Pool C - 2017

Started by wally_wabash, October 09, 2017, 09:11:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:14:06 PM
are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?

You can't be serious with the first question, I hope.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

wally_wabash

Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:07:08 PM
Wally, do you make a prediction after the Regional Rankings come out?  The Berg killed me last week but this stuff is so intriguing

Yeah, I'll post a full prediction here after the regional rankings come out next Wednesday and the Wednesday after that. 

I'm actually going to do one this evening...a pre-rankings run through the process, if you will.  I'll use the fan polls from each region as surrogate rankings for this week's exercise. 

Quote from: wm4 on October 25, 2017, 04:04:26 PM
Switching to the top side of the regional rankings...who will the 4th #1 seed be?  I'm booking UMU, UMHB and UWO as locks.  Does is go to Delaware Valley, truly out of the East, or does it go to UST, the next highest ranked team? 

I'll try to answer this as well once I get through that projection tonight.  Del Val is in play, certainly.  As is Brockport.  UST might be in play.  Hardin-Simmons?  Nobody is talking about undefeated Wartburg who I think might be a sleeper here.  Maybe Platteville if they end 9-1.  Without doing any real comparative analysis with these teams yet, that fourth #1 is wide open at first glance.  Lots of justifiable ways to go. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

merlecanlas

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:14:06 PM
are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?

You can't be serious with the first question, I hope.

I was trying to interpret your response to the question.  I guess we both agree on the order of those top three then

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:54:03 PM
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

Don't just assume that means Mount has a "friend" in the process. One thing I have learned over the years is that these individuals take their jobs seriously and while they may "fight" for who they think are the best teams, they respect the entire process tremendously to not jeopardize anything.

I should also mention that if a rep has a direct tie to a school (coach or admin), they have to remove themselves when their institution is being discussed. Not the case in your example - conference affiliation does not count - but worth keeping in mind.

After last year, no Mount fan thinks we have a "friend" in the NCAA...wait...in the RCA or the national committee


Wally, do you make a prediction after the Regional Rankings come out?  The Berg killed me last week but this stuff is so intriguing

Thanks man

You are welcome, though I am confused by your first sentence. Granted, I stay out of the football details since I have to focus on basketball by that point in the year, but what in the world did Mount fans have to complain about last year?
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:17:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:14:06 PM
are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?

You can't be serious with the first question, I hope.

I was trying to interpret your response to the question.  I guess we both agree on the order of those top three then

I think you know what I believe the order to be. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

merlecanlas

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 04:20:57 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:54:03 PM
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

Don't just assume that means Mount has a "friend" in the process. One thing I have learned over the years is that these individuals take their jobs seriously and while they may "fight" for who they think are the best teams, they respect the entire process tremendously to not jeopardize anything.

I should also mention that if a rep has a direct tie to a school (coach or admin), they have to remove themselves when their institution is being discussed. Not the case in your example - conference affiliation does not count - but worth keeping in mind.

After last year, no Mount fan thinks we have a "friend" in the NCAA...wait...in the RCA or the national committee


Wally, do you make a prediction after the Regional Rankings come out?  The Berg killed me last week but this stuff is so intriguing

Thanks man

You are welcome, though I am confused by your first sentence. Granted, I stay out of the football details since I have to focus on basketball by that point in the year, but what in the world did Mount fans have to complain about last year?

Road game in the first rd against Hobart?  c'mon man.  It's all good though.  Last year's QB injuries have led to a better Raiders

Pat Coleman

Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

merlecanlas

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:27:48 PM
Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.

we can agree to disagree, but that was last year.  Let's move on to 2017

Pat Coleman

Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:31:35 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:27:48 PM
Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.

we can agree to disagree, but that was last year.  Let's move on to 2017

You're the one who brought up 2016!  ;D
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

merlecanlas

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:33:15 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:31:35 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:27:48 PM
Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.

we can agree to disagree, but that was last year.  Let's move on to 2017

You're the one who brought up 2016!  ;D

you're right.  Let's all just take a deep breath and be thankful we aren't FBSfootball.com

Wally, hit us with a playoff prediction

wm4

Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:14:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
Quote from: wm4 on October 25, 2017, 04:04:26 PM
Switching to the top side of the regional rankings...who will the 4th #1 seed be?  I'm booking UMU, UMHB and UWO as locks.  Does is go to Delaware Valley, truly out of the East, or does it go to UST, the next highest ranked team?

