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.

Pirat


Knightstalker

From LLPP regarding the committee's selection process.  I would recommend everyone tune into In The Huddle with Frank Rossi and Senor Red Tackle this coming Sunday.

Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2008, 12:16:45 PM
It's amazing what a ten-minute conversation can do regarding your perception of things...

I spoke with Dick Kaiser, the Division III Committee Chair, earlier this morning to schedule him to appear on "In the HuddLLe" this Sunday night at 7:50pm EST.  He accepted the invitation and will discuss the East Region's bracket and the discussion regarding the selection/seeding of Liberty League teams in the NCAA Playoffs that will occur Saturday night.

Mr. Kaiser was very forthcoming during our brief discussion, as we were joking about the task that lays ahead for the Committee -- no doubt, with 13 one-loss teams not leading in their conferences, the Committee's task is daunting with just six Pool C bids.  I learned a lot, and I thought I'd share some of the ideas he presented to me today:

- When I brought up Husson, his reaction was, "Well, they're a two-loss team."  He went on to discuss that the Committee cannot simply stop at Primary Criteria in general when deciding teams for the Football Championships because there are simply not enough games played to allow such a low number of statistics to control the selection.  Stated differently, Secondary Criteria are going to apply just as much and as quickly as Primary Criteria.  In a sport like basketball, in which 30+ games are generally played, the Primary Criteria/Secondary Criteria hierarchy can work.  However, in football, his belief is that they need to enter into a full discussion immediately, even weighing criteria like scores and some subjective standards when looking at Pool B and Pool C teams.  This would explain the treatment of Husson and SJF in the Regional Rankings thus far.

- At the same time, we talked a bit about strength of schedule issues.  He was pretty blunt during this discussion, in terms of stating that strength of schedule -- not just the numbers, but the subjective review of a team's schedule -- is crucial in this process.  Paraphrasing his comments accurately, his reaction was that if a team plays a soft out-of-conference schedule, they're not going to experience an easy selection process.  My point in bringing this up is that we should not underestimate the objective and subjective review of a team's out-of-conference schedule at this point when we consider these issues.

There will be a lot more discussion of this on Sunday night, but I walk away from my brief conversation with Mr. Kaiser feeling that he is truly on top of the situation (he spit out a good number of stats about the number of teams in line for consideration and the task the Committee faces) and wants to give fair treatment to these teams both objectively and subjectively (since the objective numbers are not comprehensive enough to allow for full faith and credit with just 7-10 regional games played).


"In the end we will survive rather than perish not because we accumulate comfort and luxury but because we accumulate wisdom"  Colonel Jack Jacobs US Army (Ret).

Pat Coleman

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.

Frank Rossi

#138
I posted this in the LLPP and thought some of you might want to read it.  I did it with respect to the questions we've been receiving concerning RPI's potential Pool C status.

This is an analysis of the state of affairs if Pool C were being picked today.  In order to perform this analysis, we must first square away some Pool A and Pool B issues.


Pool A Issues
-------------

As you know, Pool A represents 23 slots.  Currently, 14 of these slots have been determined (courtesy Pat Coleman's post on the Daily Dose):

ASC: Mary Hardin-Baylor
CC: Muhlenberg
CCIW: North Central
HCAC: Franklin
IIAC: Wartburg
MIAA: Trine
MWC: Monmouth
NCAC: Wabash
NJAC: Cortland State
NWC: Willamette
OAC: Mount Union
PAC: Thomas More
SCIAC: Occidental
SCAC: Millsaps

Only one of these teams (Thomas More) does not appear in the present NCAA Regional Rankings.  This weekend, the remaining nine slots will be filled this weekend.  Here is an analysis of those races (courtesy Ralph Turner in response to Pat Coleman's post):

E8 — SJF (4-1) must beat Alfred (3-2) to get the co-championship and the Pool A bid over Ithaca (5-1) which plays Cortland St.

