Pool B

Started by Ralph Turner, October 01, 2005, 02:12:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

johnnie_esq

Quote from: AO on November 12, 2008, 07:01:08 PM
again, the massey ratings mean nothing.  Either the committee looks at their official criteria where Northwestern is ahead in most areas, or the subjective where I will prove to you that Northwestern's schedule is/was tougher. 

I'll be honest, if St. Thomas was eligible for a bid in Pool B, they would deserve the bid over Northwestern(if they win) or Huntingdon/LaGrange.  Although St. Thomas isn't a "playoff contender", they're still a tougher team than Huntingdon/LaGrange.   Since when is getting picked 6th in the WIAC a terrible thing?  They beat Stevens Point and Eau Claire.  a team like Maryville or LaGrange has nothing remotely close to the caliber of those wins.  You're right they do need to beat St. Thomas to make it to the playoffs, but if the pregame line set for pickem's at 6.5 is any indication, it's definitely possible to pull off this upset. 

St. Scholastica is 10 steps better than principia or Blackburn.  I've seen all these teams play, it's absolutely night and day between these teams.  It's not that Scholastica is even close to great, it's that some of those sliac teams are that bad.

Northwestern played Macalester on the road.  They didn't put Northwestern behind any two loss teams in the regional rankings.  If they did that, it would be a little better indication about what the committee thinks than their current ranking above any MIAC or IIAC teams.

Did you read the post I noted?  Things like the Massey ratings, though unofficial, appear to have some impact on things.

Your post (regarding UST being eligible for a Pool B bid) is the best argument AGAINST a third pool B selection I have seen this year.  When Northwestern is being considered for selection at the expense of Redlands who--while their only loss was to an undefeated team-- is grasping for air and a potential Pool C bid while a three loss team makes the playoffs in Pool B?  Sorry, that doesn't cut it.  Under that rationale, why don't we just eliminate the entire MWC, skip the MIAC selection this year and let the WIAC and NWC fight out who will represent the West?  We went away from that system to reward teams and encourage teams to play conference games.  Hey, if they took away the MIAC or IIAC bid this year, you wouldn't see me complaining-- two loss teams hitting the playoffs while one loss teams like Redlands stay home is a problem in my mind.

In regard the idea of quality wins, again-- it is unofficial, but it illustrates the degree of teams you play.  Either Huntingdon or LaGrange will have beaten a team with eight wins on the year.  Northwestern's notable wins would come against a team that has only six wins (St. Thomas) or a team with only four wins at max (UWRF).  That UWRF beat UWSP is worth less than you would think in relation to Northwestern's status-- after all, isn't record against common opponents one of the criteria?  And if so, shouldn't Northwestern be in front of UWSP?  But they aren't.  Why?  Because the committee ranks them according to both the objective and subjective criteria.

Finally, that Northwestern is higher than the two loss teams in the West says nothing about its relative strength to Huntingdon or LaGrange-- since they are not in the same region and there are no two-loss teams listed in the south region.  In my opinion, Huntingdon's four point loss to a 1-loss playoff contender seems a lot stronger than NWC's three point loss to a mediocre IIAC squad.  And if LaGrange beats Huntingdon, doesn't that say the same for LaGrange?

I am a huge fan of the West region, and I strongly believe that the West has great parity up and down in the region-- with the results over the past few years vindicating the situation.  But that doesn't necessarily translate to a team like Northwestern who has not built the reputation it needs by playing tough with the Johnnies, the Warhawks, the Dutch or the 'Cats.  Or even the second group like PLU, Concordia, Bethel or Wartburg.  Slaughtering UMAC opponents and middling MIAC/IIAC/WIAC teams are good for the long haul but don't put you into the playoff category by itself.  Give Huntingdon and LaGrange credit-- the former scheduled Hampden-Sydney-- a playoff participant, and the latter pulled in Bridgewater (VA) last year--and Shorter was a pretty decent team in NAIA last year as well. What does that tell me?  Northwestern is close, but needs to take it to the next level to get the respect it wants in the West region-- while the other two schools are scheduling near-playoff caliber teams when they can.



SJU Champions 2003 NCAA D3, 1976 NCAA D3, 1965 NAIA, 1963 NAIA; SJU 2nd Place 2000 NCAA D3; SJU MIAC Champions 2018, 2014, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1991, 1989, 1985, 1982, 1979, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1971, 1965, 1963, 1962, 1953, 1938, 1936, 1935, 1932

ADL70

I don't read the post the same way you do.  I see "scores and some subjective standards" mentioned as being considered but nothing like computer rankings (Massey).  Not sure we know what he meant by "subjective standards" but that's not how I would characterize the computer rankings.

