Pool C

Started by usee, October 28, 2008, 12:25:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

redswarm81

Quote from: cwru70 on November 06, 2008, 09:32:47 AM
Maybe I (we) am (are) confusing selection/seeding criteria with regional rankings.

I'm not sure that's possible.  I think that the regional ranking criteria are the same criteria that are used for selection and seeding.

Quote from: cwru70 on November 06, 2008, 09:32:47 AMThen too the committee seems free to prioritize the criteria as it chooses or at least we aren't being told the priority given to each criterion.

THAT is the source of much of the confusion.  The simple parenthetical in the selection criteria, "not in priority order."

Quote from: cwru70 on November 06, 2008, 09:32:47 AM
Is the secrecy a good thing?  Do we want a BCS-style process that includes polls and computer rankings?

I don't think your second question necessarily flows from the first.  I'd prefer more openness in the ranking and selection process, but I'm geeky that way.

The focus of the BCS is very different than the D-III playoffs.  The BCS is focused primarily on arranging a single game: the "consensus" no. 1 v. the "consensus" no. 2.  There are many pitfalls in achieving that goal, so the BCS will likely always disappoint.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

redswarm81

#76
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 06, 2008, 08:17:26 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 05, 2008, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:49:58 PM

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....
Or should it be PENULTIMATE regional rankings.  I'm still perplexed by rankings that rely on rankings.  If in the final week team A beats team B which was regionally ranked at the time and that knocks team B from the RR shouldn't team A still get credit for a win over a regionally ranked team?

I love the word penultimate, especially when it's properly used, as in your post.

Here's the rule that causes the anxiety:


  • Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.

In your example, at Selection time Team A would NOT get credit for a win over a regionally ranked team, if the loss did in fact knock Team B off the list of regionally ranked teams.

What happens when there is a traingle of wins between three teams all fighting for the last spot.  Here's a hypothetical case:

Team A, Team B, and Team C are all fighting for the last spot in the regional rankings.  Let's also assign them "points" for clarity.  Before taking regional wins into account, Team A has 74.9 points, Team B has 74.85 points, and Team C has 74.8 points.  So, the rankings would look as such (with the ------ line dividing the ranked teams above from the unranked teams below)...

Team A - 74.9
-----
Team B - 74.85
Team C - 74.8

However, when ranked wins are considered, let's say that Team A beat Team B.  Team B beat Team C.  Team C beat Team A.  Regional wins are worth 0.2 points in this system.  Neither Team A, Team B, nor Team C had any other ranked wins.  So, after these points are applied, we end up with...

Team C - 75.0
----
Team A - 74.9
Team B - 74.85

But, wait!  Now we have to iterate again, don't we?  Team C is now ranked, so Team B's win over them should garner them an extra 0.2 points, but Team C's win over Team A shouldn't be worth the 0.2 points they were awarded.  So now we have...

Team B - 75.05
----
Team A - 74.9
Team C - 74.8

Hold on, now!  Using the same logic, the next iteration yields us...

Team A - 75.1
----
Team B - 74.85
Team C - 74.8

But, but, but...

Team C - 75.0
----
Team A - 74.9
Team B - 74.85

That looks familiar *sigh*...

Team B - 75.05
----
Team A - 74.9
Team C - 74.8

Yadda, yadda, yadda.  I think you see where I'm going (or probably did quite a while ago).

That's a good example of an irreconcilable conundrum in the primary criteria.  However, since the primary criteria are "not in  priority order," the selection committee has the leeway to assign higher priority to winning percentage and OWP/OOWP to overcome the Team A/B/C "record v. RROs" dilemma and choose one over the other two.

Nonetheless, I suspect that a situation such as in your example would immediately send the analysis to the secondary criteria.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

ADL70

Minor point, but the BCS rankings are involved in selection of all the BCS bowls.  But otherwise I agree with what you said.  I also didn't mean to imply a realtionship between the two questions.
SPARTANS...PREPARE FOR GLORY
HA-WOO, HA-WOO, HA-WOO
Think beyond the possible.
Compete, Win, Respect, Unite

jam40jeff

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 06, 2008, 10:22:24 AM
That's a good example of an irreconcilable conundrum in the primary criteria.  However, since the primary criteria are "not in  priority order," the selection committee has the leeway to assign higher priority to winning percentage and OWP/OOWP to overcome the Team A/B/C "record v. RROs" dilemma and choose one over the other two.

Nonetheless, I suspect that a situation such as in your example would immediately send the analysis to the secondary criteria.

I understand that as far as selection goes for the playoffs, but I am talking about how the regional rankings are determined.  It seems like the regional rankings of the current week are used as a criterion for ranking teams regionally for the current week.  I guess to put it more simply, Microsoft Excel would give you an exclamation point with a Circular Reference error. :)

redswarm81

Quote from: jam40jeff on November 06, 2008, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 06, 2008, 10:22:24 AM
That's a good example of an irreconcilable conundrum in the primary criteria.  However, since the primary criteria are "not in  priority order," the selection committee has the leeway to assign higher priority to winning percentage and OWP/OOWP to overcome the Team A/B/C "record v. RROs" dilemma and choose one over the other two.