LL — Hobart (5-1) must beat Rochester (3-3) to clinch the AQ. RPI (5-1) earns a co-championship with a win over Merchant Marine (1-5).

MAC — Albright (5-1) can clinch with a win over Del Valley (4-2). LebValley (4-2) and Lycoming (4-2) also play.

MIAC — Carleton (5-2) at SJU (5-2) for the outright title and Pool A bid.

NATHC — Aurora (6-0) hosts Lakeland (5-1) for the Pool A bid.

NEFC — Plymouth State at Maine Maritime in the NEFC Bowl.

ODAC — Catholic (4-1) hosts Bridgewater (2-3). A win gives them the AQ. H-SC (4-1) goes to Randolph-Macon (3-2).

USASouth — CNU (6-0) hosts Ferrum (5-1) for the AQ.

WIAC — UWSP (5-1) hosts UW-Lacrosse (3-3) to clinch the AQ. UW-Whitewater (5-1) is at Platteville (2-4).

From this list when cross-referenced with the new Rankings, there are only FOUR cases in which a present Pool C likely candidate could be converted into a Pool A winner:

1) Ithaca (SJF would not replace it as a Pool C candidate if SJF loses);
2) RPI (Hobart would not replace it as a Pool C candidate if Hobart loses);
3) Hampden-Sydney (Catholic would not replace it as a Pool C candidate if Catholic loses); and
4) UW-Whitewater (UW-Stevens Point COULD replace it as a Pool C candidate with a loss, although it would be a stretch).

Keep those scenarios in mind for later in this post.


Pool B Issues
-------------

Now, let's look at Pool B.  The likely choices for the three Pool B bids are:

1) Case Western Reserve (8-0 Regional, 9-0 Overall);
2) Wesley (3-1 Regional, 7-1 Overall); and
3) EITHER the winner of Huntingdon/LaGrange (H is 7-1 Regional, 8-1 Overall while L is 7-0 Regional, 8-1 Overall) OR Northwestern (Minn.) (8-1 Regional, 8-1 Overall).

I'll comment more on the Pool B third slot later only if it plays a role in the analysis.


How Pool C Works
------------------

So, now, let's look at how Pool C works.  There are six slots this year in Pool C.  The process generally utilized by the Selection Committe is to rank the Pool C nominees in each Region against the others in that Region before matching up the top Pool C seed in each of the four Regions.  The Committee will take the top team out of the four being reviewed, place it in Pool C and replace that team with the next highest seed in that Region's Pool C seedings.  This repeats until all six teams are selected.

Using this week's Regional Rankings, here is the likely seeding of each region's Pool C nominees:

East:

1) Ithaca, 2) Montclair, 3) RPI, 4) Hartwick, 5) Rowan and 6) Curry

North:

1) Otterbein, 2) Wooster and 3) Elmhurst

South:

1) Hardin-Simmons, 2) Hampden-Sydney, 3) Wash. & Jeff. and 4) The Winner of LaGrange/Huntingdon if not chosen for Pool C

West:

1) UW-Whitewater, 2) Redlands and 3) Northwestern (Minn.) if not chosen for Pool C


Pool C Selection
---------------

Now it is time to go through the six rounds for Pool C selection:

Round 1
--------
(Note:  Opp. W/L is the regional W/L record of the final opponent for that team, since these numbers have yet to be figured into the team's OWP)

                           Reg.    All                                 Opp.
Team          Region       W/L     W/L        OWP         OOWP         W/L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ithaca         East        7-1     8-1        .540        .544         9-0
Otterbein      North       8-1     8-1        .465        .545         5-4
Hardin-Simmons South       9-1     9-1        .511        .512         ---
UW-Whitewater  West        7-1     8-1        .509        .568         4-4


Remember that for these purposes, we are assuming all teams considered will win this Saturday.  At this point, the likelihood is that since Otterbein's only loss was to Mount Union this season, it will likely receive the first Pool C bid.  We will award Otterbein and replace it with Wooster. 


