I don't know. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 01:04:06 PM
Also, please educate yourself in general. Thanks.

Burn of epic proportions.

Is there even one Wittenberg fan on these boards? Yelling at a bunch of Wabash fans about how much they like Wittenberg is comedy.

Despite my previous slap at AO, I thought he and USee and Smed all had good points about scheduling. Bridgewater State and other NEFC teams could play more LL, E8, Centennial and NJAC teams, or at least top teams in New England, but as Smed mentioned, state schools schedule state schools, sometimes out of necessity, and there have to be teams who want to play Bridgewater State as well. Not having been a power in recent seasons (though they kind of were in the 90s), why would, say, a Hobart take a game against them rather than preserve its traditional games with "like institutions" Dickinson and Carnegie Mellon. We do have to ask who is available for BSC to schedule to improve said sked.

By the way, it is Bridgewater State. There is a Bridgewater already, from the ODAC, and lazy typing is outlawed in this case. BSC is acceptable.

(iron fist)

Also "ensure" but then I'm just being a grammar jerk.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 10:55:57 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:11:28 PM
Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

I get why Bridgewater State was picked if they were on the board with OWU, C-M, and Waynesburg.  That's probably the right pick per the criteria (even if we don't believe that BSU was the "best" team available in that spot).  The thing that I don't get is why they jumped Lycoming on the East's list between Wednesday's rankings and Sunday night.  The answer is obviously the SOS shift (Lyco took a big hit from their last game), but in my view the SOS change wasn't big enough to move an idle team up and over a team that won their week 11 game 38-0.  That's the curious part to me.  I really try not to fuel the conspiracy stuff, but is it possible that somebody on the East RAC crunched some numbers and realized that BSU had better selection criteria than Lycoming and shuffled accordingly?  That's not too far out there.  I don't know.

Wasn't it last year where we speculated that the East did the same thing and jumped St. John Fisher up so they'd match up favorably against CWRU and others when it came to "C" selections? I recall that being tossed around a bit, perhaps.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 11:00:30 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 01:04:06 PM
Also, please educate yourself in general. Thanks.

Burn of epic proportions.


Well now it just seems mean  ;).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:03:53 PM
Found it - last year the last published RRs had St. John Fisher behind Endicott in the East.

SJF was selected and Endicott was not.

Hmmmm.....

(Side Note: Everytime I type "Endicott" I hear the Kid Creole song in my head...)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:20:14 PM
Let me try to replicate the committee call:

Ok, so we're down to Concordia and Bridgewater State, Concordia holds a sizeable advantage in SOS which according to our precedent is easily enough to overcome the difference between 9-1 and 8-2.  However, since Bridgewater State has beaten Endicott who was regionally ranked we will give them the nod as Concordia's win over St. Olaf while being far more impressive doesn't count as St. Olaf lost too early in the season in a much tougher region making it tough for them to get in the region rankings.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wartknight on November 12, 2012, 11:32:54 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:03:53 PM
Found it - last year the last published RRs had St. John Fisher behind Endicott in the East.

SJF was selected and Endicott was not.

Hmmmm.....

(Side Note: Everytime I type "Endicott" I hear the Kid Creole song in my head...)
Conspiracy Theory
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 11:33:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:11:28 PM
Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

I get why Bridgewater State was picked if they were on the board with OWU, C-M, and Waynesburg.  That's probably the right pick per the criteria (even if we don't believe that BSU was the "best" team available in that spot).  The thing that I don't get is why they jumped Lycoming on the East's list between Wednesday's rankings and Sunday night.  The answer is obviously the SOS shift (Lyco took a big hit from their last game), but in my view the SOS change wasn't big enough to move an idle team up and over a team that won their week 11 game 38-0.  That's the curious part to me.  I really try not to fuel the conspiracy stuff, but is it possible that somebody on the East RAC crunched some numbers and realized that BSU had better selection criteria than Lycoming and shuffled accordingly?  That's not too far out there.  I don't know.

I'm not a big conspiracy guy either, but I wouldn't put it beyond a regional committee or conference coaches to do whatever is within the rules to stack the deck in their favor. They clearly have something to gain, and no motive to not do it because they aren't doing anything illegal, although it might be unfair to someone else down the line.

Which leads me to what I think the difference between BSC and Lyco is.

Delaware Valley, in our projections, was the 10th regionally ranked team, so Lyco had a win vs. RRO and looked good. In the actual rankings though, Salve/Fram/BSC brought up the rear in Week 1, Fram/BSC/Endicott in Week 2, and DV couldn't have moved in after losing to Widener.

So maybe there was a reshuffling by the national committee of the RAC's rankings, or maybe the SoS did it, but BSC was 9-1 with a .520 and a win over Endicott and loss to Framingham State, while Lyco has a .494 and loss to Widener.

Not sure how that moved Lyco 7th/BSC 9th around, although Salve (6) had to drop behind Framingham (8) with the h2h result from the NEFC title game.

It is coincidental that with all the MAC/NEFC interrelation, the Bears go to Widener in Round 1.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 11:33:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:11:28 PM
Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

I get why Bridgewater State was picked if they were on the board with OWU, C-M, and Waynesburg.  That's probably the right pick per the criteria (even if we don't believe that BSU was the "best" team available in that spot).  The thing that I don't get is why they jumped Lycoming on the East's list between Wednesday's rankings and Sunday night.  The answer is obviously the SOS shift (Lyco took a big hit from their last game), but in my view the SOS change wasn't big enough to move an idle team up and over a team that won their week 11 game 38-0.  That's the curious part to me.  I really try not to fuel the conspiracy stuff, but is it possible that somebody on the East RAC crunched some numbers and realized that BSU had better selection criteria than Lycoming and shuffled accordingly?  That's not too far out there.  I don't know.

I'm not a big conspiracy guy either, but I wouldn't put it beyond a regional committee or conference coaches to do whatever is within the rules to stack the deck in their favor. They clearly have something to gain, and no motive to not do it because they aren't doing anything illegal, although it might be unfair to someone else down the line.

Which leads me to what I think the difference between BSC and Lyco is.

Delaware Valley, in our projections, was the 10th regionally ranked team, so Lyco had a win vs. RRO and looked good. In the actual rankings though, Salve/Fram/BSC brought up the rear in Week 1, Fram/BSC/Endicott in Week 2, and DV couldn't have moved in after losing to Widener.

So maybe there was a reshuffling by the national committee of the RAC's rankings, or maybe the SoS did it, but BSC was 9-1 with a .520 and a win over Endicott and loss to Framingham State, while Lyco has a .494 and loss to Widener.

Not sure how that moved Lyco 7th/BSC 9th around, although Salve (6) had to drop behind Framingham (8) with the h2h result from the NEFC title game.

It is coincidental that with all the MAC/NEFC interrelation, the Bears go to Widener in Round 1.

Del Val was not ranked in our projection. Here was my East Region -- Salve Regina was on the board when the selection ended.

