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.
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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 02, 2012, 09:59:23 PMQuote 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.
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 |
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 |
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.
Quote from: d-train on October 08, 2012, 12:09:48 PMYeah, 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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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?
Quote from: K-Mack on October 15, 2012, 10:28:10 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:30:36 AMQuote 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 11:57:35 AMQuote 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...
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 12:23:56 PMQuote 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: 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.
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 16, 2012, 08:35:25 PMLa College's season may come down to the last play FG against Wesley and the 30:01 minutes against UMHB.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2012, 04:34:15 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: jknezek on October 16, 2012, 09:34:08 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: hazzben on October 17, 2012, 11:35:24 AMQuote 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.
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 ASCUMHB CCJohns Hopkins CCIWIWU ECFCMount Ida E8Salisbury HCACFranklin IIACCoe LLHobart MIAAAdrian MACWidener MWCLake Forest MIACSt. Thomas NEFCSalve Regina NJACRowan NCACOhio Wesleyan NACConcordia-Chicago NWCLinfield OACMount Union ODACWashington & Lee PACWaynesburg SCIACCal Lutheran UMACNorthwestern USACChristopher Newport WIACUW 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.
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?
Quote from: SUADC on October 20, 2012, 05:45:15 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: hazzben on October 20, 2012, 06:10:20 PMQuote from: SUADC on October 20, 2012, 05:45:15 PMQuote 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.
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 |
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 20, 2012, 11:11:04 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 20, 2012, 11:30:50 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: SUADC on October 21, 2012, 10:50:30 PMYes, as secondary criteria, if primary criteria does not give sufficent guidance.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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2012, 10:42:02 AMQuote from: SUADC on October 21, 2012, 10:50:30 PMYes, as secondary criteria, if primary criteria does not give sufficent guidance.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?
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).
Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2012, 04:30:18 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2012, 02:38:16 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2012, 02:38:16 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 07:50:06 AM"UW-Wastewater"!
Oops. Auto spell check on my smart phone.
Quote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 05:24:52 AMQuote from: jknezek on October 22, 2012, 04:30:18 PMQuote 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.
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.)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 10:42:42 AMQuote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 07:50:06 AM"UW-Wastewater"!
Oops. Auto spell check on my smart phone.
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: njf1003 on October 23, 2012, 03:22:20 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PMQuote 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.
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)
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. :)
Quote from: hazzben on October 23, 2012, 04:24:50 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PMWally, 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.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.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 05:00:03 PMI guess you're right. I just looked at their SOS. Kinda way down there aren't they?
Adrian doesn't look that good for a regional ranking right now.
Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2012, 03:58:00 PMI 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. :-\
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...
Quote from: d-train on October 23, 2012, 06:58:03 PMQuote from: smedindy on October 23, 2012, 03:58:00 PMI 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. :-\
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...
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PMYes. I do think that Wesley and JHU win and Millsaps fades.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.
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 23, 2012, 05:02:58 PMQuote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2012, 05:00:03 PMI guess you're right. I just looked at their SOS. Kinda way down there aren't they?
Adrian doesn't look that good for a regional ranking right now.
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.
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2012, 01:55:30 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2012, 10:43:31 PM
Bethel
Huntingdon
Willamette
Heidelberg
Wabash
Rowan
Elmhurst
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]
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 26, 2012, 12:45:39 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 26, 2012, 03:27:02 PMQuote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 26, 2012, 12:45:39 PMQuote 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
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")
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 26, 2012, 08:46:18 PMQuote 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! ;)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2012, 10:42:42 AMQuote from: HScoach on October 23, 2012, 07:50:06 AM"UW-Wastewater"!
Oops. Auto spell check on my smart phone.
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.
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.
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)
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 23, 2012, 04:55:45 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2012, 12:39:18 PMWally, 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.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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 09:36:18 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2012, 01:55:30 PMQuote 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2012, 10:38:15 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2012, 10:34:52 PMQuote 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!
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.
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.
Quote from: smedindy on October 27, 2012, 10:08:04 PM
In other words, the South is the cannibalistic region this year.