If in fact, the North region committee is looking at scores, I fail to see how Trine gets ranked above CWRU.
SPARTANS...PREPARE FOR GLORY
HA-WOO, HA-WOO, HA-WOO
Think beyond the possible.
Compete, Win, Respect, Unite

johnnie_esq

Quote from: cwru70 on November 12, 2008, 09:36:17 PM
I don't read the post the same way you do.  I see "scores and some subjective standards" mentioned as being considered but nothing like computer rankings (Massey).  Not sure we know what he meant by "subjective standards" but that's not how I would characterize the computer rankings.

If in fact, the North region committee is looking at scores, I fail to see how Trine gets ranked above CWRU.

I read the post as noting the committee is not a matter of mere robots looking only at their own criteria.  Concepts such as Massey-- which appear to show results that contradict the NCAA's own criteria-- give credence to subjective interpretation.  I'm not advocating that the committee use Massey-- I am saying that the committee's subjective interpretation-- and how many here have suggested NWC as #4 in for the 3 Pool B bids-- is not unreasonable in that light-- and Massey backs that opinion up.
SJU Champions 2003 NCAA D3, 1976 NCAA D3, 1965 NAIA, 1963 NAIA; SJU 2nd Place 2000 NCAA D3; SJU MIAC Champions 2018, 2014, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1991, 1989, 1985, 1982, 1979, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1971, 1965, 1963, 1962, 1953, 1938, 1936, 1935, 1932

redswarm81

Quote from: cwru70 on November 12, 2008, 09:36:17 PM
I don't read the post the same way you do.  I see "scores and some subjective standards" mentioned as being considered but nothing like computer rankings (Massey).  Not sure we know what he meant by "subjective standards" but that's not how I would characterize the computer rankings.

If in fact, the North region committee is looking at scores, I fail to see how Trine gets ranked above CWRU.

I have been wondering what "subjective standards" are, ever since I saw the original post on the LL board.

How would any committee know when it has exceeded its "subjective standards?"

Ultimately, I'm not comforted by the fact that the Selection Committee chairman, when asked about a team with a 7-0 in-Region record (Primary Selection Criterion), a 7-0 in-Division record (Secondary Selection Criterion) and a 7-2 overall record (Secondary Criterion) says nothing more than "they're a two-loss team."   Actually, Mr. Chairman, they're an undefeated team by one primary measure, an undefeated team by a secondary measure, and they're only a two-loss team by a second secondary measure.

The Selection Committee has leeway to make subjective judgments, thanks to the parenthetical "not in priority order."  If the Selection Committee chairman is claiming that the secondary criterion of overall record is a higher priority criterion than the other criteria--including the primary criterion of in-Region winning percentage--then he might be acting within his charter.  (There might still be a dispute over whether primary criteria are necessarily higher priority than secondary criteria.)  But that's not what he said, according to Frank's report.

It's my impression that Massey is a computer ranking system.  As such, Massey rankings are not subjective per se, in fact they are purely objective.  However, computer ranking systems are based on programs where programmers make subjective judgments regarding the importance of specific pieces of objective data.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

Ralph Turner

I wonder what the committee chair is going to say.

We have had several seasons where we have had chairs talk to D3sports.com reporters about the selections (in other sports included).

Quote
Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

I think that this is the key to the "subjective standards".

redswarm81

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 10:43:58 PM
I wonder what the committee chair is going to say.

We have had several seasons where we have had chairs talk to D3sports.com reporters about the selections (in other sports included).

Quote
Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

I think that this is the key to the "subjective standards".

Yep, I've said it before--the most powerful words in the Selection Criteria:

(not listed in priority order)
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

AO

I wasn't trying to make an indictment of the entire playoff system by saying St. Thomas would deserve to get in if their were a pool B.  I was merely indicating that I consider them to be better than Huntingdon or LaGrange, thereby making Northwestern's last game, a tougher one than the other contenders.  It is truly one of the great tournaments in the world giving every team a shot at making the final 32.  There is no doubt that it is more difficult for teams in more difficult conferences to make the playoffs, but it would water down the regular season a bit too much if the big conference teams could get away with a couple losses every year and turn it on for the playoffs.

I will believe that Massey ratings affect the committee when I hear them say they did.  I didn't get that from the post from LL board.  I was trying to argue that under a more pure subjective approach that Northwestern looks better than Huntingdon or LaGrange.  I think it's pretty easy to figure out why Northwestern is the last ranked of the 1-loss teams in the west, and it's got nothing to do with the Massey ratings.  Stevens point beat Whitewater for crying out loud.  

I haven't seen many people thinking a clear #4 for Northwestern in the pool b race.  I agree with a tie for 3rd and a very difficult decision for the committee.  Obviously I'm biased so it makes it a lot easier for me to look at the schedules and declare Northwestern to get the bid, but it's a bit more difficult on the other side when you're trying to gauge the strength of 100 teams as well as seed and place them.

Jonny Utah

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:49:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 10:43:58 PM
I wonder what the committee chair is going to say.