Hobart
Widener
Cortland State
Salisbury
Rowan
Framingham State
Salve Regina
Lycoming
Bridgewater State
Endicott
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Upstate on November 12, 2012, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 11:33:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:11:28 PM
Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

I get why Bridgewater State was picked if they were on the board with OWU, C-M, and Waynesburg.  That's probably the right pick per the criteria (even if we don't believe that BSU was the "best" team available in that spot).  The thing that I don't get is why they jumped Lycoming on the East's list between Wednesday's rankings and Sunday night.  The answer is obviously the SOS shift (Lyco took a big hit from their last game), but in my view the SOS change wasn't big enough to move an idle team up and over a team that won their week 11 game 38-0.  That's the curious part to me.  I really try not to fuel the conspiracy stuff, but is it possible that somebody on the East RAC crunched some numbers and realized that BSU had better selection criteria than Lycoming and shuffled accordingly?  That's not too far out there.  I don't know.

I'm not a big conspiracy guy either, but I wouldn't put it beyond a regional committee or conference coaches to do whatever is within the rules to stack the deck in their favor. They clearly have something to gain, and no motive to not do it because they aren't doing anything illegal, although it might be unfair to someone else down the line.

Which leads me to what I think the difference between BSC and Lyco is.

Delaware Valley, in our projections, was the 10th regionally ranked team, so Lyco had a win vs. RRO and looked good. In the actual rankings though, Salve/Fram/BSC brought up the rear in Week 1, Fram/BSC/Endicott in Week 2, and DV couldn't have moved in after losing to Widener.

So maybe there was a reshuffling by the national committee of the RAC's rankings, or maybe the SoS did it, but BSC was 9-1 with a .520 and a win over Endicott and loss to Framingham State, while Lyco has a .494 and loss to Widener.

Not sure how that moved Lyco 7th/BSC 9th around, although Salve (6) had to drop behind Framingham (8) with the h2h result from the NEFC title game.

It is coincidental that with all the MAC/NEFC interrelation, the Bears go to Widener in Round 1.

Del Val was not ranked in our projection. Here was my East Region -- Salve Regina was on the board when the selection ended.

Hobart
Widener
Cortland State
Salisbury
Rowan
Framingham State
Salve Regina
Lycoming
Bridgewater State
Endicott

That bottom 5 is just ugly...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 11:39:34 PM
Del Val was not ranked in our projection. Here was my East Region -- Salve Regina was on the board when the selection ended.

Hobart
Widener
Cortland State
Salisbury
Rowan
Framingham State
Salve Regina
Lycoming
Bridgewater State
Endicott

Sorry, misspoke. I think when I did my guide to Pool C, I had assumed Del Val was an RRO.

I was initially thinking Bridgewater State had a shot, but your point that the criteria says to consider conference postseason games, and that common sense says Bridgewater State is 9-1 only because it didn't have an opportunity to be either 10-1 or 9-2, because it lost to Framingham State, means they stay stuck behind Salve Regina, made sense to me.

The last four on the board, however, must have been
Bridgewater State, 9-1, .520, 1-1
Waynesburg, 9-1, .441, 0-0
Ohio Wesleyan, 9-1, .483, 0-1
Concordia-Moorhead, 7-2, .571, 0-2

You can kind of see how BSC gets in against this group, although that .571 for C-M is really monstrous by comparison, and they had as many games against RROs, including one that they won except for basically a technicality.

If I heard Brad right, he said that they have to look at what really happened, not what would have happened if the penalty hadn't been called or if Hurricane Sandy hadn't cost some NJ/NY/PA teams games.

BTW we picked BSC to meet/beat Salve in the NEFC title game in Kickoff.

Also, does the MASCAC bid kick in automatically, or is there a 2-year wait?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
The MASCAC needs Little East member Western Connecticut to get to seven football programs, so because of that, it is supposed to have the two-year waiting period.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 12:36:04 PM
Since the East RAC isn't here to defend itself, and since I do know at least one member of the RAC personally, I'd like to step in here to officially quash the idea of some sort of regional conspiracy.  Stating such would suggest a lack of real insight as to how the East stacked up when considering the criteria and history.

Let's look at the East's 19 teams with three losses or less:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Hobart      10-0      1.000      0.498
Widener      9-0      1.000      0.481
Fram. State   10-1      .909      0.501
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Cortland St.   8-1      .889      0.523
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Salisbury   8-2      .800      0.555
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494
Mount Ida   8-2      .800      0.457
Norwich      7-2      .778      0.449
Gallaudet   6-2      .750      0.468
Springfield   7-3      .700      0.534
Delaware Val.   7-3      .700      0.508
Castle. St.   7-3      .700      0.496
St.John Fish.   6-3      .667      0.567
Alfred      6-3      .667      0.514
Kean      5-3      .625      0.485


Let's remove the automatic bids:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494
Norwich      7-2      .778      0.449
Gallaudet   6-2      .750      0.468
Springfield   7-3      .700      0.534
Delaware Val.   7-3      .700      0.508
Castle. St.   7-3      .700      0.496
St.John Fish.   6-3      .667      0.567
Alfred      6-3      .667      0.514
Kean      5-3      .625      0.485


Now, let's order the automatic bids into the rankings initially:

1) Hobart (10-0)
2) Widener (9-0)
3) Cortland St. (8-1)
4) Salisbury (8-2)
5) Framingham St. (10-1)
6) Mount Ida (8-2)

Note that Salisbury's SOS is 0.054 more than Framingham St.'s, allowing this to be feasible.  Cortland's SOS is within 0.05 of Salisbury's, meaning some level of subjectivity would allow for that ordering.  Mount Ida is most susceptible here with an 0.457 SOS.

The next thing to do is look at the resumes and numbers of the three loss teams to see if any of them require further analysis.  I say this because we have historically rarely if ever seen three-loss teams ranked -- meaning we need to have a great reason to rank them here.  The SOS for Kean and Castleton do not warrant further discussion (below 0.500).  Fisher has no wins against any team above it, and Alfred's only win of note here is against Fisher.  Both of them can be eliminated.  Springfield has a similar problem (loss to BSC hurts despite the SOS).  That leaves DelVal -- however, the fact that DelVal has only a 0.508 SOS despite having played three teams that could be or will be regionally ranked is a problem.  Said differently, we'd be double-counting SOS strength in three losses against regionally-ranked opponents if we gave it that much merit.  When you eliminate those three losses and look at SOS for wins, DelVal's resume is not great this season.  If they had won one of those three games, we'd have a different perspective.  However, this is why DelVal is not a team to consider at three losses.

So, left for consideration are:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494
Norwich      7-2      .778      0.449
Gallaudet   6-2      .750      0.468


Norwich lost to Gallaudet, Mount Ida and Castleton with a terrible SOS.  While Gallaudet beat Mount Ida and Norwich, Norwich won't be an RRO most likely, and between Gallaudet's SOS, Mount Ida's susceptibility as a ranked team and the fact that Otterbein beat Gallaudet in an out-of-region game, they don't bear much consideration.  Now, we have:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494


With:

1) Hobart (10-0, 0.498)
2) Widener (9-0, 0.481)
3) Cortland St. (8-1, 0.523)
4) Salisbury (8-2, 0.555)
5) Framingham St. (10-1, 0.501)
6) Mount Ida (8-2, 0.457)

Hobart likely remains #1 despite the likelihood of a 1-0 RRO record for Widener (vs. 0-0 for Hobart) because of the closeness in SOS and the idea that Hobart's performance vs. Wesley last season in the playoffs was solid enough to gain the team respect.  This is likely why Hobart was placed as the #2 seed in the St. Thomas bracket (considered #4 as far as #1 seeds go, meaning #4 vs. #5 in the broader bracket).

