D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: usee on October 28, 2008, 12:25:35 PM

Title: Pool C
Post by: usee on October 28, 2008, 12:25:35 PM
With the first regional rankings due out this week (and my team a possible candidate) I thought it was time to get this going.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on October 28, 2008, 01:48:53 PM
Well, here's a listing of teams that could finish as a conference runner-up with just one blemish on their record. I'm not sure if it's a complete listing, so please add to this if I've missed some. For now, I don't see a lot of room for two-loss teams.

Trinity or Millsaps
Hardin-Simmons
Otterbein (or Mt. Union)
Wheaton
UW-Whitewater
Montclair St. or Rowan
Worcester Polytech
Redlands or Oxy
Hampden-Sydney
Wash. & Jeff.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on October 28, 2008, 02:18:49 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 28, 2008, 01:48:53 PM
Well, here's a listing of teams that could finish as a conference runner-up with just one blemish on their record. I'm not sure if it's a complete listing, so please add to this if I've missed some. For now, I don't see a lot of room for two-loss teams.

Trinity or Millsaps
Hardin-Simmons
Otterbein (or Mt. Union)
Wheaton
UW-Whitewater
Montclair St. or Rowan
Worcester Polytech
Redlands or Oxy
Hampden-Sydney
Wash. & Jeff.


It might be a tad early for all of this.  Just in the East, I think the list also includes

Hartwick
Ithaca
RPI
Curry
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on October 28, 2008, 02:47:20 PM
And, could there be a "B" team with only 1 loss that doesn't get picked there?

Case could have one loss and not get a "B".
Huntingdon could have one loss and not get a "B".

Don't think there's much more from there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dc_has_been on October 28, 2008, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 28, 2008, 01:48:53 PM
Well, here's a listing of teams that could finish as a conference runner-up with just one blemish on their record. I'm not sure if it's a complete listing, so please add to this if I've missed some. For now, I don't see a lot of room for two-loss teams.

Trinity or Millsaps
Hardin-Simmons
Otterbein (or Mt. Union)
Wheaton
UW-Whitewater
Montclair St. or Rowan
Worcester Polytech
Redlands or Oxy
Hampden-Sydney
Wash. & Jeff.


\
I think UW-Whitewater still has a shot at taking the WIAC b/c Stevens Point still has to play Eau Claire on the road.  I would also put Cal Luthern in the mix w/ Redlands & Oxy.  Also, why is W & J in that mix?  Unless you think they will lose to Thomas More.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on October 28, 2008, 02:53:54 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 28, 2008, 02:18:49 PM
It might be a tad early for all of this.  Just in the East, I think the list also includes

Hartwick
Ithaca
RPI
Curry

Yeah, it's probably a week or two early - but I'm pretty sure the list is complete for the west teams. Though I should have noted that Redlands and Oxy could both finish at 8-1 with fellow tri-champ Cal Lu taking the auto-bid.

How does the list look for south and north teams?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on October 28, 2008, 02:59:27 PM
Quote from: dc_has_been on October 28, 2008, 02:51:55 PM
I think UW-Whitewater still has a shot at taking the WIAC b/c Stevens Point still has to play Eau Claire on the road.  I would also put Cal Luthern in the mix w/ Redlands & Oxy.  Also, why is W & J in that mix?  Unless you think they will lose to Thomas More.

I'm not making predictions, just listing teams that could finish as a one-loss runner-up.

Sure, Whitewater is still in the hunt for the WIAC crown (with help). I don't have any reason to believe that Thomas More will beat W&J, I'm just saying that they could and W&J might still be alive.

Cal Lu can win the SCIAC, or earn the auto-bid as tri-champ, but not finish as a one-loss runner-up (because they also lost to Willamette).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on October 28, 2008, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 28, 2008, 01:48:53 PM
Well, here's a listing of teams that could finish as a conference runner-up with just one blemish on their record.

Quote from: dc_has_been on October 28, 2008, 02:51:55 PMAlso, why is W & J in that mix?

W&J COULD lose to Thomas More.  That would leave the Presidents as a conference runner-up with just one blemish on their record.  That was the whole premise of d-train's list.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dc_has_been on October 28, 2008, 03:06:31 PM
d-train- Sorry, I did not interpret that correctly. 

Thanks Bob for being an echo in the room. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on October 28, 2008, 03:07:33 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on October 28, 2008, 02:47:20 PM
And, could there be a "B" team with only 1 loss that doesn't get picked there?

Case could have one loss and not get a "B".
Huntingdon could have one loss and not get a "B".

Don't think there's much more from there.

I suppose Northwestern (Minn.) as a '4th' Pool B...

Trine should also be on the list, though they could clinch a Pool A versus Adrian in two weeks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on October 29, 2008, 12:09:24 AM
Was thinking of doing this in ATN this week ... there are still a lot of teams out there though.

I guess it can't hurt to speculate & compile.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: union89 on October 29, 2008, 12:25:09 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 28, 2008, 02:18:49 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 28, 2008, 01:48:53 PM
Well, here's a listing of teams that could finish as a conference runner-up with just one blemish on their record. I'm not sure if it's a complete listing, so please add to this if I've missed some. For now, I don't see a lot of room for two-loss teams.

Trinity or Millsaps
Hardin-Simmons
Otterbein (or Mt. Union)
Wheaton
UW-Whitewater
Montclair St. or Rowan
Worcester Polytech
Redlands or Oxy
Hampden-Sydney
Wash. & Jeff.


It might be a tad early for all of this.  Just in the East, I think the list also includes

Hartwick
Ithaca
RPI
Curry


Add Hobart....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on October 29, 2008, 01:23:25 PM
And here's why it too early to be doing this (at least one week too early):

Worcester Polytech
RPI
Hobart

That's 37.5% of the LL.

After Saturday, at least one will be off the "can finish as runnerup with one loss" list, maybe two.

Just taking up server space doing this list this early.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on October 29, 2008, 01:27:22 PM
Quote from: Union89 on October 29, 2008, 12:25:09 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 28, 2008, 02:18:49 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 28, 2008, 01:48:53 PM
Well, here's a listing of teams that could finish as a conference runner-up with just one blemish on their record. I'm not sure if it's a complete listing, so please add to this if I've missed some. For now, I don't see a lot of room for two-loss teams.

Trinity or Millsaps
Hardin-Simmons
Otterbein (or Mt. Union)
Wheaton
UW-Whitewater
Montclair St. or Rowan
Worcester Polytech
Redlands or Oxy
Hampden-Sydney
Wash. & Jeff.


It might be a tad early for all of this.  Just in the East, I think the list also includes

Hartwick
Ithaca
RPI
Curry

Add Hobart....

I don't think Hobart can finish second in the LL with just one loss.  The only way that they can finish the season with one loss is to win out, and that would make them LL champions by virtue of a head-to-head win at RPI.  WPI would have a second loss in that scenario, to Hobart.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: union89 on October 29, 2008, 01:34:48 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on October 29, 2008, 01:23:25 PM
And here's why it too early to be doing this (at least one week too early):

Worcester Polytech
RPI
Hobart

That's 37.5% of the LL.

After Saturday, at least one will be off the "can finish as runnerup with one loss" list, maybe two.

Just taking up server space doing this list this early.


Agreed....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2008, 02:35:05 PM
Regional rankings released.
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/category/regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on October 29, 2008, 02:41:36 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2008, 02:35:05 PM
Regional rankings released.
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/category/regional-rankings/

And Catholic is listed!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on October 29, 2008, 04:25:04 PM
Pool C addressed in two places in ATN, in Pool C watch, but also in a random rambling list of one-loss teams which was basically my list of who those one-loss teams lost to, to be used for the top 25 vote.

The Pool C watch, let's just say this thread was pretty helpful. And I send some love back to it in the form of a link.

In any case, I won't scoop myself, but when it posts, enjoy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2008, 11:34:04 PM
Let's assume that the top-ranked team from each Pool A conference wins the AQ.

EAST REGION
1. Cortland State 7-0 7-0  NJAC
2. RPI 5-0 6-0 LL 
3. Ithaca 5-1 6-1  E8
4. Montclair State 6-1 6-1  NJAC Pool C  Beat WConn, 38-14; hosts Rowan
5. Rowan 6-1 6-1   NJAC  Pool C Beat Kean 30-22; goes to Montclair St
6. Hartwick 5-1 5-1  E8 Pool C  Beat Norwich 42-12, goes to Springfield
7. Worcester Polytech 6-1 6-1  LL  Pool C  LOST at Hobart 14-31, hosts Susquehanna
8. Hobart 5-1 5-1  LL  Pool C  Beat WPI 31-14; goes to RPI
9. Plymouth State 5-1 7-1  NEFC Pool A
10. Husson 6-0 6-2  Pool B  Open date; goes to Becker

(MAC is missing.)

NORTH REGION
1. Mount Union 6-0 7-0  Pool A OAC
2. North Central (Ill.) 7-0 7-0  Pool A CCIW
3. Otterbein 7-0 7-0  Pool C OAC  Beat Marietta 55-0; hosts MUC
4. Wabash 6-0 7-0  NCAC Pool A
5. Trine 7-0 7-0  MIAA Pool A
6. Case Western Reserve 6-0 7-0  Pool B  Beat Chicago 38-24; hosts Carnegie Mellon
7. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-1 6-1 Pool C CCIW  LOST at Elmhurst 23-37; hosts IWU
8. Franklin 5-1 6-1  Pool A HCAC
9. Adrian 5-1 6-1    Pool C MIAA  Beat Alma 45-24;  hosts Trine
10. Rose-Hulman 7-1 7-1  Pool C HCAC  LOST at Franklin 7-42; hosts Anderson

(Northern Athletics Conference is missing.)


SOUTH REGION
1. Muhlenberg 7-0 7-0  CC Pool A
2. Millsaps 6-0 7-0   SCAC Pool A
3. Washington and Jefferson 6-0 7-0   Pres AC  Pool A  LOST to TMC 29-35; hosts Bethany
4. Trinity (Texas) 6-0 7-0  Pool C SCAC  LOST to Millsaps 27-56; hosts Centre
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 5-0 6-1  ASC Pool A
6. Hardin-Simmons 7-1 7-1  Pool C ASC  Beat TLU 52-6; hosts McMurry
7. Huntingdon 1-0 7-0  Pool B  Beat Principia 76-0; hosts Hampden-Sydney
8. Catholic 5-1 6-1  ODAC Pool A
9. Salisbury 2-0 7-1   Pool B  LOST to Wesley, 21-36; open date
10. Thomas More 6-1 6-1 Pool C Pres AC  Beat W&J 35-29; Clinched

(USA  South is missing.)

WEST REGION
1. Willamette 7-0 8-0  NWC  Pool A
2. Occidental 6-0 6-0   SCIAC  Pool A
3. Monmouth 8-0 8-0  MWC  Pool A
4. UW-Stevens Point 3-1 6-1   WIAC  Pool A
5. UW-Whitewater 5-1 6-1  Pool C WIAC  Beat UWEC 40-10
6. Cal Lutheran 5-1 5-1   Pool C SCIAC  LOST to Oxy 21-24; host LaVerne
7. Redlands 5-1 5-1  Pool C SCIAC  Beat P-P 52-14; hosts Chapman
8. Northwestern (Minn.) 5-1 7-1   Pool B  Beat Crown 44-7
9. Concordia-Moorhead 4-2 5-2   MIAC  Pool A LOST to St Olaf's 25-28; hosts Carleton.  MIAC HAS 4-WAY Tie for 1st
10. St. John's 5-2 6-2   Pool C MIAC  Open date; hosts Augsburg

(Iowa IAC is missing.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on October 31, 2008, 01:41:32 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2008, 11:34:04 PM
Let's assume that the top-ranked team from each Pool A conference wins the AQ.

EAST REGION
1. Cortland State 7-0 7-0  NJAC
2. RPI 5-0 6-0 LL 
3. Ithaca 5-1 6-1  E8
4. Montclair State 6-1 6-1  NJAC Pool C
5. Rowan 6-1 6-1   NJAC  Pool C
6. Hartwick 5-1 5-1  E8 Pool C
7. Worcester Polytech 6-1 6-1  LL  Pool C
8. Hobart 5-1 5-1  LL  Pool C
9. Plymouth State 5-1 7-1  NEFC Pool A
10. Husson 6-0 6-2  Pool B

(MAC is missing.)

NORTH REGION
1. Mount Union 6-0 7-0  Pool A OAC
2. North Central (Ill.) 7-0 7-0  Pool A CCIW
3. Otterbein 7-0 7-0  Pool C OAC
4. Wabash 6-0 7-0  NCAC Pool A
5. Trine 7-0 7-0  MIAA Pool A
6. Case Western Reserve 6-0 7-0  Pool B
7. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-1 6-1 Pool C CCIW
8. Franklin 5-1 6-1  Pool A HCAC
9. Adrian 5-1 6-1    Pool C MIAA
10. Rose-Hulman 7-1 7-1  Pool C HCAC

(Northern Athletics Conference is missing.)


SOUTH REGION
1. Muhlenberg 7-0 7-0  CC Pool A
2. Millsaps 6-0 7-0   SCAC Pool A
3. Washington and Jefferson 6-0 7-0   Pres AC  Pool A
4. Trinity (Texas) 6-0 7-0  Pool C SCAC
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 5-0 6-1  ASC Pool A
6. Hardin-Simmons 7-1 7-1  Pool C ASC
7. Huntingdon 1-0 7-0  Pool B
8. Catholic 5-1 6-1  ODAC Pool A
9. Salisbury 2-0 7-1   Pool B
10. Thomas More 6-1 6-1 Pool C Pres AC

(USA  South is missing.)

WEST REGION
1. Willamette 7-0 8-0  NWC  Pool A
2. Occidental 6-0 6-0   SCIAC  Pool A
3. Monmouth 8-0 8-0  MWC  Pool A
4. UW-Stevens Point 3-1 6-1   WIAC  Pool A
5. UW-Whitewater 5-1 6-1  Pool C WIAC
6. Cal Lutheran 5-1 5-1   Pool C SCIAC
7. Redlands 5-1 5-1  Pool C SCIAC
8. Northwestern (Minn.) 5-1 7-1   Pool B
9. Concordia-Moorhead 4-2 5-2   MIAC  Pool A
10. St. John’s 5-2 6-2   Pool C MIAC

Nice work, Ralph. The only difficulty is that your assumption likely means an extra loss to several on the list. Cal Lu (has yet to play Oxy), Adrian (has yet to play Trine), Thomas More (W&J), either Montclair St. or Rowan (they've yet to play) would lose and drop down. (Of course you know this, I'm just saying...) Some without a loss (like Trinity, TX) wouldn't drop too far...but that would be a second loss for many.

BTW - The Iowa conference is missing a rep in the west region rankings. Buena Vista or Wartburg, I believe, will earn the Pool A there and a 7 or 8 seed in the 'West."

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2008, 10:00:00 AM
+1 d-train.  Thanks for catching the Iowa IAC Pool A.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on October 31, 2008, 08:26:00 PM
UPDATE: What if we assume that the top-ranked team from each Pool A wins out, and higher ranked teams beat lower ranked teams in showdowns.  Here's how I think it plays out among the East ranked teams:

EAST REGION
1. Cortland State  10-0 10-0  NJAC  Pool A
2. RPI                  9-0  9-0    LL     Pool A
3. Ithaca             7-2 8-2      E8     Pool A
4. Montclair State  9-1 9-1    NJAC  Pool C
5. Rowan             8-2 8-2     NJAC  Pool C
6. Hartwick          8-1 8-1     E8      Pool C
7. Worcester Poly  8-2 8-2     LL     Pool C
8. Hobart            7-2 7-2       LL     Pool C
9. Plymouth State 8-1 10-1   NEFC  Pool A
10. Husson          7-0 7-2              Pool B

In this scenario, Rowan maybe drops down and WPI and Hobart maybe drops out, so who takes their places?  If we borrow the likeliest candidates from the East Region Fan Poll, we get

St. John Fisher     7-1 7-3       E8      Pool C

and then it gets tricky.  The East Region Fan Poll voters like Lycoming, but Lebanon Valley has a higher in-Region winning percentage.  However, Lycoming has a better OWP/OOWP than Lebanon Valley, plus Lycoming beat common opponent Delaware Valley, who beat Lebanon Valley.  So it seems to me that there's reason to favor either one.

(There's still Albright, who has Lebanon Valley's winning pct., but a worse OWP/OOWP than Lebanon Valley, and a head-to-head loss to Lycoming, so I'll leave Albright out  and a win over Lebanon Valley.)

So here's what Lyco's and LebVal Albright's records look like if they each win out (which they can't do, so it's either/or):

Lebanon Valley    7-3 7-3     MAC   Pool C
Lycoming           7-2 8-2      MAC   Pool A
Albright            8-2 8-2       MAC  Pool C

Also lurking would be

Curry               9-1  9-1     NEFC   Pool C

In this exercise, Rowan would be 0-2 v. ranked opponents, Curry 0-1, and LebVal Albright and Lyco 0-0 v. ranked opponents.  I figure it'd be a battle of Rowan's OWP/OOWP v. Curry's winning percentage, for the final ranked spot.

In either case, the MAC makes for 5 Pool A spots in the East Region.  Only three remain available to Husson and the Pool C candidates--two, if a top seed is moved into the East, as we know is quite possible. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2008, 06:00:24 PM
Trinity and W&J lost today to Millsaps and Thomas More! 

UMHB (Pool A) and HSU (Pool C) both won.

CNU held off NCWC!

"South Region" Thomas More can be sent to the "North Region".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LA Major on November 01, 2008, 06:16:28 PM
Ralph what are your thoughts regading a Pool C for Trinity after today?
It would be uncharted territory for the SCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2008, 06:27:43 PM
Quote from: LA Major on November 01, 2008, 06:16:28 PM
Ralph what are your thoughts regading a Pool C for Trinity after today?
It would be uncharted territory for the SCAC.
W&J messed up someone by losing today.  I wonder if the "ol' boy" network will work for W&J.  I wish that we were seeing the OWP/OOWP's this year.  That legislation (permitting teams to see the OWP/OOWP)  is on the docket for Jan 09.

I think that it looks bad for the SCAC.  The OWP/OOWP (SOS) for Trinity does not look good.  W&J was ahead of Trinity prior to today's losses.  Does W&J fall below HSU and Trinity?

McMurry and TLU (TU's non-conference opponents) are playing in a strong, but isolated, conference.  (McMurry took AC to 2OT, and AC has been a middle rung SCAC team this year.)

HSU looks best in the South to me.

Barring any other upsets, I think that the Regional Rankings next Wednesday give us the South Region's Pool C.  I was concerned that the East Region would walk off with 3 Pool C bids this year when I reviewed last Wednesday's rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LA Major on November 02, 2008, 10:18:24 AM
I agree Ralph. It seems like the old SOS issue continues to hurt SCAC schools and will only get worse as other schools come on line in seasons to come to eat up out of conference games. This has been an ASC steady strategy year to year that continues to work for them. Too bad for TU and the SCAC this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 02, 2008, 11:09:05 AM
If Wittenberg beats Wooster, they may vault into "C" contention with just one regional loss. If Adrian beats Trine, then Trine could be a "C" contender. Otterbein is probably a 'lock' if they only lose to Mt. Union.

I think Wheaton's loss made the CCIW a 1-bid league.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2008, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2008, 11:09:05 AM
If Wittenberg beats Wooster, they may vault into "C" contention with just one regional loss. If Adrian beats Trine, then Trine could be a "C" contender. Otterbein is probably a 'lock' if they only lose to Mt. Union.

I think Wheaton's loss made the CCIW a 1-bid league.

Unless Augie beats NCC - NCC would be a near-lock at 9-1.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 02:08:47 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2008, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2008, 11:09:05 AM
If Wittenberg beats Wooster, they may vault into "C" contention with just one regional loss. If Adrian beats Trine, then Trine could be a "C" contender. Otterbein is probably a 'lock' if they only lose to Mt. Union.

I think Wheaton's loss made the CCIW a 1-bid league.