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.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2012, 12:28:49 AMQuote 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.
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.
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?
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?
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 28, 2012, 11:17:01 AM
HSU has lost to Linfield, Willamette, UMHB - three very good D3 teams!
Quote from: wesleydad on October 28, 2012, 11:20:17 PMStronger 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 forceQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2012, 09:20:10 PMSign of the end times...
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.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2012, 09:33:10 PMQuote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2012, 09:20:10 PMSign of the end times...
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.
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?
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
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.
Quote from: dahlby on October 30, 2012, 11:03:34 AMI 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? :)
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.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AMWould Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?
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.
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).
Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PMQuote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AMWould Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 01:40:30 PMBut 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.Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PMQuote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AMWould Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?
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.
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.
Quote from: d-train on October 30, 2012, 01:55:40 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2012, 01:40:30 PMBut 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.Quote from: AO on October 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PMQuote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2012, 11:44:48 AMWould Whitworth be ahead of the Cobbs with a win over Pacific Lutheran?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: d-train on October 30, 2012, 02:13:30 PMQuote 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.
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).
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).
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 06:43:40 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2012, 07:09:15 PMQuote from: smedindy on October 30, 2012, 06:43:40 PMQuote 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!
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.
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 11:07:10 AMI will try to show some discipline and refrain from hitting it too frequently until after 5pm EDT. :-\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.
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.
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 |
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PMLoss 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.....
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?
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?
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PMQuote 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).
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 02:46:36 PMWinning @ 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).
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PMQuote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PMLoss 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.....
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?
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 02:58:25 PMQuote 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...
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
Quote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:15:58 PMYeah--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! :)Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PMQuote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PMLoss 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.....
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?
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.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 03:24:30 PMQuote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 03:15:58 PMYeah--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! :)Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PMQuote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PMLoss 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.....
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?
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.
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 02:58:25 PMQuote 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...
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 03:23:59 PMQuote 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.)
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PMQuote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PMLoss 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.
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?
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 04:01:27 PMYou guys say it enough--it had to stick somewhere ;)Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PMQuote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PMLoss 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on October 31, 2012, 04:00:58 PMQuote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 03:23:59 PMQuote 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.
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 ? :)
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.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2012, 02:33:09 PMQuote from: desertcat1 on October 31, 2012, 02:28:09 PMLoss 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.....
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?
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 06:30:44 PMWell, 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).
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.
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 06:44:29 PMQuote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 06:30:44 PMWell, 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).
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.
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-)
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!
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PMOkay, we'll see. UW-P's final two have two league wins between them. Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.
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.
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)
Quote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 07:18:50 PMQuote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PMOkay, we'll see. UW-P's final two have two league wins between them. Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 07:57:07 PMQuote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 07:18:50 PMQuote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PMOkay, we'll see. UW-P's final two have two league wins between them. Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.
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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:09:39 PMAnd saved the athletic department a boat-load of change!Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2012, 07:57:07 PMQuote from: d-train on October 31, 2012, 07:18:50 PMQuote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:06:21 PMOkay, we'll see. UW-P's final two have two league wins between them. Lake Forest doesn't play until the 10th.
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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2012, 10:31:00 PMQuote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 07:13:10 PMQuote 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PMQuote 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.
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!
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 01, 2012, 01:26:10 AMQuote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2012, 10:05:05 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2012, 08:47:18 PM
Just looked and D3F now has the Kean-Rowan game as cancelled.
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?)
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.....
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. :)
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PMYup--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 :)
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. :)
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 04:10:52 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PMYup--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 :)
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. :)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2012, 04:54:42 PMLOL, +K spot on!Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2012, 04:10:52 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2012, 02:54:18 PMYup--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 :)
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. :)
Actually, fans of those teams who almost got in do it every year! ;D
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2012, 03:59:13 PMBethel loses and Corcordia will be offically lost in a few minutes----either of them still gonna get in?
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.
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. :)
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2012, 04:45:56 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 03, 2012, 03:59:13 PMBethel loses and Corcordia will be offically lost in a few minutes----either of them still gonna get in?