It would be superfluous to look too much at the ordering of the Top 4 listed above.  Let's look at the resumes of the seven remaining teams that need to fill in six slots in the East rankings:

Framingham State - Wins vs. Salve, BSC, Loss vs. Endicott (2-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Best remaining Win% and moderate 0.501 SOS.

Mount Ida - 0-0 vs. teams left.  Tied for worst Win% and worst SOS at 0.457.

Bridgewater State - Win vs. Endicott, Loss vs. FSU (1-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Second best Win% and good SOS at 0.520.

Rowan - Loss vs. Cortland (0-1 against teams remaining).  Third best Win% remaining and moderate 0.506 SOS.

Salve Regina - Win vs. Endicott, Loss vs. FSU (1-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Middling Win%, with second loss to 5-4 MIT, and moderate SOS at 0.509.

Endicott - Win vs. FSU, Losses vs. Salve and BSC (1-2 vs. teams on the board here).  Tied for worst Win% but extremely good SOS at 0.561.

Lycoming - Loss vs. Widener (0-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Tied for worst Win%, second loss to 6-4 Brockport and mediocre SOS at 0.494.

What should be obvious right off the bat is that we need to eliminate one team to make a field of 10 here.  Mount Ida has no resume to really speak of -- despite being a Pool A qualifier.  By removing Mount Ida, the records vs. teams on the board are actually still the records vs. RROs for all teams.  By happenstance, we have four NEFC teams, one NJAC team and one MAC team.  The first job that makes sense is ordering the NEFC teams.

In a conference in which not all teams play all other teams, you cannot simply state that Framingham State is the best team in the conference for seeding purposes (they won the Pool A bid -- that doesn't get them an automatic seed of any value).  Similarly, we cannot simply call Salve the #2 team in the NEFC since there is limited crossover in the NEFC.  Stated differently, what if Salve came into the NEFC Championship game at 7-3.  They lose to FSU and move to 7-4.  Does being in the NEFC Championship Game mean that Salve is, de facto, the #2 team in the NEFC?  Absolutely not.  While some suggest that using conference tournament results is a criterion, the conference championship result here is simple:  Salve lost.  The game is factored into their numbers accordingly since it was not a rematch.  We will take note of their wins vs. Union and Montclair in the ordering, but there is no guaranty of Salve being #2.  As Pat always says, in Pool C, it's not your conference that is being voted on -- it's the team itself.

Framingham State won the conference and has a 2-1 record vs. the involved NEFC teams.  Only Endicott could surpass it.  When you compare the teams, it's close.  The head-to-head win would give Endicott a chance, and the SOS is terrific.  The RRO record is a problem for Endicott, though.  If they were both 9-1 or 10-1 here, I'd give the nod to Endicott for sure.  However, the conference championship result and the better RRO give Framingham a very slight nod above Endicott.

Bridgewater, too, would go above Endicott.  Here, Bridgewater has a better record again, a better SOS than FSU, making the SOS comparison closer between the teams, and a better RRO record (1-1 vs. 1-2).  FSU beat Bridgewater, won the championship game and has a better RRO, meaning Bridgewater is somewhere between Endicott and FSU.

To determine where, we need to look at Salve.  Salve and BSC both lost to FSU and both beat Endicott.  BSC has a slightly better SOS.  If they were at identical Win%, this would be a near draw, but Salve lost to a mediocre MIT team.  Salve's head-to-head win against Endicott likely keeps Salve above Endicott at equal records, but Salve is the third best team in this lot.

This means, with Rowan and Lycoming still floating, we have:

1) Hobart (10-0, 0.498)
2) Widener (9-0, 0.481)
3) Cortland St. (8-1, 0.523)
4) Salisbury (8-2, 0.555)
5) Framingham St. (10-1, 0.501)
6) Bridgewater St. (9-1, 0.520)
7) Salve Regina (9-2, 0.509)
8) Endicott (8-2, 0.561)

Rowan's advantage here is more or less subjectivity with the NJAC schedule behind it.  At only one loss (to Cortland St., 0-1 RRO) and with a reasonable SOS at 0.506, it's not an easy placement.  Lycoming's advantage is also more or less subjectivity with the MAC schedule behind it.  At two losses (to Widener and Brockport, 0-1 RRO) and a somewhat medicore SOS 0.494, we can guess that the team is definitely below Rowan.  Rowan vs. Framingham St. isn't easy here -- but I think subjectivity with equal losses and a slightly better SOS allows Rowan to jump Framingham St. but not Salisbury.

With Lycoming, the 0-10 opponent in Week 11 hurt the team immeasurably in its only real former advantage: SOS.  Subjectivity is only going to really help when records are even or SOS is truly in your favor.  Lycoming does not stack well vs. FSU and BSC because of the extra loss, the lower SOS and, whether you like it or not, a worse RRO record (as shown, this was not a "manufactured" RRO -- it's a reality).  We honor he regional nature of the game still (and the idea that the regions are in some way balanced enough to allow for regional rankings and selections).  The NEFC teams listed as a whole won their games more often than most other conference teams listed below them, and that relative strength is honored when there are no three-loss teams or other two-loss teams with better resumes being considered.  I believe that Lycoming withstood Salve based on a level of subjectivity since the teams had statistically similar Win%s and SOS numbers (and the RRO was 1-1 vs. 0-1 in favor of Salve, which isn't a giant leap).  I could make arguments either way for the two, but I think Lycoming held the #8 slot based on the RAC's thoughts of the MAC schedule vs. the NEFC schedule.

1) Hobart (10-0, 0.498)
2) Widener (9-0, 0.481)
3) Cortland St. (8-1, 0.523)
4) Salisbury (8-2, 0.555)
5) Rowan (7-1, 0.506)
6) Framingham St. (10-1, 0.501)
7) Bridgewater St. (9-1, 0.520)
8) Lycoming (8-2, 0.494)
9) Salve Regina (9-2, 0.509)
10) Endicott (8-2, 0.561)

There's no conspiracy when you actually run through the process -- so I don't understand why the East RAC is getting so brutalized in the discussion.  I called the ordering out two weeks before the selection (on "In the HuddLLe" when Keith was guest hosting at the end of the show) -- it was obvious what was beginning to happen to me.  You need to look at the region beyond just the top 10 to see that the top 10 are ranked for a reason and that the RRO numbers were beginning to benefit BSC once the SOS changes occurred.  As for why BSC went before C-M?  I have a pretty good theory on that one that I'll share later tonight.  However, as a preview, I'd suggest it was actually caused by a new NCAA policy more than anything else.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: pg04 on November 13, 2012, 12:47:14 PM
This is going to be shocking but I'm going to compliment you -- I'm not going to quote all of that but good job, Frank. Very thorough and well-thought out analysis. +K to you.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 13, 2012, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 12, 2012, 08:35:53 PM
Oh, and if you were wondering who it really should have been in my scenario, here they are:

Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
Wheaton 17
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21
Bethel 22
Pacific Lutheran 24

Hmm, if I was asked to explain how the selection process works to a player, I'd sure rather explain Art's methodology.   Surely there is a way to integrate the various criteria, including polls.   
     