Unless Augie beats NCC - NCC would be a near-lock at 9-1.
It looks like there will be several one-loss teams staying home, at this minute.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 04:21:21 PM
Updated thru Nov 1st.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2008, 11:34:04 PM
Let's assume that the top-ranked team from each Pool A conference wins the AQ.

EAST REGION
1. Cortland State 7-0 7-0  NJAC Pool A clinched
2. RPI 5-0 6-0 LL 
3. Ithaca 5-1 6-1  E8
4. Montclair State 6-1 6-1  NJAC Pool C  Beat WConn, 38-14; hosts Rowan
5. Rowan 6-1 6-1   NJAC  Pool C Beat Kean 30-22; goes to Montclair St
6. Hartwick 5-1 5-1  E8 Pool C  Beat Norwich 42-12, goes to Springfield
7. Worcester Polytech 6-1 6-1  LL  Pool C  LOST at Hobart 14-31, hosts Susquehanna
8. Hobart 5-1 5-1  LL  Pool C  Beat WPI 31-14; goes to RPI
9. Plymouth State 5-1 7-1  NEFC Pool A
10. Husson 6-0 6-2  Pool B  Open date; goes to Becker

(MAC is missing.)

NORTH REGION
1. Mount Union 6-0 7-0  Pool A OAC
2. North Central (Ill.) 7-0 7-0  Pool A CCIW
3. Otterbein 7-0 7-0  Pool C OAC  Beat Marietta 55-0; hosts MUC
4. Wabash 6-0 7-0  NCAC Pool A clinched
5. Trine 7-0 7-0  MIAA Pool A
6. Case Western Reserve 6-0 7-0  Pool B  Beat Chicago 38-24; hosts Carnegie Mellon
7. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-1 6-1 Pool C CCIW  LOST at Elmhurst 23-37; hosts IWU
8. Franklin 5-1 6-1  Pool A HCAC
9. Adrian 5-1 6-1    Pool C MIAA  Beat Alma 45-24;  hosts Trine
10. Rose-Hulman 7-1 7-1  Pool C HCAC  LOST at Franklin 7-42; hosts Anderson

(Northern Athletics Conference is missing.)


SOUTH REGION
1. Muhlenberg 7-0 7-0  CC Pool A
2. Millsaps 6-0 7-0   SCAC Pool A Clinched
3. Washington and Jefferson 6-0 7-0   Pres AC  Pool A  LOST to TMC 29-35; hosts Bethany
4. Trinity (Texas) 6-0 7-0  Pool C SCAC  LOST to Millsaps 27-56; hosts Centre
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 5-0 6-1  ASC Pool A
6. Hardin-Simmons 7-1 7-1  Pool C ASC  Beat TLU 52-6; hosts McMurry
7. Huntingdon 1-0 7-0  Pool B  Beat Principia 76-0; hosts Hampden-Sydney
8. Catholic 5-1 6-1  ODAC Pool A
9. Salisbury 2-0 7-1   Pool B  LOST to Wesley, 21-36; open date
10. Thomas More 6-1 6-1 Pool C Pres AC  Beat W&J 35-29; Clinched

(USA  South is missing.)

WEST REGION
1. Willamette 7-0 8-0  NWC  Pool A
2. Occidental 6-0 6-0   SCIAC  Pool A
3. Monmouth 8-0 8-0  MWC  Pool A clinched
4. UW-Stevens Point 3-1 6-1   WIAC  Pool A
5. UW-Whitewater 5-1 6-1  Pool C WIAC  Beat UWEC 40-10
6. Cal Lutheran 5-1 5-1   Pool C SCIAC  LOST to Oxy 21-24; host LaVerne
7. Redlands 5-1 5-1  Pool C SCIAC  Beat P-P 52-14; hosts Chapman
8. Northwestern (Minn.) 5-1 7-1   Pool B  Beat Crown 44-7
9. Concordia-Moorhead 4-2 5-2   MIAC  Pool A LOST to St Olaf's 25-28; hosts Carleton.  MIAC HAS 4-WAY Tie for 1st
10. St. John's 5-2 6-2   Pool C MIAC  Open date; hosts Augsburg

(Iowa IAC is missing.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: D O.C. on November 02, 2008, 05:28:01 PM
Any of you guys try to handicap the greyhounds off-track?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 02, 2008, 06:31:15 PM
Updated thru Nov 1st. - Let's update (and correct, where necessary) the records, see if that makes this mud any clearer:

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2008, 11:34:04 PM
Let's assume that the top-ranked team from each Pool A conference wins the AQ.

EAST REGION
1. Cortland State 8-0 8-0  NJAC
2. RPI 7-0 7-0 LL 
3. Ithaca 6-1 7-1  E8
4. Montclair State 7-1 7-1  NJAC Pool C  Beat WConn, 38-14; hosts Rowan
5. Rowan 7-1 7-1   NJAC  Pool C Beat Kean 30-22; goes to Montclair St
6. Hartwick 6-1 6-1  E8 Pool C  Beat Norwich 42-12, goes to Springfield
7. Worcester Polytech 6-2 6-2  LL  Pool C  LOST at Hobart 14-31, hosts Susquehanna
8. Hobart 6-1 6-1  LL  Pool C  Beat WPI 31-14; goes to RPI
9. Plymouth State 6-1 8-1  NEFC Pool A
10. Husson 6-0 6-2  Pool B  Open date; goes to Becker

(MAC is missing.)

NORTH REGION
1. Mount Union 7-0 8-0  Pool A OAC
2. North Central (Ill.) 8-0 8-0  Pool A CCIW
3. Otterbein 8-0 8-0  Pool C OAC  Beat Marietta 55-0; hosts MUC
4. Wabash 7-0 8-0  NCAC Pool A
5. Trine 8-0 8-0  MIAA Pool A
6. Case Western Reserve 7-0 8-0  Pool B  Beat Chicago 38-24; hosts Carnegie Mellon
7. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-2 6-2 Pool C CCIW  LOST at Elmhurst 23-37; hosts IWU
8. Franklin 6-1 7-1  Pool A HCAC
9. Adrian 6-1 7-1    Pool C MIAA  Beat Alma 45-24;  hosts Trine
10. Rose-Hulman 7-2 7-2  Pool C HCAC  LOST at Franklin 7-42; hosts Anderson

(Northern Athletics Conference is missing.)


SOUTH REGION
1. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0  CC Pool A
2. Millsaps 7-0 8-0   SCAC Pool A
3. Washington and Jefferson 6-1 7-1   Pres AC  Pool A  LOST to TMC 29-35; hosts Bethany
4. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1  Pool C SCAC  LOST to Millsaps 27-56; hosts Centre
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 6-0 7-1  ASC Pool A
6. Hardin-Simmons 8-1 8-1  Pool C ASC  Beat TLU 52-6; hosts McMurry
7. Huntingdon 7-0 8-0  Pool B  Beat Principia 76-0; hosts Hampden-Sydney
8. Catholic 6-1 7-1  ODAC Pool A
9. Salisbury 3-2 7-2   Pool B  LOST to Wesley, 21-36; open date
10. Thomas More 7-1 7-1 Pool C Pres AC  Beat W&J 35-29; Clinched

(USA  South is missing.)

WEST REGION
1. Willamette 7-0 8-0  NWC  Pool A
2. Occidental 7-0 7-0   SCIAC  Pool A
3. Monmouth 9-0 9-0  MWC  Pool A
4. UW-Stevens Point 4-1 7-1   WIAC  Pool A
5. UW-Whitewater 6-1 7-1  Pool C WIAC  Beat UWEC 40-10
6. Cal Lutheran 5-2 5-2   Pool C SCIAC  LOST to Oxy 21-24; host LaVerne
7. Redlands 6-1 6-1  Pool C SCIAC  Beat P-P 52-14; hosts Chapman
8. Northwestern (Minn.) 6-1 8-1   Pool B  Beat Crown 44-7
9. Concordia-Moorhead 4-3 5-3   MIAC  Pool A LOST to St Olaf's 25-28; hosts Carleton.  MIAC HAS 4-WAY Tie for 1st
10. St. John's 5-2 6-2   Pool C MIAC  Open date; hosts Augsburg

(Iowa IAC is missing.)

Thinking out loud: if current leading Pool A candidates win out, the possible remaining 1-loss Pool C candidates dwindle:

Rowan/Montclair St. winner;
Hartwick;
Otterbein;
W&J;
Trinity;
Hardin-Simmons;
UW-Whitewater;
Redlands;

These eight 1-loss Pool C candidates would have to contend with spillover Pool B candidates, whose best possible records look like this:

CWRU 9-0 10-0;
Huntingdon 9-0 10-0/LaGrange 8-1 9-1;
Northwestern (MN) 7-1 8-1;
Husson 7-0 7-2;
Update: I forgot to include Wesley 5-1 8-1 as another (highly likely) Pool B candidate.

Then there are hidden Regional 1-loss teams that might come into play, such as St. John Fisher.

I think Ralph's methodology remains valid: the top Pool C candidate in each Region is the only "safe" Pool C candidate in that region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
My 6 Pool C's, barring any upsets are:

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

then Redlands vs W&J.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 07:29:30 PM
Ex-major, a Millsaps fan, has determined that Millsaps has a 1 game lead over Trinity with one game to play.  (Birmingham-Southern is in the second year of provisional status and its games do not count in SCAC play this season.)

Therefore, Millsaps has clinched the Pool A bid from the SCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 02, 2008, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
My 6 Pool C's, barring any upsets are:

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

then Redlands vs W&J.

So in your crystal ball, d3football.com no. 16 Trinity gets left out.  I wonder how high that ranking is historically, for the first team left outside looking in?  I remember feeling real bad for 9-1 Johns Hopkins in 2003, they were ranked no. 24 when they got left out in the cold.

I could wait for you to update your Pool B prognostications on that board, but. . . . do you see Wesley getting a Pool B bid ahead of Northwestern (MN)?  I'm assuming Salisbury is out of Pool B contention, if CWRU and Northwestern and Wesley win out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 09:08:04 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 02, 2008, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
My 6 Pool C's, barring any upsets are:

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

then Redlands vs W&J.

So in your crystal ball, d3football.com no. 16 Trinity gets left out.  I wonder how high that ranking is historically, for the first team left outside looking in?  I remember feeling real bad for 9-1 Johns Hopkins in 2003, they were ranked no. 24 when they got left out in the cold.

I could wait for you to update your Pool B prognostications on that board, but. . . . do you see Wesley getting a Pool B bid ahead of Northwestern (MN)?  I'm assuming Salisbury is out of Pool B contention, if CWRU and Northwestern and Wesley win out.
I don't think that Trinity gets in.

The OWP/OOWP works against us in the ASC and SCAC.  We have no group of teams against whom we can build our stats.  In the ASC, HSU played two non-conference in-region games, winning over Linfield and UW-Lacrosse.  ETBU lost at St John's.  Louisiana College beat Rhodes.  Texas Lutheran beat SRSU in a non-conference game and lost to Trinity.  Mississippi College lost to Millsaps.  SRSU--see TLU game.  McMurry lost to Trinity and to Austin College.  The conference went 3-4 out of the ASC.  That gives a net negative OWP/OOWP. 

In the SCAC:

Trinity beat McMurry and TLU.
Austin College beat McMurry.  (10th game was NAIA Southwestern Assemblies TX.)
Millsaps beat Miss.College.  (10th game was crosstown rival NAIA Belhaven.)
DePauw beat Anderson (4-4) and still has the Wabash game.
Centre beat Hanover (1-6) and lost to Maryville TN (4-4).
Sewanee lost to Wash & Lee. (The Westminster MO win was not in-region.)
Rhodes lost to LaCollege and beat Wash. StL (5-3/3-1 in-region).
Colorado College lost to Oxy and only played 9 games.

The SCAC went 7-3 which is a little better, but 5 of those games were against ASC opponents.  That is not much in the way of outside opponents to boost the OWP/OOWP.




For completeness...

UMHB played NAIA's Southern Nazarene (OK) and Southern Oregon.
ETBU plays NAIA Azusa Pacific on Saturday.
HPU played NAIA's Bacone and Texas College.
Louisiana College played NAIA Bacone OK.
Sul Ross State played NAIA Southwestern Assemblies.
Mississippi College played NAIA Cumberlands KY.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 02, 2008, 09:35:38 PM
All of your Pool C teams don't include a possible 9 - 1 Hampden Sydney team.  They have a very difficult game at Huntingdon but if they win their OWP and OOWP would be higher tham many of the teams that you are saying would get a Pool C bid.  They have alot of work to do but at this point they should be in the conversation.  They are 6-1 in region with only loss to 7-1 Catholic.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: voice on November 02, 2008, 09:38:21 PM
If both UW-Stevens Point and UW-Whitewater make the playoffs, what are the chances that one team will stay in the West and the other shifted to the North Region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2008, 09:40:48 PM
Seems more likely the West will be importing teams rather than exporting teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 02, 2008, 09:48:18 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 02, 2008, 09:35:38 PM
All of your Pool C teams don't include a possible 9 - 1 Hampden Sydney team.  They have a very difficult game at Huntingdon but if they win their OWP and OOWP would be higher tham many of the teams that you are saying would get a Pool C bid.  They have alot of work to do but at this point they should be in the conversation.  They are 6-1 in region with only loss to 7-1 Catholic.

Ooh, more chaos, with Pool B spillover possibilities.  Cool.  If Huntingdon loses to Hampden-Sydney and then beats LaGrange, it would leave CWRU and Husson as the only Regional unbeatens in Pool B.

Building on Ralph's recent Pool B statement--that updated Regional Rankings are necessary for any sort of reliable forecasting--I get the impression that Hampden-Sydney has a steep hill to climb, on account of their not yet being ranked.

But as of now, it looks as if Hampden-Sydney is a potential 1-loss Pool C candidate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bluenote on November 02, 2008, 11:50:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2008, 09:40:48 PM
Seems more likely the West will be importing teams rather than exporting teams.

Linfield would be glad to host a game.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bill McCabe on November 03, 2008, 11:07:57 AM
Ralph, UMHB had a pretty high ranking when they were left out in 2003.  Top 10 I think.  d3football had them #4.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2008, 11:17:12 AM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 03, 2008, 11:07:57 AM
Ralph, UMHB had a pretty high ranking when they were left out in 2003.  Top 10 I think.  d3football had them #4.
Week #11 Top 25 D3football.com poll (http://www.d3football.com/top25/2003/week-11) at the end of the regular season.

UMHB is #11.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: The Forgotten Man on November 03, 2008, 11:25:04 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2008, 11:17:12 AM

Week #11 Top 25 D3football.com poll (http://www.d3football.com/top25/2003/week-11) at the end of the regular season.

UMHB is #11.   :)

Dang, no love in the poll for either Huntingdon or LaGrange. :o Hope we show y'all we deserve some sugar  :-*

Good luck to HC this weekend.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: CobberFvr on November 04, 2008, 10:42:24 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 02, 2008, 06:31:15 PM

EAST REGION
1. Cortland State 8-0 8-0  NJAC
2. RPI 7-0 7-0 LL 
3. Ithaca 6-1 7-1  E8
4. Montclair State 7-1 7-1  NJAC Pool C  Beat WConn, 38-14; hosts Rowan
5. Rowan 7-1 7-1   NJAC  Pool C Beat Kean 30-22; goes to Montclair St
6. Hartwick 6-1 6-1  E8 Pool C  Beat Norwich 42-12, goes to Springfield
7. Worcester Polytech 6-2 6-2  LL  Pool C  LOST at Hobart 14-31, hosts Susquehanna
8. Hobart 6-1 6-1  LL  Pool C  Beat WPI 31-14; goes to RPI
9. Plymouth State 6-1 8-1  NEFC Pool A
10. Husson 6-0 6-2  Pool B  Open date; goes to Becker

(MAC is missing.)

NORTH REGION
1. Mount Union 7-0 8-0  Pool A OAC
2. North Central (Ill.) 8-0 8-0  Pool A CCIW
3. Otterbein 8-0 8-0  Pool C OAC  Beat Marietta 55-0; hosts MUC
4. Wabash 7-0 8-0  NCAC Pool A
5. Trine 8-0 8-0  MIAA Pool A
6. Case Western Reserve 7-0 8-0  Pool B  Beat Chicago 38-24; hosts Carnegie Mellon
7. Wheaton (Ill.) 6-2 6-2 Pool C CCIW  LOST at Elmhurst 23-37; hosts IWU
8. Franklin 6-1 7-1  Pool A HCAC
9. Adrian 6-1 7-1    Pool C MIAA  Beat Alma 45-24;  hosts Trine
10. Rose-Hulman 7-2 7-2  Pool C HCAC  LOST at Franklin 7-42; hosts Anderson

(Northern Athletics Conference is missing.)


SOUTH REGION
1. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0  CC Pool A
2. Millsaps 7-0 8-0   SCAC Pool A
3. Washington and Jefferson 6-1 7-1   Pres AC  Pool A  LOST to TMC 29-35; hosts Bethany
4. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1  Pool C SCAC  LOST to Millsaps 27-56; hosts Centre
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 6-0 7-1  ASC Pool A
6. Hardin-Simmons 8-1 8-1  Pool C ASC  Beat TLU 52-6; hosts McMurry
7. Huntingdon 7-0 8-0  Pool B  Beat Principia 76-0; hosts Hampden-Sydney
8. Catholic 6-1 7-1  ODAC Pool A
9. Salisbury 3-2 7-2   Pool B  LOST to Wesley, 21-36; open date
10. Thomas More 7-1 7-1 Pool C Pres AC  Beat W&J 35-29; Clinched

(USA  South is missing.)

WEST REGION
1. Willamette 7-0 8-0  NWC  Pool A
2. Occidental 7-0 7-0   SCIAC  Pool A
3. Monmouth 9-0 9-0  MWC  Pool A
4. UW-Stevens Point 4-1 7-1   WIAC  Pool A
5. UW-Whitewater 6-1 7-1  Pool C WIAC  Beat UWEC 40-10
6. Cal Lutheran 5-2 5-2   Pool C SCIAC  LOST to Oxy 21-24; host LaVerne
7. Redlands 6-1 6-1  Pool C SCIAC  Beat P-P 52-14; hosts Chapman
8. Northwestern (Minn.) 6-1 8-1   Pool B  Beat Crown 44-7
9. Concordia-Moorhead 4-3 5-3   MIAC  Pool A LOST to St Olaf's 25-28; hosts Carleton.  MIAC HAS 4-WAY Tie for 1st
10. St. John's 5-2 6-2   Pool C MIAC  Open date; hosts Augsburg


Suppose Concordia does in fact win out and take the MIAC, where do they go and what happens to Saint John's if they take 2nd?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2008, 10:54:09 PM
I think that Concordia is sent somewhere as a low seed.

SJU stays home.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2008, 11:11:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2008, 10:54:09 PM
I think that Concordia is sent somewhere as a low seed.

SJU stays home.

And by "stays home," you don't mean "hosts a first round game," right?   ;)

I agree.  The West Region has 5 Pool A conferences, leaving only three slots for Pool B and Pool C.  I see no possibility of a Pool C for the MIAC, especially with one-loss Pool C candidates UW-Whitewater and Redlands, and one-loss Pool B candidate Northwestern.

I think it's possible that even with two losses, Cal Lutheran might end up ranked ahead of St. John's this Wednesday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 05, 2008, 07:29:47 AM
Is it me, or does there seem to be a lot more 1 loss teams than normal fighting for spots this year?   Which leads me to believe that unless the last 2 weeks get absolutely crazy, it's going to be awfully hard for a 2 loss team to make it as a Pool C this year. 

The WIAC is probably the only conference that could pull it off.  The OAC has gotten 8-2 teams in before, but the only way Otterbein or Mount Union finishes 8-2 is to drop their last 2 games and that won't get you in.  Ithaca might have a reasonable chance at sneaking in if they drop another one, but that might be a stretch too. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2008, 09:24:22 AM
Quote from: hscoach on November 05, 2008, 07:29:47 AM
Is it me, or does there seem to be a lot more 1 loss teams than normal fighting for spots this year?   Which leads me to believe that unless the last 2 weeks get absolutely crazy, it's going to be awfully hard for a 2 loss team to make it as a Pool C this year. 