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.
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.....
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2012, 12:23:38 PM
Here are the 1-loss teams remaining in Pool C:
-Wabashor 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PMWin over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.
Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PMWin over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.
Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PMDude, Adrian's already in. ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PMWin over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.
Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
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.
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:18:12 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PMDude, Adrian's already in. ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PMWin over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.
Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 10:06:15 PMDude, they are in the regional rankings. You try to keep up. ;) ;DQuote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:18:12 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PMDude, Adrian's already in. ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PMWin over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.
Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
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, I mean sneak in to the regional rankings. Try to keep up. ;)
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 04, 2012, 12:10:13 AMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 10:06:15 PMDude, they are in the regional rankings. You try to keep up. ;) ;DQuote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:18:12 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:14:23 PMDude, Adrian's already in. ;) We just have to beat them now for it to matter.Quote from: Hawks88 on November 03, 2012, 09:08:57 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 03, 2012, 09:03:43 PMWin over Hampden-Sydney and play Adrian week 11. #10 SOS that will go up with Adrian game.
Huntingdon L to Wesley ... any key wins?
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, I mean sneak in to the regional rankings. Try to keep up. ;)
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?
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.
Quote from: Mugsy on November 04, 2012, 08:25:19 AMQuote 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.
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?
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:
-Wabashor 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.
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.....
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2012, 05:26:00 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Mugsy on November 04, 2012, 08:25:19 AMQuote 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.
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
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).
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 05, 2012, 03:34:21 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PMStrength of ScheduleQuote 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...?
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:05:11 PMQuote from: AUKaz00 on November 05, 2012, 03:34:21 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PMQuote 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...?
Quote from: AO on November 05, 2012, 04:18:59 PMQuote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PMStrength of ScheduleQuote 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...?
Pacific Lutheran: .625
Bethel: .585
Wabash: .561
Wheaton: .558
Bridgewater State: 0.511
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:29:20 PMQuote from: AO on November 05, 2012, 04:18:59 PMQuote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 04:12:27 PMStrength of ScheduleQuote 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...?
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.
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.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 05:32:49 PMQuote 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.)
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2012, 06:46:24 PMQuote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2012, 05:32:49 PMQuote 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.
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 |
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 ASCUMHB CCJohns Hopkins CCIWNorth Central ECFCCastleton State E8Salisbury HCACFranklin IIACCoe LLHobart MIAAAdrian MACWidener MWCLake Forest MIACSt. Thomas NEFCSalve Regina NJACCortland State NCACKenyon NACConcordia-Chicago NWCLinfield OACMount Union ODACWashington & Lee PACWaynesburg SCIACCal Lutheran UMACSt. Scholastica USACChristopher Newport WIACUW-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.
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).
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).
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?
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.
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?
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).
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:03:14 PMQuote 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.
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 ASCUMHB (9-0, v Miss College, 2-7) CCJohns Hopkins (7-1, v. McDaniel, 0-8) CCIWNorth Central (7-2, @ Augustana, 5-4) ECFCCastleton State (7-2, v Mount Ida, 7-2) E8Salisbury (7-2, @Frostburg St, 3-6) HCACFranklin (7-2, v Hanover, 6-3) IIACCoe (9-0, v Central, 5-4) LLHobart (9-0, v Rochester, 4-4) MIAAAdrian (8-1, @Huntington, 6-2) MACWidener (8-0, v Delaware Valley, 7-2) MWCLake Forest (8-1, @ St Norbert, 7-2) MIACSt. Thomas (9-0, v St Olaf, 7-2) NEFCSalve Regina (9-1, @ Framingham St, 9-1) NJACCortland State (7-1, v Ithaca, 6-3) NCACKenyon (6-3, v Denison, 3-6) NACConcordia-Chicago (9-0, @ Maranatha, 0-9) NWCLinfield (8-0, v Pacific, 3-5) OACMount Union (9-0, @ John Carroll, 6-3) ODACWashington & Lee (7-2, v Shenandoah, 1-8) PACWaynesburg (9-0 v Wash and Jeff, 7-2) SCIACCal Lutheran (7-1, v Chapman, 6-2) UMACSt. Scholastica (8-2, @ Minn Morris, 6-4) USACChristopher Newport (6-3, v Methodist, 4-5) WIACUW-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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:10:38 PMQuote 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:
Quote from: SUADC on November 07, 2012, 02:29:53 PMI'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 :)Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 01:10:38 PMQuote 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.