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

No offense, but if you look at my ballot for the Top 25 (strictly at the East teams) and the East RAC's projected final rankings, there isn't much difference except that Rowan is as deep as I ranked.  Framingham would have likely been next on my ballot as far as East teams go, followed by either Bridgewater St. or Lyco.  I won't play Monday Morning QB here with how I would've ranked, but we're not looking too far off in the regional aspect.  If your point is C-M vs. Bridgewater St., then I'll answer that point later; it's a different conundrum.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:52:57 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

No offense, but if you look at my ballot for the Top 25 (strictly at the East teams) and the East RAC's projected final rankings, there isn't much difference except that Rowan is as deep as I ranked.  Framingham would have likely been next on my ballot as far as East teams go, followed by either Bridgewater St. or Lyco.  I won't play Monday Morning QB here with how I would've ranked, but we're not looking too far off in the regional aspect.  If your point is C-M vs. Bridgewater St., then I'll answer that point later; it's a different conundrum.
Yes that's my point.  I'm saying the problem we have is judging teams fairly between regions because some conferences can't find opponents to play them (WIAC) and some conferences (NEFC) have walled themselves from the rest of D3 inflating their SOS.  Either Pool C is about getting the best remaining teams, or it is just an extension of the equal access pool A.  We get better regular season football when the incentive is to schedule the difficult games.  We wouldn't have as many of the scheduling headaches the WIAC endures.  Play the big d3 school down the road, your players will improve and it won't hurt your at large chances.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 13, 2012, 05:59:59 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

I agree that the Top 25 has been pretty accurate, one could argue more accurate than the D1 polls, but I strongly disagree that it would remain that way if it was used in the Pool C selections or in the seeding of the bracket.  Most of the folks participating in the D3 poll are connected to a specific school or at the very least connected to a conference.  And if their vote could determine whether their favorite school gets into the field or gets a home game, we're all kidding ourselves if we think that wouldn't influence the voting.   

The Top 25 is great way to predict who might win the playoff games, but IMHO it has no business being part of the official selection/seeding process.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: desertcat1 on November 13, 2012, 06:06:19 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 13, 2012, 05:59:59 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

I agree that the Top 25 has been pretty accurate, one could argue more accurate than the D1 polls, but I strongly disagree that it would remain that way if it was used in the Pool C selections or in the seeding of the bracket.  Most of the folks participating in the D3 poll are connected to a specific school or at the very least connected to a conference.  And if their vote could determine whether their favorite school gets into the field or gets a home game, we're all kidding ourselves if we think that wouldn't influence the voting.   

The Top 25 is great way to predict who might win the playoff games, but IMHO it has no business being part of the official selection/seeding process.


I agree 100% :-*
open up the voting and we need to see seedings too?  I think we all understand that travel trumps all at this time too.   :'(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 06:17:01 PM
Wish we could get official seedings but at least we will have what we think the seedings are when we post our team capsules.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 13, 2012, 06:42:00 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 13, 2012, 05:59:59 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

I agree that the Top 25 has been pretty accurate, one could argue more accurate than the D1 polls, but I strongly disagree that it would remain that way if it was used in the Pool C selections or in the seeding of the bracket.  Most of the folks participating in the D3 poll are connected to a specific school or at the very least connected to a conference.  And if their vote could determine whether their favorite school gets into the field or gets a home game, we're all kidding ourselves if we think that wouldn't influence the voting.   

The Top 25 is great way to predict who might win the playoff games, but IMHO it has no business being part of the official selection/seeding process.

Yep. The polls are highly accurate. And should they become playoff criteria, they'd become highly political and highly toxic.

The NAIA polls serve this very purpose, and their boards are constantly talking about two things. 1) Certain historical teams get the benefit of the doubt, even when on field results seem to indicate otherwise. 2) There is some serious gerrymandering that goes on.

And I'd throw into this the way preseason perception shapes these polls. A team with 2 losses that starts the season in the top 10 is usually in much better shape than a team with two losses that wasn't even receiving votes preseason. That would be a major weakness to using this data.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2012, 07:11:27 PM
Hazben, to your point about the polls....

The final Top 25 is a perfect example in the League that I cover (PAC).

W&J (8-2)  is 34th in the poll, garnering 9 points.
Waynesburg (9-1) is 29th, with 44 points.

One loss in week 2 (to then #9 St. John Fisher by a single score on a long play)
One loss in week 6 (to Thomas More, two days after the death of their captain and leading rusher).
The final poll ballots gave Waynesburg 35 more points than W&J, the team that just soundly beat them, building a two-touchdown lead in the second quarter and playing with that the rest of the game.

So, those who would lobby for media/fan/coach voted polls would say what with this statement?  That despite being outplayed in the defacto conference championship game, that despite being clearly beaten, that Waynesburg is a better team and should receive stronger Tournament consideration than W&J?  Really?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:39:26 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 12:36:04 PM
Since the East RAC isn't here to defend itself,

Oh goodness.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:52:57 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

No offense, but if you look at my ballot for the Top 25 (strictly at the East teams) and the East RAC's projected final rankings, there isn't much difference except that Rowan is as deep as I ranked.  Framingham would have likely been next on my ballot as far as East teams go, followed by either Bridgewater St. or Lyco.  I won't play Monday Morning QB here with how I would've ranked, but we're not looking too far off in the regional aspect.  If your point is C-M vs. Bridgewater St., then I'll answer that point later; it's a different conundrum.
Yes that's my point.  I'm saying the problem we have is judging teams fairly between regions because some conferences can't find opponents to play them (WIAC) and some conferences (NEFC) have walled themselves from the rest of D3 inflating their SOS.  Either Pool C is about getting the best remaining teams, or it is just an extension of the equal access pool A.  We get better regular season football when the incentive is to schedule the difficult games.  We wouldn't have as many of the scheduling headaches the WIAC endures.  Play the big d3 school down the road, your players will improve and it won't hurt your at large chances.

I agree with the guy with the -885 karma.

But I also think there's part of this argument that hasn't been addressed much ... who can Bridgewater State et. al. get to play them that wants to play them, and will work within budget constraints (as of a few years ago, all of the NEFC teams weren't even operating with full-time head coaches) that compare to what they get

Further, what incentive is it for them, now that they had Endicott left out at 9-1 last year but BSC in at 9-1 this year?

In a way, with the access ratio 7.5:1, the 16-team NEFC had been doing everybody a favor for years by only taking up one AQ. They got hip to the game and are splitting into two so they can claim their second, meaning this will be a moot point in the future.

But AO is right that we have a better regular season when teams schedule tough without fear of losing it all.

The better story/other angle is Adrian, which went down to Huntingdon, WON, and now plays a first-round home game as a 9-1 from a weak conference.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
In a way, with the access ratio 7.5:1, the 16-team NEFC had been doing everybody a favor for years by only taking up one AQ. They got hip to the game and are splitting into two so they can claim their second, meaning this will be a moot point in the future.

(6.5:1)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 13, 2012, 07:50:45 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2012, 07:11:27 PM
Hazben, to your point about the polls....

The final Top 25 is a perfect example in the League that I cover (PAC).