The WIAC is probably the only conference that could pull it off.  The OAC has gotten 8-2 teams in before, but the only way Otterbein or Mount Union finishes 8-2 is to drop their last 2 games and that won't get you in.  Ithaca might have a reasonable chance at sneaking in if they drop another one, but that might be a stretch too. 
Please remember when you are looking at WIAC records, that only UWSP and UWW have one in-region loss.  Everyone else has more.

I agree.  Two in-region losses are going to knock teams out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on November 05, 2008, 11:20:31 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2008, 11:11:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2008, 10:54:09 PM
I think that Concordia is sent somewhere as a low seed.

SJU stays home.

And by "stays home," you don't mean "hosts a first round game," right?   ;)

I agree.  The West Region has 5 Pool A conferences, leaving only three slots for Pool B and Pool C.  I see no possibility of a Pool C for the MIAC, especially with one-loss Pool C candidates UW-Whitewater and Redlands, and one-loss Pool B candidate Northwestern.

I think it's possible that even with two losses, Cal Lutheran might end up ranked ahead of St. John's this Wednesday.

Clarification - the West has 6 Pool A's: WIAC, MWC, NWC, SCIAC, MIAC, IIAC. But that doesn't mean the West 'gets' two at-large bids. Pools B and C are evaluated nationwide. The West could get 3 or 4 at-large bids and 'export' teams (though that's not likely this year) or get 0 or 1 at-large bids and import teams to fill the bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 11:32:10 AM
Quote from: d-train on November 05, 2008, 11:20:31 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2008, 11:11:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2008, 10:54:09 PM
I think that Concordia is sent somewhere as a low seed.

SJU stays home.

And by "stays home," you don't mean "hosts a first round game," right?   ;)

I agree.  The West Region has 5 Pool A conferences, leaving only three slots for Pool B and Pool C.  I see no possibility of a Pool C for the MIAC, especially with one-loss Pool C candidates UW-Whitewater and Redlands, and one-loss Pool B candidate Northwestern.

I think it's possible that even with two losses, Cal Lutheran might end up ranked ahead of St. John's this Wednesday.

Clarification - the West has 6 Pool A's: WIAC, MWC, NWC, SCIAC, MIAC, IIAC. But that doesn't mean the West 'gets' two at-large bids. Pools B and C are evaluated nationwide. The West could get 3 or 4 at-large bids and 'export' teams (though that's not likely this year) or get 0 or 1 at-large bids and import teams to fill the bracket.

Good point.  I suspect that the practical realities of the West Region's immense geography can work against West Region Pool C candidates, particularly if extra airfare would result from their selection.

I wasn't paying close attention last year--could NWC have fallen victim to such practical realities?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
swarm,

"SUPPOSEDLY" geography isn't a factor in SELECTION.  It is in matchups.

Of course, who KNOWS what goes on behind the closed doors of those meetings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on November 05, 2008, 11:59:53 AM
Right, supposedly not...

But let's face it, granting a bid to Redlands means an extra flight out west (unless you are planning to let both Oxy and Willamette host anyway...or are willing to re-match Redlands/Oxy in round 1).

And, yes, that might have played a role in the Whitworth snub last year. Redlands was eliminated after one flight last year. The only 'cost savings' place to put Whitworth would have been at Redlands (a rematch from week one). At least one more flight would have been needed (either to split them as a pairing or to fly the winner for round two).

Generally though, I think enough coaches are a part of the process that it's (mostly) fair and follows the selection criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
swarm,

"SUPPOSEDLY" geography isn't a factor in SELECTION.  It is in matchups.

Of course, who KNOWS what goes on behind the closed doors of those meetings.

Another good point.

I welcome the assistance of all who can help me fight the creeping tide of cynicism.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KitchenSink on November 05, 2008, 01:27:06 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
swarm,

"SUPPOSEDLY" geography isn't a factor in SELECTION.  It is in matchups.

Of course, who KNOWS what goes on behind the closed doors of those meetings.

Another good point.

I welcome the assistance of all who can help me fight the creeping tide of cynicism.   :)

With election season fresh in our minds?  Good luck with that.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 05, 2008, 01:27:06 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
swarm,

"SUPPOSEDLY" geography isn't a factor in SELECTION.  It is in matchups.

Of course, who KNOWS what goes on behind the closed doors of those meetings.

Another good point.

I welcome the assistance of all who can help me fight the creeping tide of cynicism.   :)

With election season fresh in our minds?  Good luck with that.  ;)

I said I welcome assistance, not resistance!   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: johnnie_esq on November 05, 2008, 02:49:26 PM
Quote from: hscoach on November 05, 2008, 07:29:47 AM
Is it me, or does there seem to be a lot more 1 loss teams than normal fighting for spots this year?   Which leads me to believe that unless the last 2 weeks get absolutely crazy, it's going to be awfully hard for a 2 loss team to make it as a Pool C this year. 

The WIAC is probably the only conference that could pull it off.  The OAC has gotten 8-2 teams in before, but the only way Otterbein or Mount Union finishes 8-2 is to drop their last 2 games and that won't get you in.  Ithaca might have a reasonable chance at sneaking in if they drop another one, but that might be a stretch too. 

Right now SJU looks like it is one of the top two loss seeds IF the committee needs to go that far.  Not that the Johnnies are necessarily deserving of getting in, but given their new regional ranking, they are knocking at the door and ahead of two Pool A contenders.  Note that the Johnnies record against regionally ranked opponents is 1-1 now, while Northwestern is 0-0 and UW-W is 0-1.

The MIAC situation is quite unsettled yet-- there is at least one scenario where there could be a six-way tie for first place in the conference, and another that would include a five-way tie.  Of course, each of those situations would include Gustavus and SJU (as well as Carleton and Concordia) each dropping another game, and there is zero chance a 3-loss team would be in the playoffs on an at large bid.

However, if both SJU and Concordia win out, Concordia will take the autobid by virtue of the head-to-head victory against the Johnnies even though SJU is currently ranked higher than the Cobbers, and SJU ends the season early. 

Gotta love that logic!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 05, 2008, 03:18:27 PM
Is it more important to have a loss against a regionally ranked team or to have a high OWP and OOWP?  I see Trinity and Washington & Jefferson still in the regional rankings even though they have a regional loss and no wins over ranked teams.  Hampden-Sydney has a loss against a regionally ranked team and a higher OWP and OOWP than both of those teams.  I am just trying to understand how the process works. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:12:48 PM
The way I understand it, the ONLY rankings that matter are the ones after the final games (11/15) and we never get to see those.  Only the committee does.

These rankings are discussion pieces but I don't believe they carry any weight whatsoever (wins vs. ranked opponents) with the championship committee.

Right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 05, 2008, 04:42:16 PM
As I understand it, the rankings are critically important in getting to even be considered.  I believe the national committee only considers four teams at a time, the highest ranked eligible team in each region.  Once a team is selected, their 'place at the table' is taken by the next highest team in that region.  So you will never even reach the discussion until eligible teams ranked ahead of you in your region have been selected.

Correct?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 05, 2008, 04:48:50 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:12:48 PM
The way I understand it, the ONLY rankings that matter are the ones after the final games (11/15) and we never get to see those.  Only the committee does.

These rankings are discussion pieces but I don't believe they carry any weight whatsoever (wins vs. ranked opponents) with the championship committee.

Right?

In-region results versus regionally ranked teams are among the primary playoff selection criteria (http://www.d3football.com/faq.php?answer&category=Playoffs&id=25).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:49:58 PM
but the only Region Ranking that applies to is the final one.

Not this one, not last week's, not next week's.  Just the one that is done AFTER the Nov. 15th games.

Right?

THAT was my point.

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2008, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 05, 2008, 04:42:16 PM
As I understand it, the rankings are critically important in getting to even be considered.  I believe the national committee only considers four teams at a time, the highest ranked eligible team in each region.  Once a team is selected, their 'place at the table' is taken by the next highest team in that region.  So you will never even reach the discussion until eligible teams ranked ahead of you in your region have been selected.

Correct?
That is the way that I understand it.

As for the final regional rankings, if we have no upsets in the final weekend, we will only get minor changes in the OWP/OOWP calculations and the way that those "trickle through" the bottom of the respecitve regional rankings.

Pat Coleman has always solid on the picks until the 28th or 32nd in football.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on November 05, 2008, 05:38:23 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 05, 2008, 04:42:16 PM
As I understand it, the rankings are critically important in getting to even be considered.  I believe the national committee only considers four teams at a time, the highest ranked eligible team in each region.  Once a team is selected, their 'place at the table' is taken by the next highest team in that region.  So you will never even reach the discussion until eligible teams ranked ahead of you in your region have been selected.

Correct?

I know that is how they explained it for basketball, I would think they would use the same system for all the sports.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bill McCabe on November 05, 2008, 06:25:11 PM
Ralph, what are the key games this weekend with Pool C implications?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2008, 06:33:18 PM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 05, 2008, 06:25:11 PM
Ralph, what are the key games this weekend with Pool C implications?

Here are 6 that we have in the ASC Pick'em contest this week!   ;)


QuoteHampden-Sydney at Huntingdon   Pool B/C game.  South Region GOTW

Rowan at Montclair State        (Winner probably gets a Pool C bid in the East Region.)
Hobart at RPI                          (Big Pool C game in the Liberty League)
Trine at Adrian                        (Pool C watchers want Trine to clinch the MIAA.)
Augustana at North Central   (A North Central win helps in Pool C.)

Carleton at Concordia-Moorhead  (MIAC race is lead by 4 teams with 2 losses, including St John's.)
The MIAC is probably not a Pool C game, but #1 West seed Willmaette beat Concordia-Moorhead in the first game of the season.  CMC's winning may affect the bracket match-ups -- South Region vs. whomever.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 05, 2008, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:49:58 PM

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....
Or should it be PENULIMATE regional rankings.  I'm still perplexed by rankings that rely on rankings.  If in the final week team A beats team B which was regionally ranked at the time and that knocks team B from the RR shouldn't team A still get credit for a win over a regionally ranked team?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2008, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 05, 2008, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:49:58 PM

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....
Or should it be PENULIMATE regional rankings.  I'm still perplexed by rankings that rely on rankings.  If in the final week team A beats team B which was regionally ranked at the time and that knocks team B from the RR shouldn't team A still get credit for a win over a regionally ranked team?
The committee does one more Regional Ranking on the night of the 15th after all games have been played.  As Bob said, we do not see that one.

That will give us the Huntingdon-LaGrange answer, among others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 05, 2008, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:49:58 PM

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

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

Here's the rule that causes the anxiety:


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

There's more to be confused/frustrated about, though.  As others have pointed out, the FINAL regional rankings aren't published, so no one really knows who the regionally ranked teams are at the time of selection.

There's also the question of how to determine record v. regionally ranked teams when the committee is compiling the list of regionally ranked teams?  I'm guessing that ranking is something of an iterative process, where the committee starts with maybe 15 or so candidates, based primarily on winning percentage and OWP/OOWP, then starts comparing common opponents, until they have a "first draft" top ten.  Then they can go back through the list, and adjust for record v. first draft-ranked opponents.  This process can be repeated until no adjustments are necessary or possible.

Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 06, 2008, 12:23:50 AM
Even more anxiety/confusion/frustration with those in charge not being able to get regional records right!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jam40jeff on November 06, 2008, 08:17:26 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 05, 2008, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:49:58 PM

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

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

Here's the rule that causes the anxiety:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, but, but...

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

That looks familiar *sigh*...

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

Yadda, yadda, yadda.  I think you see where I'm going (or probably did quite a while ago).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bill McCabe on November 06, 2008, 08:22:54 AM
jam40jeff,  +1 karma just for the effort. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 06, 2008, 09:32:47 AM
Maybe I (we) am (are) confusing selection/seeding criteria with regional rankings.  Then too the committee seems free to prioritize the criteria as it chooses or at least we aren't being told the priority given to each criterion.  Does it all sound too much like making sausage?

Is the secrecy a good thing?  Do we want a BCS-style process that includes polls and computer rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 06, 2008, 09:50:43 AM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 06, 2008, 09:32:47 AM
Do we want a BCS-style process that includes polls and computer rankings?

No.

No.

No.

The BCS is a joke, if you left the "C" out it would be more appropriate.  I wouldn't mind seeing more detail about the how the regional rankings are arrived at, but at the end of the day they usually do a pretty good job of getting it right (with all due respect to our friends from the NWC).   If I have to choose between the current scheme and some computerized/poll combination, I'l take the current scheme any time. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 06, 2008, 10:12:28 AM
What I meant was "We don't want a BCS-style process do we?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 06, 2008, 10:17:53 AM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 06, 2008, 09:32:47 AM
Maybe I (we) am (are) confusing selection/seeding criteria with regional rankings.

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

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

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

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

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

The focus of the BCS is very different than the D-III playoffs.  The BCS is focused primarily on arranging a single game: the "consensus" no. 1 v. the "consensus" no. 2.  There are many pitfalls in achieving that goal, so the BCS will likely always disappoint.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 06, 2008, 10:22:24 AM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 06, 2008, 08:17:26 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 05, 2008, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 05, 2008, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2008, 04:49:58 PM

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

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

Here's the rule that causes the anxiety:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, but, but...

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

That looks familiar *sigh*...

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

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

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

Nonetheless, I suspect that a situation such as in your example would immediately send the analysis to the secondary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 06, 2008, 10:53:28 AM
Minor point, but the BCS rankings are involved in selection of all the BCS bowls.  But otherwise I agree with what you said.  I also didn't mean to imply a realtionship between the two questions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jam40jeff on November 06, 2008, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 06, 2008, 10:22:24 AM
That's a good example of an irreconcilable conundrum in the primary criteria.  However, since the primary criteria are "not in  priority order," the selection committee has the leeway to assign higher priority to winning percentage and OWP/OOWP to overcome the Team A/B/C "record v. RROs" dilemma and choose one over the other two.

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

I understand that as far as selection goes for the playoffs, but I am talking about how the regional rankings are determined.  It seems like the regional rankings of the current week are used as a criterion for ranking teams regionally for the current week.  I guess to put it more simply, Microsoft Excel would give you an exclamation point with a Circular Reference error. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 06, 2008, 12:23:51 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 06, 2008, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 06, 2008, 10:22:24 AM
That's a good example of an irreconcilable conundrum in the primary criteria.  However, since the primary criteria are "not in  priority order," the selection committee has the leeway to assign higher priority to winning percentage and OWP/OOWP to overcome the Team A/B/C "record v. RROs" dilemma and choose one over the other two.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 06, 2008, 01:02:17 PM
IMO, there's not enough inter-regional and cross conference play in Division 3 to do a purely numerical based selection system.   Too many of the teams and conferences are completely contained within their small area.

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

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


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

Which leads me to thinking the BCS rankings would be perfect in D1 if its sole purpose was to select the 2 at-large bids to go along with the 6 BCS conference champions to make an 8-team playoff bracket.  That would be sweet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 06, 2008, 01:27:48 PM
 What are the chances that one of the four strong B's get a C bid this year?
Wesley is only going to end up with 5 in region games ,but they have a win over a regionally ranked Salisbury and buried a team that Wisc Stevens Point beat by 2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2008, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: hscoach on November 06, 2008, 01:02:17 PM
IMO, there's not enough inter-regional and cross conference play in Division 3 to do a purely numerical based selection system. 

Especially because Division III actively discourages its teams from playing non-regional games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on November 06, 2008, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 06, 2008, 01:27:48 PM
What are the chances that one of the four strong B's get a C bid this year?
Wesley is only going to end up with 5 in region games ,but they have a win over a regionally ranked Salisbury and buried a team that Wisc Stevens Point beat by 2

I would think Wesley needs a Pool B to get in. Just in their own region, there are 3 stronger Pool C candidates with only 6 total Pool C bids. I don't think Salisbury counts as a regionally ranked opponent anymore, do they?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 06, 2008, 06:26:37 PM
I was not clear. I actually was thinking along the lines of a Huntingdon/La Grange  loser though that would LaGrange an 8-2 record. Case Western should be a lock if they win out
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: d-train on November 06, 2008, 06:47:07 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 06, 2008, 06:26:37 PM
I was not clear. I actually was thinking along the lines of a Huntingdon/La Grange  loser though that would LaGrange an 8-2 record. Case Western should be a lock if they win out

Well, the answer is likely the same. The loser doesn't look good, especially if it's LaGrange. Who knows how far Huntingdon would drop?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 08, 2008, 05:37:10 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
My 6 Pool C's, barring any upsets are:

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

then Redlands vs W&J.

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

UW-W got a game from Stout today, Otterbein still has to play 5-3 John Carroll, who ought to be looking for some satisfaction after their one point loss to Muskingum.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 08, 2008, 06:10:01 PM
Pool A clinchers and candidates not being helpful to Pool C:

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

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

*PAC Pool A Thomas More's game v. PAC member Geneva is not listed (http://www.d3football.com/school/TMRE/2008) as a Regional Game--is Geneva provisional status?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 08, 2008, 06:10:01 PM
Pool A clinchers and candidates not being helpful to Pool C:

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

*PAC Pool A Thomas More's game v. PAC member Geneva is not listed (http://www.d3football.com/school/TMRE/2008) as a Regional Game--is Geneva provisional status?
Geneva is second-year provisional in the Pres AC.  Games do not count as in-region this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 08, 2008, 06:38:33 PM
Will the win by HSC at Huntingdon be enough to get some attention as a pool C candidate?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 08, 2008, 06:38:33 PM
Will the win by HSC at Huntingdon be enough to get some attention as a pool C candidate?
I think we will see where HSC is in the regional rankings on Wednesday.   ;)

Trinity fell out of contention.  That helps.  I think that the South gets one Pool C bid, HSU.

I need to see the Regional rankings to figure all 6.  There were so many losses this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 07:11:40 PM
SJF has the tie-breaker over Ithaca, if SJF beats Alfred next week.

Ithaca will be 8-1 (East Region) going into the Cortaca Game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 07:58:04 PM
East Region
1. Cortland State  NJAC 8-0 8-0 9-0 9-0  Beat Brockport St 42-30
2. RPI LL 7-0 7-0 7-1 7-1 Lost to Hobart 20-17
3. Ithaca E8 6-1 7-1  7-1 8-1 Beat Alfred 45-35
4. Montclair State NJAC7-1 7-1  8-1 8-1 Beat Rowan 30-14
5. Rowan NJAC 7-1 7-1  7-2 7-2  Lost to Montclair St 30-14
6. Hartwick E8 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2  Lost to Springfield 45-31
7. Hobart LL 6-1 6-1  7-1 7-1  Beat RPI 20-17 (Clinches with a win over Rochester)
8. Plymouth State 7-1 8-1  8-1 9-1 Beat Salve Regina 34-7 Plays Maine Maritime in NEFC Bowl next week
9. Husson 6-0 6-2   7-0 7-2 Beat Becker Pool B
10. Curry NEFC 7-1 8-1  8-1 9-1  Beat Mass Dartmouth 40-20

St John Fisher clinches the E8 bid if they beat Alfred next week.
Albright clinches the MAC with a win over Del Valley.

