D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2013, 10:39:56 PM

Title: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2013, 10:39:56 PM
Time to start a new thread (and pull the Pool C talk off the Pool B board.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 18, 2013, 10:50:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2013, 10:39:56 PM
Time to start a new thread (and pull the Pool C talk off the Pool B board.)

I've been thinking the same thing, but just never got around to starting the thread! ::)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2013, 08:18:46 AM
A few early observations:

1) this is a rarity anyway, but there will likely be no Pool B teams that spill into Pool C as realistic playoff candidates. The last Pool C in is likely to have one or two losses as it is, and the "fourth" team in B is almost guaranteed to have two losses. The only way this gets funky is if Wesley's odd schedule bites them and somehow they are docked for the low number of D3 games.

2) with that out of the way: the east has already beaten itself up so much that I can't see hardly anyone getting to Pool C with just one loss (short of SJF or Hobart getting upset / if Salisbury beats SJF this week, they go into the E8 driver's seat and SJF becomes out first logical Pool C candidate from the East).

3) the MIAC has a mess on its hands. Several games played to sort this out yet but it's very plausible that their runner up will have two losses. A conference that usually produces a Pool C team that acquits itself well.

4) the CCIW and OAC look like good bets to produce a one loss runner up; each conference has three very good teams and no one that looks REALLY threatening to beat any of the top three, thus I expect each will produce a one loss runner up that will be a strong candidate. This is also likely with the two power teams in the NCAC (since Witt's loss to Butler doesn't count, although we have previously noted that it must be somehow considered that Witt was demolished and Franklin nearly best Butler the next week).

5) the NWC had a number of key games coming up, but Pacific, Willamette, and (most likely) Pacific Lutheran all stand a chance of coming to the table with one loss

6) the MWC could produce an interesting problem as a fairly weak conference with two teams undefeated in conference play that don't play one another. We are currently assuming that Illinois College will likely get the Pool A if they don't stumble, so St. Norbert is on the bubble (but given their lopsided loss to John Carroll, I expect they would be placed behind other quality 1-loss Pool C teams).

7) the WIAC has three highly-ranked teams that have to start playing one another so we can figure out who is best and if anyone's getting through with 1 loss into Pool C.

8) I made a prediction that at least one Pool C team will have two losses, even with the low number of slots available. I stand by that - so many games to be played yet, I don't think that we'll have more than a couple of highly-ranked runners-up with only one loss.


Sorry I went back and forth between east, west, north regions there. But this could start some conversation :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: D3MAFAN on October 19, 2013, 10:20:52 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2013, 08:18:46 AM
A few early observations:

1) this is a rarity anyway, but there will likely be no Pool B teams that spill into Pool C as realistic playoff candidates. The last Pool C in is likely to have one or two losses as it is, and the "fourth" team in B is almost guaranteed to have two losses. The only way this gets funky is if Wesley's odd schedule bites them and somehow they are docked for the low number of D3 games.

2) with that out of the way: the east has already beaten itself up so much that I can't see hardly anyone getting to Pool C with just one loss (short of SJF or Hobart getting upset / if Salisbury beats SJF this week, they go into the E8 driver's seat and SJF becomes out first logical Pool C candidate from the East).

3) the MIAC has a mess on its hands. Several games played to sort this out yet but it's very plausible that their runner up will have two losses. A conference that usually produces a Pool C team that acquits itself well.

4) the CCIW and OAC look like good bets to produce a one loss runner up; each conference has three very good teams and no one that looks REALLY threatening to beat any of the top three, thus I expect each will produce a one loss runner up that will be a strong candidate. This is also likely with the two power teams in the NCAC (since Witt's loss to Butler doesn't count, although we have previously noted that it must be somehow considered that Witt was demolished and Franklin nearly best Butler the next week).

5) the NWC had a number of key games coming up, but Pacific, Willamette, and (most likely) Pacific Lutheran all stand a chance of coming to the table with one loss

6) the MWC could produce an interesting problem as a fairly weak conference with two teams undefeated in conference play that don't play one another. We are currently assuming that Illinois College will likely get the Pool A if they don't stumble, so St. Norbert is on the bubble (but given their lopsided loss to John Carroll, I expect they would be placed behind other quality 1-loss Pool C teams).

7) the WIAC has three highly-ranked teams that have to start playing one another so we can figure out who is best and if anyone's getting through with 1 loss into Pool C.

8) I made a prediction that at least one Pool C team will have two losses, even with the low number of slots available. I stand by that - so many games to be played yet, I don't think that we'll have more than a couple of highly-ranked runners-up with only one loss.


Sorry I went back and forth between east, west, north regions there. But this could start some conversation :)

I think you can add the USA South to this conversation, they have a weird situation down there with so many teams fighting for the #1 spot, not sure how that is going to turn out, but you could easily see both CNU and Huntingdon win out with Huntingdon winning the conference championship and CNU having quality wins against two possible conference champions. Also, you have to look at the Centenial Conference with Johns Hopkins and Ursinus.

Edited to take out Ursinus.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 19, 2013, 10:01:38 PM
Scratch Huntingdon. The at-large game is cruel.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: D3MAFAN on October 19, 2013, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 19, 2013, 10:01:38 PM
Scratch Huntingdon. The at-large game is cruel.

Very Cruel!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 20, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
Quote from: D3MAFAN on October 19, 2013, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 19, 2013, 10:01:38 PM
Scratch Huntingdon. The at-large game is cruel.

Very Cruel!

Maryville's win over Christopher Newport basically rules out a Pool C from the USA South. Huntingdon could still win their way in as a Pool A with a win over now-leader Maryville in the finale, but I think we can rule out a 2-loss USAC team, even CNU with a quality OOC win, as a Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: D3MAFAN on October 20, 2013, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 20, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
Quote from: D3MAFAN on October 19, 2013, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 19, 2013, 10:01:38 PM
Scratch Huntingdon. The at-large game is cruel.

Very Cruel!

Maryville's win over Christopher Newport basically rules out a Pool C from the USA South. Huntingdon could still win their way in as a Pool A with a win over now-leader Maryville in the finale, but I think we can rule out a 2-loss USAC team, even CNU with a quality OOC win, as a Pool C.

They would need a lot of help from the West and North Region, which may end up imploding over the next few weeks, the East has already imploded. However, their is an outside chance. However, Maryville lost to E&H doesn't help now and Huntingdon close loss to Wesley doesn't help right now since the Wesley loss yesterday.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on October 20, 2013, 01:48:38 PM
Fans of other pool "C" teams probably need Heidelberg to beat John Carroll. JCU's non-conference win over St. Norbert has to help them more than 'Berg's dismantling of Alma, even if the JCU win was non-region.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2013, 02:47:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2013, 01:48:38 PM
Fans of other pool "C" teams probably need Heidelberg to beat John Carroll. JCU's non-conference win over St. Norbert has to help them more than 'Berg's dismantling of Alma, even if the JCU win was non-region.

They are all "regional" games this year.  All D3 games get counted in the SOS math so long as you play a certain percentage of your games in region (I think it's 75%).

Either way, the winner of JCU/HBerg is about as close to lock status as anybody will get in this year's pool C. As long as the don't lose again to a not-UMU team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2013, 02:58:57 PM
Please refresh my memory... Do we have this allocation?

Pool A 24
Pool B 3
Pool C 5
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 20, 2013, 03:00:06 PM
I think that's what we have this year, Ralph.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: jknezek on October 20, 2013, 03:21:42 PM
Pat said that was the math breakdown, but last I heard the book wasn't out, so it wasn't completely a given.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HScoach on October 20, 2013, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2013, 02:47:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2013, 01:48:38 PM
Fans of other pool "C" teams probably need Heidelberg to beat John Carroll. JCU's non-conference win over St. Norbert has to help them more than 'Berg's dismantling of Alma, even if the JCU win was non-region.

They are all "regional" games this year.  All D3 games get counted in the SOS math so long as you play a certain percentage of your games in region (I think it's 75%).

Either way, the winner of JCU/HBerg is about as close to lock status as anybody will get in this year's pool C. As long as the don't lose again to a not-UMU team.

The OAC isn't the lock that it's been for the last 20 years.   Any of the 3 could win it.    And all 3 finishing 9-1 is a distinct possibility.    H'Berg might have the toughest route to 10-0 as they play at JCU the week after hosting Mount.   Going to tough for Berg to rise again the  next week.  Especially if they beat Mount.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2013, 04:43:54 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 20, 2013, 03:21:42 PM
Pat said that was the math breakdown, but last I heard the book wasn't out, so it wasn't completely a given.
Ground Hog Day in October?

I think that we will get one from the East, one from the South, and three from the North and West.

The South looks like 3 teams unless someone from the MASCAC breaks thru.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on October 20, 2013, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: HScoach on October 20, 2013, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2013, 02:47:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2013, 01:48:38 PM
Fans of other pool "C" teams probably need Heidelberg to beat John Carroll. JCU's non-conference win over St. Norbert has to help them more than 'Berg's dismantling of Alma, even if the JCU win was non-region.

They are all "regional" games this year.  All D3 games get counted in the SOS math so long as you play a certain percentage of your games in region (I think it's 75%).

Either way, the winner of JCU/HBerg is about as close to lock status as anybody will get in this year's pool C. As long as the don't lose again to a not-UMU team.

The OAC isn't the lock that it's been for the last 20 years.   Any of the 3 could win it.    And all 3 finishing 9-1 is a distinct possibility.    H'Berg might have the toughest route to 10-0 as they play at JCU the week after hosting Mount.   Going to tough for Berg to rise again the  next week.  Especially if they beat Mount.

HSCoach - Are you Lou Holtzing your Raiders/  ;) At least you're not saying those fine fellows at Muskingum could give us a great game!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HScoach on October 20, 2013, 08:24:55 PM
No "Holtzing".   Just my honest opinion.    Berg and JCU are much improved and Mount is young.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 21, 2013, 11:54:00 AM
I'll go ahead and move the projection into this forum.  Here we go. 

Pool A:

   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Gallaudet   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Wartburg   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MAC   
   Lebanon Valley   
   MIAC   
   Bethel   
   MWC   
   Illinois College   
   MIAA   
   Adrian   
   NACC   
   Concordia (Wis.)   
   NCAC   
   Wabash   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   TCNJ   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Hampden-Sydney   
   PAC   
   Washington & Jefferson   
   SCIAC   
   Redlands   
   UMAC   
   Greenville   
   USAC   
   Maryville   
   WIAC   
   UW-Whitewater   

Coe out, Wartburg in (could have also gone with Dubuque there...either way, it doesn't affect the at-large situation below).  Also Huntingdon is out, Maryville is in.  That whole thing there gets messy if LaGrange wins out and Huntingdon beats Maryville in week 11. 

Pool B - In order of selection:
Millsaps (6-0, 0.571 SOS)
Texas Lutheran (5-0, 0.363 SOS)
Wesley (5-2, 0.689 SOS)

I think Millsaps is obvious at this point.  Texas Lutheran will rankle some, but undefeated is undefeated and we haven't seen undefeated teams get left out (post-1999....yes, I know undefeated teams got left out "back in the day" when there were only 8 teams in the tournament...the old days aren't relevant now).  I have Wesley juuuust barely hanging on.   It was a weird week for the Wolverines...they lost, but Salisbury picked up a big win which helps tremendously, but Huntingdon lost a head scratcher which doesn't help at all.  For the moment, Wesley has the only guaranteed quality win amongst the other teams in play for that last spot (basically WashU and Framingham...Centre and Rhodes are nice but both were beaten by WashU and I'm not sure they'll be in a regional ranking down the road) and that's why I went with Wesley, along with their impressive SOS.  Quick note on Wesley's SOS...that thing took a drop from 0.751 last week to 0.689 this week.  If that thing continues to fall over the next few weeks, Wesley's spot here becomes more tenuous than it already is. 

Pool C- In order of selection:
UW-Platteville (6-0, 0.439 SOS)
St. John Fisher (5-1, 0.580 SOS)
Pacific Lutheran (5-1, 0.572 SOS)
Wheaton (6-0, 0.558 SOS)
Concordia-Moorhead (5-1, 0.534 SOS)

It is admittedly a little weird to see the lowest SOS here on the top of the list, but I'm playing a little futures here...If Platteville (or Oshkosh or Whitewater) are a 1-loss runner up, they'll have a quality win or two and those SOSs are going up in a big way starting this week.  So I'm fudging just a little bit with the WIAC runner up. 

Fisher lost, but lands at the top of the East board.  I think the win over W&J helps them (I think WJ will be ranked when we get that far) and they have a big SOS.  Something to watch for here....last year the East RAC made a last-week secret ballot change to their rankings and pushed Bridgewater State up in front of a 2-loss Lycoming team and Bridgewater State wound up in the field, which nobody saw coming (except for Rossi...I think it was Rossi who was all over that).  That's me saying that if it turns out that WJ isn't a good win when it's time to cash in those at-large chips, Framingham (if they don't get picked up in Pool B) could be in play.  They have a solid SOS. 

Pacific Lutheran is next off...great SOS plus they now have a quality win over Pacific (which may not be a quality win once the regional rankings come along, but Pacific seems to be legit...they could stay in a top 10 in the West). 