Round 2
--------
                           Reg.    All                                 Opp.
Team          Region       W/L     W/L        OWP         OOWP         W/L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ithaca         East        7-1     8-1        .540        .544         9-0
Wooster        North       6-2     7-2        .584        .473         5-2
Hardin-Simmons South       9-1     9-1        .511        .512         ---
UW-Whitewater  West        7-1     8-1        .509        .568         4-4


This appears to be a pretty close call between Ithaca, Hardin-Simmons and UW-Whitewater.  Each of these teams have the teams representing each of their only losses already in the tournament via Pool A.  In this situation, my belief is that UW-Whitewater, because of its defending National Champion status, is selected at this stage.  We will roll Redlands into UW-Whitewater's slot.


Round 3
--------
                           Reg.    All                                 Opp.
Team          Region       W/L     W/L        OWP         OOWP         W/L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ithaca         East        7-1     8-1        .540        .544         9-0
Wooster        North       6-2     7-2        .584        .473         5-2
Hardin-Simmons South       9-1     9-1        .511        .512         ---
Redlands       West        7-1     7-1        .464        .489         6-2


The two teams that jump out are the two remaining from our discussion in Round 2:  Ithaca and Hardin-Simmons.  Ithaca would have had a quality win vs. Cortland that will raise its OWP above .560 (although this could change based on prior opponents' results).  The numbers and quality win place Ithaca easily into this slot.  Let's roll Montclair St. into Ithaca's spot.


Round 4
--------
                           Reg.    All                                 Opp.
Team          Region       W/L     W/L        OWP         OOWP         W/L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montclair St.  East        8-1     8-1        .474        .535         6-3
Wooster        North       6-2     7-2        .584        .473         5-2
Hardin-Simmons South       9-1     9-1        .511        .512         ---
Redlands       West        7-1     7-1        .464        .489         6-2


Hardin-Simmons should win in this scenario based on its one-loss status and decent OWP and OOWP numbers.  Wooster's second loss and OOWP don't allow it to be picked at this stage, even though both of its losses came against undefeated teams (inflating its OWP already).  Roll out Hardin-Simmons and roll in Hampden-Sydney.


Round 5
--------
                           Reg.    All                                 Opp.
Team          Region       W/L     W/L        OWP         OOWP         W/L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montclair St.  East        8-1     8-1        .474        .535         6-3
Wooster        North       6-2     7-2        .584        .473         5-2
Hampden-Sydney South       7-1     8-1        .616        .514         4-3
Redlands       West        7-1     7-1        .464        .489         6-2


Hampden-Sydney's OWP will remain pretty stable, so this is a problem scenario for Montclair St. in a comparison.  Wooster's problem is still that the OWP of the teams it actually beat is low, so I can't see Wooster selected here.  Therefore, I have to give the nod to Hampden-Sydney at this point and roll Washington & Jefferson into its slot.


Round 6
--------
                           Reg.    All                                 Opp.
Team          Region       W/L     W/L        OWP         OOWP         W/L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montclair St.  East        8-1     8-1        .474        .535         6-3
Wooster        North       6-2     7-2        .584        .473         5-2
Wash. & Jeff.  South       7-1     8-1        .377        .516         3-4
Redlands       West        7-1     7-1        .464        .489         6-2


Each of these teams has some issues we must look at.  First, Montclair's OWP is not the strongest on the board.  However, this week's game against Kean will help propel it closer to .500.  Wooster's second loss and artificial OWP (call this subjective, or call it common sense to give only partial weight to two losses to undefeated teams) with a pretty low OOWP does not help it still.  Wash. & Jeff. is looking pretty ugly at a .377 OWP (which won't improve much this weekend, if at all).  This is the lowest OWP we have seen so far.  Finally, Redlands will have numbers competitive to Montclair -- however, there are two problems.  First, the OOWP numbers will be below Montclair's numbers no matter what.  Second, there may be eight West Bracket teams already at this point.  A ninth West team would force a flight for every round that a "shipping" school would remain in the playoffs.  From my discussion with Mr. Kaiser, it seems like this year, more than any other, this could be an issue.  For these reasons, I believe Montclair gets selected in this round.  I will roll RPI into its slot for comparison's sake, as I know that question is forthcoming.