North Region
1. Mount Union  OAC 7-0 8-0  8-0 9-0 Beat Otterbein 49-20
2. North Central  CCIW (Ill.) 8-0 8-0  9-0 9-0Beat Augustana 41-28
3. Otterbein OAC 8-0 8-0  8-1 8-1 Lost to MUC 49-20
4. Wabash  NCAC 7-0 8-0  8-0 9-0 Beat Hiram 63-0
5. Trine  MIAA 8-0 8-0       9-0 9-0  Beat Adrian 9-0
6. Case Western Reserve 7-0 8-0   8-0 9-0 Beat Carnegie Mellon  38-13  Pool B
7. Franklin  HCAC 6-1 7-1  7-1 8-1   Beat Manchester 31-20
8. Adrian MIAA 6-1 7-1    6-2 7-2 Lost to Trine 9-0
9. Augustana CCIW 6-2 6-2  6-3 6-3  Lost to North Central 41-28
10. Wooster NCAC 4-2 6-2    Beat Oberlin 27-7

Northern Athletics Conference -- Aurora can clinch by beating Lakeland

South Region
1. Millsaps  SCAC 7-0 8-0  8-0  9-0 Beat Colorado College
2. Muhlenberg  CC 8-0 8-0   9-0 9-0 Beat Ursinus
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor  ASC 6-0 7-1 7-0 8-1  Beat Howard Payne
4. Hardin-Simmons ASC 7-1 7-1 8-1 8-1  Beat McMurry 45-20
5. Thomas More  PresAC 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-2  Lost to Geneva
6. Huntingdon 7-0 8-0  7-1 8-1  Lost to Hampden-Sydney 38-34  Pool B
7. Trinity (Texas) SCAC 6-1 7-1  6-2 7-2 Lost to Centre
8. Washington and Jefferson Pres AC 6-1 7-1  7-1 8-1 Beat Bethany
9. Catholic ODAC 6-1 7-1  7-1 8-1 Beat Guilford 49-34 Can clinch by beating Bridgewater VA
10. Wesley 3-1 6-1  3-1 7-1 Beat Lake Erie  Pool B

CNU plays Ferrum for the USA South Pool A bid.

West Region
1. Willamette NWC 7-0 8-0  8-0 9-0 Beat UPS 49-27
2. Occidental  SCIAC 7-0 7-0  Beat Pomona-Pitzer 64-33
3. Monmouth MWC 9-0 9-0  10-0 10-0 Beat Knox 56-10
4. UW-Stevens Point WIAC 4-1 7-1  5-1 8-1 Beat UWEC 21-20.  Can clinch by beating UWLacrosse
5. UW-Whitewater WIAC 6-1 7-1 7-1 8-1 Beat UW-Stout 17-10
6. Redlands SCIAC 6-1 6-1  7-1 Beat Chapman 21-7
7. Northwestern (Minn.) 8-1 8-1  Open date  Pool B
8. St. John's MIAC 6-2 6-2  7-2 7-2  Beat Augsburg 28-21  Plays Carleton for MIAC championship next week
9. Gustavus Adolphus MIAC6-2 6-2 Lost St Olaf's 27-20 2OT
10. Linfield NWC 4-2 5-2 4-2 5-3 Lost to Western Oregon 17-9

Wartburg 8-2 8-2 clinched the Iowa IAC today


Clinched in bold

Corrections are appreciated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 08:50:00 PM
Here are the first 6 that I see.

Otterbein -- North
HSU -- South
Montclair State -- East
UW-Whitewater -- West

Redlands SCIAC
E8 vs LL runner-up Ithaca vs RPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 08, 2008, 10:15:46 PM
Ralph,

Does each region get at least one pool C bid?  The other question that I have is that Redlands has such a low OWP and OOWP vs. HSC does that make any difference in your selections.  W&J also has a week OWP and OOWP.    I am new to this at large playoff situation.  I see the criteria and I see the strength of schedule and I don't understand why some teams are given such good regional respect when they have such a weak schedule.  Thank you for being understanding of my lack of knowledge.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2008, 10:25:25 PM
There is no minimum or maximum number of Pool C bids per region, no.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 08, 2008, 10:28:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 08:50:00 PM
Here are the first 6 that I see.

Otterbein -- North
HSU -- South
Montclair State -- East
UW-Whitewater -- West

Redlands SCIAC
E8 vs LL runner-up Ithaca vs RPI.

That E8/Ithaca v. LL/RPI domino could wreak quite a bit of havoc when it tumbles.

Ithaca needs to beat Cortland to stay in Pool C.  If they succeed, then with no undefeated teams (save undefeated-in-Division Husson), the East Region surely gets an out-of-Region top seed.

The Husson possibility adds another wrinkle.  If Muhlenberg  is imported as a no. 1 seed, and Husson is seeded no. 8 in its bracket, the NCAA mileage calculator (https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles) puts the two schools 541 miles apart.  Seems a no-brainer to have nos. 7 (Plymouth St?) and 8 (Husson?) swap places for first round matchups.

But it gets freakier.  If Muhlenberg (or Mount Union, for that matter) is imported to the East Regional bracket, that leaves only 7 slots for East teams in that bracket.  Five of those are Pool A bids:


If Husson sneaks in as a Pool B, then only one Pool C goes out--and judging by the Regional Rankings, Montclair St. is the likeliest suspect.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 10:34:02 PM
What a Cortaca Jug game!

Please correct me, but I have seen some great webcasts on the Ithaca College network!  Will that network be up for this game?

If there is no "top seed" in the East, then Muhlenberg and CWRU can be moved into the East very easily.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: theoriginalupstate on November 08, 2008, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 10:34:02 PM
What a Cortaca Jug game!

Please correct me, but I have seen some great webcasts on the Ithaca College network!  Will that network be up for this game?

If there is no "top seed" in the East, then Muhlenberg and CWRU can be moved into the East very easily.



If Cortland and SJF wins could you make a case for CWRU or the OAC runner up being imported to fill out the bracket as a #2 seed?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: Upstate on November 08, 2008, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2008, 10:34:02 PM
What a Cortaca Jug game!

Please correct me, but I have seen some great webcasts on the Ithaca College network!  Will that network be up for this game?

If there is no "top seed" in the East, then Muhlenberg and CWRU can be moved into the East very easily.



If Cortland and SJF wins could you make a case for CWRU or the OAC runner up being imported to fill out the bracket as a #2 seed?

Greetings, upstate!

I got fooled by the E8 getting three bids in 2007, so I may not be the best guess of what is happening in the East.

Who else are in the Cortland bracket?

East

NJAC -- Cortland
E8 -- SJF
Pool B1 -- CWRU
Pool C6 -- RPI


MAC -- Albright
LL -- Hobart
Pool C2 -- Montclair State
NEFC -- Plymouth State

South

CC -- Muhlenberg
ODAC --
USA South --
Pool B2 -- Wesley

SCAC -- Millsaps
Pool B3 -- Huntingdon/LaGrange
ASC -- UMHB
Pool C3 -- HSU

North

OAC -- MUC
MIAA -- Trine
HCAC -- Wabash
Pool C1 -- Otterbein

HCAC -- Franklin
Pres AC -- TMC
Northern AC --
CCIW -- NCC

West

NWC -- Willamette
IIAC -- Wartburg
SCIAC -- Oxy
Pool C4  -- Redlands

WIAC -- UWSP
MIAC -- SJU?
MWC -- Monmouth
Pool C5  - UWW

Hmmm ...

I still think that RPI gets the second Pool C bid from the East if Ithaca doesn't.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 09, 2008, 12:00:40 AM
I think you're right about the RPI/Ithaca connection, and I think you're doubly right about what a Cortaca Jug game it will be!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 09, 2008, 08:18:47 AM
Can you please explain what RPI and or Ithaca have over HSC except that they were in the Regional Rankings this past week.  HSC has a strength of schedule rank if 10 and RPI is 123 and Ithaca is 64.  If Huntingdon gets a pool B bid then HSC will have a win over a playoff team and those teams won't.  Their loss was to a conference champion with one loss.  RPI would have this but Ithaca would not.  Where does the evaluation favor those two teams?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2008, 08:30:19 AM
The NCAA Handbook is very specific about the criteria that can be used for the selection of the playoff.

Selection Criteria (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2008/3_football_handbook.pdf) begins on Page 12.

Also note that the Primary criteria uses the word "results" and not "record".

The "Playoff team" wording is not in the 2008 Handbook.  (I am not sure when the last time was that it was used, and I don't have the time to research it.   :-\)

HSC is good, and they got a nice win over Huntingdon.  However, there are only 6 Pool C bids, and I can see Otterbein, Montclair State, HSU and UWW being on the table before HSC even gets a look.  When HSU comes off the table, then HSC may get a chance.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 09, 2008, 09:09:12 AM
Don't cement Otterbein into Poll C just yet.  They have to travel to John Carroll this week which will not be a pushover.  If JCU comes ready to play, then that game could be a good one as JCU has a very good rush defense.  Otterbein should win, but it's not like they're finishing the season with Marietta. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2008, 02:51:43 PM
Quote from: hscoach on November 09, 2008, 09:09:12 AM
Don't cement Otterbein into Poll C just yet.  They have to travel to John Carroll this week which will not be a pushover.  If JCU comes ready to play, then that game could be a good one as JCU has a very good rush defense.  Otterbein should win, but it's not like they're finishing the season with Marietta. 
Yeah, that's a fair assessment.

A one-loss Otterbein deserves a Pool C bid.  A two-loss Otterbein falls back into the shuufle. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2008, 05:10:30 PM
So you think they'll move Thomas More North and then boot Case East? Any chance W & J gets a "C" and goes East?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 09, 2008, 08:30:22 PM
Ralph,

I understand that HSU will have to be chosen before any other South Region team get a look.  My question is why do you think RPI or Ithaca would be chosen over HSC if they are on the table at the same time?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2008, 08:48:06 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 09, 2008, 08:30:22 PM
Ralph,

I understand that HSU will have to be chosen before any other South Region team get a look.  My question is why do you think RPI or Ithaca would be chosen over HSC if they are on the table at the same time?
Great question...

I guess that you want SJF to beat to Alfred (and Cortland to beat Ithaca), but I think that RPI's losing to Merchant Marine is a stretch.

Then it comes down to who's on the boards.

Using last week's Regional Rankings with some consideration for future outcomes,

I think that the first four Pool C bids to come off the table in no particular order are:

Montclair State, Otterbein, HSU and UW-Whitewater

Next we have

East -- RPI
North -- ?Wooster?
South -- W&J,  ( then HSC)
West -- Redlands.

I think that RPI and Redlands go.

As of right now, I wonder if H-SC even gets on the table. ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 09, 2008, 08:56:11 PM
Ralph,

Thank you for that response.  I had forgotten about W&J.  Your right HSC would need to be ranked ahead of them in the Regional rankings and that is not likely to happen.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 09, 2008, 09:08:31 PM
 Ralph

Who has a higher regional ranking from one region to another when even and looking at B's andf C's only?
Is it possible that a # 4 in one region can actually be nationally behind a # 7  from another region?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2008, 09:54:19 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 09, 2008, 09:08:31 PM
Ralph

Who has a higher regional ranking from one region to another when even and looking at B's andf C's only?
Is it possible that a # 4 in one region can actually be nationally behind a # 7  from another region?
Yes, I think that that might happen, altho' we never see the final regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: altor on November 09, 2008, 10:17:10 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2008, 08:48:06 PM
East -- RPI
North -- ?Wooster?
South -- W&J,  ( then HSC)
West -- Redlands.

Not that it matters a lot, but I predict Adrian (6-2/7-2) is still ahead of Wooster (4-2/6-2) when regional rankings are released this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2008, 11:11:26 PM
A possible C complication that I don't recall anyone mentioning.  Ithaca has been scratched out as an AQ, but if SJF beats Alfred (and I'd think they are favored) I believe they would win the E8 AQ (having beaten Ithaca h-to-h).

IF Ithaca wins the Cortaca Bowl, they're 9-1 (AND probably bring MUC over as the East #1, IMO).  How would that alter predictions?

If they lose to Cortland St., they'd still be 8-2 - outside looking in, or bubble? 

Of course, if Alfred beats SJF, forget I ever posted this. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 09, 2008, 11:31:39 PM
All races in one place:

D3 Races (http://www.wjpa.com/allinone08.pdf)

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

and it's 3-page .pdf printable....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WAF78 on November 10, 2008, 12:24:05 AM
QuoteNot that it matters a lot, but I predict Adrian (6-2/7-2) is still ahead of Wooster (4-2/6-2) when regional rankings are released this week.

I'm not so sure...Wooster's record is 5-2/7-2 with their two losses being to two regionally ranked teams...Wabash and Case. Adrian's losses are to one regionally ranked team, Trine, and Capital at 5-4. Would it be that Wooster is penalized for playing and winning two out of region games?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2008, 01:10:03 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2008, 11:11:26 PM
A possible C complication that I don't recall anyone mentioning.  Ithaca has been scratched out as an AQ, but if SJF beats Alfred (and I'd think they are favored) I believe they would win the E8 AQ (having beaten Ithaca h-to-h).

IF Ithaca wins the Cortaca Bowl, they're 9-1 (AND probably bring MUC over as the East #1, IMO).  How would that alter predictions?

If they lose to Cortland St., they'd still be 8-2 - outside looking in, or bubble? 

Of course, if Alfred beats SJF, forget I ever posted this. ;D

I think they are in with a win over Cortland St. and out with a loss.

With a win, they will have the win over an RRO and decent SOS numbers, I believe (Cortland, Lycoming, Empire 8)

With a loss, two is too many to overcome.

Off top, I have 10 Pool C candidates in this approximate order:

Otterbein
UW-Whitewater (could go A if UW-SP loses)
Hardin-Simmons
Ithaca (could drop out vs. Cortland State)
Montclair State

RPI/Redlands/Hampden-Sydney/W&J

Curry
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2008, 01:11:06 AM
For those in need of hope:

Otterbein, Ithaca and H-SC could very well lose this week (JCU, CSt. & R-MC) and UW-W could become an A team.

FWIW.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 10, 2008, 07:48:44 AM
K-MACK,

Good analysis.  And that is the last comment that I can bring myself to give you this week.  The Game should be a good one.  Both teams are playing pretty well.  This makes things much more interesting instead of things being one-sided.  Also, I think that if Bridewater and RMC win this week then RMC would go as the AQ for the ODAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 10, 2008, 08:38:05 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 09, 2008, 11:31:39 PM
All races in one place:

D3 Races (http://www.wjpa.com/allinone08.pdf)


Nice summary.  THANKS!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 10, 2008, 10:04:06 AM
Quote from: WAF78 on November 10, 2008, 12:24:05 AM
QuoteNot that it matters a lot, but I predict Adrian (6-2/7-2) is still ahead of Wooster (4-2/6-2) when regional rankings are released this week.

I'm not so sure...Wooster's record is 5-2/7-2 with their two losses being to two regionally ranked teams...Wabash and Case. Adrian's losses are to one regionally ranked team, Trine, and Capital at 5-4. Would it be that Wooster is penalized for playing and winning two out of region games?

Someome correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think who you lose to or MOV are selection criteria. (Not that I don't think they should be)  Wooster's non-region wins would be secondary criteria I believe.  I've already vented my abhorrence of the distinction given to in-region, given the meaninglessness of the distinction.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HSC85 on November 10, 2008, 10:47:21 AM
Pat,

Great pod-cast today guys.  I have already given K-MACK my limit of one compliment this week so I can't compliment him again until Saturday evening.  I got the impression that Hampden-Sydney may be considered before W&J as a pool C contender.  Is that due to the strength of schedule of .616 vs .377 for W&J? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2008, 10:54:03 AM
Yes -- after HSC's win this weekend they should be in the regional rankings and the game against Huntingdon did give them a nice boost in the OWP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: @d3jason on November 10, 2008, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2008, 01:11:06 AM
For those in need of hope:

Otterbein, Ithaca and H-SC could very well lose this week (JCU, CSt. & R-MC) and UW-W could become an A team.

FWIW.

Kean (6-3) and Montclair St. should be a battle too. Don't be surprised if the Cougars give the Red Hawks a run. A  lot of Kean's coaching staff came from Montclair.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gobombers15 on November 10, 2008, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2008, 11:11:26 PM
A possible C complication that I don't recall anyone mentioning.  Ithaca has been scratched out as an AQ, but if SJF beats Alfred (and I'd think they are favored) I believe they would win the E8 AQ (having beaten Ithaca h-to-h).

IF Ithaca wins the Cortaca Bowl, they're 9-1 (AND probably bring MUC over as the East #1, IMO).  How would that alter predictions?

If they lose to Cortland St., they'd still be 8-2 - outside looking in, or bubble? 

Of course, if Alfred beats SJF, forget I ever posted this. ;D

If Alfred beats Fisher, Ithaca gets the Pool A AQ regardless of what happens in the Cortaca Jug game.

If Ithaca beats Cortland and Fisher beats Alfred, Fisher gets the Pool A and almost certainly Ithaca will get a Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: theoriginalupstate on November 10, 2008, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: gobombers15 on November 10, 2008, 02:37:03 PM

If Ithaca beats Cortland and Fisher beats Alfred, Fisher gets the Pool A and almost certainly Ithaca will get a Pool C.

And the #2 seed in the bracket...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on November 10, 2008, 03:41:18 PM
Would love to hear from all of you who know far better than I what you think are Redland's chances to get a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pirat on November 11, 2008, 03:47:01 PM
If Northwestern somehow beats St. Thomas, in my way of thinking, that puts NW into the final "C" spot ahead of Redlands and a couple of others.  If not then I think UoR has a decent chance.

So can they beat Cal Lu?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2008, 04:31:24 PM
Quote from: Conrad on November 10, 2008, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2008, 01:11:06 AM
For those in need of hope:

Otterbein, Ithaca and H-SC could very well lose this week (JCU, CSt. & R-MC) and UW-W could become an A team.

FWIW.

Kean (6-3) and Montclair St. should be a battle too. Don't be surprised if the Cougars give the Red Hawks a run. A  lot of Kean's coaching staff came from Montclair.

Good point.

Redlands doesn't have an easy game either.

Even Waynesburg (5-4) for W&J is no gimme.

RPI vs. USMMA is about the only 'they should definitely win that' game amongst bubble C teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2008, 04:33:46 PM
Quote from: gobombers15 on November 10, 2008, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2008, 11:11:26 PM
A possible C complication that I don't recall anyone mentioning.  Ithaca has been scratched out as an AQ, but if SJF beats Alfred (and I'd think they are favored) I believe they would win the E8 AQ (having beaten Ithaca h-to-h).

IF Ithaca wins the Cortaca Bowl, they're 9-1 (AND probably bring MUC over as the East #1, IMO).  How would that alter predictions?

If they lose to Cortland St., they'd still be 8-2 - outside looking in, or bubble? 

Of course, if Alfred beats SJF, forget I ever posted this. ;D

If Alfred beats Fisher, Ithaca gets the Pool A AQ regardless of what happens in the Cortaca Jug game.

If Ithaca beats Cortland and Fisher beats Alfred, Fisher gets the Pool A and almost certainly Ithaca will get a Pool C.

I wouldn't be surprised if Muhlenberg got the East No. 1 instead.

Although with Wabash and NC in the North, I guess moving MUC for a second straight year might make sense, despite the probable outrage it would cause in the East. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2008, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 10, 2008, 10:47:21 AM
I have already given K-MACK my limit of one compliment this week so I can't compliment him again until Saturday evening. 

Hopefully by then you will not be in the mood to talk. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 11, 2008, 04:39:06 PM
A thought just occurred to me.  Much has been made of the fact that the final Regional Rankings are not seen, and I think it's an appropriate subject for discussion.  There are cases where teams who lose in the final week are dropped from the Regional Rankings, and there is a "cascade effect," where teams who played those teams earlier in the season are not entitled to the benefit of "results v. RROs" for having played the team that dropped off the rankings.

Since the season is so short relative to baseball and basketball, and since injuries can be a big factor in late season performance, I think it might make sense to eliminate the restriction  that "ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only."

Thoughts?  What would be the downside?  Since the Regional Rankings don't come out until Week 9, the regionally ranked teams can't be pure flashes in the pan, it seems to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: theoriginalupstate on November 11, 2008, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2008, 04:33:46 PM
Quote from: gobombers15 on November 10, 2008, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2008, 11:11:26 PM
A possible C complication that I don't recall anyone mentioning.  Ithaca has been scratched out as an AQ, but if SJF beats Alfred (and I'd think they are favored) I believe they would win the E8 AQ (having beaten Ithaca h-to-h).

IF Ithaca wins the Cortaca Bowl, they're 9-1 (AND probably bring MUC over as the East #1, IMO).  How would that alter predictions?

If they lose to Cortland St., they'd still be 8-2 - outside looking in, or bubble? 