Wheaton comes off next.  Nice SOS, but zero quality wins to this point.  That could change this coming Saturday with a game agianst IWU. 

And finally, I went with Concordia-Moorhead, who currently sits atop the MIAC at-large pecking order.  St. John's is definitely a quality win for the Cobbers. 

Left on my board are John Carroll, WashU, and Delaware Valley.  Coe would be the next team off in the West (not counting St. Johns as I stick to my one at-large team from each league rule).  Washington starts to become an interesting case if Centre and/or Rhodes get into a regional ranking and Whitewater keeps destroying everybody on their schedule except for WashU.  I think it's more likely that WashU would end up being selected in Pool B than Pool C, but the South region is really hurting for at-large teams and it's not all that hard to see the Bears on top of the South's Pool C table. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HScoach on October 21, 2013, 12:33:24 PM
The ever-shrinking size of Pool C makes for an interesting problem come Selection Sunday.   A 9-1 OAC runner-up has always been a sure-fire lock to make the field, but that might not be the case with only 5 spots open.   With 9 in-conference games each year, the OAC has little chance to make their SoS diverge from 500 point that conferences like the CCIW and E-8 have.   And if H'Berg is the runner-up, they really screwed themselves by playing Alma.   Whereas Mount beat Franklin who should be regionally ranked and win the HCAC and John Carrol beat St Norbert who could finish 9-1 themselves.   

Though I don't want to be in this position, the surest Pool C qualifier from the OAC would be Mount Union.    Would be awfully hard to keep the defending and 11-time National Champion out of the field simply because their SoS number isn't much above 500.   In my mind John Carroll has a good chance to make it at 9-1 if they get there based on a quality opener and they would have beaten either H'Berg or Mount to end the year.   H'Berg is the most sketchy due to the Alma opener.     What becomes really messy is if all 3 finish 9-1.   I have no idea what the OAC's tie breaker is, but knowing the geniuses in the league office it's probably something like the old Big Ten Rose Bowl rule.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on October 21, 2013, 12:58:38 PM

Only 4 Pool C's (per this morning's podcast)?! Yikes!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 01:16:24 PM
Wait, it turns out the handbook is wrong. I'll explain on the front page.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on October 21, 2013, 01:27:00 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 01:16:24 PM
Wait, it turns out the handbook is wrong.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.pandawhale.com%2F28228-Thats-Unpossible-Ralph-wiggum-PcuI.jpeg&hash=4c5002545c1da9a5e103f55f8b25b771475acccc)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2013, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 01:16:24 PM
Wait, it turns out the handbook is wrong. I'll explain on the front page.
Okay, I have behaved myself since I got off frequent postings on the politics message board back in 2009, but this comment is just too ripe to pass over.

Which will be corrected first?

The Obamacare website?

Or the NCAA Division-III Championship Handbooks?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 21, 2013, 02:09:16 PM
Quote from: AO on October 21, 2013, 01:27:00 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 01:16:24 PM
Wait, it turns out the handbook is wrong.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.pandawhale.com%2F28228-Thats-Unpossible-Ralph-wiggum-PcuI.jpeg&hash=4c5002545c1da9a5e103f55f8b25b771475acccc)

+K.  I lol'd.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 21, 2013, 02:14:50 PM
Quote from: HScoach on October 21, 2013, 12:33:24 PM
The ever-shrinking size of Pool C makes for an interesting problem come Selection Sunday.   A 9-1 OAC runner-up has always been a sure-fire lock to make the field, but that might not be the case with only 5 spots open.   With 9 in-conference games each year, the OAC has little chance to make their SoS diverge from 500 point that conferences like the CCIW and E-8 have.   And if H'Berg is the runner-up, they really screwed themselves by playing Alma.   Whereas Mount beat Franklin who should be regionally ranked and win the HCAC and John Carrol beat St Norbert who could finish 9-1 themselves.   

Though I don't want to be in this position, the surest Pool C qualifier from the OAC would be Mount Union.    Would be awfully hard to keep the defending and 11-time National Champion out of the field simply because their SoS number isn't much above 500.   In my mind John Carroll has a good chance to make it at 9-1 if they get there based on a quality opener and they would have beaten either H'Berg or Mount to end the year.   H'Berg is the most sketchy due to the Alma opener.     What becomes really messy is if all 3 finish 9-1.   I have no idea what the OAC's tie breaker is, but knowing the geniuses in the league office it's probably something like the old Big Ten Rose Bowl rule.

I was kind of wondering this myself.  For the first time in a while, this seems like a realistic possibility in the OAC with three teams that have clearly distinguished themselves from the rest of the field.

WITHOUT considering the "on paper" criteria, I would think that a 9-1 OAC runner up is about as strong as it gets in Pool C, but the criteria exist for a reason; we can't just use the "eyeball test" because that's about as unfair as it gets.

I have previously stated, and stand by this, that no one should truly "count" on a Pool C berth and that we should have a "win your league or don't complain" attitude.  As you've alluded, for the OAC's top three, the playoffs just start a few weeks early :)

As far as their chances: any potential Pool C candidate needs to root for all conference favorites to keep winning and for every team that already has a loss to take another (example: now that St. John Fisher has lost to Salisbury, the OAC/CCIW/WIAC runners-up will be in direct competition with a potentially 9-1 St. John Fisher for a Pool C bid; they need to hope that Fisher takes a second loss somewhere along the way).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 02:22:36 PM
Paging Ralph Turner. Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone:

http://www.d3football.com/notables/2013/10/playoff-adjustment
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2013, 03:26:37 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 02:22:36 PM
Paging Ralph Turner. Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone:

http://www.d3football.com/notables/2013/10/playoff-adjustment
Thanks.  When I went to the front page earlier, I missed the link.

The MASCAC pulling out of the NEFC certainly tightened the noose on Pool C.  IMHO, there is a huge difference between the 6th best Pool C team staying home and the 7th.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: NCF on October 21, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?
I hope they take one someday!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 21, 2013, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?

I know this is probably not how it works, but I'm laughing at the image of some NCAA rep calling either the NESCAC office or the NESCAC champion's AD to congratulate them on their playoff invitation and make arrangements for the first-round game, only to be told "Uh, we don't play in the playoffs."
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 21, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?

Yes.  Yes I can. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: D3MAFAN on October 21, 2013, 04:18:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?

Maybe the NCAA knows something that we don't know regarding the NESCAC future regarding playoffs, would be very interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Scots13 on October 21, 2013, 04:20:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2013, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 01:16:24 PM
Wait, it turns out the handbook is wrong. I'll explain on the front page.
Okay, I have behaved myself since I got off frequent postings on the politics message board back in 2009, but this comment is just too ripe to pass over.

Which will be corrected first?

The Obamacare website?

Or the NCAA Division-III Championship Handbooks?

This just might be the funniest thing I've read/seen in 2 months. My money's on the Handbook though. I'd like to think Indianapolis can get things done faster or better than Washington can, given recent history.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ADL70 on October 21, 2013, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: D3MAFAN on October 21, 2013, 04:18:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?

Maybe the NCAA knows something that we don't know regarding the NESCAC future regarding playoffs, would be very interesting.

Check the front page. Pat confirmed with the conference office that they aren't participating.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: D3MAFAN on October 21, 2013, 05:13:22 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on October 21, 2013, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: D3MAFAN on October 21, 2013, 04:18:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?

Maybe the NCAA knows something that we don't know regarding the NESCAC future regarding playoffs, would be very interesting.

Check the front page. Pat confirmed with the conference office that they aren't participating.

I read it and implying that the NCAA jmp the gun this year in that regard, but it would definitely be a shocker.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 05:15:11 PM
No, I'd say it's just another in a long line of errors caused by turnover in Division III championships positions and people being replaced by folks without Division III knowledge.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on October 21, 2013, 05:21:47 PM
Pat, thanks for double-checking the list(s) today and for confirming with the NESCAC.  Attaway!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wabndy on October 22, 2013, 10:45:15 AM
I thought that the NESCAC's non-participation in the playoffs was more than a refusal to "accept" a bid.  Does NCAA D3 football criteria still require teams to play 9 regulation games in order to be playoff eligible?  I always thought that the NESCAC teams automatically rendered themselves ineligible for playoff consideration since they only scheduled 8 games a year.  Otherwise, what would legally (and we are talking about the NCAA here - where some enforcement policies make the federal tax code read like preschool material) prevent a Trinity from telling the NCAA on Week 11 - hey maybe we would like to play some more football?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
As far as I know, that nine-game thing is a myth. It may have been true at one point but I have never seen it codified in black and white.

What would "legally" keep Trinity (or Wesleyan) from declaring eligible for the playoffs? I would think it likely they would get kicked out of the NESCAC if they did so.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AUPepBand on October 22, 2013, 11:03:45 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
As far as I know, that nine-game thing is a myth. It may have been true at one point but I have never seen it codified in black and white.

What would "legally" keep Trinity (or Wesleyan) from declaring eligible for the playoffs? I would think it likely they would get kicked out of the NESCAC if they did so.

Heck, that (champ declaring eligible for NCAA playoffs and then being kicked out of NESCAC) would solve the NESCAC's scheduling dilemma as it would reduce the NESCAC number to nine and facilitate genuine round-robin scheduling in the NESCAC's "old school" eight-game schedule. Are there any revolutionists in New England (at Trinity or Wesleyan)?  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2013, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
As far as I know, that nine-game thing is a myth. It may have been true at one point but I have never seen it codified in black and white.

What would "legally" keep Trinity (or Wesleyan) from declaring eligible for the playoffs? I would think it likely they would get kicked out of the NESCAC if they did so.

Hobart only played eight games a couple years ago.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on October 22, 2013, 11:34:52 AM
When Lewis & Clark dropped half their schedule in 2005, Linfield made the playoff field with only 8 games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on October 22, 2013, 11:40:04 AM
Quote from: D3MAFAN on October 21, 2013, 04:18:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?

Maybe the NCAA knows something that we don't know regarding the NESCAC future regarding playoffs, would be very interesting.

That would require a whole lot of foresight and competence on the part of the NCAA, something it's showing less and less of in recent years.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wartknight on October 22, 2013, 01:29:44 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 21, 2013, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Oh no, you didn't miss it earlier. Hadn't been written yet.

Can you believe they tried to award an AQ to the NESCAC?

I know this is probably not how it works, but I'm laughing at the image of some NCAA rep calling either the NESCAC office or the NESCAC champion's AD to congratulate them on their playoff invitation and make arrangements for the first-round game, only to be told "Uh, we don't play in the playoffs."
That would be too funny! Maybe the new asst in the AD office would take the call/message & inform the team/coach of their 1st ever playoff birth.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2013, 11:41:44 AM
How about some projections?  Here's what I've got through week 8:

Pool A:

   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Gallaudet   
   E8   
   Salisbury   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Wartburg   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MAC   
   Lebanon Valley   
   MIAC   
   Bethel   
   MWC   
   Illinois College   
   MIAA   
   Albion   
   NACC   
   Concordia (Wis.)   
   NCAC   
   Wabash   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Guilford   
   PAC   
   Washington & Jefferson   
   SCIAC   
   Redlands   
   UMAC   
   Greenville   
   USAC   
   Maryville   
   WIAC   
   UW-Whitewater   

There's some crazy stuff going on.  Olivet knocking off Adrian puts Albion in front of of the MIAA...but the Britons shouldn't settle down just yet.  They've still got Hope and Adrian left to go.  Guilford took control of the ODAC, or at least as much one reasonably can.  One other change here is that I've put Rowan back in Pool A in the NJAC.  Rowan has already beaten Brockport and has games left with other co-leaders SUNY-Cortland and TCNJ.  If Rowan doesn't win the league, they won't be a factor in the at-large situation, so if you don't like Rowan here feel free to take your pick. 

Pool B:

Millsaps (7-0, 0.516 SOS) and Texas Lutheran (6-0, 0.400 SOS) are pretty clear picks here at this point.  Centre has dropped down to 2-losses and have lost h2h's with WashU and Rhodes so we can cross them off our list...probably for the duration of 2013.  Chicago picked up a second loss.  We'll keep an eye on them going forward as they have a game left with WashU which might be important.  So, what we've got left are four teams for one spot:

Rhodes (6-1, .509 SOS)
Framingham State (6-1, 0.560 SOS)
WashU (5-2, 0.596 SOS)
Wesley (6-2, .701 SOS)

WashU has a big SOS advantage and a h2h advantage over Rhodes which I think offsets the extra loss.  So let's place Rhodes behind WashU.  Framingham State...they've beaten Endicott, who very well may wind up regionally ranked if they keep winning and the rest of the east keeps eating itself.  They also have a loss to Rowan who ought to be ranked.  So they may be 1-1 vs. RROs.  WashU is going to lose an RRO result because Coe has played their way out of the rankings.  They do have one against Rhodes and another loss against UWW, so we'll call them 1-1 vs. RROs as well.  Does Huntingdon get ranked?  I don't know.  They're on the edge there.  Salisbury probably is.  Widener is a maybe.  We'll call Wesley 2-2 vs. RROs.  I'm going to pick Wesley here based on wins vs. RROs and SOS, but this is really razor thin between these four teams.  And if Rowan loses again before we see a regional ranking, we won't see Rowan ranked which affects Wesley and Framingham negatively even though both lost to the Profs. 