Final State of the Board
-----------------------
                           Reg.    All                                 Opp.
Team          Region       W/L     W/L        OWP         OOWP         W/L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RPI            East        7-1     7-1        .495        .526         2-7
Wooster        North       6-2     7-2        .584        .473         5-2
Wash. & Jeff.  South       7-1     8-1        .377        .516         3-4
Redlands       West        7-1     7-1        .464        .489         6-2


Note that out of these teams, the only one with a respectable out-of-conference win is Redlands (over 6-3 Whitworth).  Looking at the numbers and based on previous discussions in this post, I believe that RPI would be the 33rd team (i.e., the best team not selected) if there are no upsets this weekend involving the teams selected ahead of them or the vulnerable Pool A teams in those same teams' conferences.


As a review, the six Pool C teams at this time appear to be:

1) Otterbein, 2) UW-Whitewater, 3) Ithaca, 4) Hardin-Simmons, 5) Hampden-Sydney and 6) Montclair St.


What RPI Needs to Happen
--------------------------
RPI would stand a very decent chance of making the NCAA Playoffs if any of these scenarios occurred this weekend (or virtually a 100% chance if two or more occurred), assuming Hobart and RPI both win:

1) Cortland beats Ithaca (Ithaca removed from Pool C with loss);
2) Alfred beats St. John Fisher (Ithaca removed from Pool C with Pool A win);
3) John Carroll beats Otterbein (Otterbein removed from Pool C with loss);
4) UW-Platteville beats UW-Whitewater (UW-Whtiewater removed from Pool C with loss);
5) UW-La Crosse beats UW-Stevens Point (UW-Whitewater removed from Pool C with Pool A win)*;
6) Randolph-Macon beats Hampden-Sydney (Hampden-Sydney removed from Pool C with loss);
7) Kean beats Montclair St. (Montclair St. removed from Pool C with loss); or
8) Bridgewater (Va.) beats Catholic (Hampden-Sydney removed from Pool C with Pool A win).

* - UW-Steven's Point COULD be considered with two losses for Pool C, although their selection would be unlikely.

Again, for safety, RPI needs to root for at least TWO of these scenarios.  If one occurs, there is a possibility for a subjective or objective analysis to knock it out of the Pool C debate when it finally reaches the board (i.e., after Ithaca and/or Montclair are picked to allow for RPI discussions).

Bob.Gregg

#139
Pool B:

It should be noted that Northwestern is a higher-regionally-ranked team (West 7) than either Wesley (South-8) or Huntingdon (South-9).


Pool C:

With all due respect to Otterbein, IF Ithaca beats Cortland State Saturday, the Bombers OWP jumps to like .580. That plus wins over regionally ranked opponents, etc. I believe would put THEM in the dance in the first round, leaving Otterbein for a later discussion.

I see the Pool C's in your projection coming off in this order:

Ithaca (replaced by Montclair State)
UWW (replaced by Redlands)
Otterbein (replaced by Wooster)
Hardin-Simmons (replaced by Hampden-Sydney)
Hampden-Sydney (replaced by W&J)
Montclair State.

And, then I would see RPI/W&J and Wooster/Redlands
Been wrong before.  Will be wrong again.

Frank Rossi

#140
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2008, 04:25:54 PM
Pool B:

It should be noted that Northwestern is a higher-regionally-ranked team (West 7) than either Wesley (South 8) or Huntingdon (South 9).

But the South is more jam-packed with better-record and better-quality teams.  I don't think you can base a comparison in such a way.

Ralph Turner

#141
Good analysis, Frank!

This weekend should have at least 2-3 "upsets", and we can post on Saturday.