Of course, if Alfred beats SJF, forget I ever posted this. ;D

If Alfred beats Fisher, Ithaca gets the Pool A AQ regardless of what happens in the Cortaca Jug game.

If Ithaca beats Cortland and Fisher beats Alfred, Fisher gets the Pool A and almost certainly Ithaca will get a Pool C.

I wouldn't be surprised if Muhlenberg got the East No. 1 instead.

Although with Wabash and NC in the North, I guess moving MUC for a second straight year might make sense, despite the probable outrage it would cause in the East. :)

The only ones outraged would be Cortland fans who have a legit claim at a #1 spot if they win vs IC.  However, everyone around the east is pretty aware that MUC going east is a possibility and more than likely a forgone conclusion. The lack of a solid #2 and possibly a #3 seed after Cortland ensures that a highly ranked team is going to be imported.....

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pirat on November 11, 2008, 05:02:38 PM
Muhlenberg to the East makes sense to me but I didnt put them as a #1. So far my East looks like

Cortland State
Muhlenberg
Ithaca
Hobart
Plymouth State
St. John Fisher
Delaware Valley
Montclair State

For whatever so far the North
Mount Union
Wabash
Otterbein
Franklin
Trine
Thomas More
Case Western Reserve
Aurora

The South
Millsaps
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Hardin-Simmons
Hampden-Sydney
Wesley
Catholic
Huntingdon
Christopher Newport


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2008, 05:07:15 PM
Okay pirat, I "pinned the bids" on the schools.  Please double-check the lists!   :)

Thanks!

Quote from: pirat on November 11, 2008, 05:02:38 PM
Muhlenberg to the East makes sense to me but I didnt put them as a #1. So far my East looks like

Cortland State
Muhlenberg
Ithaca
Hobart
Plymouth State
St. John Fisher
Delaware Valley
Montclair State

For whatever so far the North
Mount Union
Wabash
Otterbein
Franklin
Trine
Thomas More
Case Western Reserve
Aurora

The South
Millsaps
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Hardin-Simmons
Hampden-Sydney
Wesley
Catholic
Huntingdon
Christopher Newport

QuoteNorth Central
UW-Stevens Point
Willamette
UW-Whitewater
Occidental
Wartburg
St. John's
Monmouth

Pool C in boldPool B in italics.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 11, 2008, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: pirat on November 11, 2008, 05:02:38 PM
Muhlenberg to the East makes sense to me but I didnt put them as a #1. So far my East looks like

Cortland State
Muhlenberg
Ithaca
Hobart
Plymouth State
St. John Fisher
Delaware Valley
Montclair State

Wow.

I guess you're predicting Montclair St. to lose to Kean?

Ithaca would have to have two losses in your prediction--how does that get them a no. 3 seed?

Here's what your bracket and last week's results do to last week's rankings (with records updated):

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

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pirat on November 11, 2008, 05:25:06 PM
Ralph  Yes
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on November 12, 2008, 10:59:07 AM
From LLPP regarding the committee's selection process.  I would recommend everyone tune into In The Huddle with Frank Rossi and Senor Red Tackle this coming Sunday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2008, 01:18:51 PM
Regional rankings:

http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2008/11/12/regional-rankings-final-release/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:14:15 PM
I posted this in the LLPP and thought some of you might want to read it.  I did it with respect to the questions we've been receiving concerning RPI's potential Pool C status.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep those scenarios in mind for later in this post.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

East:

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

North:

1) Otterbein, 2) Wooster and 3) Elmhurst

South:

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

West:

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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

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


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

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

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

Again, for safety, RPI needs to root for at least TWO of these scenarios.  If one occurs, there is a possibility for a subjective or objective analysis to knock it out of the Pool C debate when it finally reaches the board (i.e., after Ithaca and/or Montclair are picked to allow for RPI discussions).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2008, 04:25:54 PM
Pool B:

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


Pool C:

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

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

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

And, then I would see RPI/W&J and Wooster/Redlands
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2008, 04:25:54 PM
Pool B:

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

But the South is more jam-packed with better-record and better-quality teams.  I don't think you can base a comparison in such a way.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Good analysis, Frank!

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

(I pulled HSU off the table about 2nd or 3rd.  HSU beat Linfield and UW-La Crosse in the non-conference.  The geographic isolation of the ASC pulls the OWP/OOWP back to .500.  There are just no other teams for the 9 teams in the ASC to play outside Trinity, Austin College, Millsaps and Rhodes.  We saw this move back to .500 in both the Men's and Women's Hoops ASC OWP/OOWP's in 2008.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Good analysis, Frank!

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

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

I don't think the order of the first three makes too much difference because we'd be reaching the same list of four teams for consideration when we arrive at Round 6.  I did it more to show folks who don't understand the process how it works.  Don't discredit UWW's status too much -- Wisconsin teams have generally enjoyed good treatment in this process, and being the defending champ doesn't hurt.  However, except for seeding purposes, the order of the first five is somewhat irrelevant since what's left on the table is inferior to the five chosen IMHO.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2008, 04:48:38 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:28:00 PM
But the South is more jam-packed with better0-record and better-quality teams.  I don't think you can base a comparison in such a way.

Wasn't basing a one-time comparison, just a note, just a piece of the AA puzzle.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Good analysis, Frank!

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

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

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

Thanks for working thru Pool C process.  That is a post that we ought to save for next season when the Newbies wonder about Pool B and Pool C.  +1!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wesleydad on November 12, 2008, 04:59:52 PM
frank, nice explanation of the process for selection.  after seeing the regional rankings i was wondering whether wesley was still a good bet for a pool B.  you mentioned that they will be second which is great, as they are certainly good enough to be in the playoffs and will likely make some noise once they are in.  dont think i can give you karma, but if i could you certainly deserve some for the work put into the post.  thanks again from an outsider in the pool C debate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 05:05:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Good analysis, Frank!

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

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

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

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

Ralph - Are you thinking that my Pool B assessment regarding Wesley being a definitive selection is correct?  It seems like there's a decent amount of debating going on about this point.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: The Forgotten Man on November 12, 2008, 05:38:32 PM
Frank: Your run through of the analysis methodology was very insightful. Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

Very true, but the committee MIGHT decide to flip the logic - Wooster is surely the only two-loss team in the country where BOTH losses came to teams who are still undefeated!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

But do we reward winning or losing in football?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:50:06 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

But do we reward winning or losing in football?

d'oh! ;)  But if we took that argument to its logical extreme, only undefeated teams would be allowed into the tourney.  I don't expect Woo to make it in either, but I dare say there will be no shortage of teams who DO get in who would have lost to both Wabash and CWRU.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 05:52:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:50:06 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

But do we reward winning or losing in football?

d'oh! ;)  But if we took that argument to its logical extreme, only undefeated teams would be allowed into the tourney.  I don't expect Woo to make it in either, but I dare say there will be no shortage of teams who DO get in who would have lost to both Wabash and CWRU.

My interest is based on the possibility that Wooster and RPI could be jousting for a final slot this weekend.  If Wooster had beaten a quality team, I'd see the logic.  But both teams have mediocre wins -- and Wooster has one more loss.  The OWP deflates, and the OOWP isn't great.  I can't see a great reason to jump them over RPI if it comes down to it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 12, 2008, 06:01:26 PM
Frank:  Great analysis!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on November 12, 2008, 07:41:52 PM
Frank,

Thanks for your work. This is as good an explanation as it gets. I will refer all to this post. We should definitely save this for future reference. Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 05:05:28 PM
...

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

With the release of the Rankings today, and the jump that we saw in Wesley's ranking from 10th to 8th, I am more confident that Wesley is one of the Pool B's, assuming that the following teams win:

1) CWRU
2) Wesley
3) Huntingdon/LaGrange (of course) or
3) Northwestern MN (and beating St Thomas is a well-respected win).

We also know that Salisbury is not #10.  I still think that it will be easier for LaGrange to slip in as an undefeated team than for Huntingdon to get the bid, but I am not at the Committee table.

Thanks for your analysis!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 09:14:44 PM
Appreciate the kudos guys.  I can't guarantee the results because we've seen the final pool be somewhat trumped by the National Committee in the past -- however, the analysis is based on what's in front of us at this time. 

As I said to Ralph earlier, it's clear that there for five clear Pool C leaders that can be interchanged in the first five picks -- and maybe Montclair could even be confirmed as a sixth pretty firm pick.  The dropoff from there seems somewhat dramatic with what's left on the board. 

If there are 3 or 4 upsets (including the two scenarios that weren't covered in that post since it was LLPP geared -- namely RPI losing or Hobart losing this weekend), then Pool C gets VERY muddled.  Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:45:46 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:14:15 PM
This is an analysis of the state of affairs if Pool C were being picked today. 

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

So, now, let's look at how Pool C works.  There are six slots this year in Pool C. . . .

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

East:

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

North:

1) Otterbein, 2) Wooster and 3) Elmhurst

South:

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

West:

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


Man oh man Frank, I'm totally geeking out about your analysis!  Great stuff.  It almost makes me excited enough to dig through each Pool C team's record to see what kind of records v. RROs are in the mix.  From my armchair, that's the only other criterion I've heard mentioned fairly consistently when "insiders" comment on the selection process retrospectively.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D
Yes!  I know what I would like to see.  :)

How many games in the D3 regional format are necessary to get a decent sample.

The 22-25 in-region games in basketball?  The 28-40 "in-region" games in baseball?  The 15-18 "in-region" games in soccer? 

Thanks, oh exalted statistician!   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:18:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
...
Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D

The task...

it is Sisyphian!   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 11:19:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D

I'm with you, Prof--but why didn't your academic brethren listen to me when I was a mere undergrad, and they were dishing out grades of C to all of us within one standard deviation of the mean, in a class of 18?  I mean, I know the guys who took this class last year, Doc--they were a bunch of morons, we're all smarter than them!  :D

Do you have a favorite upset possibility?  I'm pulling for Alfred over St. John Fisher (to cap the 2008 E8 Clusterfu. . . nny story), and for some odd reason, I feel compelled to root for John Carroll v. Otterbein.

Note also that I said I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.   There would have to be some weighting of those criteria, but I haven't come up with a clear idea of what the weighting scheme would be, other than winning percentage is somewhat more valuable than OWP/OOWP--but how much more valuable, I can't yet say.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 11:20:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D
Yes!  I know what I would like to see.  :)

How many games in the D3 regional format are necessary to get a decent sample.

The 22-25 in-region games in basketball?  The 28-40 "in-region" games in baseball?  The 15-18 "in-region" games in soccer? 

Thanks, oh exalted statistician!   :)

Number of games isn't so much the problem.  It's number of OUT-OF-CONFERENCE games that matter.  As Mr. Kaiser said to me on Monday, every team's OWP vs. conference opponents will be about .500 -- the only thing that makes a real difference is the out-of-conference opponents you play.  Well, depending on your conference, the statistically significant number of games played by every team is one, two, three or (in the case of the E8 and a couple others) four.  That's even a worse sample than the number of regional games played.  That's the reason he explained for opening up to secondary criteria and other more subjective processes to differentiate teams or validate the limited statistics.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:35:43 PM
Is that(Mr Kaiser's) interview available on podcast?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:43:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D
Yes!  I know what I would like to see.  :)

How many games in the D3 regional format are necessary to get a decent sample.

The 22-25 in-region games in basketball?  The 28-40 "in-region" games in baseball?  The 15-18 "in-region" games in soccer? 

Thanks, oh exalted statistician!   :)

No specific number, just the more the better - and as Frank pointed out, the more out-of-region the better if you're doing national selection.  Of course, that violates D3 protocols! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:55:15 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 11:19:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D

I'm with you, Prof--but why didn't your academic brethren listen to me when I was a mere undergrad, and they were dishing out grades of C to all of us within one standard deviation of the mean, in a class of 18?  I mean, I know the guys who took this class last year, Doc--they were a bunch of morons, we're all smarter than them!  :D

Do you have a favorite upset possibility?  I'm pulling for Alfred over St. John Fisher (to cap the 2008 E8 Clusterfu. . . nny story), and for some odd reason, I feel compelled to root for John Carroll v. Otterbein.

Note also that I said I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.   There would have to be some weighting of those criteria, but I haven't come up with a clear idea of what the weighting scheme would be, other than winning percentage is somewhat more valuable than OWP/OOWP--but how much more valuable, I can't yet say.

We all know that when students ask "do you grade on a curve" they really mean 'will you raise our grades if we all f*** up'? :D

I always told my students (especially in stats, but often also in other classes) "if I grade on a curve, only ONE of you (perhaps two or three in larger classes) can get an A no matter how well you do - like it?".  Fortunately I had enough ambitious students that the others didn't seem to realize that that also meant there would also be only one (or 2 or 3) E's - maybe that's why they got E's! ;D

My REAL reasons were that the sample was too small to expect a 'normal' distribution, and they were not a random sample of any definable population (so might be all good, all bad, or anything in between).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2008, 12:01:45 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:35:43 PM
Is that(Mr Kaiser's) interview available on podcast?

No - We're talking to him on the air Sunday night.  This was a conversation I had with him while we scheduled that interview on Monday.  When I brought up Husson and the chore it could cause, he was very candid about Husson being a two-loss team in their view because of the need to quickly open up the playbook to both primary and secondary criteria because of the lack of confidence numbers based on such a small sample of games can provide with just SoS and Regional Win %.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2008, 12:02:42 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:43:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 12, 2008, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Regarding Wooster, I think this is a place where the numbers lie a lot.  I really think the Committee is going to try to look at the OWP of the teams YOU BEAT as much as your overall OWP.  If that's the case, RPI's numbers fall, but Wooster's numbers freefall.  Then you need to look at Win % -- Wooster lost twice, RPI once.  I think a partially subjective analysis gives you a better comparison when it comes to those two teams since you really need some good reasons to place a two-loss team ahead of a one-loss team.  In this situation, those conditions do not really exist.

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

That ought to be reflected in the OWP.

Ultimately, I think that the combination of winning percentage and OWP/OOWP can be a fairly comprehensive system of comparison.  As Frank asked, do we reward winning or losing?  The winning percentage comparison rewards winning, the OWP/OOWP stats minimize the damage inflicted by losses to good teams.

True, but I'm a retired stats prof, and a 10 (or less) game schedule (which rarely crosses regional lines) is just too small a sample to rely on.  In the football picks, I think the criteria MUST be augmented with 'common sense'.  Of course, 'common sense' is a very loaded 'criterion'.

Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D
Yes!  I know what I would like to see.  :)

How many games in the D3 regional format are necessary to get a decent sample.

The 22-25 in-region games in basketball?  The 28-40 "in-region" games in baseball?  The 15-18 "in-region" games in soccer? 

Thanks, oh exalted statistician!   :)

No specific number, just the more the better - and as Frank pointed out, the more out-of-region the better if you're doing national selection.  Of course, that violates D3 protocols! ;)

Well, careful there - You're putting a word in that I didn't use.  Out-of-CONFERENCE is the key.  Those should probably be inside your region for maximum effect.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2008, 12:11:21 AM
Sorry, Frank - you DID say out of conference, not out of region.  But for national selection criteria, out of region would work even better.

That's an enduring conundrum in D3 - I appreciate the philosophy, and am glad they don't just pretend that all regions are equal, but for national selection, there is precious little national data to work with.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2008, 04:49:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2008, 11:18:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2008, 11:07:25 PM
...
Personally, I'm hoping for a whole bunch of 'upsets' Saturday to render most of this moot - then we can (for a few hours ;)) have this to do all over again! ;D

The task...

it is Sisyphian!   :D

Well, time to get to work, fellow Sisyphuses (Sisyphi?) :D

Just for starters, SJF's loss moves Ithaca from C to A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 05:47:48 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2008, 04:14:15 PM
I posted this in the LLPP and thought some of you might want to read it.  I did it with respect to the questions we've been receiving concerning RPI's potential Pool C status.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

Keep those scenarios in mind for later in this post.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

East:

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

North:

1) Otterbein, 2) Wooster and 3) Elmhurst

South:

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

West:

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Lots of great research and analysis, but the results on the field turn our efforts into sophistry!   :D :D :D

But, that is why we play the games!  This has been fun today!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TigerOldSchool on November 15, 2008, 06:15:26 PM
Is any madness on the final day putting Redlands in with a win?

Of course they are trailing Cal-Lu at the moment.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 06:54:36 PM
Cal Lu beat Redlands 24-17! 

CARNAGE!

The Selection Committee almost has a clean slate!   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TigerOldSchool on November 15, 2008, 07:10:46 PM
Otterbein, UWW, Hardin Simmons,
then who now get the other 3?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 07:18:00 PM
What a shame DePauw is stuck behind so many one-loss teams in the South.  If there were in the East they might get on the board fast enough to have a shot at the sixth spot, what with today's huge win against an undefeated, very highly-ranked opponent.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 15, 2008, 07:36:20 PM
Quote from: TigerOldSchool on November 15, 2008, 07:10:46 PM
Otterbein, UWW, Hardin Simmons,
then who now get the other 3?


I'll start my D-III football equivalent of an ACLU case now.

There's only one undefeated Pool C candidate, and that's Husson.  If Husson doesn't get a Pool C bid, then the Committee is not following its own rules, which require an evaluation based on ALL Primary Criteria before evaluating based on ALL Secondary Criteria.  In other words, NCAA Tournament selection is not like a Chinese menu.

When analyzing on Primary Criteria only, you can make an argument that a 1-loss team makes up for its lower in-Region won-loss percentage by having wins v. RROs and better OWP/OOWP, but when you start comparing a 1.000 winning percentage to .800 and .778 winning percentages, that's a LOT of ground to make up.

I'm probably the only one who sees it that way, but that's the way the Primary Criteria look to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 15, 2008, 07:41:26 PM
All races in one place:

D3 Races (http://www.wjpa.com/allinone08.pdf)

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

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 07:56:53 PM
East Region
1. Cortland State 9-0 9-0   9-1 9-1  NJAC Pool A
2. Ithaca 7-1 8-1  8-1 9-1  E8 Pool A
3. Montclair State 8-1 8-1  8-2 8-2  Losses to Cortland and Kean;  beat Rowan
4. Hobart 7-1 7-1  8-1  8-1  LL Pool A
5. RPI 7-1 7-1  7-2  7-2   LL Pool C  Losses to Hobart and Merchant Marine
6. Hartwick 7-2 7-2  E8  Pool C  Losses to Ithaca and Springfield
7. Plymouth State 9-1 10-1  NEFC Pool A
8. Rowan 7-2 7-2  8-2 8-2 NJAC Pool C  Losses to Cortland St and to Montclair St
9. Curry 8-1 9-1  NEFC Pool C Loss to Plymouth State 
10. Albright 7-2 7-2  7-3 7-3  MAC Pool C Losses to Salisbury, Del Valley and Lycoming

Lycoming 7-3 6-3  MAC Pool A
UR Husson 7-0 7-2 Pool B/C  Losses to D2's American International and to Merrimack

North Region
1. Mount Union 8-0 9-0  9-0 10-0  OAC Pool A
2. North Central (Ill.) 9-0 9-0  10-0 10-0 CCIW Pool A
3. Wabash 8-0 9-0  8-1 9-1  NCAC Pool A
4. Trine 9-0 9-0  10-0  10-0  MIAA Pool A
5. Case Western Reserve 8-0 9-0  9-0 10-0  UAA Pool B
6. Otterbein 8-1 8-1  9-1 9-1 OAC Pool C  Loss to MUC
7. Franklin 7-1 8-1 8-1 9-1 HCAC  Pool A
8. Wooster 5-2 7-2  6-2 8-2  NCAC Pool C  Losses to CWRU and Wabash
9. Elmhurst 7-2 7-2  7-3 7-3  CCIW Pool C
10. Aurora 8-1 8-1  9-1  9-1  NATHC Pool A

South Region
1. Millsaps 8-0 9-0  8-0  10-0  SCAC Pool A
2. Muhlenberg 9-0 9-0  9-1  9-1  CC Pool A
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-0 8-1  8-0  9-1  ASC Pool A
4. Hardin-Simmons 9-1 9-1  Pool C  Loss to UMHB
5. Catholic 7-1 8-1  7-2  8-2  ODAC Pool C
6. Hampden-Sydney 7-1 8-1  7-2 8-2 ODAC Pool C
7. Washington and Jefferson 7-1 8-1  8-1 9-1 Pool C Loss to TMC
8. Wesley 4-1 8-1  ACFC Pool B
9. Huntingdon 7-1 8-1  7-2 8-2 Pool B/C Losses to Hampden-Sydney and LaGrange
10. Christopher Newport 6-1 7-1  7-1  8-1  USA South Pool A

Thomas More 8-2 8-1  Pres AC  Pool A
Randolph Macon 6-4 6-3  ODAC Pool A
LaGrange 9-1 8-0  SLIAC Pool B

West Region
1. Willamette 8-0 9-0  9-0  10-0  NWC Pool A
2. Occidental 8-0 8-0  9-0  9-0  SCIAC Pool A
3. Monmouth 10-0 10-0  MWC  Pool A
4. UW-Stevens Point 5-1 8-1  6-1  9-1  WIAC Pool A
5. UW-Whitewater 7-1 8-1  8-1  9-1  WIAC Pool C
6. Redlands 7-1 7-1  7-2  7-2  SCIAC Pool C
7. Northwestern (Minn.) 8-1 8-1  8-2  8-2 Pool B/C
8. St. John's 7-2 7-2 8-2  8-2  MIAC Pool A
9. Wartburg 8-2 8-2 IIAC  Pool A
10. Carleton 7-2 7-2  7-3 7-3  MIAC Pool C

UR  Cal Lutheran 7-2 7-2   Losses to Willamette and Oxy  (Results vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents RRO)  -- Saves a first round flight.
 