Pool C:
Here's how I'm ranking the at-large teams from each region this week...just the top three that's really all you need to get through the picks:
North: Illinois Wesleyan (7-0, 0.485), John Carroll (7-0, .504), Heidelberg (7-0, 0.345)
South: WashU (5-2, 0.596), Thomas More (6-1, 0.514), Christopher Newport (5-2, 0.550)
East: Ithaca (6-1, 0.544), Framingham State (6-1, 0.560), SJF (5-2, .602)
West: UW-Platteville (7-0, 0.400), PLU (6-1, 0.617), Concordia-Moorhead (6-1, 0.550)

A couple of notes...I have Merchant Marine lurking around 4th on the East board right now which is kind of cool.  The West is so deep.  Oshkosh is fourth for me right now, St. John's fifth.  Crazy depth in the West.  Ok, let's pick. 

My first pick is going to be Illinois Wesleyan.  The Titans struck a huge RRO win by beating Wheaton on Saturday.  Next I'm going with John Carroll.  I'm not sure if St. Norbert is regionally rankable right now or not.  If so, you could see JCU actually go ahead of IWU here.  Next up is UW-Platteville.  Platteville has nary a good win (Dubuque messed that up for them) and a not-so-good SOS.  But if they weasel their way through the WIAC with one loss, they'll have beaten either Oshkosh or Whitewater and that's going to get you in.  So I'm cheating a playing a little bit of futures here, but it's a small hedge...the Pioneers are still undefeated so I'm not reaching too far.  Next off is going to be Pacific Lutheran with their heavy SOS and at least one RRO win (Willamette or Redlands...one of those two ought to be ranked I think). 

So we're left with Heidelberg, WashU, Ithaca, and Concordia-Moorhead for the last spot.  I'm not going to play the same futures with Heidelberg that I did with Platteville.  Heidelberg is either going to win the OAC or split with UMU and JCU and wind up higher on the list here anyway.  Without any good wins and nearly the 230th ranked SOS, I need Heidelberg to earn it here.  Ithaca is fresh off a win over SJF which is nice, but it might have also knocked SJF out of the regional rankings which leaves Ithaca with nothing super noteworthy to hang their hat on.  WashU is going to have a win over an RRO (Rhodes) and will have played a close game with another (Whitewater).  While not part of the criteria specifically, the Bears didn't do themselves any favors by having a 7-0 game with Macalester.  Concordia-Moorhead however also has an RRO (at St. Johns) and a very good SOS.  I'm going to select Concordia-Moorhead for that final spot. 

To recap, my Pool Cs are:
Illinois Wesleyan
John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific Lutheran
Concordia-Moorhead

And that's what I've got this week.  Huge games all over the place this week, so expect some significant shakeup next week. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2013, 11:41:44 AM

To recap, my Pool Cs are:
Illinois Wesleyan
John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific Lutheran
Concordia-Moorhead
 

Interesting stuff. I would think Concordia-Moorhead would still be considered for a Pool C if they were to get that dreaded second season loss (against UST). Looking around the country, I don't see any potential one-loss (Non Pool A) teams that stand out to me for a strong consideration for a Pool C. Wabash maybe (if Wittenberg can beat them)? Many potential one-loss teams, who would finish runners up in their conference, have sub par SOS. With that being said, I would think the committee would have to consider a two-loss team with a strong SOS in a strong conference instead.

Since I think it's highly doubtful three teams would get in from the same conference....that leaves Concordia-Moorhead from the MIAC looking good (even if they were to lose to UST).

Edit: The more I look at it, Wash U has a strong possibility as a two-loss team as well. I'll be interested to see where Wash U's SOS ends up, compared to C-M's at the end of the season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2013, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2013, 11:41:44 AM

To recap, my Pool Cs are:
Illinois Wesleyan
John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific Lutheran
Concordia-Moorhead
 

Interesting stuff. I would think Concordia-Moorhead would still be considered for a Pool C if they were to get that dreaded second season loss (against UST). Looking around the country, I don't see any potential one-loss (Non Pool A) teams that stand out to me for a strong consideration for a Pool C. Wabash maybe (if Wittenberg can beat them)? Many potential one-loss teams, who would finish runners up in their conference, have sub par SOS. With that being said, I would think the committee would have to consider a two-loss team with a strong SOS in a strong conference instead.

Since I think it's highly doubtful three teams would get in from the same conference....that leaves Concordia-Moorhead from the MIAC looking good (even if they were to lose to UST).

I wouldn't want to lose and pick up a second loss in week 10.  Especially to a team that would also have just two losses.  Checking common opponents...C-M would have beaten St. Johns who beat St. Thomas.  But St. Thomas has a h2h win and played a better game with regionally ranked Bethel.  Then if you want to factor in performance over the last 3-4 games leading into Selection Sunday, I really start to lean against the Cobbers.  St. Thomas might be ranked ahead of C-M if that's how all of this plays out. 

The West is a tough, tough place to start stacking up 2-loss teams.  You have to also consider PLU as a one loss team, Oskhosh or Platteville as a one loss team, St. Johns could be a one loss team (which would gak up the order of things in the MIAC, possibly knocking Bethel into Pool C which crushes both St. Thomas and C-M)...and you also have to consider St. Norbert if they run the table and have only a loss to John Carroll on their sheet.  Or Lake Forest as a one loss team.  Lots of interesting possibilities remain in the west.  But the moral of the story is that I don't think C-M looks good at all if they lose to St. Thomas.  It's bad timing as much as anything else. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2013, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2013, 11:41:44 AM

To recap, my Pool Cs are:
Illinois Wesleyan
John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific Lutheran
Concordia-Moorhead
 

Interesting stuff. I would think Concordia-Moorhead would still be considered for a Pool C if they were to get that dreaded second season loss (against UST). Looking around the country, I don't see any potential one-loss (Non Pool A) teams that stand out to me for a strong consideration for a Pool C. Wabash maybe (if Wittenberg can beat them)? Many potential one-loss teams, who would finish runners up in their conference, have sub par SOS. With that being said, I would think the committee would have to consider a two-loss team with a strong SOS in a strong conference instead.

Since I think it's highly doubtful three teams would get in from the same conference....that leaves Concordia-Moorhead from the MIAC looking good (even if they were to lose to UST).

I wouldn't want to lose and pick up a second loss in week 10.  Especially to a team that would also have just two losses.  Checking common opponents...C-M would have beaten St. Johns who beat St. Thomas.  But St. Thomas has a h2h win and played a better game with regionally ranked Bethel.  Then if you want to factor in performance over the last 3-4 games leading into Selection Sunday, I really start to lean against the Cobbers.  St. Thomas might be ranked ahead of C-M if that's how all of this plays out. 

The West is a tough, tough place to start stacking up 2-loss teams.  You have to also consider PLU as a one loss team, Oskhosh or Platteville as a one loss team, St. Johns could be a one loss team (which would gak up the order of things in the MIAC, possibly knocking Bethel into Pool C which crushes both St. Thomas and C-M)...and you also have to consider St. Norbert if they run the table and have only a loss to John Carroll on their sheet.  Or Lake Forest as a one loss team.  Lots of interesting possibilities remain in the west.  But the moral of the story is that I don't think C-M looks good at all if they lose to St. Thomas.  It's bad timing as much as anything else.

If St. John's somehow knocks off Bethel, wouldn't SJU get the pool A? Then most likely Bethel would be a pool C. Like you said, that would crush St. Thomas and C-M.

I thought about St. Norberts, but their conference and SOS will hurt their chances. I remember a one-loss St. Norberts team in 2009 getting left out. So, I would a two-loss St. N team would be left out as well.

Good point about St. Thomas though. If they do beat C-M, then St. Thomas makes their way back into the discussion for pool C (only if Bethel beats St. John's).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on October 28, 2013, 01:05:25 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:51:54 PM

If St. John's somehow knocks off Bethel, wouldn't SJU get the pool A? Then most likely Bethel would be a pool C. Like you said, that would crush St. Thomas and C-M.

I thought about St. Norberts, but their conference and SOS will hurt their chances. I remember a one-oss St. Norberts team in 2009 getting left out. So, I would a two-loss St. N team would be left out as well.

Good point about St. Thomas though. If they do beat C-M, then St. Thomas makes their way back into the discussion for pool C (only if Bethel beats St. John's).
If Concordia beats St. Thomas and St. John's beats Bethel by less than 17 points, the 3 way tie-breaker would go to Bethel.  At that point I'd think it's all about whose opponents are regionally ranked.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on October 28, 2013, 01:13:44 PM
I was just thinking how the West is crazy, and the North somewhat so, where a one-loss NCAC team could be left out as well. This is the wrong year to have three "B" teams, but what ya gonna do? Both teams getting a "B" would be in "A" consideration soon enough when their conference gets eligibility. If you're a "C" you should just be thankful you have playoff consideration anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on October 28, 2013, 01:18:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 28, 2013, 01:13:44 PM
If you're a "C" you should just be thankful you have playoff consideration anyway.
I'd be even more thankful if I was in a weaker conference with an A.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2013, 06:58:22 PM
Actually we have three "B" teams because of:

1)  the 7 member SAA (pulling a Pool B bid into a Pool A in 2014 and going to 9 teams, Wash U and UChicago, in 2015).
2)  the 9 member MASCAC (which will pull a Pool B bid into a Pool A bid in 2015).
3)  the 2 members (CWRU and CMU) move to the PresAC in 2014.

I keep wondering what will happen to Pool B in 2015 when we are down to the remnant.

I guess that we can blame it on the NEFC breakup.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on October 28, 2013, 07:23:48 PM
In 2015, will there be just one bid or two, since it will be the MASCAC plus Wesley. When does the SCAC get their A bid back?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 28, 2013, 07:26:44 PM
Unless something semi-miraculous happens, maybe never.   Don't see where they find three more FB schools unless HSU decides they want to be the next TLU and they have said numerous times they are happy in the ASC.   Even then you would need to have something like Colorado College reinstate FB (incredibly unlikely) AND have Schreiner or Centenary or UDallas also decide to add it.   UD tried a few years back and failed pretty miserably if memory serves.

Like I said, semi-miraculous.   Maybe even fully.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 10:40:32 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Edit: The more I look at it, Wash U has a strong possibility as a two-loss team as well. I'll be interested to see where Wash U's SOS ends up, compared to C-M's at the end of the season.

I agree, but WashU is a possible Pool B team; if they don't get in that route, they won't get in as a Pool C, IMO.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 10:40:32 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Edit: The more I look at it, Wash U has a strong possibility as a two-loss team as well. I'll be interested to see where Wash U's SOS ends up, compared to C-M's at the end of the season.

I agree, but WashU is a possible Pool B team; if they don't get in that route, they won't get in as a Pool C, IMO.

At the moment, I have WashU at the top of my South region C board.  C-M's SOS is strong enough that I couldn't quite place the Bears with their extra loss in over the Cobbers.  But as discussed, if the Cobbers lose again, they're going to be looking up not just at WashU, but probably St. Thomas as well and they'll be out of the conversation. 

I think as long WashU keeps winning, they'll have a shot at the end of Pool C, if they miss out on Pool B.  They could be aided greatly in week 11 by Rhodes defeating Millsaps...which would give the Bears a common opponent advantage over Millsaps to go along with a huge SOS advantage...might just be enough to put WashU at the top of the Pool B pecking order.  Or at least ahead of Millsaps and Rhodes. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 28, 2013, 07:26:44 PM
Unless something semi-miraculous happens, maybe never.   Don't see where they find three more FB schools unless HSU decides they want to be the next TLU and they have said numerous times they are happy in the ASC.   Even then you would need to have something like Colorado College reinstate FB (incredibly unlikely) AND have Schreiner or Centenary or UDallas also decide to add it.   UD tried a few years back and failed pretty miserably if memory serves.

Like I said, semi-miraculous.   Maybe even fully.

The ASC will be down to six soon, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps for football playoffs only, you all become some amalgamation. Then add Wesley as a satellite member, and a Frankenfootballconference is born!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 10:40:32 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Edit: The more I look at it, Wash U has a strong possibility as a two-loss team as well. I'll be interested to see where Wash U's SOS ends up, compared to C-M's at the end of the season.

I agree, but WashU is a possible Pool B team; if they don't get in that route, they won't get in as a Pool C, IMO.

At the moment, I have WashU at the top of my South region C board.  C-M's SOS is strong enough that I couldn't quite place the Bears with their extra loss in over the Cobbers.  But as discussed, if the Cobbers lose again, they're going to be looking up not just at WashU, but probably St. Thomas as well and they'll be out of the conversation. 

I think as long WashU keeps winning, they'll have a shot at the end of Pool C, if they miss out on Pool B.  They could be aided greatly in week 11 by Rhodes defeating Millsaps...which would give the Bears a common opponent advantage over Millsaps to go along with a huge SOS advantage...might just be enough to put WashU at the top of the Pool B pecking order.  Or at least ahead of Millsaps and Rhodes.