We have had several seasons where we have had chairs talk to D3sports.com reporters about the selections (in other sports included).

Quote
Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

I think that this is the key to the "subjective standards".

Yep, I've said it before--the most powerful words in the Selection Criteria:

(not listed in priority order)


What about the words evaluated and reviewed?

redswarm81

Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 12, 2008, 11:06:08 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:49:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 10:43:58 PM
I wonder what the committee chair is going to say.

We have had several seasons where we have had chairs talk to D3sports.com reporters about the selections (in other sports included).

Quote
Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

I think that this is the key to the "subjective standards".

Yep, I've said it before--the most powerful words in the Selection Criteria:

(not listed in priority order)


What about the words evaluated and reviewed?

Oh pshaw--those words don't even have parenthesis!   :D
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

redswarm81

East Regional Rankings, Nov. 5:

1. Cortland St    8-0 8-0
2. RPI               7-0 7-0
3. Ithaca          6-1 7-1
4. Montclair St   7-1 7-1
5. Rowan          7-1 7-1
6. Hartwick       6-1 6-1
7. Hobart          6-1 6-1
8. Plymouth St   7-1 8-1
9. Husson         6-0 6-2
10. Curry          7-1 8-1

East Regional Rankings, Nov. 12:

1. Cortland St    9-0 9-0
2. Ithaca          7-1 8-1
3. Montclair St   8-1 8-1
4. Hobart          7-1 7-1
5. RPI               7-1 7-1
6. Hartwick        6-2 6-2
7. Plymouth St    8-1 9-1
8. Rowan           7-2 7-2
9. Curry             8-1 9-1
10. Albright        6-2 7-2
11. Husson        7-0 7-2

I don't understand how Husson won, and yet was passed by Curry and two-loss Albright.  My inner cynic figures that the NCAA committee was using the incorrect 6-1 in-Region record for Albright.

(I also don't understand how Hartwick stays put at no. 6, despite a loss to 3-6 Springfield, but 'Wick's not a Pool B candidate)
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

Ralph Turner

St Thomas 41, Northwestern MN 0

I think that CWRU, Wesley and LaGrange are in.

redswarm81

East Regional Rankings, Nov. 12:

1. Cortland St    9-0 9-0  9-1  9-1  Pool A  NJAC
2. Ithaca          7-1 8-1  8-1  9-1  Pool A  E8
3. Montclair St   8-1 8-1  8-2  8-2  Pool C  NJAC
4. Hobart          7-1 7-1  8-1  8-1  Pool A  LL
5. RPI               7-1 7-1  7-2  7-2  Pool C LL
6. Hartwick        6-2 6-2  7-2  7-2  Pool C  E8
7. Plymouth St    8-1 9-1  8-1 10-1 Pool A  NEFC
8. Rowan           7-2 7-2  8-2  8-2  Pool C  NJAC
9. Curry             8-1 9-1  8-1  9-1  Pool C  NEFC
10. Albright        6-2 7-2  6-3  6-3  Pool A MAC
11. Husson        7-0  7-2  7-0   7-2  Pool B/C  IND

Hartwick, the new king of East Region Pool C candidates?

At 7-0 in-Division, can Husson be overlooked?  The only other Pool C candidates in the East are 2-loss teams
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

Ralph Turner

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 15, 2008, 05:14:58 PM
East Regional Rankings, Nov. 12:

1. Cortland St    9-0 9-0  9-1  9-1  Pool A  NJAC
2. Ithaca          7-1 8-1  8-1  9-1  Pool A  E8
3. Montclair St   8-1 8-1  8-2  8-2  Pool C  NJAC
4. Hobart          7-1 7-1  8-1  8-1  Pool A  LL
5. RPI               7-1 7-1  7-2  7-2  Pool C LL
6. Hartwick        6-2 6-2  7-2  7-2  Pool C  E8
7. Plymouth St    8-1 9-1  8-1 10-1 Pool A  NEFC
8. Rowan           7-2 7-2  8-2  8-2  Pool C  NJAC
9. Curry             8-1 9-1  8-1  9-1  Pool C  NEFC
10. Albright        6-2 7-2  6-3  6-3  Pool A MAC
11. Husson        7-0  7-2  7-0   7-2  Pool B/C  IND

Hartwick, the new king of East Region Pool C candidates?

At 7-0 in-Division, can Husson be overlooked?  The only other Pool C candidates in the East are 2-loss teams
Pool A bids are in bold.

Bob.Gregg

All races in one place:

D3 Races

Includes Pool B teams in the hunt.
Includes Pool C 1-loss & 2-loss teams in the hunt.
Includes all 23 AQ races.

Been wrong before.  Will be wrong again.

Bob.Gregg

By the way, if "B"s didn't get a "C" this year, "B"s will never get a "C".

(Meant to post that like two weeks ago....)
Been wrong before.  Will be wrong again.