Nonetheless, I suspect that a situation such as in your example would immediately send the analysis to the secondary criteria.

I understand that as far as selection goes for the playoffs, but I am talking about how the regional rankings are determined.  It seems like the regional rankings of the current week are used as a criterion for ranking teams regionally for the current week.  I guess to put it more simply, Microsoft Excel would give you an exclamation point with a Circular Reference error. :)

Since (I'm fairly certain that) the Regional Ranking committees use the same criteria as the selection/seeding committee uses, I think the answer is the same.

There can only be ten ranked (or eight regional playoff) teams.


  • The committee either assigns higher (or lower) priority to those primary criteria having nothing to do with ranking in order to make a selection based on primary criteria; or
  • the committee proceeds to the secondary criteria.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

HScoach

IMO, there's not enough inter-regional and cross conference play in Division 3 to do a purely numerical based selection system.   Too many of the teams and conferences are completely contained within their small area.

A team coming from 10 team conference is at a distinct disadvantage to one playing in a 7 or 8 team league when it comes to generating OWP/OOWP.  With only 1 non-league game, that team only has one chance to really affect its score.  Then add to that the problems out west where their aren't enough teams to easily fill their schedule.

Personally, I think the NCAA puts way too much emphasis on the "regional" aspect of the rankings.  Why does a win over a 9-1 out of region opponent mean less than a win against a team in region?  That to me makes no sense.


However, the D3 playoffs as they currently sit with AQ's and Poll B/C is much better than it was years ago when only the top 16 nationally made it.  And it's not even worth comparing to the crap we have in D1. 

Which leads me to thinking the BCS rankings would be perfect in D1 if its sole purpose was to select the 2 at-large bids to go along with the 6 BCS conference champions to make an 8-team playoff bracket.  That would be sweet.
I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.

PA_wesleyfan

 What are the chances that one of the four strong B's get a C bid this year?
Wesley is only going to end up with 5 in region games ,but they have a win over a regionally ranked Salisbury and buried a team that Wisc Stevens Point beat by 2
Football !!! The ultimate team sport. Anyone who plays DIII football is a winner...

Pat Coleman

Quote from: hscoach on November 06, 2008, 01:02:17 PM
IMO, there's not enough inter-regional and cross conference play in Division 3 to do a purely numerical based selection system. 

Especially because Division III actively discourages its teams from playing non-regional games.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

d-train

Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 06, 2008, 01:27:48 PM
What are the chances that one of the four strong B's get a C bid this year?
Wesley is only going to end up with 5 in region games ,but they have a win over a regionally ranked Salisbury and buried a team that Wisc Stevens Point beat by 2

I would think Wesley needs a Pool B to get in. Just in their own region, there are 3 stronger Pool C candidates with only 6 total Pool C bids. I don't think Salisbury counts as a regionally ranked opponent anymore, do they?

PA_wesleyfan

I was not clear. I actually was thinking along the lines of a Huntingdon/La Grange  loser though that would LaGrange an 8-2 record. Case Western should be a lock if they win out
Football !!! The ultimate team sport. Anyone who plays DIII football is a winner...

d-train

#85
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 06, 2008, 06:26:37 PM
I was not clear. I actually was thinking along the lines of a Huntingdon/La Grange  loser though that would LaGrange an 8-2 record. Case Western should be a lock if they win out

Well, the answer is likely the same. The loser doesn't look good, especially if it's LaGrange. Who knows how far Huntingdon would drop?

redswarm81

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
My 6 Pool C's, barring any upsets are:

Rowan/Montclair St. winner;
Hartwick - UPSET;
Otterbein;
Hardin-Simmons;
UW-Whitewater,

then Redlands vs W&J.

Hartwick, with two losses, moves behind Ithaca and SJFisher in the Empire 8.  SJFisher, with a head-to-head monkeystomp of Ithaca, has the inside track on the E8's Pool A.  Ithaca needs to beat Cortland St. to be a legitimate Pool C contender, it seems to me.  RPI, even at 8-1, can't feel too comfortable facing off against Redlands and/or W&J (or Wesley?).

UW-W got a game from Stout today, Otterbein still has to play 5-3 John Carroll, who ought to be looking for some satisfaction after their one point loss to Muskingum.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

redswarm81

Pool A clinchers and candidates not being helpful to Pool C:

Thomas More loses to Geneva, becomes a 2-loss Pool A.*
Unranked St. John Fisher, 6-3 overall, has the inside track on Empire8's Pool A.
RPI loses to Hobart, so LibertyLeague Pool A will have at least one loss.

Are there more?  Willamette seems to have its hands full at halftime.

*PAC Pool A Thomas More's game v. PAC member Geneva is not listed as a Regional Game--is Geneva provisional status?
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

Ralph Turner

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 08, 2008, 06:10:01 PM
Pool A clinchers and candidates not being helpful to Pool C:

Thomas More loses to Geneva, becomes a 2-loss Pool A.*

*PAC Pool A Thomas More's game v. PAC member Geneva is not listed as a Regional Game--is Geneva provisional status?
Geneva is second-year provisional in the Pres AC.  Games do not count as in-region this year.

HSC85

Will the win by HSC at Huntingdon be enough to get some attention as a pool C candidate?