I agree (sorry for the tangent into Pool B on this thread, but the spillover does affect Pool C - back to that programming in a moment).  It's somewhat amusing, though - I'm not sure if its better for WashU if Rhodes or Millsaps wins that game (assuming that both win their other remaining games).  If Millsaps wins, WashU is probably behind 10-0 Millsaps and ahead of 8-2 Rhodes thanks to the H2H win...but if Rhodes beats Millsaps, it seems vaguely possible they'll end up slotted behind both 9-1 teams, despite their H2H win over Rhodes.

In any case, my head hurts too much to think through all of the future scenarios.  I just don't think 8-2 WashU gets a Pool C bid.  They'll get a B or they won't get in at all. 

Quick addendum: while I have loved the Pool B system preserving some guaranteed access to the playoffs for schools with no access to a Pool A bid, if Pool B is down to fewer than ten teams, I would actually be okay with the elimination of Pool B bids and just dumping all independents/homeless teams into the Pool C mix.  The occasional undefeated team or 1-loss Wesley with monster SOS would probably still get in through C most years.  With 10 or more Pool B teams, I don't like it (and I think we'll be right around that number).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 29, 2013, 12:04:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 11:15:56 AM

The ASC will be down to six soon, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps for football playoffs only, you all become some amalgamation. Then add Wesley as a satellite member, and a Frankenfootballconference is born!

Speculation is that UT-Tyler (or, less likely, UT-Dallas) will add FB, which would take care of the ASC's # issue.

I've said this on the ASC board and been chastised for it, but I don't see the SCAC re-aligning with a conference than many of them chose to break away from once already just for access to a Pool A bid they can basically never win as long as you have the monster that is UMHB.    Yes, it would make football scheduling easier and a better draw  for the student-athletes, but I don't know if the SCAC decision makers have that as their primary concern.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2013, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 29, 2013, 12:04:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 11:15:56 AM

The ASC will be down to six soon, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps for football playoffs only, you all become some amalgamation. Then add Wesley as a satellite member, and a Frankenfootballconference is born!

Speculation is that UT-Tyler (or, less likely, UT-Dallas) will add FB, which would take care of the ASC's # issue.

I've said this on the ASC board and been chastised for it, but I don't see the SCAC re-aligning with a conference than many of them chose to break away from once already just for access to a Pool A bid they can basically never win as long as you have the monster that is UMHB.    Yes, it would make football scheduling easier and a better draw  for the student-athletes, but I don't know if the SCAC decision makers have that as their primary concern.

So it's better to play games with SWAG and play some teams twice than to have a consistent schedule that happens to include UMHB?  I don't know how that is better for the student-athletes.  And if the student-athletes aren't the primary concern for these administrators, then they're largely in the wrong line of work. 

I know there's more to it than that....lots of sports other than football to be concerned with there.  Seems to me that the practicality of the SCAC sponsoring a football championship has outlived its usefulness. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 06:06:27 PM
So, what is the MWC tie-breaker since both Illinois College and St. Norbert can finish undefeated? While with a very crowded field I can see a 1-loss St. Norbert's team excluded (but would that be fair to SNC since their league goes to 11 now that Cornell joined) but if the tiebreakers work against IC then we have a 10-0 team in the "C" mix.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on October 29, 2013, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 06:06:27 PM
So, what is the MWC tie-breaker since both Illinois College and St. Norbert can finish undefeated? While with a very crowded field I can see a 1-loss St. Norbert's team excluded (but would that be fair to SNC since their league goes to 11 now that Cornell joined) but if the tiebreakers work against IC then we have a 10-0 team in the "C" mix.

I believe the talk on the MWC board was that the tie-breaker is number of quarters led and would favor IC over SNC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 06:22:24 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 06:06:27 PM
So, what is the MWC tie-breaker since both Illinois College and St. Norbert can finish undefeated? While with a very crowded field I can see a 1-loss St. Norbert's team excluded (but would that be fair to SNC since their league goes to 11 now that Cornell joined) but if the tiebreakers work against IC then we have a 10-0 team in the "C" mix.

Discussed this a week or two back.  MWC board suggests that it is "quarters led" which is likely to favor IC since they've been killing everybody while St. Norbert has pulled out a few squeakers.  I am of the mind that 10-0 IC should get in whether they get the Pool A bid or not, while 9-1 St. Norbert is on shaky ground for a Pool C because of the blowout loss to John Carroll.  I'm well aware that IC may have lost just as badly to John Carroll, but we don't "know" that yet.  Cleanest scenario is for 10-0 Illinois College to win the league, eliminating the debate about an undefeated team in Pool C, and then see how 9-1 SNC stacks up.  Or, better yet, for Lake Forest to beat SNC in the finale and eliminate the debate altogether.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2013, 07:08:13 PM
There is a really interesting Pool C conversation on In The HuddLLe this week concerning Merchant Marine.  Thought I would add my thoughts here...

Let's make some assumptions first.  First, and probably most obvious, is that USMMA has to get to 7-1.  If they lose between now and Selection Sunday, they won't be considered. 

Second, right now I have them sitting behind Ithaca, Framingham (more on them in a minute) and SJF.  Ithaca has a game left with Salisbury which, barring more E8 craziness, will decide that league's automatic qualifier.  If Ithaca loses, they pick up a second loss and that also hurts SJF because they have lost to Ithaca so it seems logical that Ithaca with two losses is going to remain ahead of SJF in the pecking order.  If Ithaca beats Salisbury, they'll qualify automatically and be off of this list.  I don't think it's a big leap to see USMMA ranked ahead of 2-loss Ithaca and SJF if that's how it plays out.  Basically, the Ithaca thing is going to sort itself out so we'll take them off the board for now. 

Framingham State, should they go 9-1 and not get selected in Pool B (and at the moment they're in the conversation for the third Pool B, but certainly not a lock), would probably sit in front of USMMA on Selection Sunday.  So USMMA wants TLU to lose and probably wants to see Rhodes lose and it would really help if WashU lost also just to be safe.  But let's say that it works out that Framingham either gets into Pool B or loses a second game and is out of the way.  Now we've got USMMA at the top of the East Pool C board.  That's half the battle there. 

Now there's the other three regions to deal with. 

In the North we have the OAC and the CCIW each sport three strong teams in a battle for the league championships.  Any scenario in those two leagues that end in a three way 9-1 tie kills USMMA.  In those situations you'll end up with two runners up with one loss, both of whom will have a win over an RRO.  I'm not sure quite how the SOS will work out there, but my sense is that the SOSs will basically wash.  But against teams with a higher win percentage and a win over an RRO, there's not a logical path through the criteria to pick USMMA if you've got 9-1 North Central and 9-1 Wheaton or 9-1 JCU and 9-1 UMU or 9-1 Heidelberg all sitting around and coming to the table one after another.  USMMA needs those leagues to sort themselves out cleanly in a 10-, 9-1, 8-2 first, second, third fashion.  Then you're only going to have to deal with two of those teams instead of three or four. 

In the West, you've got the same situation in the WIAC.  Same scenario...three 9-1 teams dooms USMMA.  A 9-1 runner up is probably a lock.  In the MIAC you're really going to want Bethel to go 10-0 (giving St. Johns a second loss) and for St. Thomas to beat Concordia-Moorhead.  If St. John's beats Bethel and wins the league, then Bethel is going to be a one-loss lock.  If St. Johns beats Bethel and C-M beats St. Thomas you're going to have a three way 9-1 tie and plop two more teams in the mix that USMMA won't be selected in front of.  So go Royals.  It would also be useful if PLU lost again, although that's not likely. 

Out of the South you might only have Thomas More as a 1-loss team and they'd be an interesting team to debate vs. USMMA.  But that's really the only threat out of the South currently, unless WashU and their burly SOS wind up with two losses and in Pool C. 

So if my counting is right, I think I've got one loss runners up from the OAC, CCIW, and WIAC as Pool C locks.  Then PLU if they make it to the end with just the one loss.  That leaves one spot for USMMA, maybe a single loss Thomas More out of the South, probably the loser of the Witt/Wabash game in the North, and if all plays out favorably in the West either a two-loss St. Thomas squad or maybe even 9-1 St. Norbert (that would be a best case scenario for USMMA).  On that board, I think USMMA could be selected, especially since they'd have been in the conversation from the beginning of the process (as would Thomas More).  Frank Rossi put a 10-15% chance of USMMA getting invited in the podcast.  I think that's a good number...obviously it's a 1 in 4 shot at this point, but if you factor in all of the other stuff that has to happen to get here, 10-15% is pretty fair. 

Interesting to think about...and what a great story that would be if USMMA was able to persevere the government BS and make the postseason. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 07:23:20 PM
Interesting hypothetical indeed.  I would also love to see them pull it off but, and I mean no disrespect to USMMA, their season to date does not convince me that they're a playoff-worthy team (nor should their success be judged on that standard, given that they were 5-5 last year).  But MMA has one-score wins over Susquehanna (in the Centennial Conference basement), Coast Guard (3-5 with a blowout loss to the one really good team they played, Hampden-Sydney), a one-POINT win over 3-4 SUNY-Maritime, and a 26-14 win over 2-5 WPI.  It's tempting to say the distraction and shutdown may have affected their most recent game (WPI), but even based on their first three games, that's about what we might expect.  Their somewhat-quality loss to Hobart may actually the "best" result on their schedule, but even in that game they trailed 24-0 in the 4th quarter, it wasn't a back-and-forth game where Hobart pulled away at the end.

Great story, yes.  Playoff-worthy team, I really don't think so, unless they ramp up over the rest of the season and blow out RPI, Union, and St. Lawrence to close out the season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on October 29, 2013, 07:27:43 PM
If it takes that long just to explain how it's possible, I'm thinking 10-15% probably overstates the odds.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2013, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 29, 2013, 07:27:43 PM
If it takes that long just to explain how it's possible, I'm thinking 10-15% probably overstates the odds.

I'm not always succinct.  :)

It would be a great story, but even if everything that kind of has to happen does happen, they still need a pretty strong and persuasive advocate in that room on 11/17 to get in.  It's a long shot for sure, but there is a reasonable path to that shot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2013, 08:03:38 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2013, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 29, 2013, 12:04:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 11:15:56 AM

The ASC will be down to six soon, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps for football playoffs only, you all become some amalgamation. Then add Wesley as a satellite member, and a Frankenfootballconference is born!

Speculation is that UT-Tyler (or, less likely, UT-Dallas) will add FB, which would take care of the ASC's # issue.

I've said this on the ASC board and been chastised for it, but I don't see the SCAC re-aligning with a conference than many of them chose to break away from once already just for access to a Pool A bid they can basically never win as long as you have the monster that is UMHB.    Yes, it would make football scheduling easier and a better draw  for the student-athletes, but I don't know if the SCAC decision makers have that as their primary concern.

So it's better to play games with SWAG and play some teams twice than to have a consistent schedule that happens to include UMHB?
  I don't know how that is better for the student-athletes.  And if the student-athletes aren't the primary concern for these administrators, then they're largely in the wrong line of work. 

I know there's more to it than that....lots of sports other than football to be concerned with there.  Seems to me that the practicality of the SCAC sponsoring a football championship has outlived its usefulness.
While McMurry was in the ASC, I saw too many double- and triple-monkey stomps.  What good does it do a team that realistically has no chance of beating UMHB?  UMHB captures so many players that would start at other programs, that a 100-player limit might disperse a few.  The rest of the players want to be with a winner.  "Winning cures cancer!"

Playing SWAG gives a chance for the coaches to work on things in a potential win situation.

Look at UMHB's winning streaks!  Even HSU is now down 12 times in row?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 06:22:24 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 06:06:27 PM
So, what is the MWC tie-breaker since both Illinois College and St. Norbert can finish undefeated? While with a very crowded field I can see a 1-loss St. Norbert's team excluded (but would that be fair to SNC since their league goes to 11 now that Cornell joined) but if the tiebreakers work against IC then we have a 10-0 team in the "C" mix.

Discussed this a week or two back.  MWC board suggests that it is "quarters led" which is likely to favor IC since they've been killing everybody while St. Norbert has pulled out a few squeakers.  I am of the mind that 10-0 IC should get in whether they get the Pool A bid or not, while 9-1 St. Norbert is on shaky ground for a Pool C because of the blowout loss to John Carroll.  I'm well aware that IC may have lost just as badly to John Carroll, but we don't "know" that yet.  Cleanest scenario is for 10-0 Illinois College to win the league, eliminating the debate about an undefeated team in Pool C, and then see how 9-1 SNC stacks up.  Or, better yet, for Lake Forest to beat SNC in the finale and eliminate the debate altogether.

Ah, quarters led. It almost makes sense!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 30, 2013, 06:37:49 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 29, 2013, 06:22:24 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2013, 06:06:27 PM
So, what is the MWC tie-breaker since both Illinois College and St. Norbert can finish undefeated? While with a very crowded field I can see a 1-loss St. Norbert's team excluded (but would that be fair to SNC since their league goes to 11 now that Cornell joined) but if the tiebreakers work against IC then we have a 10-0 team in the "C" mix.