W&J (8-2)  is 34th in the poll, garnering 9 points.
Waynesburg (9-1) is 29th, with 44 points.

One loss in week 2 (to then #9 St. John Fisher by a single score on a long play)
One loss in week 6 (to Thomas More, two days after the death of their captain and leading rusher).
The final poll ballots gave Waynesburg 35 more points than W&J, the team that just soundly beat them, building a two-touchdown lead in the second quarter and playing with that the rest of the game.

So, those who would lobby for media/fan/coach voted polls would say what with this statement?  That despite being outplayed in the defacto conference championship game, that despite being clearly beaten, that Waynesburg is a better team and should receive stronger Tournament consideration than W&J?  Really?
You're not getting as much information about the relative rank of a team if they're not actually in the top 25.  If you were asking all the polls to rank the top 50, you'd get more voters who would rank W&J ahead of Waynesburg.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2012, 08:05:26 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
In a way, with the access ratio 7.5:1, the 16-team NEFC had been doing everybody a favor for years by only taking up one AQ. They got hip to the game and are splitting into two so they can claim their second, meaning this will be a moot point in the future.

(6.5:1)
6.5:1 but capped at 32 teams.

239 divided by 32 = 7.468

We are getting close.  After the loss of McMurry and Mississippi College, but the addition of a few more schools, we will be above 7.5000: 1
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:08:01 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
In a way, with the access ratio 7.5:1, the 16-team NEFC had been doing everybody a favor for years by only taking up one AQ. They got hip to the game and are splitting into two so they can claim their second, meaning this will be a moot point in the future.

(6.5:1)

Sorry for the old info.

Point enhanced.

(Thanks Ralph for making sense of it, too)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:08:49 PM
Agreed. Can't tell you how many teams this year alone people have complained about the number of votes they've gotten compared to someone else in the ORV section. As AO mentions, when there are only 25 teams on the ballot, you can't expect perfection beyond that. Once you get teams that aren't on the majority of ballots, it's way up in the air.

AFCA poll -- Waynesburg is still in the Top 25, for goodness sakes. Oberlin has 14 votes at 4-6. Central has 11 points at 5-5. It's silly season over there this week.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 13, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:52:57 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.
The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!
Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.
No offense, but if you look at my ballot for the Top 25 (strictly at the East teams) and the East RAC's projected final rankings, there isn't much difference except that Rowan is as deep as I ranked.  Framingham would have likely been next on my ballot as far as East teams go, followed by either Bridgewater St. or Lyco.  I won't play Monday Morning QB here with how I would've ranked, but we're not looking too far off in the regional aspect.  If your point is C-M vs. Bridgewater St., then I'll answer that point later; it's a different conundrum.
Yes that's my point.  I'm saying the problem we have is judging teams fairly between regions because some conferences can't find opponents to play them (WIAC) and some conferences (NEFC) have walled themselves from the rest of D3 inflating their SOS.  Either Pool C is about getting the best remaining teams, or it is just an extension of the equal access pool A.  We get better regular season football when the incentive is to schedule the difficult games.  We wouldn't have as many of the scheduling headaches the WIAC endures.  Play the big d3 school down the road, your players will improve and it won't hurt your at large chances.
I agree with the guy with the -885 karma.
But I also think there's part of this argument that hasn't been addressed much ... who can Bridgewater State et. al. get to play them that wants to play them, and will work within budget constraints (as of a few years ago, all of the NEFC teams weren't even operating with full-time head coaches) that compare to what they get
Further, what incentive is it for them, now that they had Endicott left out at 9-1 last year but BSC in at 9-1 this year?
But AO is right that we have a better regular season when teams schedule tough without fear of losing it all.
This is exactly why we need more subjective evaluation.  Bridgewater State doesn't have to play Hobart, how did they look against their own conference?  Teams like Adrian that can get down to Huntingdon give themselves an opportunity to change minds about them, it isn't as if we were ignoring them while they crushed their own conference.  A loss to Carthage, one point win over Albion, they became a better team over the course of the season, it wasn't just the playoff history of the conference keeping opinions of them down.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:09:46 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2012, 08:05:26 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
In a way, with the access ratio 7.5:1, the 16-team NEFC had been doing everybody a favor for years by only taking up one AQ. They got hip to the game and are splitting into two so they can claim their second, meaning this will be a moot point in the future.

(6.5:1)
6.5:1 but capped at 32 teams.

239 divided by 32 = 7.468

We are getting close.  After the loss of McMurry and Mississippi College, but the addition of a few more schools, we will be above 7.5000: 1

Bingo. Although subtract 10 NESCAC teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:12:04 PM
Walled off works for me, smed. Have you seen the number of games the NEFC plays outside itself? They technically have two non-conference games but almost everyone plays one of them against another NEFC team. Sixteen teams averaged one true non-conference game this year, going 7-9. Of those 16 games, 10 were against the ECFC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:12:27 PM
So the solution is to wall off "C" so no one but the 'proven' ones or those with enough political clout to get ranked has a chance?

No thanks, no sir, no way, no how.

We're talking about teams that had their chance. Most of them this year lost TWICE. That won't happen next year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:13:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:12:04 PM
Walled off works for me, smed. Have you seen the number of games the NEFC plays outside itself? They technically have two non-conference games but almost everyone plays one of them against another NEFC team. Sixteen teams averaged one true non-conference game this year, going 7-9. Of those 16 games, 10 were against the ECFC.

I contend most all of that is due to budgeting issues. Perhaps AO will give them money to travel.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
Bob.Gregg's point is a good one though.

Whoever was voting for Waynesburg over W&J either didn't bother to look at the Week 11 result, was using their outdated impressions of Waynesburg, or because they were 9-0 and W&J already had two losses didn't want to drop them too far ... or, perhaps legitimately felt the Jackets were better than the Presidents, but I'm willing to bet not all of them felt that way ...

And if the poll, even if it's accurate most of the time, spits out results like that, you're better off going with the NCAA's list of set criteria, where at least everyone can follow the numbers and get a concrete explanation why their team wasn't in.

That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE. :D

We do it every year, but we're splitting hairs. Two losses and no AQ means your playoff hopes are on life support. If you get in that way, it's gravy. It's important though, IMO, to reward teams who go out and schedule the big nonconference game, and in the cases of PLU and LC, justice was done.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:15:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:13:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:12:04 PM
Walled off works for me, smed. Have you seen the number of games the NEFC plays outside itself? They technically have two non-conference games but almost everyone plays one of them against another NEFC team. Sixteen teams averaged one true non-conference game this year, going 7-9. Of those 16 games, 10 were against the ECFC.

I contend most all of that is due to budgeting issues. Perhaps AO will give them money to travel.

I contend that a fair amount of that is due to desire. Thankfully Salve Regina is not so content to just play in the New England sandbox.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:16:45 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
Bob.Gregg's point is a good one though.

Whoever was voting for Waynesburg over W&J either didn't bother to look at the Week 11 result, was using their outdated impressions of Waynesburg, or because they were 9-0 and W&J already had two losses didn't want to drop them too far ... or, perhaps legitimately felt the Jackets were better than the Presidents, but I'm willing to bet not all of them felt that way ...