The committee doesn't use our rankings in its process.

are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?

Those 3 are locks, assuming they win out.  The committee does not use D3.com rankings for selecting or seeding the tourney.  When the bracket comes out, it'll be interesting to interpret who the 4th #1 seed is.

AO

Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:26:21 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 04:20:57 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:54:03 PM
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

Don't just assume that means Mount has a "friend" in the process. One thing I have learned over the years is that these individuals take their jobs seriously and while they may "fight" for who they think are the best teams, they respect the entire process tremendously to not jeopardize anything.

I should also mention that if a rep has a direct tie to a school (coach or admin), they have to remove themselves when their institution is being discussed. Not the case in your example - conference affiliation does not count - but worth keeping in mind.

After last year, no Mount fan thinks we have a "friend" in the NCAA...wait...in the RCA or the national committee


Wally, do you make a prediction after the Regional Rankings come out?  The Berg killed me last week but this stuff is so intriguing

Thanks man

You are welcome, though I am confused by your first sentence. Granted, I stay out of the football details since I have to focus on basketball by that point in the year, but what in the world did Mount fans have to complain about last year?

Road game in the first rd against Hobart?  c'mon man.  It's all good though.  Last year's QB injuries have led to a better Raiders
Hobart finished 30th in the Massey ratings last year.  Would you rather have played Platteville?

smedindy

The fourth seed. Those three teams are the lockiest of locks for #1 seed.

wally_wabash

#88
We're doing this.  If you're new to this, I kind of do it stream of consciousness style when I get to the at-large stuff.  Right now, all I've got is a Pool A table (coming below) and the list of ranked teams with some primary criteria data in a table.  I'll compare those teams and write about it as I'm looking at it. 

First the mechanics:
- There are 25 Pool A bids that go to champions of qualifying conferences. 
- Once the Pool A bids are delivered, two Pool B bids will be awarded to teams that do not belong to qualifying conferences (ASC, NEWMAC, independents)
- That leaves 5 spots left which will be Pool C.  Everybody who is not already in the tournament to this point is eligible for these bids. 
- The at-large bids are determined by comparing the top-ranked teams remaining from each region using the selection/seeding criteria (check the handbook or FAQs on D3football.com for a primer on all of that).  Each committee member ranks those four teams, points get counted poll style, and the team with the most points goes in. 
- The next team available from the region of the team that just got selected steps in and the comparing/voting process repeats until the field is complete. 
Good?  Great.  Let's do this. 

Pool A
The projected 25 Pool A's as of this moment:


Nobody has clinched yet, so this is all pure projection at this point.  I did give every league a champion, except the ODAC because...I mean seriously.  Look at those standings. 

Pool B
You'll only see two regions represented in this at-large discussions in Pool B.  The West has no Pool B eligible teams. The North has Finlandia as an independent, but they aren't viable (and may not even be eligible due to lack of games), so we'll just ignore them for this exercise. 

At this point, these two bids are going to two of these three teams: UMHB, Hardin-Simmons, Springfield.  I'll set up the rest of the regional tableaus after Pool B is done.

Round 1:
1S Mary Hardin-Baylor: 7-0, 2-0 vs. RROs, 0.587 (28th) SOS
5E Springfield: 8-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.519 (95)

Advantages in every primary criteria here for UMHB and they're the clear choice for the first Pool B bid.