Discussed this a week or two back.  MWC board suggests that it is "quarters led" which is likely to favor IC since they've been killing everybody while St. Norbert has pulled out a few squeakers.  I am of the mind that 10-0 IC should get in whether they get the Pool A bid or not, while 9-1 St. Norbert is on shaky ground for a Pool C because of the blowout loss to John Carroll.  I'm well aware that IC may have lost just as badly to John Carroll, but we don't "know" that yet.  Cleanest scenario is for 10-0 Illinois College to win the league, eliminating the debate about an undefeated team in Pool C, and then see how 9-1 SNC stacks up.  Or, better yet, for Lake Forest to beat SNC in the finale and eliminate the debate altogether.

Ah, quarters led. It almost makes sense!

I actually like that tiebreaker quite a bit because it gives some measure of how much one team is controlling their games without using margin of victory.  If score margin is the tiebreaker, he title could be decided by one team leaving their starters in all game to ensure a large margin while someone else calls off the dogs in blowout wins.

There was a great SNAFU referenced every year where a MOV tiebreaker was decided because one team won a game in OT on a touchdown and did not kick the PAT because the game was over - and that non-attempted PAT ended up deciding the conference title (I think it was the ASC in the early 2000s).

Edited: Found it.  ASC in 2003.

http://d3football.com/teams/East_Texas_Baptist/2003/index
http://d3football.com/teams/Hardin-Simmons/2003/index
http://d3football.com/teams/Mary_Hardin-Baylor/2003/index


10/25: HSU 20, ETBU 14 (overtime game with no final PAT kicked)
11/1: UMHB 43, HSU 36
11/8: ETBU 28, UMHB 21

I believe that ETBU got the AQ by virtue of the best score margin within the triangle since they had a 6-point loss and a 7-point win (+1 score margin), while the others had a 7-point loss and a 6/7-point win (-1 or 0 score margin).  I think, I was a senior in high school and not yet aware of the D3 scene; this is my recollection from a past discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 30, 2013, 12:29:41 PM
Are we expecting regional rankings this week (and more specifically today)?  This seemed like as good a place as any to post this question.  Sorry if it is not.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2013, 12:34:27 PM
No, next Wednesday.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 30, 2013, 12:38:12 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2013, 12:34:27 PM
No, next Wednesday.
Thanks Pat!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 30, 2013, 12:59:46 PM
You got it in one, Ex.  HSU was never provided the opportunity to kick the PAT (because why would you after winning the game in OT with the TD).  UMHB was rooked out of a Pool C bid that year despite going 9-1 and that was the last time they didn't make the playoffs.   They were pretty new to football and would not win their first playoff game until the following year - and haven't looked back since. 

That was also the flash in the pan year for East Texas Baptist, which has but a single season over .500 since (6-4, 2005).  So maybe it's a good thing the tie breaker turned out the way it did, and ETBU even got a playoff win out of it (against Trinity, sigh) before narrowly dropping a second-round contest at Lycoming. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 30, 2013, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 30, 2013, 12:59:46 PM
You got it in one, Ex.  HSU was never provided the opportunity to kick the PAT (because why would you after winning the game in OT with the TD).  UMHB was rooked out of a Pool C bid that year despite going 9-1 and that was the last time they didn't make the playoffs.   They were pretty new to football and would not win their first playoff game until the following year - and haven't looked back since. 

That was also the flash in the pan year for East Texas Baptist, which has but a single season over .500 since (6-4, 2005).  So maybe it's a good thing the tie breaker turned out the way it did, and ETBU even got a playoff win out of it (against Trinity, sigh) before narrowly dropping a second-round contest at Lycoming.

Thanks for confirming, Ron.  I'm sure we've had this exact conversation once before, but this is honestly still one of my favorite miniscule pieces of football trivia, and my go-to example for a) why PAT's should always be kicked even on game-ending plays as long as MOV/points-scored tiebreakers are in place and b) why margin of victory or points scored really should never be used in any tie-breakers.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Toby Taff on October 30, 2013, 02:55:18 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 30, 2013, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 30, 2013, 12:59:46 PM
You got it in one, Ex.  HSU was never provided the opportunity to kick the PAT (because why would you after winning the game in OT with the TD).  UMHB was rooked out of a Pool C bid that year despite going 9-1 and that was the last time they didn't make the playoffs.   They were pretty new to football and would not win their first playoff game until the following year - and haven't looked back since. 

That was also the flash in the pan year for East Texas Baptist, which has but a single season over .500 since (6-4, 2005).  So maybe it's a good thing the tie breaker turned out the way it did, and ETBU even got a playoff win out of it (against Trinity, sigh) before narrowly dropping a second-round contest at Lycoming.

Thanks for confirming, Ron.  I'm sure we've had this exact conversation once before, but this is honestly still one of my favorite miniscule pieces of football trivia, and my go-to example for a) why PAT's should always be kicked even on game-ending plays as long as MOV/points-scored tiebreakers are in place and b) why margin of victory or points scored really should never be used in any tie-breakers.
That SNAFU caused a change in the tie breaker for the ASC. The rule for football now is:
QuoteIn the event of a three-way or more tie that cannot be broken by the record against
the tied teams followed by record against other conference opponents in descending order, the Commissioner
shall conduct a draw with the tied teams to determine the conference's automatic qualifier to the NCAA
Division III Football Championship
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2013, 03:25:22 PM
BTW, next week I'm going to hold off on my projection until I get a peek at the regional rankings on Wednesday. 

Wednesday is going to be a rough day for my refresh button. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on October 31, 2013, 12:03:07 PM
Quote from: AUPepBand on October 22, 2013, 11:03:45 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
As far as I know, that nine-game thing is a myth. It may have been true at one point but I have never seen it codified in black and white.

What would "legally" keep Trinity (or Wesleyan) from declaring eligible for the playoffs? I would think it likely they would get kicked out of the NESCAC if they did so.

Heck, that (champ declaring eligible for NCAA playoffs and then being kicked out of NESCAC) would solve the NESCAC's scheduling dilemma as it would reduce the NESCAC number to nine and facilitate genuine round-robin scheduling in the NESCAC's "old school" eight-game schedule. Are there any revolutionists in New England (at Trinity or Wesleyan)?  ;D

The nine-game thing, were it not a myth, would be interesting in regard to Merchant Marine.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
Well it was fun to what-if the Merchant Marine thing for a couple of days anyway.

The Gusties just did everybody a huge favor by knocking off St. John's.

TLU is going to beat LC.

Rhodes loses to Birmingham Southern, making life a little easier for Wesley.  Rhodes went for a deuce with 1:18 left and had the try intercepted. They lose by one point. Whoa.

Good stuff out there today.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 02, 2013, 05:43:42 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
Well it was fun to what-if the Merchant Marine thing for a couple of days anyway.

The Gusties just did everybody a huge favor by knocking off St. John's.

TLU is going to beat LC.

Rhodes loses to Birmingham Southern, making life a little easier for Wesley.  Rhodes went for a deuce with 1:18 left and had the try intercepted. They lose by one point. Whoa.

Good stuff out there today.

Pool B picture is looking a bit clearer and now I think we can rule out the possibility of B taking a C. I guess it's possible that you'll have Millsaps, TLU, Wesley in via Pool B and then Framingham will be in the C picture, but that's about it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2013, 06:41:53 PM
Assuming they don't get upset the next two weeks, IWU is likely to be the first C off the board.  They lost to NCC today, 46-17 (though that is misleading - they trailed 25-17 midway thru the 4th), virtually eliminating them from the AQ.  (The only way they could still get it, is Wheaton beat NCC AND NCC lose to Augie at home; I'd sooner bet on a snowball's chances in hell ::).)

In the event of a 3-way NCC/Wheaton/IWU tie, IWU is out, but (assuming NCC is the AQ, which is virtually certain after the 29-point win today), the h-to-h over Wheaton should give IWU precedence over Wheaton if they're both 9-1, and I like the odds of a 9-1 CCIW runner-up being the first to go (though a 9-1 runner-up in the OAC or WIAC would be a stiff competitor).

On reconsideration - barring upsets, I think IWU is one of the first three off the C board! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2013, 06:41:53 PM
Assuming they don't get upset the next two weeks, IWU is likely to be the first C off the board.  They lost to NCC today, 46-17 (though that is misleading - they trailed 25-17 midway thru the 4th), virtually eliminating them from the AQ.  (The only way they could still get it, is Wheaton beat NCC AND NCC lose to Augie at home; I'd sooner bet on a snowball's chances in hell ::).)

In the event of a 3-way NCC/Wheaton/IWU tie, IWU is out, but (assuming NCC is the AQ, which is virtually certain after the 29-point win today), the h-to-h over Wheaton should give IWU precedence over Wheaton if they're both 9-1, and I like the odds of a 9-1 CCIW runner-up being the first to go (though a 9-1 runner-up in the OAC or WIAC would be a stiff competitor).

On reconsideration - barring upsets, I think IWU is one of the first three off the C board! ;D

I keep missing the part in the criteria where what league a team plays in matters.  I keep missing it because it isn't there. 

Now, while I would agree that IWU should be ranked ahead of Wheaton and should be in the at-large line in front of Wheaton, I would in no way be surprised if the RAC slips Wheaton ahead of Illinois Wesleyan should the Thunder go and beat North Central next week.  Not a choice I would agree with, but not beyond the realm of possibility. 

And the Wheaton thing is just one thing to consider (probably made moot when North Central beats them next week).  There is also the OAC's situation to sort out and if you wind up with three 9-1 teams there, IWU would be looking up at at least two of them (and hopefully one of those two gets the Pool A spot).  More likely is that Mount Union does their business and you wind up with the winner of JCU/Heidelberg as a potential leader atop the North region's at-large list.  I think certainly John Carroll would sit ahead of IWU.  I'm less sure about Heidelberg because I don't think they'll get enough SOS help to wind up in front of IWU per the criteria. 

So, if I'm projecting today, I'd have IWU second on the North's at-large list.  Elsewhere, I don't think IWU gets picked in front of PLU or the Oshkosh/Platteville winner.  IWU is probably looking at the 4th C selection right now.  We'll be able to parse this all out a little better after we get rankings on Wednesday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2013, 08:03:09 PM
Yeah, I'm well aware that conference membership doesn't mean squat for selection.  That was just shorthand for the 3-headed monsters that the OAC, WIAC, and CCIW are this year.  And I shouldn't have left out PLU.  While the MIAC has a legitimate argument for being THE best conference this year, I strongly suspect their #2 team will have 2 losses.

Eagerly awaiting the RRs.  I have a sneaking suspicion that all 5 Cs will be from the North and West.  Can't wait for the cries of outrage elsewhere, but who is worthy from the South and East who won't be either an A or B?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2013, 08:09:28 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2013, 08:03:09 PM
Yeah, I'm well aware that conference membership doesn't mean squat for selection.  That was just shorthand for the 3-headed monsters that the OAC, WIAC, and CCIW are this year.  And I shouldn't have left out PLU.  While the MIAC has a legitimate argument for being THE best conference this year, I strongly suspect their #2 team will have 2 losses.

Eagerly awaiting the RRs.  I have a sneaking suspicion that all 5 Cs will be from the North and West.  Can't wait for the cries of outrage elsewhere, but who is worthy from the South and East who won't be either an A or B?
I don't think any Pool C's will come from the South, or maybe not even the East.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2013, 08:38:31 PM
Thomas More is a possibility out of the South region.  Perhaps the only possibility.  The East has fully cannibalized itself.  The best Pool C shot there is probably Framingham State at the moment.  Hobart would assume that spot (I think) if they should lose to St. Lawrence next week.  In the West, Concordia-Moorhead can still finish 9-1 and be a third really strong team out of the West if they win their final two games (at St. Thomas and vs. Gustavus Adolphus...not an easy finish there).  If they lose, St. Norbert at 9-1 might be the third team up in the West after PLU and the Oshkosh/Platteville winner. 

But any of those teams mentioned above would all be hard to select until the very end of the selection process.  Thomas More, Framingham, Norbert (or a 2-loss MIAC runner up...probably St. Thomas if it comes to that) and then a North team (I'm thinking the Wabash/Witt loser or another CCIW or OAC team in the event of tri-champs there) would probably be up for the 5th and final golden ticket. 

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.uber.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fcharlie-bucket1-1.jpeg&hash=7c2100840aae8ed32bea56dbac6484b43731ad7b)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2013, 08:52:29 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2013, 08:38:31 PM
Thomas More is a possibility out of the South region.  Perhaps the only possibility.  The East has fully cannibalized itself.  The best Pool C shot there is probably Framingham State at the moment.  Hobart would assume that spot (I think) if they should lose to St. Lawrence next week.  In the West, Concordia-Moorhead can still finish 9-1 and be a third really strong team out of the West if they win their final two games (at St. Thomas and vs. Gustavus Adolphus...not an easy finish there).  If they lose, St. Norbert at 9-1 might be the third team up in the West after PLU and the Oshkosh/Platteville winner. 

But any of those teams mentioned above would all be hard to select until the very end of the selection process.  Thomas More, Framingham, Norbert (or a 2-loss MIAC runner up...probably St. Thomas if it comes to that) and then a North team (I'm thinking the Wabash/Witt loser or another CCIW or OAC team in the event of tri-champs there) would probably be up for the 5th and final golden ticket. 