And if the poll, even if it's accurate most of the time, spits out results like that, you're better off going with the NCAA's list of set criteria, where at least everyone can follow the numbers and get a concrete explanation why their team wasn't in.

That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE. :D

We do it every year, but we're splitting hairs. Two losses and no AQ means your playoff hopes are on life support. If you get in that way, it's gravy. It's important though, IMO, to reward teams who go out and schedule the big nonconference game, and in the cases of PLU and LC, justice was done.

Then again, when some conferences have just one non-conference game, and that turns from a dream into a dud, then what to do about that.

Early this year Wittenberg played Capital. Normally, that's a great test and a benchmark. This year Capital was awful. But it's not like Wittenberg schedulde a creampuff - just a team having a bad year. Next year there's less margin for error for Wittenberg in a non-conference game and if the team they play craters then that's the way it goes. I don't like the implication that teams are scheduling creampuffs in that case - it just happened.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:25:23 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:15:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:13:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:12:04 PM
Walled off works for me, smed. Have you seen the number of games the NEFC plays outside itself? They technically have two non-conference games but almost everyone plays one of them against another NEFC team. Sixteen teams averaged one true non-conference game this year, going 7-9. Of those 16 games, 10 were against the ECFC.

I contend most all of that is due to budgeting issues. Perhaps AO will give them money to travel.

I contend that a fair amount of that is due to desire. Thankfully Salve Regina is not so content to just play in the New England sandbox.

None of these schools have a lot of money save a few odd ducks. Salve may have some advantages since it's Catholic, unlike Nichols, Endicott and Curry, which have small-ish endowments. I know MIT has buckets of money but probably not for athletics since they want to change the world in other ways. The Coast Guard and the Maritimes are also 'interesting'.

Plus, would a LL or E8 or NJAC team want to play a lesser team in that conference? Why would they want to jaunt up to play Nichols or Westfield State every two years just to clobber them and ruin their SOS?

And frankly, I'm not shocked most of those teams stay close to home. Easy to travel, no overnights for the most part, and it gets them out in their recruiting area.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:57:18 PM
At any rate, this is such a weird year. At least we have playoffs to argue about...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 09:06:45 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:15:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:13:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:12:04 PM
Walled off works for me, smed. Have you seen the number of games the NEFC plays outside itself? They technically have two non-conference games but almost everyone plays one of them against another NEFC team. Sixteen teams averaged one true non-conference game this year, going 7-9. Of those 16 games, 10 were against the ECFC.

I contend most all of that is due to budgeting issues. Perhaps AO will give them money to travel.

I contend that a fair amount of that is due to desire. Thankfully Salve Regina is not so content to just play in the New England sandbox.

Well I'm not sure I blame teams that can't afford a full coaching staff for scheduling teams an hour away instead of overnight trips to New York and New Jersey. So I'm with Smed on that ... BSC scheduled really the only decent, available non-NEFC/ECFC/NESCAC team in New England and beat them. (Springfield, 21-17)

But at the same time, you want the best teams in the field, you take the best teams. Had C-M or UW-P gotten in this year, the message would clearly have been delievered.

UW-P and C-M each played Buena Vista, and the Pios played Dubuque and Cobbers Jamestown (N.D.) for probably much the same reasons NEFC teams play who they play. Their SoS advantages were from playing in tougher conferences. It's true the NEFC as a whole doesn't schedule aggressively, but I'm not sure the critcism here is totally on the mark.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2012, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2012, 08:05:26 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
In a way, with the access ratio 7.5:1, the 16-team NEFC had been doing everybody a favor for years by only taking up one AQ. They got hip to the game and are splitting into two so they can claim their second, meaning this will be a moot point in the future.

(6.5:1)
6.5:1 but capped at 32 teams.

239 divided by 32 = 7.468

We are getting close.  After the loss of McMurry and Mississippi College, but the addition of a few more schools, we will be above 7.5000: 1

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:09:46 PM

Bingo. Although subtract 10 NESCAC teams.

229 divided by 7.5  =  7.15625.  Thanks Pat!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 09:10:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:57:18 PM
At any rate, this is such a weird year. At least we have playoffs to argue about...

I prefer the terms "calmly discuss intelligently."

Jokes aside, this board has been outstanding this season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 11:07:46 PM
As promised, here's my take as to why BSC was chosen ahead of C-M.  This was in response to someone who accused me of advocating for BSC when, I truly believe, C-M was the better choice remaining on the board at that time:

"Actually, I'm not.  I concede that C-M was a better pick.  The reason [BSC was] picked ahead of C-M is because the new electronic [voting] system has an inherent flaw that even our [Top 25] poll has:  except potentially in the first two picks, voters will likely only begin to slowly slide the new team under consideration up the ballot.  Since the final West team was likely picked at #6, C-M didn't roll up the ballots fast enough, especially with no real H2H comparisons like we would use to jump teams up a ballot [in the Top 25 poll].  Essentially, BSC was already sitting at #2 and 3 on most ballots prior to the #6 pick and likely rolled up to #1 and #2 on those same ballots in most cases.  It's a flawed system for so few picks.  They should use a jury system (straw poll, discuss results and rationales, real vote).  It would assist in overcoming the inherent flaw."

You can't assume that a team with a 9-1 record and a 0.520ish SOS in this year's pool was going to be jammed at #4 on all ballots for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th picks.  A team also should never go downward on a bracket since the assumption is that if a team is #2 vs. Team A, B and C, and Team A is picked, Team A-1's inclusion should not shift the #2 team downward for any reason short of head-to-head play (which RARELY exists across regions).  So, Bridgewater State was likely slowly making their way up ballots for about 4 or 5 picks to the point that they were next in line regardless of which team in the West was picked and the next team in line.  I would guess that on only a couple ballots (especially with the C-M coach off the call and not able to vote) C-M surpassed BSC in that final selection.

Is this fair?  Not really.  Remember that I'm just reporting that the Committee didn't do anything wrong, much like the East RAC didn't.  It's the current system set up by the NCAA and overseen by an NCAA liaison to ensure consistency that may be flawed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 11:14:51 PM
Wow. That's um...interesting... :o

Maybe we shouldn't look at the regions with one representative at a time of the regions on board. Perhaps we should look at the "C" candidates per region as a whole, ranked 1-7.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 13, 2012, 11:18:15 PM
What's flawed is that it appears people on the committee didn't stop and ask a simple question before finalizing/releasing the selection: "Does this all make sense"?


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 11:21:38 PM
There is precedence, of course, to choose a one-loss team over two-loss teams so really it wasn't a 'holy cow we put Kenyon in as a 'C' moment. Once the die is cast I gather, you can't take it back. And two losses means you're really relying on the dice to come up boxcars.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 12, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
North Central 14
Wheaton 17
Wittenberg 19
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21

Yeah, it's a game changer.

Love ya Art, but that's not a game-changer. That includes teams that any of us could see were right there.

The discussion, perhaps, should be about what Pool C should stand for. I've always thought of it as a reprieve for teams who would have won their conferences if not for one play or, occasionally, one bad game. BSC and Waynesburg fit that mold (OWU not so much because they didn't face Witt, which is another convo entirely)

The polls leave out Rowan ... which is a whole other discussion on how polling is done and the value in it.