(I pulled HSU off the table about 2nd or 3rd.  HSU beat Linfield and UW-La Crosse in the non-conference.  The geographic isolation of the ASC pulls the OWP/OOWP back to .500.  There are just no other teams for the 9 teams in the ASC to play outside Trinity, Austin College, Millsaps and Rhodes.  We saw this move back to .500 in both the Men's and Women's Hoops ASC OWP/OOWP's in 2008.)

Frank Rossi

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Good analysis, Frank!

This weekend should have at least 2-3 "upsets", and we can post on Saturday.

(I pulled HSU off the table about 2nd or 3rd.  HSU beat Linfield and UW-La Crosse in the non-conference.)

I don't think the order of the first three makes too much difference because we'd be reaching the same list of four teams for consideration when we arrive at Round 6.  I did it more to show folks who don't understand the process how it works.  Don't discredit UWW's status too much -- Wisconsin teams have generally enjoyed good treatment in this process, and being the defending champ doesn't hurt.  However, except for seeding purposes, the order of the first five is somewhat irrelevant since what's left on the table is inferior to the five chosen IMHO.

Bob.Gregg

Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:28:00 PM
But the South is more jam-packed with better0-record and better-quality teams.  I don't think you can base a comparison in such a way.

Wasn't basing a one-time comparison, just a note, just a piece of the AA puzzle.
Been wrong before.  Will be wrong again.

Frank Rossi

Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Good analysis, Frank!

This weekend should have at least 2-3 "upsets", and we can post on Saturday.

(I pulled HSU off the table about 2nd or 3rd.  HSU beat Linfield and UW-La Crosse in the non-conference.)

I don't think the order of the first three makes too much difference because we'd be reaching the same list of four teams for consideration when we arrive at Round 6.  I did it more to show folks who don't understand the process how it works.  Don't discredit UWW's status too much -- Wisconsin teams have generally enjoyed good treatment in this process, and being the defending champ doesn't hurt.  However, except for seeding purposes, the order of the first five is somewhat irrelevant since what's left on the table is inferior to the five chosen IMHO.
Yes to those points.

Thanks for working thru Pool C process.  That is a post that we ought to save for next season when the Newbies wonder about Pool B and Pool C.  +1!  :)

wesleydad

frank, nice explanation of the process for selection.  after seeing the regional rankings i was wondering whether wesley was still a good bet for a pool B.  you mentioned that they will be second which is great, as they are certainly good enough to be in the playoffs and will likely make some noise once they are in.  dont think i can give you karma, but if i could you certainly deserve some for the work put into the post.  thanks again from an outsider in the pool C debate.

Frank Rossi

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Good analysis, Frank!

This weekend should have at least 2-3 "upsets", and we can post on Saturday.

(I pulled HSU off the table about 2nd or 3rd.  HSU beat Linfield and UW-La Crosse in the non-conference.)

I don't think the order of the first three makes too much difference because we'd be reaching the same list of four teams for consideration when we arrive at Round 6.  I did it more to show folks who don't understand the process how it works.  Don't discredit UWW's status too much -- Wisconsin teams have generally enjoyed good treatment in this process, and being the defending champ doesn't hurt.  However, except for seeding purposes, the order of the first five is somewhat irrelevant since what's left on the table is inferior to the five chosen IMHO.
Yes to those points.

Thanks for working thru Pool C process.  That is a post that we ought to save for next season when the Newbies wonder about Pool B and Pool C.  +1!  :)

Ralph - Are you thinking that my Pool B assessment regarding Wesley being a definitive selection is correct?  It seems like there's a decent amount of debating going on about this point.

The Forgotten Man

Frank: Your run through of the analysis methodology was very insightful. Thanks!
"The soldier, above all others, prays for peace, for it is he who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
Douglas MacArthur, General, U.S. Army, (1880-1964)

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

Very true, but the committee MIGHT decide to flip the logic - Wooster is surely the only two-loss team in the country where BOTH losses came to teams who are still undefeated!