Round 2:
2S Hardin-Simmons: 5-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.574 (37)
5E Springfield: 8-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.519 (95)

I had expected a larger SOS difference here, actually.  This is a big difference, but maybe not so big that we shouldn't go ahead and take Springfield in this position.  Welcome to the show, Pride. 

Now after UMHB and Springfield come out of our rankings lists, the remaining regional boards look as follows:
East: Frostburg, Salisbury, Framingham State
North: IWU, Millikin, Wheaton, Carthage, Wabash
South: Hardin-Simmons, Case Western Reserve, Carnegie Mellon, Centre, F&M
West: UW-Platteville, St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead, George Fox, UW-Whitewater

Couple of notes here- the NRFP voters have Wheaton ahead of Millikin, but I reversed that here.  While Wheaton has a better SOS and is 2-2 vs. RROs vs. Millikin's 1-1 vs. RROs, I don't think Wheaton's results override the h2h and the extra loss. 
- The WRFP voters have St. John's and UWP tied.  I broke the tie using UWP's superior SOS and RRO win as separating factors.

And off we go. 

Pool C:
Round 1:
3N Illinois Wesleyan - 7-1, 3-1 RRO, 0.507 (112)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.574 (37)
4E Frostburg St. - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.511 (106)
4W UW-Platteville - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.633 (5)

Isn't this interesting.  Platteville has a giant SOS.  Hardin-Simmons does as well.  Illinois Wesleyan has three wins over ranked teams, which is absurd.  How can IWU have played four ranked teams and have the 112th ranked SOS?  Because SOS is terrible, that's why.  Different discussion for a different day.  I like teams that have actually beat good teams and IWU has done it a bunch this year and certainly more than their competition here.  IWU is my choice. 

Round 2:
7N Millikin - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.510 (109)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.574 (37)
4E Frostburg St. - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.511 (106)
4W UW-Platteville - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.633 (5)

UW-Platteville has overwhelming advantages here with their SOS and win vs. an RRO.  Millikin does have a quality win also, but one RRO win is not three RRO wins.  Pioneers are in. 

Round 3:
7N Millikin - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.510 (109)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.574 (37)
4E Frostburg St. - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.511 (106)
4W St. John's - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.531 (77)

We've got a three team race here.  On first glance, I thought this was between HSU and St. John's.  Then Frostburg State's music hit and I was reminded that their loss was an OT deal with Wesley.  So that might actually be the best RRO loss of the three.  I'll honor H-SU's strength of schedule and a somewhat competitive result against the probably top seed in the tournament.

Round 4:
7N Millikin - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.510 (109)
4S Case Western Reserve - 7-0, 0-0 RRO, 0.357 (234)
4E Frostburg St. - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.511 (106)
4W St. John's - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.531 (77)

Dude.  Two spots left and I've got two teams that were only barely different from the last pick...and undefeated CWRU.  We've reached the point that may well be the top topic of conversation between the end of action on Nov. 11 and when the selections are revealed on Nov. 12.  CWRU's SOS will improve.  Some.  But even if they get to 10-0, the committee is going to have to hold their nose at that SOS and make the pick.  My dilemma is do I think that CWRU is an autopick into the field as soon as the show up on the board?  Springfield didn't get that treatment from me, nor was it an easy/obvious move to take them when I did.  Right now, I think 0.357 is too much to overcome.  I think Frostburg's RRO result is better than St. John's RRO result and I'm putting Frostburg in.   

Round 5:
7N Millikin - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.510 (109)
4S Case Western Reserve - 7-0, 0-0 RRO, 0.357 (234)
6E Salisbury - 6-1, 0-0 RRO, 0.445 (199)
4W St. John's - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.531 (77)

Last call.  I think St. John's is better and should be in this tournament and I also don't think they're going to leave an undefeated team out.  CWRU is my last team in, but my-oh-my.  That's not an easy choice. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Caz Bombers

+K to Wally Wabash for this awesome work.