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
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 03:02:40 PMLikely 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......Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PMQuote 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?
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2012, 03:08:04 PMQuote from: 02 Warhawk on November 07, 2012, 03:02:40 PMLikely 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......Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PMQuote 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?
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 03:13:22 PMI 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PMQuote 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, 04:40:56 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: d-train on November 07, 2012, 07:13:29 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PMQuote 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?
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PMQuote 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: 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.
Quote from: d-train on November 07, 2012, 07:13:29 PMYeah--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).
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?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2012, 07:27:06 PMYeah--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).Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 06:58:28 PMQuote 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.
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)
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 09:17:25 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:38:24 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 09:17:25 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 10:05:45 PM
KAPOWNateWaraSuckas!
Quote from: matblake on November 08, 2012, 09:47:41 AMQuote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 10:05:45 PM
KAPOWNateWaraSuckas!
That needs to be a Twitter hashtag.
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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 01:35:01 PMYeah--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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2012, 01:46:17 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2012, 06:03:08 PMUSEE - You had some great incites from your previous posts.
Maybe. My point is really that Elmhurst is likely one and done with their defense. NCC may be right behind them. We will see
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2012, 11:12:35 PMBad spelling and pain killers. ::) ;D
Well, Usee really "incited" me with his "insights"! ;)
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2012, 09:58:56 AMAgreed---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....
Awesome bracket and analysis from Pat, Keith, and the team on front page for Playoff projections.
...
Great analysis in any case.
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.
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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:49:07 AMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 12:31:14 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:49:07 AMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMSo, 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??????????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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 12:45:30 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 12:31:14 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 11:49:07 AMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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??????????
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PMQuote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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.
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*
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 01:22:45 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PMQuote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:13:47 PMI 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).Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 01:02:28 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 11:33:57 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:26:48 PMQuote 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.
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!!!!!
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 02:11:34 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2012, 01:17:46 PMMission accomplished :)
I'm interested in opinions on the idea of consideration of a team's largest loss to a D3 opponent.
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.
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!!!!!
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 02:49:43 PMNot 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.....
split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all
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
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
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2012, 09:38:24 PMI would have thought it a safe bet also!Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2012, 09:17:25 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:40 PMIt would be fine if that's what the NCAC rule-book stated was the protocal...but it's not.....
What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?
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?
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 02:08:45 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 01:26:48 PMQuote 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.
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?!!!!
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.
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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:40:10 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:37:53 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: HScoach on November 09, 2012, 03:47:45 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2012, 03:49:19 PMQuote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:37:53 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PMQuote 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...
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2012, 03:57:33 PMIf Olaf figured out a way to stop Ayrton Scott and Augsburg the criteria might have supported 4 teams from the MIAC getting bids.
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.
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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 03:33:34 PM
I know this horse is almost dead.
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.
Quote from: art76 on November 09, 2012, 04:18:02 PMWhile 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.......Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2012, 04:33:28 PMQuote from: art76 on November 09, 2012, 04:18:02 PMWhile 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.......Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:30:55 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:30:55 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2012, 04:52:37 PMQuote from: jknezek on November 09, 2012, 04:30:55 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2012, 03:15:27 PMHad 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.
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 ;) )
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?)
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.
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.
Quote from: jknezek on November 10, 2012, 05:04:27 PMLaCollege went 1-2 versus Regionally Ranked teams.
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.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Heidelberg and Bethel both survived close games today and presumably should get in.
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:21:02 PMQuote 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.
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.
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!!
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:46:32 PMQuote 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?
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.