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.uber.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fcharlie-bucket1-1.jpeg&hash=7c2100840aae8ed32bea56dbac6484b43731ad7b)
The rivalry game with Mount St Joseph (Bridge Bowl XVIII) will have a lot on the line!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2013, 05:40:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2013, 08:52:29 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2013, 08:38:31 PM
Thomas More is a possibility out of the South region.  Perhaps the only possibility.  The East has fully cannibalized itself.  The best Pool C shot there is probably Framingham State at the moment.  Hobart would assume that spot (I think) if they should lose to St. Lawrence next week.  In the West, Concordia-Moorhead can still finish 9-1 and be a third really strong team out of the West if they win their final two games (at St. Thomas and vs. Gustavus Adolphus...not an easy finish there).  If they lose, St. Norbert at 9-1 might be the third team up in the West after PLU and the Oshkosh/Platteville winner. 

But any of those teams mentioned above would all be hard to select until the very end of the selection process.  Thomas More, Framingham, Norbert (or a 2-loss MIAC runner up...probably St. Thomas if it comes to that) and then a North team (I'm thinking the Wabash/Witt loser or another CCIW or OAC team in the event of tri-champs there) would probably be up for the 5th and final golden ticket. 

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.uber.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fcharlie-bucket1-1.jpeg&hash=7c2100840aae8ed32bea56dbac6484b43731ad7b)
The rivalry game with Mount St Joseph (Bridge Bowl XVIII) will have a lot on the line!

And MSJ is going to be mad about the 75-6 score from last year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 03, 2013, 05:50:36 PM
Not to mention the fact that MSJ has the opportunity to double the HCAC's non-conference win total this season :(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 11:12:25 AM
Safe to say that most likely a Pool C bid will come from the WIAC. I've read in previous pages on this thread that UWP is projected to get the bid. However, after many of us WIAC fans have seen both teams play, the WIAC faithful (including myself) are confident that Oshkosh will take down UWP...capturing that at-large bid.

Platteville's high-powered offense really struggled the other day against Whitewater's defense (just one offensive TD). In two weeks when Platteville travels to Oshkosh, the Pioneers are going to experience similar frustrations as Oshkosh's D can really get after the QB. Also, UWP's defense is very average at best. They won't be able to stop Oshkosh.

It kills me to admit that UWO is the better team, because I really thought UWP was the real deal back in August (better than UWW and UWO).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 04, 2013, 12:12:27 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2013, 06:41:53 PM
In the event of a 3-way NCC/Wheaton/IWU tie, IWU is out, but (assuming NCC is the AQ, which is virtually certain after the 29-point win today), the h-to-h over Wheaton should give IWU precedence over Wheaton if they're both 9-1, and I like the odds of a 9-1 CCIW runner-up being the first to go (though a 9-1 runner-up in the OAC or WIAC would be a stiff competitor).

I keep missing the part in the criteria where what league a team plays in matters.  I keep missing it because it isn't there. 

Just to be clear, a couple of places I've used this lingo as well, but I'm doing it as shorthand instead of typing out every possible team.  I expect the WIAC runnerup, OAC runnerup, and CCIW runnerup to claim three of the five Pool C spots, not because of the leagues they play in but because whoever it is occupying those respective spots will be one of the best teams on the board.  It's just easier to say "CCIW runnerup" than it is to list all three teams who that could possibly end up being.  I'm not saying that being the CCIW runner-up is a criteria; I'm saying that whether the CCIW runner-up is 9-1 Illinois Wesleyan, 9-1 Wheaton, or 9-1 North Central, whichever one that ends up being is likely to be high on the list.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 04, 2013, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 11:12:25 AM
Safe to say that most likely a Pool C bid will come from the WIAC. I've read in previous pages on this thread that UWP is projected to get the bid. However, after many of us WIAC fans have seen both teams play, the WIAC faithful (including myself) are confident that Oshkosh will take down UWP...capturing that at-large bid.

Platteville's high-powered offense really struggled the other day against Whitewater's defense (just one offensive TD). In two weeks when Platteville travels to Oshkosh, the Pioneers are going to experience similar frustrations as Oshkosh's D can really get after the QB. Also, UWP's defense is very average at best. They won't be able to stop Oshkosh.

It kills me to admit that UWO is the better team, because I really thought UWP was the real deal back in August (better than UWW and UWO).

When I projected Platteville last week that was based on up-to-date records where Platteville hadn't lost and Oshkosh had.  That's probably going to change this week...were I to guess at a regional ranking order, I think Oshkosh would be ahead of Platteville.  Thankfully I don't have to guess this week and we will see the official regional rankings on Wednesday (and at-large projections shortly thereafter). 

Basically, I agree.  I think Oshkosh is the better side there and will get to 9-1. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2013, 01:57:21 PM
I think it will be interesting to see where Framingham is ranked and if they don't get a "B" how they will stack up in the criteria against an OAC or CCIW team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2013, 02:01:37 PM
Let's also remember that Heidelberg also has B-W to play. We've kind of ignored them since they lost to John Carroll early but they're not a bad club.

If Heidelberg beats JCU but loses to B-W, then everyone except Mt. Union (if they beat JCU) will have the dreaded two losses. That can move the NCAC runner up ahead of them and cement the CCIW runner up (with one loss) as #1 at large in the North.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 04, 2013, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2013, 01:57:21 PM
I think it will be interesting to see where Framingham is ranked and if they don't get a "B" how they will stack up in the criteria against an OAC or CCIW team.

Framingham, I think, is a slam dunk for the top of the East at-large board.  If they slip into Pool C, they have a very nice SOS, but zero wins vs. RROs.  And depending on how the RAC treats Rowan, maybe zero results vs. RROs.  They will maintain that SOS advantage over CCIW and OAC runners up.  What those runners up will have, however, is a win vs. an RRO and I think that makes it easy to pass up Framingham a few times until we get down to a situation where we are out of 1-loss teams with quality wins (Thomas More, maybe St. Norbert, Wittenberg/Wabash) or two loss teams (St. Johns, St. Thomas). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 02:23:18 PM
A lot of Pool C bubble teams (especially those programs not in the WIAC, NWC, CCIW, and OAC) are pulling for a St. Thomas win this week. That could all but eliminate the MIAC getting two teams in.

That could be good news for the Wabash/Wittenberg game loser.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 04, 2013, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 02:23:18 PM
A lot of Pool C bubble teams (especially those programs not in the WIAC, NWC, CCIW, and OAC) are pulling for a St. Thomas win this week. That could all but eliminate the MIAC getting two teams in.

That could be good news for the Wabash/Wittenberg game loser.
Yeah, Concordia-Moorehead is getting a bit overlooked in the recent discussion. They could definitely beat UST on Saturday. GAC won't be a pushover either, but if the Cobbers win out they'll have a strong SOS and resume just as impressive as any one loss runner-up from the CCIW, WIAC, NWC or OAC.

A UST win would clear things up in the West a good deal. Strangely, it would also potentially strengthen Bethel's seeding, as a UST win over a presumably regionally ranked Cobber team might bring UST back into the RR. I'm not predicting UST gets in with two losses, but it might, might give Bethel another W vs. RRO.

Fun time of the year!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 04, 2013, 03:13:48 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 02:23:18 PM
A lot of Pool C bubble teams (especially those programs not in the WIAC, NWC, CCIW, and OAC) are pulling for a St. Thomas win this week. That could all but eliminate the MIAC getting two teams in.

That could be good news for the Wabash/Wittenberg game loser.
There is no justice if the best conference in the land can't get a single at-large bid. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:30:16 PM
My stab at the West Regional Rankings (regional records):

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Redlands (5-2)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Simpson (5-2)
Illinois College (8-0)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:30:16 PM
My stab at the West Regional Rankings (regional records):

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Redlands (5-2)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
Coe (6-2)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Illinois College (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran beat Redlands and, with only loss, would probably be ranked ahead of them.  Also Linfield is 7-0 (not 8-0)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:30:16 PM
My stab at the West Regional Rankings (regional records):

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Redlands (5-2)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
Coe (6-2)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Illinois College (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran beat Redlands and, with only loss, would probably be ranked ahead of them.

Good call. Revised:

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Redlands (5-2)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Wartburg (5-2)
Illinois College (8-0)

Redlands SOS is second best in the nation, plus they are in the driver's seat for the SCIAC title. Hence them me rating them so high with two losses (Pac. Lutheran & MHB).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:30:16 PM
My stab at the West Regional Rankings (regional records):

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Redlands (5-2)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
Coe (6-2)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Illinois College (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran beat Redlands and, with only loss, would probably be ranked ahead of them.

Good call. Revised:

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Redlands (5-2)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Simpson (5-2)
Illinois College (8-0)
And really, Redlands may not even be on the list.  They have 2 losses and will not have any wins against a ranked opponent. They have a good SOS but that probably won't count for enough to get them that high on the list.  If they are on it at all, it would be at the bottom (IMO). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:30:16 PM
My stab at the West Regional Rankings (regional records):

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Redlands (5-2)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
Coe (6-2)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Illinois College (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran beat Redlands and, with only loss, would probably be ranked ahead of them.

Good call. Revised:

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Redlands (5-2)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Simpson (5-2)
Illinois College (8-0)
And really, Redlands may not even be on the list.  They have 2 losses and will not have any wins against a ranked opponent. They have a good SOS but that probably won't count for enough to get them that high on the list.  If they are on it at all, it would be at the bottom (IMO).

You could very well be right. I thought being conference champs and having a crazy good SOS would count for something.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:53:41 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2013, 03:34:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 04, 2013, 03:30:16 PM
My stab at the West Regional Rankings (regional records):

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Redlands (5-2)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
Coe (6-2)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Illinois College (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran beat Redlands and, with only loss, would probably be ranked ahead of them.

Good call. Revised:

Bethel (8-0)
UW-Whitewater (7-0)
Linfield (8-0)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1)
Redlands (5-2)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1)
Pacific (6-1)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1)
Simpson (5-2)
Illinois College (8-0)
And really, Redlands may not even be on the list.  They have 2 losses and will not have any wins against a ranked opponent. They have a good SOS but that probably won't count for enough to get them that high on the list.  If they are on it at all, it would be at the bottom (IMO).

You could very well be right. I thought being conference champs and having a crazy good SOS would count for something.
nah--being a conference champ (in this case) gets them a spot in the playoffs but not a regional ranking! 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 04, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
My take:

Bethel (8-0) RRO: 2-0 or 3-0 (see bottom three)
UW-Whitewater (7-0) RRO: 2-0
Linfield (8-0) RRO: 1-0
Pacific Lutheran (7-1) RRO: 2-1
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1) RRO: 0/1-1 (see bottom three)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1) RRO: 0-1
Pacific (6-1) RRO: 0-1
UW-Plattevielle (7-1) RRO: 0-1
Redlands (5-2) RRO: 0-2
UST/Wartburg/SJU (2 losses each)

You could make the argument for IC, but their SOS is 185. Wartburg and UST have almost identical SOS numbers, but UST could be credited with playing Bethel tougher, more recently. SJU could also be swapped in for either Wartburg or UST (who they hold the H2H over).

How the bottom 3-4 slots play out will determine who gets top billing between Bethel, UWW and Linfield. Bethel and UWW have nearly identical SOS numbers and will have very similar results vs. RRO. Linfield's SOS numbers a notch lower, with weaker RRO results. Given this, as Pat and Keith acknowledge on the podcast, the committee could look at UWW and Bethel as dead even, in which case last years playoff results become relevant. Strange that Bethel could get the nod in this case. Makes Buff St. hurt all over again.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: TitanPride on November 04, 2013, 08:57:19 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
My take:

Bethel (8-0) RRO: 2-0 or 3-0 (see bottom three)
UW-Whitewater (7-0) RRO: 2-0
Linfield (8-0) RRO: 1-0
Pacific Lutheran (7-1) RRO: 2-1
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1) RRO: 0/1-1 (see bottom three)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1) RRO: 0-1
Pacific (6-1) RRO: 0-1
UW-Plattevielle (7-1) RRO: 0-1
Redlands (5-2) RRO: 0-2
UST/Wartburg/SJU (2 losses each)

You could make the argument for IC, but their SOS is 185. Wartburg and UST have almost identical SOS numbers, but UST could be credited with playing Bethel tougher, more recently. SJU could also be swapped in for either Wartburg or UST (who they hold the H2H over).

How the bottom 3-4 slots play out will determine who gets top billing between Bethel, UWW and Linfield. Bethel and UWW have nearly identical SOS numbers and will have very similar results vs. RRO. Linfield's SOS numbers a notch lower, with weaker RRO results. Given this, as Pat and Keith acknowledge on the podcast, the committee could look at UWW and Bethel as dead even, in which case last years playoff results become relevant. Strange that Bethel could get the nod in this case. Makes Buff St. hurt all over again.