Legend:

Pool A
Pool B
Pool C
Lost this week

Corrections appreciated...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2008, 08:13:17 PM
Quote from: TigerOldSchool on November 15, 2008, 07:10:46 PM
Otterbein, UWW, Hardin Simmons,
then who now get the other 3?


Looking over Ralph's list, I'd think W&J would probably be #4, but my crystal ball gets real foggy after that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 08:36:39 PM
Practically speaking, I like Cal Lu as the #7-#8 seed and the 6th Pool C bid and send them to Oxy.

With a bunch of 2-loss teams, no other two-loss team has losses to the top 2 in the region, and it saves a plane flight!  $$$$$$  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sju56321 on November 15, 2008, 09:43:28 PM
So, you have Oxy as the #2 seed, playing the #7 Cal Lu. Do you have Willamette #1? If so, then NCAA flys Wartburg or Aurora out there. Suppose both #1 and #2 win, then in the second round you have two more flights, 4/5 at 1 and 3/6 at 2. Seems like a lot of flights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on November 15, 2008, 09:43:28 PM
So, you have Oxy as the #2 seed, playing the #7 Cal Lu. Do you have Willamette #1? If so, then NCAA flys Wartburg or Aurora out there. Suppose both #1 and #2 win, then in the second round you have two more flights, 4/5 at 1 and 3/6 at 2. Seems like a lot of flights.

I am counting on Willamette and Oxy/Cal Lu playing in the second round, regardless.

My bracket for the West...


#1 Willamette vs #8 Wartburg
#2 Oxy vs #7 Cal Lutheran (#7/ #8 makes little difference)


#3 Monmouth vs #5 UW-W (avoiding the first round match for conference opponents)
#4 UW-SP vs #6 SJU

Minimum number of flights, but it gives Oxy a chance to host the Regional Finals.  Higher seeded team hosts the game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Toby Taff on November 15, 2008, 09:50:01 PM
given the carnage today I have to think Hardin Simmons is greatfl they had today off
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sju56321 on November 15, 2008, 09:53:59 PM
Ok, Ralph, I see. This should be interesting tomorrow to see how it all plays out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on November 15, 2008, 09:53:59 PM
Ok, Ralph, I see. This should be interesting tomorrow to see how it all plays out.

Heck, I'm dying to see what Pat and the guys at the Home Office are putting together for final predictions.   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:03:31 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on November 15, 2008, 09:53:59 PM
Ok, Ralph, I see. This should be interesting tomorrow to see how it all plays out.

Heck, I'm dying to see what Pat and the guys at the Home Office are putting together for final predictions.  

I know.  And they have more info than we do, and a better insight into the way the committee thinks!  And those guys are talking on a conference call, too!   ;)

My North Bracket

MUC to the East;  Thomas More in from the South.

#1 NCC vs #8 Aurora
#4 Wabash (a Pool A) vs #5 Otterbein (Pool C, unless the committee thinks that the DPU loss by Wabash was "too ugly" and drops them below Otterbein.)

#2 Trine vs #7 Thomas More
#3 Case Western Reserve Pool B vs #6 Franklin  ( I don't think that a Franklin-TMC matchup or a Trine-CWRU matchup would be posted.)

Does anyone have any thoughts about breaking the brackets into some type of east-west alignment for this region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:10:41 PM
My South Bracket

W&J (Pool C) to the East

#1 Millsaps vs #8 LaGrange  Pool B
#2 UMHB vs #3 HSU (Pool C only loss to a RRO)

#4 Muhlenberg vs #7 Randolph-Macon
#5 Wesley Pool B vs #6 CNU

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:22:40 PM
Pool A's:  MUC, Ithaca, Cortland, Hobart, Plymouth State, Lycoming.
Pool C's: W&J and Montclair State.

I have a hard time seeing an East Region team being passed over 6 times in the Pool C deliberations!  I think that one Pool C team will come to the east.

The Committee might move Muhlenberg or Wesley in here for some geographic balance, too.

Would Husson really get some consideration as a Pool C instead of Montclair?  Nah.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:24:44 PM
My Pool B's:

1)  CWRU
2)  Wesley
3)  LaGrange

My Pool C's (in no particular order)

1) Otterbein
2) UWW
3)  HSU
4)  W&J
5)  Montclair State
6)  Cal Lutheran.

Thanks to all.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:24:44 PM
My Pool B's:

1)  CWRU
2)  Wesley
3)  LaGrange

My Pool C's (in no particular order)

1) Otterbein
2) UWW
3)  HSU
4)  W&J
5)  Montclair State
6)  Cal Lutheran.

Thanks to all.

Still trying to figure Cal Lu over DePauw.   After today DPU has better OWP (20th) and OWWP than Cal Lu (39th).  Yes, Cal Lu lost to two undefeated teams, but their best win is against 8-2 Redlands while DPU knocked off formerly undefeated Wabash.  If DPU and Cal Lu are on the board for the last spot I gotta think the committee gives it to DePauw. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 15, 2008, 10:42:49 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:24:44 PM
My Pool B's:

1)  CWRU
2)  Wesley
3)  LaGrange

My Pool C's (in no particular order)

1) Otterbein
2) UWW
3)  HSU
4)  W&J
5)  Montclair State
6)  Cal Lutheran.

Thanks to all.

Still trying to figure Cal Lu over DePauw.   After today DPU has better OWP (20th) and OWWP than Cal Lu (39th).  Yes, Cal Lu lost to two undefeated teams, but their best win is against 8-2 Redlands while DPU knocked off formerly undefeated Wabash.  If DPU and Cal Lu are on the board for the last spot I gotta think the committee gives it to DePauw. 

I'm trying to figure out how an undefeated in-Region team gets no consideration v. 2 teams with 2 in-Region losses.  The way I read the Handbook, Husson's vastly superior in-Region won-loss percentage ought to get them a Pool C bid based on Primary Criteria.

I didn't write the rules.
But neither can I ignore them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jam40jeff on November 15, 2008, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:03:31 PM
#1 NCC vs #8 Aurora
#4 Wabash (a Pool A) vs #5 Otterbein (Pool C, unless the committee thinks that the DPU loss by Wabash was "too ugly" and drops them below Otterbein.)

#2 Trine vs #7 Thomas More
#3 Case Western Reserve Pool B vs #6 Franklin  ( I don't think that a Franklin-TMC matchup or a Trine-CWRU matchup would be posted.)

I think Wabash will stay at #4, if for no other reason than Otterbein's win today wasn't very convincing.  Wabash's loss was bad, but I think the committee would have wanted to see something more convincing out of Otterbein to move them ahead of Wabash.

I wonder if #2/#3 is close?  I know I think CWRU should be ahead of Trine, but the regional rankings haven't shown that thus far, but CWRU's OWP got a boost today from Wooster's pounding of Wittenberg.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: labart96 on November 15, 2008, 10:48:40 PM
RS -

You make a valid point, but even Kaiser was quoted as calling Husson a "2 loss team".

I think their very weak D3 schedule will ultimately cost them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on November 15, 2008, 10:51:12 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:03:31 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on November 15, 2008, 09:53:59 PM
Ok, Ralph, I see. This should be interesting tomorrow to see how it all plays out.

Heck, I'm dying to see what Pat and the guys at the Home Office are putting together for final predictions.  

I know.  And they have more info than we do, and a better insight into the way the committee thinks!  And those guys are talking on a conference call, too!   ;)

My North Bracket

MUC to the East;  Thomas More in from the South.

#1 NCC vs #8 Aurora
#4 Wabash (a Pool A) vs #5 Otterbein (Pool C, unless the committee thinks that the DPU loss by Wabash was "too ugly" and drops them below Otterbein.)

#2 Trine vs #7 Thomas More
#3 Case Western Reserve Pool B vs #6 Franklin  ( I don't think that a Franklin-TMC matchup or a Trine-CWRU matchup would be posted.)

Does anyone have any thoughts about breaking the brackets into some type of east-west alignment for this region?

I have very similar bracket with 2 exceptions:

I DO think Bash moves to #5 seed and Ott #4 (I think bash's 1 loss in week 12 to a 2 loss team is worse than Ott's to an undefated and #1 team). And I think Thomas More is still the #8 seed and headed to Naperville. There is no justification to jump TM over Aurora. Geography is all within 500miles too. So I have

NCC v Thomas More
Trine V Aurora
CWR V Franklin
Ott V Bash
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: CNU85 on November 15, 2008, 10:52:33 PM
RS,

SOS is 224. At-large Pool C bids will not go to schools that consistently schedule the easiest games they can find.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 15, 2008, 10:53:43 PM
Husson OW% 0.356
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2008, 10:57:47 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:24:44 PM
My Pool B's:

1)  CWRU
2)  Wesley
3)  LaGrange

My Pool C's (in no particular order)

1) Otterbein
2) UWW
3)  HSU
4)  W&J
5)  Montclair State
6)  Cal Lutheran.

Thanks to all.

Still trying to figure Cal Lu over DePauw.   After today DPU has better OWP (20th) and OWWP than Cal Lu (39th).  Yes, Cal Lu lost to two undefeated teams, but their best win is against 8-2 Redlands while DPU knocked off formerly undefeated Wabash.  If DPU and Cal Lu are on the board for the last spot I gotta think the committee gives it to DePauw

But will DePauw even make it to the table?  IF I'm correct that W&J is the 4th C taken, there are only 2 slots left before they get there - and that's IF they are next in line.  They'd have to jump Catholic, Hampden Sydney, and Huntingdon (all of whom lost today, so maybe), but since the RRs only go to 10th I don't know if even then they are next up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 11:06:43 PM
That's the key, alright, they have to get on the table, and it's a long shot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 11:28:49 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2008, 11:06:43 PM
That's the key, alright, they have to get on the table, and it's a long shot.
But valid points nevertheless.

My thoughts on Cal Lu are purely budget-inclined!

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2008, 10:57:47 PM
...
But will DePauw even make it to the table?  IF I'm correct that W&J is the 4th C taken, there are only 2 slots left before they get there - and that's IF they are next in line.  They'd have to jump Catholic, Hampden Sydney, and Huntingdon (all of whom lost today, so maybe), but since the RRs only go to 10th I don't know if even then they are next up.
I think that they "rank" beyond 10 for help in the discussions, so a DePauw may have been a "#12" or a "#13" last week.

Currently DPU is 8-2/7-2  (.778) in-region winning percentage.

OWP #20 .579
OOWP .510
In-region head-to-head (DPU lost to Trinity, if TU is on the "deep" board)
In-region common regionally ranked opponents.  Both lost to Millsaps
In-region results versus regionally ranked teams --  Results versus RRO 1-1.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 15, 2008, 11:52:06 PM
Quote from: TGP on November 15, 2008, 10:48:40 PM
RS -

You make a valid point, but even Kaiser was quoted as calling Husson a "2 loss team".

I think their very weak D3 schedule will ultimately cost them.

I have pontificated at great length (and depth, as measured by negative karma ;)) on Kaiser's calling Husson a "2 loss team."

In short, he can only call them a "2 loss team" if he ignores the Primary Criteria--which the rules prohibit him from doing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 15, 2008, 11:57:48 PM
Quote from: CNU85 on November 15, 2008, 10:52:33 PM
RS,

SOS is 224. At-large Pool C bids will not go to schools that consistently schedule the easiest games they can find.  
(I don't know anything about Husson's "consistently schedule."  I do know that they are a team without a conference, in freaking Bangor Maine.)

If your argument were somehow reflected in the Selection Criteria, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.  But the Primary Criteria require that you evaluate

Winning Percentage AND
OWP/OOWP AND
Head-to-Head AND
Record v. RROs AND
Record v. Common opponents.

You can't ignore winning percentage, and Husson's is HUGELY better than any other East Pool C candidate, EXCEPT Curry.

How's that for irony?

I didn't write the rules, and the rules say that you can't ignore the rules.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:24:44 PM
My Pool B's:

1)  CWRU
2)  Wesley
3)  LaGrange

My Pool C's (in no particular order)

1) Otterbein
2) UWW
3)  HSU
4)  W&J
5)  Montclair State
6)  Cal Lutheran.

Thanks to all.

Hey Ralph, can you give me any details on how undefeated Husson loses to (or ties with) 2-loss Montclair St. in the Primary Criteria?

I might be able to see how OWP/OOWP gets a team past another with one less loss, but two losses?  I don't understand how it's possible.

I get the impression that the Committee might simply be adding Won-loss percentage to OWP and OOWP to arrive at a comparison number.  I don't endorse such an analysis, since it effectively places a higher priority on SoS, and that seems illogical to me, since teams with losing records will have a higher average SoS than teams with winning records.  In any case, the Win PCT + OWP + OOWP formula gives these numbers:

Montclair:  0.800 + 0.503 + 0.518 = 1.821
Husson:    1.000 + 0.356 + 0.500 = 1.856

Dick Kaiser spoke of teams getting into the tournament on six thousandths of a point.  Here, Husson leads by over 3 hundredths!   :D

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 12:19:49 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:24:44 PM
My Pool B's:

1)  CWRU
2)  Wesley
3)  LaGrange

My Pool C's (in no particular order)

1) Otterbein
2) UWW
3)  HSU
4)  W&J
5)  Montclair State  results vs regionally ranked opponents
6)  Cal Lutheran.

Thanks to all.

Hey Ralph, can you give me any details on how undefeated Husson loses to (or ties with) 2-loss Montclair St. in the Primary Criteria?

I might be able to see how OWP/OOWP gets a team past another with one less loss, but two losses?  I don't understand how it's possible.
Husson has no results versus regionally ranked opponents.

I have given thought to the Husson question, the travel question for #1 Willamette and #2 Oxy and whether DePauw leaps into the South Region Rankings by virtue of their win over Wabash.  You cannot compare scores off a rivalry game, but the Wabash outcome did not impress me relative to the SCAC!

Thanks for asking. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 12:22:54 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 12:19:49 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2008, 10:24:44 PM
My Pool B's:

1)  CWRU
2)  Wesley
3)  LaGrange

My Pool C's (in no particular order)

1) Otterbein
2) UWW
3)  HSU
4)  W&J
5)  Montclair State  results vs regionally ranked opponents
6)  Cal Lutheran.

Thanks to all.

Hey Ralph, can you give me any details on how undefeated Husson loses to (or ties with) 2-loss Montclair St. in the Primary Criteria?

I might be able to see how OWP/OOWP gets a team past another with one less loss, but two losses?  I don't understand how it's possible.
Husson has no results versus regionally ranked opponents.

I have given thought to the Husson question, the travel question for #1 Willamette and #2 Oxy and whether DePauw leaps into the South Region Rankings by virtue of their win over Wabash.  You cannot compare scores off a rivalry game, but the Wabash outcome did not impress me relative to the SCAC!

Thanks for asking. :)

Is Rowan ranked?  If so, a 1-1 record v. RROs beats the .200 advantage in winning percentage.  If not, Montclair gets bonus points for losing (to Cortland).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 12:28:47 AM
I have always interpreted "results" to permit any game outcome.

In baseball especially, you can see that some teams may have 6-9 games versus regionally ranked teams.  Going 3-6 versus other regionally ranked teams (and 25-8 in region) may tell more about a team than a team that is 32-2 in-region, but no games versus regionally ranked opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: labart96 on November 16, 2008, 12:29:39 AM
Rowan was ranked #8 in the East Region in the final published rankings:

East Region
1. Cortland State 9-0 9-0 lost badly to #2 IC
2. Ithaca 7-1 8-1 - beat previously #1 Cortland by 20+
3. Montclair State 8-1 8-1 - lost to Kean
4. Hobart 7-1 7-1 - beat Rochester
5. RPI 7-1 7-1 - lost to MMA
6. Hartwick 6-2 6-2 - beat Utica
7. Plymouth State 8-1 9-1 - beat MM - clinched NEFC
8. Rowan 7-2 7-2 - crushed TCNJ
9. Curry 8-1 9-1 - did not play
10. Albright 6-1 7-2 - lost badly to del val

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 12:43:16 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 12:28:47 AM
I have always interpreted "results" to permit any game outcome.

In baseball especially, you can see that some teams may have 6-9 games versus regionally ranked teams.  Going 3-6 versus other regionally ranked teams (and 25-8 in region) may tell more about a team that is 32-2, but no games versus regionally ranked opponents.

So you're okay with a team getting bonus points for losing, if its only "results" in games v. regionally ranked opponents were losses?  Personally, I wouldn't be so sanguine.  I'll have to give some thought to the overlap of (results v. RROs) and OWP--clearly, there is some.

It is clear that Rowan was ranked, and surely remains ranked in the double secret probation rankings.

Here's a crazy thought:  If Husson were 9-0 overall, would you arrive at the same result v. Montclair St.?  I bet Dick Kaiser wouldn't  :D  8)

UPDATE: Maybe that's my new angle/argument on appeal: Husson should have been told before the season started that even a 9-0 record would not earn it entry to the NCAA tournament.  Woe be unto the geographically inconvenient Pool Bees.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 12:54:13 AM
Actually, I think that the word "results" is deliberately used instead of "winning percentage versus regionally ranked" teams.  :)

We have considered winning percentage in the first of the listed primary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ADL70 on November 16, 2008, 01:05:02 AM
Maybe the committees deliberation goes something like this.  Looks like team A (RR 9-0) is the best team in the region, but what about team B?  RR (6-0), but their OW% and OOW% are lower.  How about team C?  Their RR is 8-1, but they have a much higher OW% and OOW%.  The committee says "no clearly superior team." No other primary criteria apply, but team B has 2 non-region losses.  Committee ranks team C higher.

While Kaiser mentioned a numerical evaluation, it may be wrong to infer that they are doing some kind of calcuation with the various winning percentages.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 16, 2008, 01:05:47 AM
Ralph

Do you think that with all this choas that Salisbury gets another look? Their losses are to MAC co-camps and Wesley And beat CNU ,USAC champ 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 01:13:18 AM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 16, 2008, 01:05:02 AM
Maybe the committees deliberation goes something like this.  Looks like team A (RR 9-0) is the best team in the region, but what about team B?  RR (6-0), but their OW% and OOW% are lower.  How about team C?  Their RR is 8-1, but they have a much higher OW% and OOW%.  The committee says "no clearly superior team." No other primary criteria apply, but team B has 2 non-region losses.  Committee ranks team C higher.

The way I read the Selection Criteria I'm not sure your scenario can happen as you've described it.  First, the comparison has to be between two teams (for a regional ranking or Pool B selection), or between four teams (for a Pool C selection).