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 05:51:25 PMQuote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2012, 05:46:32 PMQuote 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
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 08:31:28 PMI 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.
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.
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 |
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:14:44 PMWillamette 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.
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).
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.
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!
Quote from: hazzben on November 10, 2012, 09:49:30 PMI'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...(?)
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
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 10, 2012, 10:44:46 PM
plu should go high,, sos.. good .
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Quote from: Dr. Acula on November 10, 2012, 11:19:13 PMQuote 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.
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
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.
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMIf 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.Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMAgreed.Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMOne 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.Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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. :)
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:31:15 AMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMAgreed.Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMOne 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.Quote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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. :)
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Is 10 per region not enough? Maybe...probably, actually.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMQuote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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. :)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AMStill Tomorrow by a few hours for some of us.Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMWhile I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin! ;D :PQuote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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. :)
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.
Quote from: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 12:52:39 AMTop 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.Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:36:24 AMI actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.
Is 10 per region not enough? Maybe...probably, actually.
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?
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMQuote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 01:10:21 AMI'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.Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMQuote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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 :) )
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:17:09 AMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 01:10:21 AMI'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.Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 12:59:11 AMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMQuote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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 :) )
Quote from: lakeshore on November 10, 2012, 11:54:11 PMNO! That is not a criterion.
Wheaton has never lost a first round playoff game in 8 appearances... that will come into play
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:10:20 AMQuote from: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 12:52:39 AMTop 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.Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:36:24 AMI actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.
Is 10 per region not enough? Maybe...probably, actually.
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?
Respectfully submitted.
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
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 01:35:12 AMI agree---but there is not a reason based on yesterdays results for them to leapfrog CM in the regional rankings.....
I'm thinking Willamette has as good an arguement to be in as Concordia-Morehead.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMI 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).Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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. :)
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:01:33 AMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMI 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).Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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. :)
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2012, 09:43:40 AMGood 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.... :)Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:01:33 AMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:19:55 AMI 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).Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 12:10:10 AMQuote from: speedybigboy on November 10, 2012, 11:44:05 PMWhile 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! :)Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMI 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.Quote from: CalLuforLife on November 10, 2012, 09:21:43 PMEntirely 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.
I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.
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.
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum. Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.
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. :)
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.
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!!!!
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!!!!
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!!!!
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:03:52 PMAnd 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.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.
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.
Quote from: njf1003 on November 11, 2012, 05:55:31 PMinteresting.....
Someone messed up:
http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/football_d3_2012.pdf
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
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 11, 2012, 06:50:50 PM
when will the game times be announced?
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
Quote from: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 06:56:28 PMThe 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.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!
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2012, 06:59:17 PMQuote from: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 06:56:28 PMThe 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.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!
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!!!!
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!!!!
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 07:12:08 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:07:53 PM
Not so crazy! ;)
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 07:12:08 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 07:24:49 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2012, 09:37:23 PMQuote 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.
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?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 07:45:01 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 11:14:33 PMGet 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.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)
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 11:14:33 PMMy 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.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)
Quote from: motorman on November 11, 2012, 10:55:56 PMQuote
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.
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 02:52:34 AMQuote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 11:14:33 PMMy 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.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)
Quote from: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 05:33:27 AMRegionally 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.
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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:11:49 AMJust because Bridgewater doesn't play anyone of the caliber of the the West teams, doesn't mean no knowledge of their football ability exists.
How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really?
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:15:51 AMQuote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:11:49 AMJust because Bridgewater doesn't play anyone of the caliber of the the West teams, doesn't mean no knowledge of their football ability exists.
How do we REALLY know anything until the playoffs are played. We may THINK we know, but do we, really?
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 11:19:51 AMWe 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.
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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AMYou 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.
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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AMMy 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.
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....
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 11:54:38 AMexactly. 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.
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.
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:41:17 AMQuote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AMYou 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.
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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 12:42:18 PMSalve 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.Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 11:41:17 AMQuote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:38:05 AMYou 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PMClassic. ::)
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!!!!!
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!!!!!
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!!!!!
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:16:12 PMWe can only hope that this is a promise I guess.