There should be a clear path to the bids that we all can follow. We have that now, we just don't have perfection when you get to the bubble. Adding more subjectivity and secret reasoning is only going to increase the confusion, not solve it.

Would I liked to see C-M and UW-P in? Heck yeah, but we'd be talking about someone else's snub if it had gone down that way. Nature of the bubble.

How do we define "best" to get the 7 best teams in?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:17:25 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 11:07:46 PM
As promised, here's my take as to why BSC was chosen ahead of C-M.  This was in response to someone who accused me of advocating for BSC when, I truly believe, C-M was the better choice remaining on the board at that time:

"Actually, I'm not.  I concede that C-M was a better pick.  The reason [BSC was] picked ahead of C-M is because the new electronic [voting] system has an inherent flaw that even our [Top 25] poll has:  except potentially in the first two picks, voters will likely only begin to slowly slide the new team under consideration up the ballot.  Since the final West team was likely picked at #6, C-M didn't roll up the ballots fast enough, especially with no real H2H comparisons like we would use to jump teams up a ballot [in the Top 25 poll].  Essentially, BSC was already sitting at #2 and 3 on most ballots prior to the #6 pick and likely rolled up to #1 and #2 on those same ballots in most cases.  It's a flawed system for so few picks.  They should use a jury system (straw poll, discuss results and rationales, real vote).  It would assist in overcoming the inherent flaw."

You can't assume that a team with a 9-1 record and a 0.520ish SOS in this year's pool was going to be jammed at #4 on all ballots for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th picks.  A team also should never go downward on a bracket since the assumption is that if a team is #2 vs. Team A, B and C, and Team A is picked, Team A-1's inclusion should not shift the #2 team downward for any reason short of head-to-head play (which RARELY exists across regions).  So, Bridgewater State was likely slowly making their way up ballots for about 4 or 5 picks to the point that they were next in line regardless of which team in the West was picked and the next team in line.  I would guess that on only a couple ballots (especially with the C-M coach off the call and not able to vote) C-M surpassed BSC in that final selection.

Is this fair?  Not really.  Remember that I'm just reporting that the Committee didn't do anything wrong, much like the East RAC didn't.  It's the current system set up by the NCAA and overseen by an NCAA liaison to ensure consistency that may be flawed.

I think I suggested the split vote scenario a few pages back, but Frank deals with it in great detail.

The voting is something many of us learned about just this year. I thought they were still doing jury style until a few weeks ago. Tim Lester of Elmhurst told me about regional committee service, and voting, last week as well.

But I think even in the simpler view, with the voting being fresh every round, and just looking at the last four teams available, you can make a case for having to take BSC, even when everyone on the committee probably knows C-M is ranked higher, would please the masses and is probably the better team ... the numbers don't say so, and if you can just ignore the numbers and do whatever the heck you want, why even have them?

Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 12:51:54 AM
The last four on the board, however, must have been
Bridgewater State, 9-1, .520, 1-1
Waynesburg, 9-1, .441, 0-0
Ohio Wesleyan, 9-1, .483, 0-1
Concordia-Moorhead, 7-2, .571, 0-2
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 14, 2012, 01:40:38 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:17:25 AM
But I think even in the simpler view, with the voting being fresh every round, and just looking at the last four teams available, you can make a case for having to take BSC, even when everyone on the committee probably knows C-M is ranked higher, would please the masses and is probably the better team ... the numbers don't say so, and if you can just ignore the numbers and do whatever the heck you want, why even have them?
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 12:51:54 AM
The last four on the board, however, must have been
Bridgewater State, 9-1, .520, 1-1
Waynesburg, 9-1, .441, 0-0
Ohio Wesleyan, 9-1, .483, 0-1
Concordia-Moorhead, 7-2, .571, 0-2
Those three statistics are getting weighted differently in each region's ranking and seemingly with every pick coming off the board.  Rowan was 7-1, 0.506 SOS, 0-1.   Why didn't Bridgewater State jump Rowan in the secret regional rankings?   To compare the winning percentage and regionally ranked contests, isn't it within the criteria to consider the rank of the teams Concordia and BSC played?  -  St. Thomas/Bethel were 3rd/7th, Framingham/Endicott were 8th/10th.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2012, 01:57:20 AM
It is within the criteria to do that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2012, 05:51:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 12, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
North Central 14
Wheaton 17
Wittenberg 19
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21

Yeah, it's a game changer.

Love ya Art, but that's not a game-changer. That includes teams that any of us could see were right there.

The discussion, perhaps, should be about what Pool C should stand for. I've always thought of it as a reprieve for teams who would have won their conferences if not for one play or, occasionally, one bad game. BSC and Waynesburg fit that mold (OWU not so much because they didn't face Witt, which is another convo entirely)

The polls leave out Rowan ... which is a whole other discussion on how polling is done and the value in it.

There should be a clear path to the bids that we all can follow. We have that now, we just don't have perfection when you get to the bubble. Adding more subjectivity and secret reasoning is only going to increase the confusion, not solve it.

Would I liked to see C-M and UW-P in? Heck yeah, but we'd be talking about someone else's snub if it had gone down that way. Nature of the bubble.

How do we define "best" to get the 7 best teams in?

I agree.  One unfortunate bounce, or decision as in C-M's case, shouldn't be a death sentence the playoffs if you're a good team from a solid conference.  I also believe that Pool C should always have a spot for a 1-loss team that is unfortunately stuck behind a juggernaut in conference.  Ala H'Berg this season.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE. :D

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: emma17 on November 14, 2012, 11:24:54 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2012, 05:51:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 12, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
North Central 14
Wheaton 17
Wittenberg 19
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21

Yeah, it's a game changer.

Love ya Art, but that's not a game-changer. That includes teams that any of us could see were right there.

The discussion, perhaps, should be about what Pool C should stand for. I've always thought of it as a reprieve for teams who would have won their conferences if not for one play or, occasionally, one bad game. BSC and Waynesburg fit that mold (OWU not so much because they didn't face Witt, which is another convo entirely)

The polls leave out Rowan ... which is a whole other discussion on how polling is done and the value in it.

There should be a clear path to the bids that we all can follow. We have that now, we just don't have perfection when you get to the bubble. Adding more subjectivity and secret reasoning is only going to increase the confusion, not solve it.

Would I liked to see C-M and UW-P in? Heck yeah, but we'd be talking about someone else's snub if it had gone down that way. Nature of the bubble.

How do we define "best" to get the 7 best teams in?

I agree.  One unfortunate bounce, or decision as in C-M's case, shouldn't be a death sentence the playoffs if you're a good team from a solid conference.  I also believe that Pool C should always have a spot for a 1-loss team that is unfortunately stuck behind a juggernaut in conference.  Ala H'Berg this season.

Coach I agree with your statement that I bolded, but I think it is somewhat contradictory to what K-Mack is saying.  IMO Pool C is not necessarily for the team that could have won its conference but for one bad whatever, it's for the best remaining seven (this year) teams that will enhance the level of competition in the playoffs.  Improving the level of competition was a stated goal in the interview I heard. 
If Pool C was the home for teams that could have won their conference "if only", then it is highly unlikely the goal of improving the level of playoff competition would be achieved.  There wasn't an "if only" play or game for Platteville or H-Berg or C-M or Bethel or LA-College, yet it seems most if not all on these boards believe they are the teams that achieve the goal of enhancing the level of competition. 