Then, they certainly may reach the "no clearly superior team" conclusion, but they may only do so after they have evaluated all of the (2 or 4) teams based on ALL of the Primary Criteria.

Quote from: cwru70 on November 16, 2008, 01:05:02 AMWhile Kaiser mentioned a numerical evaluation, it may be wrong to infer that they are doing some kind of calculation with the various winning percentages.

You should advise politicians.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 01:16:19 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 12:54:13 AM
Actually, I think that the word "results" is deliberately used instead of "winning percentage versus regionally ranked" teams.  :)

Or even "record v. regionally ranked team."  I think you're right.

I'm not so certain that they deliberately considered the unintended consequences, i.e. that a team can get bonus points for losing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 16, 2008, 01:50:33 AM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 16, 2008, 01:05:47 AM
Ralph

Do you think that with all this choas that Salisbury gets another look? Their losses are to MAC co-camps and Wesley And beat CNU ,USAC champ 

yes.  But it goes without saying that Albright and SJF could've really helped their cause today.  Its going to be really interesting to see what the "theme" is behind the reasoning for the Pool C selections.  I know Pat is going to be busy tonight with predicting the regional rankings...

Would've been great if the committee would've allowed him to have some input on the selection process, he was in the area today with being in Crawfordsville.  Hopefully they are using the same information that Pat and d3.com have been using.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 16, 2008, 01:50:33 AM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 16, 2008, 01:05:47 AM
Ralph

Do you think that with all this choas that Salisbury gets another look? Their losses are to MAC co-camps and Wesley And beat CNU ,USAC champ 

yes.  But it goes without saying that Albright and SJF could've really helped their cause today.  Its going to be really interesting to see what the "theme" is behind the reasoning for the Pool C selections.  I know Pat is going to be busy tonight with predicting the regional rankings...

Would've been great if the committee would've allowed him to have some input on the selection process, he was in the area today with being in Crawfordsville.  Hopefully they are using the same information that Pat and d3.com have been using.

Good morning, all.   :)

I don't think that Salisbury has separated itself sufficiently to stand out in a very crowded Pool C South Region.  Pat makes the case for DPU versus Millsaps and Wabash.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:00:31 AM
Here is the "cut and paste" from the 2008 Football Handbook for Primary Criteria.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2008/3_football_handbook.pdf


Quote
Primary Criteria. The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests
leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:00:31 AM
Here is the "cut and paste" from the 2008 Football Handbook for Primary Criteria.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2008/3_football_handbook.pdf


Primary Criteria. The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests
leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.


What if Husson were 7-0 in-Division, 9-0 overall, with the same overall OWP/OOWP numbers as their in-Region/in-Division numbers?  Would anyone justify keeping them out of the tournament?  The crazy thing is, even with a hypothetical 9-0 overall record, I don't see how their case improves significantly through the secondary criteria, at least not when compared to where they stand at 7-0 in-Division through the primary criteria.

Wasn't there some talk of forming what I would be tempted to nickname a "Great White North" Conference. that would include other extreme northern and eastern teams?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 11:47:46 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 12:28:47 AM
I have always interpreted "results" to permit any game outcome.

In baseball especially, you can see that some teams may have 6-9 games versus regionally ranked teams.  Going 3-6 versus other regionally ranked teams (and 25-8 in region) may tell more about a team than a team that is 32-2 in-region, but no games versus regionally ranked opponents.

Great discussion, thanks Ralph.

Pat Coleman on the Daily Dose: (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2008/11/16/final-playoff-projection/)
QuoteI have a stock response for fans complaining about the Top 25 poll: It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat.

I wish it were so clear.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on November 16, 2008, 12:50:06 PM
One thing to consider that has never been an issue before (but I think is really important now) is the role of the regional advisory committee. It's not clear to me what criteria they are held to and what role they play. But it is clear that the how they rank their pool C candidates this year will be key. Particularly for the east and north regions. Wheaton will never be discussed unless they rank them ahead of Wooster and the logjam in the east will be resolved based on how the regional committee recommends them to the national committee. So Hartwick, Moravian, Curry, Rowan, etc will never get to the table in front of Montclair.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on November 16, 2008, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2008, 12:50:06 PM
One thing to consider that has never been an issue before (but I think is really important now) is the role of the regional advisory committee. It's not clear to me what criteria they are held to and what role they play. But it is clear that the how they rank their pool C candidates this year will be key. Particularly for the east and north regions. Wheaton will never be discussed unless they rank them ahead of Wooster and the logjam in the east will be resolved based on how the regional committee recommends them to the national committee. So Hartwick, Moravian, Curry, Rowan, etc will never get to the table in front of Montclair.


How the regional committee ranks the Pool C candidates (in the final poll that is never released) is critical.  Remember in basketball last year, the Midwest regional committee ranked Wheaton ahead of IWU.  IWU (which beat Wheaton 3 times) never "got to the table" for discussion by the national committee as Wheaton was the final Pool C team selected by the national committee.  In talking to people in the know afterwards, they said the regional committee knew IWU did not have a chance at a Pool C (too many in-region losses) so they ranked Wheaton ahead, despite going 0-3 vs IWU, to give the region its best possible chance at another C bid.

So yes, the role of the regional advisory - and the order they rank the C candidates - is huge.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 03:12:25 PM
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2008, 12:50:06 PM
One thing to consider that has never been an issue before (but I think is really important now) is the role of the regional advisory committee. It's not clear to me what criteria they are held to and what role they play. But it is clear that the how they rank their pool C candidates this year will be key. Particularly for the east and north regions. Wheaton will never be discussed unless they rank them ahead of Wooster and the logjam in the east will be resolved based on how the regional committee recommends them to the national committee. So Hartwick, Moravian, Curry, Rowan, etc will never get to the table in front of Montclair.


Famous last words!   :D  I think your (somewhat cynical) analysis had merit.

Ultimately, I think the Committee had to look at winning percentage.  Curry has it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 16, 2008, 03:22:20 PM
Brackets:

http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/footballbracket2008.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 16, 2008, 03:36:17 PM
D3Football.com's Selection Show Special is broadcasting:

http://www.d3football.com/notables/2008/01/14/1571/post-selection-selection-show.html

or directly into Windows Media Player:

http://win.1.c2.audiovideoweb.com/1c2winlive6881
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 16, 2008, 05:14:06 PM
Tonight on "In the HuddLLe," we have a very special show planned.  Joining Frank Rossi and Eric Ren will be:

- NCAA Division III Football Championships Committee Chairman and Defiance Athletic Director Dick Kaiser, to discuss the selection process used to arrive at this year's "Field of 32" released just a little while ago;

- Liberty League Commissioner Timothy Danehy, who will voice his thoughts on the 2008 Liberty League regular season, the selection process and the playoff teams of the League;

- Hobart Fifth-Year Senior Linebacker Jeff Sanders, whose team will make its fifth consecutive NCAA Playoffs appearance next weekend;

- Hobart Head Coach Mike Cragg, who is already hard at work learning exactly who Lycoming is and what got them to the success they've enjoyed this season; and

- Hobart Guru James Baker, who will give us his thoughts and predictions regarding next week's games involving Liberty League teams, including potential ECAC Bowl berths.

Please join us at 7:30pm EST and ask questions for any of our guests in the chatroom.  The link is at http://blogtalkradio.com/LLRecap -- It should be a great show!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 16, 2008, 05:45:17 PM
Frank

  Ask him why they put the 2,3 and 4 seeds on one side of the bracket in the south.

  It would seem that there will be  2 flights in round 2 regaurdless of who wins and possibly one more in round 3. So putting Mules/Wesley on that side would not effect travel. So it appears they couldn't go with 2 or 3 more in the first round..   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 16, 2008, 06:24:30 PM
Heck, ask him why they took Wheaton over DePauw when DePauw had most of the selection criteria in their favor.   ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 06:34:17 PM
Frank, please ask him who the four were who were on the table when the last bid was given.

Why not Cal Lu?  Thanks.

Will you have AIM up for questions from the audience?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 06:40:08 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 16, 2008, 05:14:06 PM
- NCAA Division III Football Championships Committee Chairman and Defiance Athletic Director Dick Kaiser, to discuss the selection process used to arrive at this year's "Field of 32" released just a little while ago;

...

Please join us at 7:30pm EST and ask questions for any of our guests in the chatroom.  The link is at http://blogtalkradio.com/LLRecap -- It should be a great show!

Rossi,
Ask Dick who made the call to switch to Oxy at Willamette after his committee submitted a bracket with Wartburg at Oxy and Aurora at Willamette.

Was that a mistake, or is there a process where after the selection committee does its job, it goes to someone who has to sign off on all the flights?

I'd like to understand.

Dick is pretty open, and I think he wants people to understand how the committees work, and how to be responsive to the D3 membership and fans, so I think he'll give you a straight answer.

I'm at work, I can't listen, but if I can get in the chatroom, I'll remind you to ask.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 07:02:33 PM
Can someone record the program for Frank?

That might be a good one to archive!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 16, 2008, 07:26:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 07:02:33 PM
Can someone record the program for Frank?

That might be a good one to archive!

It auto-records and podcasts -- but listen live :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 08:40:38 PM
Great interview by Frank Rossi and Eric Ren of Coach Kaiser on "In the HuddLLe"...

Last four teams on the board were Montclair State, Cal Lu, Wooster, DePauw.

He said that the committee determined early in the season that they would honor 10-0 and 9-1 teams when the season was over.  Considering this in all of the conferences that have 9- and 10- teams, Curry finished 9-1 among a tight grouping of teams which be definition pulls the OWP/OOWP to .500.  The committee stayed true to its pre-determined prinicples for Curry.  One loss is better than 2 losses.  (Curry was not penalized because the NEFC "schedules" the games.) 

Husson had the weakest schedule of everyone among the OWP's.  (Their schedule was what they scheduled.)  The OWP/OOWP is the new emphasis of the NCAA.

Quote"OWP/OOWP begins to become significant at 16-17 games in a season."
(My editorial comment --  OWP/OOWP begins to work in Hoops and Baseball!)

QuoteFlight restrictions (budget?) from the NCAA caught Oxy/Willamette.

QuoteHe said they wanted to identify the best four teams:  MUC, Millsaps, Willamette and then NCC.  They build the bracket inside the mileage and trips constraints of the NCAA.  They seeded the brackets as close to the regional brackets as close the regional seedings that they can.

QuoteCoach Kaiser said it would have been very hard to bring a MUC into the East Region if Cortland had been undefeated and one of the best four teams in the country...setting us a theoretical "Final Four".

QuoteAll regional boundaries are broken down once the top 4 teams are chosen.  Fill "Bracket #1", the "Bracket #2", then "Bracket #3", then Bracket "#4."


Thanks to Dr. Kaiser.

That was a great interview. He was very straightforwarded in answering very good questions!  (Eric and Frank did a good job! +1 guys!)

+1! Coach Kaiser!!!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 08:55:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 08:40:38 PM
Great interview by Frank Rossi and Eric Ren of Coach Kaiser on "In the HuddLLe"...

Agreed.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 08:40:38 PM
QuoteHe said they wanted to identify the best four teams:  MUC, Millsaps, Willamette and then NCC.  They build the bracket inside the mileage and trips constraints of the NCAA.  They seeded the brackets as close to the regional brackets as close the regional seedings that they can.


I don't know where the Handbook requires or even permits this.  I understand the motivation, but rules is rules.  It would be easy to amend the handbook to empower the Selection Committee to identify the top 4 teams, but that's not the Selection Committee's charter as it's written.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 08:59:43 PM
redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 08:59:43 PM
redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 08:59:43 PM
redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.

I wouldn't mind if the rules were amended to eliminate the necessary incompatibility between REGIONAL Rankings and non-regional brackets.  Practically speaking, you could lay that out in the Handbook, it seems to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2008, 09:18:45 PM
To move significantly away from regional anything would really require a change in the Division III philosophy, which is not very likely.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 08:59:43 PM
redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.


This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

I wouldn't mind if the rules were amended to eliminate the necessary incompatibility between REGIONAL Rankings and non-regional brackets.  Practically speaking, you could lay that out in the Handbook, it seems to me.

I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   :)
My response is in bold in the third segment.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 09:43:29 PM
This is not a pool C comment, per se, but this seems to be where the postmortem is.  I'm having trouble with NCC as the overall #4 seed.  I have my suspicions that, believing (quite reasonably) that MUC wll host a semi-final game, the bean-counters, not the committee, put NCC 4th since MUC could host any North champ without a plane ride, but not many likely South or West teams.  Comments?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 08:59:43 PM
redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.


This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

I wouldn't mind if the rules were amended to eliminate the necessary incompatibility between REGIONAL Rankings and non-regional brackets.  Practically speaking, you could lay that out in the Handbook, it seems to me.

I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   :)
My response is in bold in the third segment.  :)

Redswarm,
Are you arguing just to argue again?

I don't see where the handbook prevents the building of brackets around No. 1 seeds either. As long as they put the 32 teams in first, then build four brackets ... seems like they're doing something helpful by using whatever wiggle room is allowed in the rules. Would you prefer Mount Union and North Central stay in the North together and Ithaca be the 1 seed in the East?

Not sure I understand what the beef is with the use of regional rankings, beyond a general nitpick. An East Region team's win over an RRO from the South is still considered the same by the selection committee. It seems to me that the point of regional rankings is to take advantage of the expertise of the eight volunteers from each region who report to the selection committee (and two of whom from each region are on it).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 10:10:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:06:18 PM

Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and . . .

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.


Fine.  Then amend the Handbook so that we can distinguish between the "D-III's central philosophy" and "the spirit of the Handbook."  As it stands, picking the top 4 teams regardless of their Region is inconsistent with the emphasis on regional competition.

I think it would be simple enough to say "use the Regional Rankings to gather the 32 teams, then select the top 4 teams nationally and create brackets around each of the top 4."  The travel restrictions will, as a practical matter, force each bracket to retain a regional flavor.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PMThis year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

You're absolutely right about the "power vacuum" in the East.

You might be right as to his thinking, but your description inflated Dr. Kaiser's answer a bit.  The most direct answer to the question about a 10-0 Cortland State would be exactly what Bob Gregg has been saying: there's nothing in the Handbook that would permit the Selection Committee even to contemplate importing a team--any team, from out of region as a number one seed over a 10-0 Cortland St. with very good OWP/OOWP numbers, and stellar results v. RROs.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PM
I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   :)

I'm not doubting anyone's allegiance to D-III, and I'm sure you're not suggesting that I am.

Still, I  am reluctant to ask over 200 teams to schedule and play according to a handbook that grants the Selection Committee the power to make decisions that affect those teams based on rules that don't exist, AND that are decided in secret.

That said, Dr. Kaiser was very forthcoming in his interview.   I still would have loved to ask him such questions as whether he understands that the rules require the Selection Committee to attempt to pick a winner based only on the Primary Criteria, before the Committee can look at Secondary Criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:12:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 09:43:29 PM
This is not a pool C comment, per se, but this seems to be where the postmortem is.  I'm having trouble with NCC as the overall #4 seed.  I have my suspicions that, believing (quite reasonably) that MUC wll host a semi-final game, the bean-counters, not the committee, put NCC 4th since MUC could host any North champ without a plane ride, but not many likely South or West teams.  Comments?

Yeah, the Post-mortem probably should be at the Potential Seedings thread.

I wondered about NC being No. 4 too. I guess Willamette, NC and Millsaps all compare pretty closely ... maybe NC and Willamette have the OWP/OOWP edge (just guessing, haven't looked lately) and they all have a win over an RRO or two, no? Granted Trinity and Cal Lu missed the field.

I don't see any good reason for that either, but that's third on my list of beefs behind the West switcheroo and the Texas twosome again.

Otherwise they did a nice job.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: labart96 on November 16, 2008, 10:14:55 PM
It's a tough deal either way -

tight budgets vs. "doing the right thing" vis a vis the best teams in the country.

i will agree - in general - with RS that this whole "regional" discussion is a mis-nomer and should be re-clarified in the rule books.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 10:10:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:06:18 PM

Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and . . .

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.


Fine.  Then amend the Handbook so that we can distinguish between the "D-III's central philosophy" and "the spirit of the Handbook."  As it stands, picking the top 4 teams regardless of their Region is inconsistent with the emphasis on regional competition.

I think it would be simple enough to say "use the Regional Rankings to gather the 32 teams, then select the top 4 teams nationally and create brackets around each of the top 4."  The travel restrictions will, as a practical matter, force each bracket to retain a regional flavor.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PMThis year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

You're absolutely right about the "power vacuum" in the East.

You might be right as to his thinking, but your description inflated Dr. Kaiser's answer a bit.  The most direct answer to the question about a 10-0 Cortland State would be exactly what Bob Gregg has been saying: there's nothing in the Handbook that would permit the Selection Committee even to contemplate importing a team--any team, from out of region as a number one seed over a 10-0 Cortland St. with very good OWP/OOWP numbers, and stellar results v. RROs.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 09:15:32 PM
I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   :)

I'm not doubting anyone's allegiance to D-III, and I'm sure you're not suggesting that I am.

Still, I  am reluctant to ask over 200 teams to schedule and play according to a handbook that grants the Selection Committee the power to make decisions that affect those teams based on rules that don't exist, AND that are decided in secret.

That said, Dr. Kaiser was very forthcoming in his interview.   I still would have loved to ask him such questions as whether he understands that the rules require the Selection Committee to attempt to pick a winner based only on the Primary Criteria, before the Committee can look at Secondary Criteria.

But are you beefing just to beef?

I mean, beyond semantics, and the appearance that there are guidelines being followed that aren't specifically laid out in the handbook, even though these are guidelines most of us have come to understand are allowable possibilities by them not being specifically barred by the handbook ... what exactly is the problem you have with how they arrive at the outcome, or the outcome itself?

There doesn't seem to be a real injustice that you're railing against here. Unless I'm missing it, which is entirely possible.

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

It's probably good to leave a little room for common sense to prevail on the committee, but you don't want it to get too subjective as it sometimes did under the old 16-team system, where there basically wasn't access to the dance for everybody.

Of course, Red, you and I always get into this discussion of how much "art" and how much "science" goes into the decisions that are made.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 10:21:12 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:05:44 PM

Redswarm,
Are you arguing just to argue again?

No, of course not.  Why do you ask?   :D

Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:05:44 PMI don't see where the handbook prevents the building of brackets around No. 1 seeds either.

And I don't see where the handbook permits it (the way Dick Kaiser described it).  It would be a simple matter for the Handbook to say that the REGIONAL rankings need not be relied upon when selecting the number one seed for each bracket, but the Handbook doesn't say that.  It only says that the Primary and Secondary Criteria SHALL be used for ranking and selecting and seeding teams.

I'm guessing that the D-1 basketball tournament handbook says something about selecting the top 4 teams nationally.  The D-III handbook doesn't say a word.

Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:05:44 PMAs long as they put the 32 teams in first, then build four brackets ... seems like they're doing something helpful by using whatever wiggle room is allowed in the rules.

I don't disagree, but the Handbook doesn't say anything about the Selection Committee having the authority to "do something helpful."  It could, but it doesn't.  It only lists the Selection Criteria.

Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:05:44 PMNot sure I understand what the beef is with the use of regional rankings, beyond a general nitpick.

I have no beef with the USE of Regional rankings.  I do get uncomfortable when they're NOT used, as is the case with the not-described-anywhere-in-the-handbook process of picking the top 4 teams nationally, when the handbook doesn't say that anything other than the Regional rankings may be used.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 10:21:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2008, 09:43:29 PM
This is not a pool C comment, per se, but this seems to be where the postmortem is.  I'm having trouble with NCC as the overall #4 seed.  I have my suspicions that, believing (quite reasonably) that MUC wll host a semi-final game, the bean-counters, not the committee, put NCC 4th since MUC could host any North champ without a plane ride, but not many likely South or West teams.  Comments?
NCC was the #2 team in the North.  They may be stronger than the usual #2, but Millsaps and Willamette have done all that they can do to prove their cases.

Hey, the CCIW got a Pool C bid.  That is a big bone!