Hazzben -- what's the logic for putting Platteville above IC?  Platteville has a loss and a lower SOS.  Do you think a result against regionally ranked outweighs those two factors?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2013, 08:23:25 AM
Quote from: TitanPride on November 04, 2013, 08:57:19 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
My take:

Bethel (8-0) RRO: 2-0 or 3-0 (see bottom three)
UW-Whitewater (7-0) RRO: 2-0
Linfield (8-0) RRO: 1-0
Pacific Lutheran (7-1) RRO: 2-1
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1) RRO: 0/1-1 (see bottom three)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1) RRO: 0-1
Pacific (6-1) RRO: 0-1
UW-Plattevielle (7-1) RRO: 0-1
Redlands (5-2) RRO: 0-2
UST/Wartburg/SJU (2 losses each)

You could make the argument for IC, but their SOS is 185. Wartburg and UST have almost identical SOS numbers, but UST could be credited with playing Bethel tougher, more recently. SJU could also be swapped in for either Wartburg or UST (who they hold the H2H over).

How the bottom 3-4 slots play out will determine who gets top billing between Bethel, UWW and Linfield. Bethel and UWW have nearly identical SOS numbers and will have very similar results vs. RRO. Linfield's SOS numbers a notch lower, with weaker RRO results. Given this, as Pat and Keith acknowledge on the podcast, the committee could look at UWW and Bethel as dead even, in which case last years playoff results become relevant. Strange that Bethel could get the nod in this case. Makes Buff St. hurt all over again.

Hazzben -- what's the logic for putting Platteville above IC?  Platteville has a loss and a lower SOS.  Do you think a result against regionally ranked outweighs those two factors?

Agreed, as it stands today, I would think IC is regionally ranked. Of course that could change if Platteville can beat Oshkosh in the final week of the season
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 05, 2013, 11:06:56 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2013, 08:23:25 AM
Quote from: TitanPride on November 04, 2013, 08:57:19 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 04, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
My take:

Bethel (8-0) RRO: 2-0 or 3-0 (see bottom three)
UW-Whitewater (7-0) RRO: 2-0
Linfield (8-0) RRO: 1-0
Pacific Lutheran (7-1) RRO: 2-1
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1) RRO: 0/1-1 (see bottom three)
UW-Oshkosh (6-1) RRO: 0-1
Pacific (6-1) RRO: 0-1
UW-Plattevielle (7-1) RRO: 0-1
Redlands (5-2) RRO: 0-2
UST/Wartburg/SJU (2 losses each)

You could make the argument for IC, but their SOS is 185. Wartburg and UST have almost identical SOS numbers, but UST could be credited with playing Bethel tougher, more recently. SJU could also be swapped in for either Wartburg or UST (who they hold the H2H over).

How the bottom 3-4 slots play out will determine who gets top billing between Bethel, UWW and Linfield. Bethel and UWW have nearly identical SOS numbers and will have very similar results vs. RRO. Linfield's SOS numbers a notch lower, with weaker RRO results. Given this, as Pat and Keith acknowledge on the podcast, the committee could look at UWW and Bethel as dead even, in which case last years playoff results become relevant. Strange that Bethel could get the nod in this case. Makes Buff St. hurt all over again.

Hazzben -- what's the logic for putting Platteville above IC?  Platteville has a loss and a lower SOS.  Do you think a result against regionally ranked outweighs those two factors?

Agreed, as it stands today, I would think IC is regionally ranked. Of course that could change if Platteville can beat Oshkosh in the final week of the season

UWP gets no help from their SOS. But their only loss is to a team in the thick of things for the West 1 slot. You can definitely make the case for IC. And the criteria is tilted in their favor. The big knock will be, who have they played. In my ranking, I'm making allowance that there is going to be some subjective bias on the committee when it comes to comparing the WIAC and MWC. I'm not saying whether their should/shouldn't be, but predicting their will be.

But to both your points, IC could certainly make it in on the criteria. Again, what they do with the bottom 4ish slots will have a significant impact on who is #1...at least for week 1. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2013, 11:06:56 AM

... IC could certainly make it in on the criteria.
Isn't that the basis for EVERYBODY to make it, or not?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2013, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2013, 11:06:56 AM

... IC could certainly make it in on the criteria.
Isn't that the basis for EVERYBODY to make it, or not?

Sure, but not everybody is undefeated like IC
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: D3MAFAN on November 05, 2013, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2013, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2013, 11:06:56 AM

... IC could certainly make it in on the criteria.
Isn't that the basis for EVERYBODY to make it, or not?

Sure, but not eveybody is undefeatd like IC

Undebeaten ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2013, 11:35:35 AM
Quote from: D3MAFAN on November 05, 2013, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2013, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2013, 11:06:56 AM

... IC could certainly make it in on the criteria.
Isn't that the basis for EVERYBODY to make it, or not?

Sure, but not everybody is undefeatd like IC

Undebeaten ;)
;)  LOL!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2013, 01:18:12 PM
Quote from: D3MAFAN on November 05, 2013, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2013, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 05, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 05, 2013, 11:06:56 AM

... IC could certainly make it in on the criteria.
Isn't that the basis for EVERYBODY to make it, or not?

Sure, but not eveybody is undefeatd like IC

Undebeaten ;)

Thank you. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2013, 01:39:57 PM
Regional rankings:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2013/11/06/first-2013-ncaa-regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2013, 03:06:48 PM
Alright then.  Good stuff in the RRs.  Here's how I see the field this week, starting with Pool A:


   League   
  Team
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Gallaudet   
   E8   
   Alfred   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Wartburg   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MAC   
   Lebanon Valley   
   MIAC   
   Bethel   
   MWC   
   Illinois College   
   MIAA   
   Albion   
   NACC   
   Concordia (Wis.)   
   NCAC   
   Wabash   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Hampden-Sydney   
   PAC   
   Washington & Jefferson   
   SCIAC   
   Redlands   
   UMAC   
   Greenville   
   USAC   
   Maryville   
   WIAC   
   UW-Whitewater   

Just two changes here this week.  The E8 stays weird so Salisbury is out, Alfred is in.  Looking at the top of that league, Salisbury can force a two-way tie with Alfred with a win over Ithaca on Saturday, but Alfred beat Salisbury so there's that.  Alfred also has a game left with SJF which can't be overlooked.  And in the still crazy ODAC, Hampden-Sydney is back in after they blasted Guilford last week. 

Pool B:

Eeeenteresting stuff in the Regional Rankings.  The south picking the order of TLU, Wesley, Millsaps is a major surprise (see what I did there).  Now, we get to something that I'm not clear about since we haven't had multiple Pool Bs since I started breaking this down this way.  Do they take the top "B" team from each region and discuss as they do with the Cs?  If so, we can just ignore the North and West because there aren't ranked or viable candidates out there.  So we're looking first at TLU and Framingham.  Undefeated TLU wins.  Next up is Wesley and Framingham.  Now this is where it is interesting...does the national committee see Wesley's SOS and 0-2 record vs. RROs as better than Framingham State's 8-1 record, respectable SOS, and 0-1 vs. RROs?  Interestingly they have a common opponent- Rowan.  There are a lot of ways one could parse that whole thing out.  Here today I'm going to give Wesley the nod (and it's a no brainer if Salisbury beats Ithaca this week and winds up in the rankings next week).  So then we have Millsaps and Framingham State.  I'm picking Millsaps and their undefeated record again.  So my Bs are, in order:

TLU (7-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, .438 SOS)
Wesley (4-2, 0-2 vs. RROs, .688 SOS)
Millsaps (7-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, .484 SOS)


Pool C:

Some quick notes about each region here and how/why I've ordered teams the way I did. 
North: Even though the rankings right now have Wabash/Witt ahead of JCU and IWU, I'm going to apply the assumption here that the loser of Witt/Wabash will fall below JCU and IWU in the rankings.  IWU has a win over an RRO, which the Witt/Wabash loser will not.  JCU will be in the same boat should they finish with one loss.  So the NCAC runner up goes behind these two in the North region for me...just a little correction factor there. 
South: Taken as is.
East: I'm projecting Alfred in as the E8 AQ which leaves Ithaca out there in Pool C and at the top of the board.  But if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, Ithaca is either going to win the E8 or lose again and be shuffled behind FSU.  Either way, they are out of FSU's way and FSU is at the top of the east board. 
West: Taken as is- however if/when it gets down to Platteville, I'm skipping Platteville because it's going to be either Oshkosh or Platteville in play here and not both. 

And with that, here we go:
Round 1:
John Carroll 8-0, 0.463 SOS, 0-0 vs. RROs
Thomas More 7-1, .470 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Framingham State 7-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
UW-Oskhosh 6-1, .481 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs

Oshkosh is the selection.  Framingham has a better SOS per the math, but Oshkosh has the stronger result vs. a ranked opponent.  I don't think anybody would be surprised if Oshkosh were the first selection here. 

Round 2:
John Carroll 8-0, 0.463 SOS, 0-0 vs. RROs
Thomas More 7-1, .470 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Framingham State 7-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Concordia-Moorhead, 6-1, .540 SOS, 1-1 vs. RROs

The Cobbers are a pretty easy choice here (keeping in mind that John Carroll is going to be carrying a loss if they are part of this hypothetical).  Big ol' SOS and a quality win, which the others don't have (in fairness, JCU would also have to have said win to be on this board so early...C-M's SOS wins the day). 

Round 3:
John Carroll 8-0, 0.463 SOS, 0-0 vs. RROs
Thomas More 7-1, .470 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Framingham State 7-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Pacific Lutheran 7-1, .561 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs

Going with the Streaks here on the assumption that they'll have a win vs. an RRO.  Somewhat surprisingly, Pacific didn't get ranked which keeps PLU from having a quality win and gets them passed over here.

Round 4:
Illinois Wesleyan 7-1, .510 SOS, 2-1 vs. RROs
Thomas More 7-1, .470 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Framingham State 7-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Pacific Lutheran 7-1, .561 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs

Truth time- when I started I forgot to count Hope as an RRO win for IWU...probably should have ordered IWU ahead of JCU when I self-corrected at the start, but I think we get to the same place at this point anyway.  And with that out of the way, it's hard to see IWU with just one loss, a respectable SOS and 2 quality wins getting passed over at this point.  IWU might be the only at-large team to have 2 wins vs. RROs when it's all over with. 

Round 5:
Wittenberg 7-0, .509 SOS, 0-0 vs. RROs
Thomas More 7-1, .470 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Framingham State 7-1, .568 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs
Pacific Lutheran 7-1, .561 SOS, 0-1 vs. RROs

So here I think the call is between PLU and FSU.  Does an intelligent committee have an intelligent discussion and come away with a rock solid belief that Framingham State is better than PLU?  I honestly can't see that happening.  So PLU is the last team in....this week. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 06, 2013, 03:31:59 PM
Yikes! Too close for my tastes as a PLU fan.  Guess I'm pulling for the Tommies to beat the Cobbers, and for Pacific to beat Willamette and get regionally ranked (hopefully Redlands will get ranked too).  No interest in an OAC or CCIW three-way tie, thank you very much...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2013, 03:38:11 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 06, 2013, 03:31:59 PM
Yikes! Too close for my tastes as a PLU fan.  Guess I'm pulling for the Tommies to beat the Cobbers, and for Pacific to beat Willamette and get regionally ranked (hopefully Redlands will too).  No interest in an OAC or CCIW three-way tie, thank you very much...

Yup - any Pool C hopefuls need the OAC and CCIW to become clean 10-0/9-1/8-2 splits, methinks.  I also wonder if it would help the rest of Pool C if Framingham gets in through Pool B along with TLU and Millsaps; not sure whether you prefer being on the board against 9-1 Framingham with a possible win over RRO (if Endicott wins out, see Pool B board) or Wesley who HAS played a very difficult schedule but doesn't have any wins vs. RRO, but I think Wesley's resume looks a little thinner than Framingham's for the Pool C folks.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wesleydad on November 06, 2013, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2013, 03:38:11 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 06, 2013, 03:31:59 PM
Yikes! Too close for my tastes as a PLU fan.  Guess I'm pulling for the Tommies to beat the Cobbers, and for Pacific to beat Willamette and get regionally ranked (hopefully Redlands will too).  No interest in an OAC or CCIW three-way tie, thank you very much...

Yup - any Pool C hopefuls need the OAC and CCIW to become clean 10-0/9-1/8-2 splits, methinks.  I also wonder if it would help the rest of Pool C if Framingham gets in through Pool B along with TLU and Millsaps; not sure whether you prefer being on the board against 9-1 Framingham with a possible win over RRO (if Endicott wins out, see Pool B board) or Wesley who HAS played a very difficult schedule but doesn't have any wins vs. RRO, but I think Wesley's resume looks a little thinner than Framingham's for the Pool C folks.

ex tartan, playing hypotheticals here.  if salisbury beats ithaca and huntingdon wins this week, both could end up ranked and wesley then has 2 wins against regionally ranked teams.  if that occurs they are a strong B likely pushing framingham into the C pool.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 06, 2013, 04:36:29 PM
If Millsaps, behind in RRs, is left out of "B" and they fall to "C", they probably take a spot away as they'll be the first pick from the South and unbeaten. So the "C" fringes may wish that Millsaps does get a "B".
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2013, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 06, 2013, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2013, 03:38:11 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 06, 2013, 03:31:59 PM
Yikes! Too close for my tastes as a PLU fan.  Guess I'm pulling for the Tommies to beat the Cobbers, and for Pacific to beat Willamette and get regionally ranked (hopefully Redlands will too).  No interest in an OAC or CCIW three-way tie, thank you very much...