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE. :D

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

I'd be flattered.
I'd do it.
I've never been invited, of course.
And I probably would have lobbied hard for Concordia-Moorhead. Would have liked to see UW-P too but not sure how they could have been wedged in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2012, 12:20:57 AM
I think I got on somebody and said BSC was an acceptable acronym.

Yeah, it's a U now.  :-[

http://www.bsubears.com/sports/fball/index
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2012, 08:02:12 PM
Fairly typical results for Pool C teams (2-5). Bethel and Elmhurst won. Heidelberg had a huge lead, Bridgewater State was tied at halftime. Rowan trailed 10-9 until late Salisbury TD. PLU had the ball down, 27-24, in the final minute at Linfield.

Only LC was outplayed from the outset. And if UMHB goes on to win the whole thing, that won't look nearly as bad.

I thought Pool C did okay. You?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: HScoach on November 17, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: roocru on November 17, 2012, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

If the brackets were true seeds and geography was not part of the brackets, I think you would see that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: umhb2001 on November 17, 2012, 09:38:00 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:06:33 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
Your implication, AO, is also like past implications that some teams and leagues 'dodge' games. There are myriad factors in developing a schedule and as discussed before, a 'tough' schedule for three years down the road may not pan out for several reasons.

You're trying to reason with a dude who has a negative 884 karma.

That's basically what the karma figures are for, man, to save you the trouble.

Where is the "Like" button for this? Nice KMack!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: hazzben on November 17, 2012, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

Hey, if Mount wants to give up that seasons 'Christopher Newport' in the future to a Pool C team, go right ahead  ;)

Most of these Pool C losses were to pretty strong Pool A teams (Top 25 rank): @UMHB (2), @Linfield (3), @Widener (9), @Coe (10), @Salisbury (11) & Wittenberg (24)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2012, 10:51:53 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 17, 2012, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

Hey, if Mount wants to give up that seasons 'Christopher Newport' in the future to a Pool C team, go right ahead  ;)

Most of these Pool C losses were to pretty strong Pool A teams (Top 25 rank): @UMHB (2), @Linfield (3), @Widener (9), @Coe (10), @Salisbury (11) & Wittenberg (24)

A pool C (Elmhurst) beat Coe.  But you got the other 5 (out of 5) correct! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2012, 12:50:26 AM
Pool C's weren't exactly given a lot of home games. And the NCAA made one head-scratcher decision on Pool C to boot.

Generally, when the NCAA picks a weak-scheduled 1-loss team that we leave out of our projection, that team gets bounced the first weekend.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2012, 01:02:16 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2012, 12:50:26 AM
Pool C's weren't exactly given a lot of home games. And the NCAA made one head-scratcher decision on Pool C to boot.

Generally, when the NCAA picks a weak-scheduled 1-loss team that we leave out of our projection, that team gets bounced the first weekend.

i.e., ONE (and Heidi lost).

The two Pool C wins (Elmhurst and Bethel) were both on the road.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wesleydad on November 18, 2012, 07:32:41 AM
since pool c is a second chance for teams who have been beaten at least once already a 2 - 5 record does not surprise me.  the teams that they lost to with the exception of wittenberg were likely the favorite in the game.  bethel and elmhurst beat two AQ's that i believe many felt were beatable, at least when you look at the pick ems.  coe and chicago-concordia had questions about how strong they were in the team capsules.  looking at the results, pool c could have been 0 - 7.  i think it shows that the perception of some conferences as weaker or stronger is starting to be less definitive as the top teams in most conferences can compete with the second best team in other conferences.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: lakeshore on November 19, 2012, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE. :D

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

I'd be flattered.
I'd do it.
I've never been invited, of course.
And I probably would have lobbied hard for Concordia-Moorhead. Would have liked to see UW-P too but not sure how they could have been wedged in.

Or arguably the best team in the CCIW and one of the hottest teams in the nation over the last month of the regular season in Wheaton.  I know KM chose them in his first pool C mock.  Would have been fun to watch them make a run.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: wally_wabash on November 19, 2012, 12:57:43 PM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 19, 2012, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE. :D

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

I'd be flattered.
I'd do it.
I've never been invited, of course.
And I probably would have lobbied hard for Concordia-Moorhead. Would have liked to see UW-P too but not sure how they could have been wedged in.

Or arguably the best team in the CCIW and one of the hottest teams in the nation over the last month of the regular season in Wheaton.  I know KM chose them in his first pool C mock.  Would have been fun to watch them make a run.

I don't think Wheaton was even on the table.  The moral of the story is, as always, don't lose twice.  Or don't schedule elective games with Luther.  But mostly don't lose twice. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: AO on November 19, 2012, 01:08:21 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2012, 12:57:43 PM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 19, 2012, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 08:13:42 PM
That said, I'd be all for adding D3football.com TO THE COMMITTEE. :D

Why not?

For me, the wisdom of having Pat & Keith involved is that you would have an exceptional balance of the forest and the trees. No one knows the entire D3 map as well as them. I respect the difficult job the guys on the national committee have, and they are on that committee because they are good at what they do. But I don't know that any of them see the big picture clearly. This is where having d3football involved would make sense. Even if it was just in an advisory roll. A couple of expert, unbiased voices in the room who can answer questions and fill in gaps in the criteria. Even giving the committee members a sense of how things have gone well and poorly in the selections historically, since this committee isn't self-perpetuating. Maybe they don't have a vote, but they are their as a resource.

And you've still got regional rankings and committee members who have a strong sense of how things stack up within their own regions and conferences. As well as the criteria itself.

Seems like a nice balance. I don't know how serious you were Keith, but I wouldn't see a problem with it. Neither of you have ever struck me as the Kirk Herbstreit type, where you'd stump for the good 'ol boys.

I'd be flattered.
I'd do it.
I've never been invited, of course.
And I probably would have lobbied hard for Concordia-Moorhead. Would have liked to see UW-P too but not sure how they could have been wedged in.

Or arguably the best team in the CCIW and one of the hottest teams in the nation over the last month of the regular season in Wheaton.  I know KM chose them in his first pool C mock.  Would have been fun to watch them make a run.

I don't think Wheaton was even on the table.  The moral of the story is, as always, don't lose twice.  Or don't schedule elective games with Luther.  But mostly don't lose twice.
either that, or join the NEFC or other less difficult league and schedule easier non-conference games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 19, 2012, 07:56:56 PM
Quote from: AO on November 19, 2012, 01:08:21 PM
either that, or join the NEFC or other less difficult league and schedule easier non-conference games.

...and if you're looking for a less difficult league and money's no object, the SCAC wants YOU!      8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2012
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 08:09:45 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
I don't know what Pool C has done historically, but I'm disappointed with 2-5.  I realize the Pool C teams aren't typically really high seeds, but they should be the better than the many of the AQ's from some of the weaker conferences.   I think "good"  would be 4-3 at least

I think that would be very atypical. I'd have to look back, but I think it's pretty rare for Pool C's to be above .500. Sometimes one makes a run, and this year we probably won't even have that.

All in all a mostly upset-free Round 1. The upsets by seeds weren't completely out of the realm of believability.