And had Cortland State won, I think that we would be seeing NCC meeting MUC a week earlier.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:19:11 PM

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

I wish I could agree with you more easily, but Dr. Kaiser's response was not so clear cut.  The way I heard it, he said something like "it would be a difficult decision."  But the way Bob Gregg and I (and you) look at it, it would NOT be a difficult decision: 10-0 Cortland St. gets a no. 1 seed.  Easy.  End of story.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on November 16, 2008, 10:44:06 PM
Dick Kaiser was really clear on the 4 top seeds. He said they pick the top 4 seeds and then rank them 1-4. Mt Union was the consensus #1 and he said Millsaps was pretty quickly the consensus #2 (answers who is hosting the semis). He said they debated NCC vs Willamette for a while and Willamette finally won. I suppose they decided a #2 from a region can't trump a #1 from another region so NCC is #4. A couple of points with this thinking:

-It pretty conclusively tells you they don't care about the polls
-It also tells you if Cortland was 10-0 they likely would not have moved MUC. I say that because moving MUC was a statement that NCC was a better #1 seed than Cortland and that wouldn't have been the case. I do think NCC would have gone west as a #2 though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 10:51:30 PM
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2008, 10:44:06 PM
Dick Kaiser was really clear on the 4 top seeds. He said they pick the top 4 seeds and then rank them 1-4. Mt Union was the consensus #1 and he said Millsaps was pretty quickly the consensus #2 (answers who is hosting the semis). He said they debated NCC vs Willamette for a while and Willamette finally won. I suppose they decided a #2 from a region can't trump a #1 from another region so NCC is #4. A couple of points with this thinking:

-It pretty conclusively tells you they don't care about the polls
-It also tells you if Cortland was 10-0 they likely would not have moved MUC. I say that because moving MUC was a statement that NCC was a better #1 seed than Cortland and that wouldn't have been the case. I do think NCC would have gone west as a #2 though.
? Over a 9-0 Oxy?

As for 10-0 Cortland, they would have gone thru the NJAC undefeated, a respectable accomplishment in its own right, and then to beat your fiercest rival, who was the Pool A bid in its conference, is quite a feat!  (The Cortaca Jug is one of the three to five best rivarly games in all of D-III!   :) )

I always have trouble not honoring a team that goes undefeated.  That ability to maintain concentration week after week and beat the teams on your schedule is quite an accomplishment for a group of young men.

I cannot denigrate that in any way.

Move the lower seeds around.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on November 16, 2008, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 10:51:30 PM
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2008, 10:44:06 PM
Dick Kaiser was really clear on the 4 top seeds. He said they pick the top 4 seeds and then rank them 1-4. Mt Union was the consensus #1 and he said Millsaps was pretty quickly the consensus #2 (answers who is hosting the semis). He said they debated NCC vs Willamette for a while and Willamette finally won. I suppose they decided a #2 from a region can't trump a #1 from another region so NCC is #4. A couple of points with this thinking:

-It pretty conclusively tells you they don't care about the polls
-It also tells you if Cortland was 10-0 they likely would not have moved MUC. I say that because moving MUC was a statement that NCC was a better #1 seed than Cortland and that wouldn't have been the case. I do think NCC would have gone west as a #2 though.
? Over a 9-0 Oxy?

As for 10-0 Cortland, they would have gone thru the NJAC undefeated, a respectable accomplishment in its own right, and then to beat your fiercest rival, who was the Pool A bid in its conference, is quite a feat!  (The Cortaca Jug is one of the three to five best rivarly games in all of D-III!   :) )

I always have trouble not honoring a team that goes undefeated.  That ability to maintain concentration week after week and beat the teams on your schedule is quite an accomplishment for a group of young men.

I cannot denigrate that in any way.

Move the lower seeds around.   :)

The move west was my idea (actually Pat's) not the committee.

I don't see how it would denigrate anyone in anyway. they ranked the top 4 seeds did they not? is Willamette denigrated because Millsaps is the #2 overall seed? And Oxy is going to Willamette as a #2. Would have been the same anywhere in the bracket. There is no shame in moving a #2 seed. Kaiser did address this and said the process would be the same as it is for the top 4 seeds. That is, if they were moving a #7 (his example) to another region they would compare them with the sitting #7 and make a decision. wouldn't change for a #2 either. NCC would have made sense in the west because of their geography.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:13:20 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:19:11 PM

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

I wish I could agree with you more easily, but Dr. Kaiser's response was not so clear cut.  The way I heard it, he said something like "it would be a difficult decision."  But the way Bob Gregg and I (and you) look at it, it would NOT be a difficult decision: 10-0 Cortland St. gets a no. 1 seed.  Easy.  End of story.

Maybe he was being diplomatic in his answer ... what would there have been to decide? Especially since the last few posts point out that they had North Central as the least-deserving 1 seed, which makes them the most likely No. 2. Or would it have come down to Cortland vs. NC for the last spot, and therefore having MUC's "region" hang in the balance?

I don't know. No point in discussing it now.

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:41:29 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:13:20 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 16, 2008, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2008, 10:19:11 PM

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

I wish I could agree with you more easily, but Dr. Kaiser's response was not so clear cut.  The way I heard it, he said something like "it would be a difficult decision."  But the way Bob Gregg and I (and you) look at it, it would NOT be a difficult decision: 10-0 Cortland St. gets a no. 1 seed.  Easy.  End of story.

Maybe he was being diplomatic in his answer ... what would there have been to decide?

My point exactly.  There was nothing to decide.  No need to be "diplomatic."  It was out of the Selection Committee's hands, in effect.

I wish that Dr. Kaiser had pointed out that there was nothing for the committee to decide: 10-0 Cortland is a No. 1 Seed.

I worry that he doesn't understand that there was nothing to decide.  I worry that he thinks the committee can do whatever the handbook doesn't prevent it from doing.

Some consider it a minor point, but I liken it to government:  There's no law preventing the government from arresting you for dressing poorly, but the government can't arrest you for dressing poorly, because no law permits the government to arrest you for dressing poorly.

I get really uncomfortable when governing bodies (e.g. NCAA Selection Committees) are defended for doing things that they're not authorized to do, just because the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing those things.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:13:20 AM

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2008, 12:54:05 AM
Yes, Keith, he's arguing just to argue. Nothing new. It's scroll-down territory.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2008, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:13:20 AM

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?
Yes.

Post 913 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4930.913) on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!

Good night to all!  It has been fun!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:59:31 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:41:29 AM
Some consider it a minor point, but I liken it to government:  There's no law preventing the government from arresting you for dressing poorly, but the government can't arrest you for dressing poorly, because no law permits the government to arrest you for dressing poorly.

I get really uncomfortable when governing bodies (e.g. NCAA Selection Committees) are defended for doing things that they're not authorized to do, just because the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing those things.

I guess so.

But your analogy vs. the situation at hand ... technically they seem to fit, but when you take it to a different degree, that's a new variable. Kind of like a $100 ticket for is a deterrent to the crime of speeding, but life in prison isn't really a deterrent to anyone far enough off their rocker to want to kill someone.

Severity of punishment is a deterrent to crime. But then again it isn't. Similar to you analogy of laws of prevention vs. permission.

Why are you against the practical use of common sense even if the common sense scenario hasn't been forecasted and written into the rules?

If you want to go back to talking about law ... if there were a rule in the book for every scenario, we'd be overrun with rules. At some point in law we refer to precedent, and good judgement, no?

In other words, I don't think this is a case of doing "whatever" the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing. That would be making Whitewater and Mount Union play in the first round because it seems like it would be a really good game, and we wanna see a rematch!

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:41:29 AM
I wish that Dr. Kaiser had pointed out that there was nothing for the committee to decide: 10-0 Cortland is a No. 1 Seed.

I worry that he doesn't understand that there was nothing to decide.  I worry that he thinks the committee can do whatever the handbook doesn't prevent it from doing.

Fair wish. And your first worry would be legitimate.

But the second ... what exactly are you "worried" about?

Give me a scenario.

I mean, I wish we didn't have to nitpick about hypotheticals regarding teams who didn't handle business when there are legitimate gripes about the bracket.

I realize playoff brackets = fans complaining. However, in the case of Dick Kaiser, here's someone who's been responsive to the Division III memberships' wishes and takes the time out to talk with us about the process, to unshroud some of the (sometimes necessary) secrecy surrounding it.

So why are we getting on him (as the face of the committee) for a problem that didn't even present itself?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pg04 on November 17, 2008, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2008, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:13:20 AM

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?
Yes.

Post 913 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4930.913) on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!

Good night to all!  It has been fun!  :)

Is there a reason why these links never take me to the right place?  Is it because I have the board inverted to put the newest replies at the top?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2008, 01:08:41 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 17, 2008, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2008, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:13:20 AM

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?
Yes.

Post 913 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4930.913) on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!

Good night to all!  It has been fun!  :)

Is there a reason why these links never take me to the right place?  Is it because I have the board inverted to put the newest replies at the top?
I have my boards from old to new, and the post by boobyhasgameyo occurred

   
Re: East Region Playoff Discussion
« Reply #913 on: November 18, 2007, 09:09:27 pm »

Hope that helps.

(Dan Padanova also posted that he predicted Curry's victory last season in Post #914.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pg04 on November 17, 2008, 01:13:28 AM
Thanks Ralph. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 01:23:12 AM
Red,
I missed one of your posts from earlier, the one that begins with your response to me asking if you're arguing just to argue. And despite the good points made since then, we're back at the same point.

The No. 1 seeds thing is something that we on the site and on the boards had clamored for for years. Now we finally get a committee that responds to common sense, and we're unhappy?

Does anyone have a problem with anything that took place? Or are we all worrying about what could have gone wrong "in theory?"

I don't think that the interpretation of the handbook as written or not written has led to any grave injustices, at least with regard to what we're discussing. The two most glaring things wrong with this bracket still boil down to penny-pinching, and by attempting to fly two teams to the West Coast (we think; did that get addressed on the LL show?), this particular committee showed that it gets it. They're just handcuffed by the flight rules.

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why are we advocating more impediments to common sense?

We might not want a completely subjective commitee, but a small degree of judgement on the committee's part (wiggle room, if you will) seems to be a good thing?

Does someone somewhere prefer North Central and Mount Union been jammed in the same "North" bracket, or North Central and Willamette in the "West," with Ithaca to be the 1 in the East, and if so, how is that "fair?"
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 01:25:56 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:59:31 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:41:29 AM
Some consider it a minor point, but I liken it to government:  There's no law preventing the government from arresting you for dressing poorly, but the government can't arrest you for dressing poorly, because no law permits the government to arrest you for dressing poorly.

I get really uncomfortable when governing bodies (e.g. NCAA Selection Committees) are defended for doing things that they're not authorized to do, just because the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing those things.

I guess so.

Why are you against the practical use of common sense even if the common sense scenario hasn't been forecasted and written into the rules?

If you want to go back to talking about law ... if there were a rule in the book for every scenario, we'd be overrun with rules. At some point in law we refer to precedent, and good judgement, no?

No.  When there is no precedent and no law permitting government action, then government says "I am not permitted to do that."

The D-1 basketball handbook probably has a section on how the Selection Committee chooses the 4 No. 1 seeds.  The D-III Handbook says nothing.

If the law says "government may make the "practical use of common sense,"1 then I have no basis for complaint.

1Sheesh, talk about an oxymoron--when does government ever exercise common sense?  :D

Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:59:31 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:41:29 AM
I wish that Dr. Kaiser had pointed out that there was nothing for the committee to decide: 10-0 Cortland is a No. 1 Seed.

I worry that he doesn't understand that there was nothing to decide.  I worry that he thinks the committee can do whatever the handbook doesn't prevent it from doing.

Fair wish. And your first worry would be legitimate.

But the second ... what exactly are you "worried" about?

Give me a scenario.


Scenario:  10-0 Cortland gets seeded as No. 2 behind Mount Union.

If that weren't a realistic scenario, Dr. Kaiser would have said so, right?

By the way Pat, I can still PM you with questions anytime, right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 01:27:13 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2008, 12:54:05 AMYes, Keith, he's arguing just to argue. Nothing new. It's scroll-down territory.

I realize this is red's m.o.

I am susceptible to such tactics.

This is why I rarely post when there is an ATN or a Triple Take to be worked on. I bet 75% of my posts this year are on an early Thursday, or a Fri./Sat./Sun. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 01:37:12 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 01:23:12 AM
Red,

The No. 1 seeds thing is something that we on the site and on the boards had clamored for for years. Now we finally get a committee that responds to common sense, and we're unhappy?

I don't think that the interpretation of the handbook as written or not written has led to any grave injustices, at least with regard to what we're discussing. The two most glaring things wrong with this bracket still boil down to penny-pinching, and by attempting to fly two teams to the West Coast (we think; did that get addressed on the LL show?), this particular committee showed that it gets it. They're just handcuffed by the flight rules.


I'm not advocating impediments to "common sense."  I've suggested several simple amendments to the Handbook to define common sense.

Can any other loyal D-III football fan make such a claim?

I don't understand why you (or anybody else, for that matter) think I'm not on your side.  I want the NCAA to WRITE DOWN what it ought to do.  It would be easy.

Right now, they're using THEIR common sense, and it's okay with you.  Three years ago and prior, they also used THEIR common sense and it wasn't okay with you.

I'm not advocating against common sense.

I am noting that in the absence of a definition of "common sense," unpleasant outcomes are possible, as you clamored for years.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 01:47:00 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 01:23:12 AM
Red,

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why are we advocating more impediments to common sense?


I missed this earlier.

If you can write what you did, then you really don't understand my point, which seems so simple to me--I'll paraphrase your language:

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why aren't we advocating better written rules?

Which is what I'm doing.  I've posted several suggested amendments.  Why is that so offensive to people who have complained bitterly about what has gone wrong with the rules as written?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on November 17, 2008, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2008, 10:51:30 PM
As for 10-0 Cortland, they would have gone thru the NJAC undefeated, a respectable accomplishment in its own right, and then to beat your fiercest rival, who was the Pool A bid in its conference, is quite a feat!  (The Cortaca Jug is one of the three to five best rivarly games in all of D-III!   :) )

I always have trouble not honoring a team that goes undefeated.  That ability to maintain concentration week after week and beat the teams on your schedule is quite an accomplishment for a group of young men.

I cannot denigrate that in any way.

Move the lower seeds around.   :)

I have no desire to argue this further and am happy with the result, but to go on record one final time.....this is not appropriate logic to argue Cortland over North Central as a #1 seed. Just to hilight the inefficiency: Your exact argument here could be used of North Central. They did everything they had to do. 10-0, beat the #4 team in the country, their arch rival, on the road and what we seem to be saying is its ok for them to be a #2 seed simply because they are in Mt Unions' "region"? (never mind that they are 32 miles further away from Alliance Ohio than Cortland) THAT doesn't make sense. I am glad it didn't come to that and all the deserving teams got #1 seeds.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 10:01:52 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2008, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2008, 12:13:20 AM

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?
Yes.

Post 913 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4930.913) on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!


That's a different sentiment than I was quoting.

Post 913 suggests that Curry could win its first round game.

Post 913 does not suggest that Curry should not have been demoted to a no.2 seed after doing everything that was asked of them in winning 11 games.  Post 913 did not defend Curry's "honor" (Ralph's very good word choice) for going undefeated.

I would think those who didn't defend Curry in 2007 but who were willing to defend Cortland in 2008 would want the Selection Criteria to be defined differently.  I seem to be the only one who wants clearly defined rules, consistently applied.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: altor on November 17, 2008, 10:18:57 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 01:47:00 AM
Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why aren't we advocating better written rules?

Quote from: D3 Championship Handbook, Page 13
Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic
proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may
be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained.

Last year when MUC was sent East, I posted mileages from Alliance to various East and North qualifiers.  The distances weren't that different.  So geographic proximity has been maintained.  The committee simply used their authority to move a team to numerically balance the brackets.  So how could this rule be better written?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: altor on November 17, 2008, 10:47:40 AM
And when I look at this map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/D3_football_map.gif), if I were to group the 32 teams in clusters as suggested in the first sentence that I quoted, the oddball appears to be Randolph-Macon in the "East" when Wash & Jeff, Muhlenberg, and Wesley appear to be closer.  I assume the committee wanted to balance the brackets numerically by sending the Yellow Jackets to Alliance rather than one of those 9-1 teams.  Since it fits the "geographic proximity" part of the rule, I still don't see what the problem is.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:43:05 PM
Quote from: altor on November 17, 2008, 10:18:57 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 01:47:00 AM
Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why aren't we advocating better written rules?

Quote from: D3 Championship Handbook, Page 13
Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic
proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may
be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained.

Last year when MUC was sent East, I posted mileages from Alliance to various East and North qualifiers.  The distances weren't that different.  So geographic proximity has been maintained.  The committee simply used their authority to move a team to numerically balance the brackets.  So how could this rule be better written?

This rule is better written than the impression Dr. Kaiser left in his interview.

However, there's still the gap between ranking/selecting/seeding based on Regional rankings, and "grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity."

The Selection/Ranking/Seeding Criteria say nothing about "natural geographic proximity."  They only speak of Regions.  Thus, this rule still leaves open the possibility of a 2008 10-0 Cortland St. being seeded no.2 under no. 1 seed Mount Union, based on "natural geographic proximity."

I don't think it would be that difficult to bridge the gap by amending the Selection Criteria.  Some seem to think that such an amendment would be a travesty akin to amending the First Amendment to limit political speech.  Oh wait--we did that, didn't we?   :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2008, 12:48:04 PM
So we're having a big argument based on your impressions rather than actually reading the handbook? Sheesh.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: altor on November 17, 2008, 01:33:11 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 12:43:05 PM
However, there's still the gap between ranking/selecting/seeding based on Regional rankings, and "grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity."

The Selection/Ranking/Seeding Criteria say nothing about "natural geographic proximity."  They only speak of Regions.

What does one have to do with the other?  They selected the 9 at-large teams based on regional criteria.  They grouped the 32 teams by geographic proximity (using their authority to move teams if it made sense).  They seeded those clusters using regional criteria.  They created first round match-ups based on geographic proximity.  That is exactly what they were asked to do by the member institutions.

QuoteThus, this rule still leaves open the possibility of a 2008 10-0 Cortland St. being seeded no.2 under no. 1 seed Mount Union, based on "natural geographic proximity."

There are 8 undefeated teams as it is.  Some of them have to take a #2 or #3 seed.  There is no way around it.  At least a #2 Cortland wouldn't be playing an away game in the first round thanks to "geographic proximity" (see Occidental).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HScoach on November 17, 2008, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2008, 12:48:04 PM
So we're having a big argument based on your impressions rather than actually reading the handbook? Sheesh.

I agree.  It's just like arguing with my 14 year old daughter.  Logic and a general understanding of the English language is optional.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: redswarm81 on November 17, 2008, 04:14:57 PM
Quote from: altor on November 17, 2008, 01:33:11 PM

They selected the 9 at-large teams based on regional criteria.  They grouped the 32 teams by geographic proximity (using their authority to move teams if it made sense).  They seeded those clusters using regional criteria. 

That's true except for the number 1 seeds.  That's my point.  The only words in the Handbook about seeding are to use the Regional Ranking/Selection/Seeding Criteria.

Quote from: altor on November 17, 2008, 01:33:11 PMThere are 8 undefeated teams as it is.  Some of them have to take a #2 or #3 seed.  There is no way around it. 

That's right.   But there's nothing in the Handbook that suggests it's proper to move a team from one region to another to displace a team (such as 10-0 Cortland 2008) that, when evaluated by the Regional Ranking/Selection/Seeding Criteria, is as qualified to be a number 1 seed as is the imported team.

If that's what we want done, let's amend the Handbook.  If that's what we want prevented, let's strictly construe the Handbook (as it seems pretty clear Dick Kaiser and the Committee don't do), or let's clarify the Handbook.  I really am sorry that this suggestion upsets so many of you.  I mean no harm.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2008, 04:16:56 PM
Alright, this conversation has officially come full circle.
Again.
And again.

No more. There's enough dead horses to beat elsewhere, RS81.