I am done with you!!!!
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.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 01:02:31 PMClassically ridiculous.....and I am a WIAC poster! :o 8-)Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 12:58:26 PMClassic. ::)
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!!!!!
Quote from: emma17 on November 12, 2012, 01:08:28 PMI think he drank all the gusto in Oshkosh before he posted.... ;DQuote 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.
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
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PMQuote 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....
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 02:00:50 PMYou 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-)Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PMQuote 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
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:04:31 PMQuote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 02:00:50 PMYou 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-)Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PMQuote 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
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.
Quote from: Bishop#1fan on November 12, 2012, 01:54:08 PMO.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.
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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:12:13 PMA 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.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.
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.
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:27:47 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:12:13 PMA 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.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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:49:38 PMI'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.Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 02:27:47 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 02:12:13 PMA 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.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.
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.
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!!!!!
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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:40:24 PMIt'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.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.
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:58:59 PMLOL, nah we do have opinions, but those who have been around longer are more sage.....at least most of them.... :o 8-)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....
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 04:47:03 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:40:24 PMIt'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.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.
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2012, 04:47:03 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 04:40:24 PMIt'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.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.
Quote from: HScoach on November 12, 2012, 04:23:00 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:06:33 PMQuote 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.
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!
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:06:33 PMQuote 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
Quote from: TheOsprey on November 10, 2012, 02:24:52 AM
feelin' good! Rowan's in Pool C-- right!!!(for Keith)
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 12:18:56 AM
With all its flaws I still like d3's better.
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. :)
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.
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!
Quote from: USee on November 10, 2012, 09:34:27 PM
I love you Wally!
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 12:03:03 AMQuote 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:49:42 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 01:04:06 PM
Also, please educate yourself in general. Thanks.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 10:47:53 PMQuote from: pg04 on November 12, 2012, 01:04:06 PM
Also, please educate yourself in general. Thanks.
Burn of epic proportions.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2012, 11:03:53 PMConspiracy Theory
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...)
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 11:33:36 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 11:39:34 PMQuote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 11:33:36 PMQuote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 10:28:43 PMQuote 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
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
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
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 05:39:06 PMYes 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.Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
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.
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
Quote from: HScoach on November 13, 2012, 05:59:59 PMQuote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
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.
Quote from: HScoach on November 13, 2012, 05:59:59 PMQuote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
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.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 12:36:04 PM
Since the East RAC isn't here to defend itself,
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:52:57 PMQuote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 05:39:06 PMYes 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.Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
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.
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.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2012, 07:11:27 PMYou'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.
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?
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM6.5:1 but capped at 32 teams.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)
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PMQuote 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)
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 07:44:38 PMThis 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.Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:52:57 PMI agree with the guy with the -885 karma.Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 05:39:06 PMYes 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.Quote from: AO on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PMNo 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.Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 04:38:54 PMGive 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.
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!
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.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2012, 08:05:26 PMQuote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM6.5:1 but capped at 32 teams.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)
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, 08:12:04 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.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:13:18 PMQuote 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.
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.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:15:40 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:13:18 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 08:15:40 PMQuote from: smedindy on November 13, 2012, 08:13:18 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2012, 08:05:26 PMQuote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2012, 07:49:56 PM6.5:1 but capped at 32 teams.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)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:17:25 AMThose 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.
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
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:10:26 AMQuote 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?
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
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2012, 05:51:03 AMQuote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 12:10:26 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AMQuote 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.
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
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 08:06:33 PMQuote 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.
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
Quote from: hazzben on November 17, 2012, 10:39:23 PMQuote 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)
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.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 08:39:18 PMQuote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: lakeshore on November 19, 2012, 08:28:03 AMQuote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 08:39:18 PMQuote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2012, 12:57:43 PMeither that, or join the NEFC or other less difficult league and schedule easier non-conference games.Quote from: lakeshore on November 19, 2012, 08:28:03 AMQuote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 08:39:18 PMQuote from: hazzben on November 14, 2012, 11:17:39 AMQuote 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.
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.
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