Yup - any Pool C hopefuls need the OAC and CCIW to become clean 10-0/9-1/8-2 splits, methinks.  I also wonder if it would help the rest of Pool C if Framingham gets in through Pool B along with TLU and Millsaps; not sure whether you prefer being on the board against 9-1 Framingham with a possible win over RRO (if Endicott wins out, see Pool B board) or Wesley who HAS played a very difficult schedule but doesn't have any wins vs. RRO, but I think Wesley's resume looks a little thinner than Framingham's for the Pool C folks.

ex tartan, playing hypotheticals here.  if salisbury beats ithaca and huntingdon wins this week, both could end up ranked and wesley then has 2 wins against regionally ranked teams.  if that occurs they are a strong B likely pushing framingham into the C pool.

Good points - did not look deep into every team's schedule.  If Huntingdon wins out (which would mean beating current South #7 Maryville) that would probably sneak them into the final South RR's.  That game isn't for two weeks, though.

The East rankings are all KINDS of wacky right now and, as crazy as it sounds, I don't know if Salisbury gets ranked even with a win over current #2 Ithaca.  You certainly can argue that they SHOULD be there but with three losses (no matter how good those losses are), I wouldn't necessarily count on that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 06, 2013, 04:44:41 PM
Nice job Wally :)  +k from "the serial smiter himself"   :-*
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: art76 on November 07, 2013, 01:49:17 PM
One has to wonder a bit if the Regional Ranking committee didn't rank Redlands or Pacific Lutheran in this first ranking because of the current uncertainty in the MIAC and IIAC? If St. Thomas loses to Concordia this week and St. John's loses to Bethel next week, or if Wartburg stumbles, then, as a committee, you could slip one or both of these West Coast teams in later Regional Rankings and everything is right with the world. I don't know that they would think that way as a collective, but it seems plausible now.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2013, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 07, 2013, 01:49:17 PM
One has to wonder a bit if the Regional Ranking committee didn't rank Redlands or Pacific Lutheran in this first ranking because of the current uncertainty in the MIAC and IIAC? If St. Thomas loses to Concordia this week and St. John's loses to Bethel next week, or if Wartburg stumbles, then, as a committee, you could slip one or both of these West Coast teams in later Regional Rankings and everything is right with the world. I don't know that they would think that way as a collective, but it seems plausible now.
Yeah--who knows what they are thinking.  But it seems likely that at least one of the MIAC teams will drop out of the rankings either after this week or in the final secret ranking.  I'd say the team that is affected the most by not having more West Coast teams on the list is Pacific Lutheran who is somewhat of a bubble team (based on current rankings) and could use a regionally ranked victory or 2 to help their cause....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2013, 03:20:17 PM
But it seems likely that at least one of the MIAC teams will drop out of the rankings either after this week or in the final secret ranking.  I'd say the team that is affected the most by not having more West Coast teams on the list is Pacific Lutheran who is somewhat of a bubble team (based on current rankings) and could use a regionally ranked victory or 2 to help their cause....

PLU is definitely affected by the current ranking.

But I'm not sure about assuming a MIAC team drops out. If C-M beats UST, they aren't going anywhere. If SJU were to upset Bethel (please no!), they will have a huge win over a RRO. Finally, if UST beats C-M it's possible they enter into the Rankings. Here's a thought, if UST wins Saturday, could both C-M and SJU drop out? Suddenly UST would have a W against a RRO, mitigating its loss to SJU early in the season and having beaten both teams that beat SJU. Maybe that creates two open slots. Thoughts?

I'd also expect that if UWP loses to UWO, which is what I'm predicting, UWP will drop out with their poor SOS and no good wins.

How Wartburg finishes will also affect things. If they win out, they'll likely remain ranked. If they stumble against Central, they drop out and make room for another team... The question is who? UST (if they beat C-M), Redlands, Pacific, Coe, Simpson, Illinois College, Greenville/CSS? (Central could actually shake things up a good bit with Wartburg and Coe the final two weeks).

It's all hypotheticals until we get some more data on Saturday. But I'm not panicking if I'm PLU. Win out and you're on the table, keeping in mind several of the teams in front of you still have serious challenges remaining.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2013, 04:39:15 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2013, 03:20:17 PM
But it seems likely that at least one of the MIAC teams will drop out of the rankings either after this week or in the final secret ranking.  I'd say the team that is affected the most by not having more West Coast teams on the list is Pacific Lutheran who is somewhat of a bubble team (based on current rankings) and could use a regionally ranked victory or 2 to help their cause....

PLU is definitely affected by the current ranking.

But I'm not sure about assuming a MIAC team drops out. If C-M beats UST, they aren't going anywhere. If SJU were to upset Bethel (please no!), they will have a huge win over a RRO. Finally, if UST beats C-M it's possible they enter into the Rankings. Here's a thought, if UST wins Saturday, could both C-M and SJU drop out? Suddenly UST would have a W against a RRO, mitigating its loss to SJU early in the season and having beaten both teams that beat SJU. Maybe that creates two open slots. Thoughts?

I'd also expect that if UWP loses to UWO, which is what I'm predicting, UWP will drop out with their poor SOS and no good wins.

How Wartburg finishes will also affect things. If they win out, they'll likely remain ranked. If they stumble against Central, they drop out and make room for another team... The question is who? UST (if they beat C-M), Redlands, Pacific, Coe, Simpson, Illinois College, Greenville/CSS? (Central could actually shake things up a good bit with Wartburg and Coe the final two weeks).

It's all hypotheticals until we get some more data on Saturday. But I'm not panicking if I'm PLU. Win out and you're on the table, keeping in mind several of the teams in front of you still have serious challenges remaining.
Good points-PLU is done after this week (against Whitworth) so they will have a long, long week of waiting, followed by a long, long night of waiting.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2013, 03:20:17 PM
But it seems likely that at least one of the MIAC teams will drop out of the rankings either after this week or in the final secret ranking.  I'd say the team that is affected the most by not having more West Coast teams on the list is Pacific Lutheran who is somewhat of a bubble team (based on current rankings) and could use a regionally ranked victory or 2 to help their cause....

PLU is definitely affected by the current ranking.

But I'm not sure about assuming a MIAC team drops out. If C-M beats UST, they aren't going anywhere. If SJU were to upset Bethel (please no!), they will have a huge win over a RRO. Finally, if UST beats C-M it's possible they enter into the Rankings. Here's a thought, if UST wins Saturday, could both C-M and SJU drop out? Suddenly UST would have a W against a RRO, mitigating its loss to SJU early in the season and having beaten both teams that beat SJU. Maybe that creates two open slots. Thoughts?

I'd also expect that if UWP loses to UWO, which is what I'm predicting, UWP will drop out with their poor SOS and no good wins.

How Wartburg finishes will also affect things. If they win out, they'll likely remain ranked. If they stumble against Central, they drop out and make room for another team... The question is who? UST (if they beat C-M), Redlands, Pacific, Coe, Simpson, Illinois College, Greenville/CSS? (Central could actually shake things up a good bit with Wartburg and Coe the final two weeks).

It's all hypotheticals until we get some more data on Saturday. But I'm not panicking if I'm PLU. Win out and you're on the table, keeping in mind several of the teams in front of you still have serious challenges remaining.

PLU and Linfield both could really use a big Pacific win over Willamette this week combined with one of the lower-level teams losing THIS WEEK so Pacific sneaks in once.  Assuming they lose to Linfield the following week, they probably won't get in.  So PLU needs a little bit of armageddon at the bottom of the rankings this week that allows Pacific to get in there this week, giving both PLU and Linfield that win over a RRO.

Also, you listed Illinois College as a possible team that could sneak in, but I thought IC was already ranked #8?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2013, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 07, 2013, 03:20:17 PM
But it seems likely that at least one of the MIAC teams will drop out of the rankings either after this week or in the final secret ranking.  I'd say the team that is affected the most by not having more West Coast teams on the list is Pacific Lutheran who is somewhat of a bubble team (based on current rankings) and could use a regionally ranked victory or 2 to help their cause....

PLU is definitely affected by the current ranking.

But I'm not sure about assuming a MIAC team drops out. If C-M beats UST, they aren't going anywhere. If SJU were to upset Bethel (please no!), they will have a huge win over a RRO. Finally, if UST beats C-M it's possible they enter into the Rankings. Here's a thought, if UST wins Saturday, could both C-M and SJU drop out? Suddenly UST would have a W against a RRO, mitigating its loss to SJU early in the season and having beaten both teams that beat SJU. Maybe that creates two open slots. Thoughts?

I'd also expect that if UWP loses to UWO, which is what I'm predicting, UWP will drop out with their poor SOS and no good wins.

How Wartburg finishes will also affect things. If they win out, they'll likely remain ranked. If they stumble against Central, they drop out and make room for another team... The question is who? UST (if they beat C-M), Redlands, Pacific, Coe, Simpson, Illinois College, Greenville/CSS? (Central could actually shake things up a good bit with Wartburg and Coe the final two weeks).

It's all hypotheticals until we get some more data on Saturday. But I'm not panicking if I'm PLU. Win out and you're on the table, keeping in mind several of the teams in front of you still have serious challenges remaining.

PLU and Linfield both could really use a big Pacific win over Willamette this week combined with one of the lower-level teams losing THIS WEEK so Pacific sneaks in once.  Assuming they lose to Linfield the following week, they probably won't get in.  So PLU needs a little bit of armageddon at the bottom of the rankings this week that allows Pacific to get in there this week, giving both PLU and Linfield that win over a RRO.

Also, you listed Illinois College as a possible team that could sneak in, but I thought IC was already ranked #8?
I think Linfield is probably stuck where they are unless a) they lose a game or b) Bethel and/or Whitewater lose a game.  I just don't see the Cats SOS or wins vs. regional opponents gaining enough to pass those two teams.  However, PLU would benefit from Pacific (and/or Redlands) jumping into the mix. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 04:55:25 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 04:40:01 PM
Also, you listed Illinois College as a possible team that could sneak in, but I thought IC was already ranked #8?

Yes they were. Good catch.

If UST wins, it would be interesting to see if they, Redlands or Pacific get in. Could also be two of the three (assuming a UWP loss and dropping out) or neither. UST would have 2 losses but be 1-2 v. RRO. Pacific would be one loss and 0-1 v. RRO. Redlands would be 0-2 v. RRO but with a strong SOS. Pacific would still have the stronger SOS when compared to UST I think (currently .537 v. .516), but not by much as the gap will narrow a little after Saturday's games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2013, 05:01:36 PM
How about this?

If Hobart loses against SLU or Rochester, then there isn't a power team to be the #1 seed in the East.

Does that move UMU to the top of the "East" bracket and make way for UWW (a "North" bracket) and Bethel (a "West" bracket) to head brackets?

That would let Linfield move to the #2 in the "West"  bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 07, 2013, 05:07:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2013, 05:01:36 PM
How about this?

If Hobart loses against SLU or Rochester, then there isn't a power team to be the #1 seed in the East.

Does that move UMU to the top of the "East" bracket and make way for UWW (a "North" bracket) and Bethel (a "West" bracket) to head brackets?

That would let Linfield move to the #2 in the "West"  bracket.
Quite likely even if Hobart wins out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 07, 2013, 05:07:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2013, 05:01:36 PM
How about this?

If Hobart loses against SLU or Rochester, then there isn't a power team to be the #1 seed in the East.

Does that move UMU to the top of the "East" bracket and make way for UWW (a "North" bracket) and Bethel (a "West" bracket) to head brackets?

That would let Linfield move to the #2 in the "West"  bracket.
Quite likely even if Hobart wins out.

Yeah, I'd be very surprised at this point if even an undefeated Hobart ended up with a 1 seed. I think you're looking at Mount, UMHB and then two from the UWW, Linfield, NCC & Bethel group. I'd say Mount, provided they win out, is the odds on favorite to be the East #1 again. Especially given all the quality teams in the North and West.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
By the way, it is NOT "once ranked, always ranked" this year, so Pacific being ranked would have helped PLU this week but not on Selection Sunday if Pacific doesn't remain ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 05:47:57 PM
Pat, that is news!  When (and why?) did they drop 'once ranked, always ranked'?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 07, 2013, 05:50:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
By the way, it is NOT "once ranked, always ranked" this year, so Pacific being ranked would have helped PLU this week but not on Selection Sunday if Pacific doesn't remain ranked.
Really? ...very interesting.  That changes quite a bit of the analysis/hope that some fans have scraped together.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
By the way, it is NOT "once ranked, always ranked" this year, so Pacific being ranked would have helped PLU this week but not on Selection Sunday if Pacific doesn't remain ranked.

whoa, whoa, whoa, really?

We've been making all of our assumptions based on that!  Wow, this changes a lot!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:56:25 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 05:47:57 PM
Pat, that is news!  When (and why?) did they drop 'once ranked, always ranked'?

Honestly, they have gone back and forth several times in the course of this playoff structure. I know the why is likely because they feel that a win against a team that could well end up 7-3 or 6-3 is not necessarily a valuable data point.

I feel any data point is a worthy data point.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
By the way, it is NOT "once ranked, always ranked" this year, so Pacific being ranked would have helped PLU this week but not on Selection Sunday if Pacific doesn't remain ranked.

whoa, whoa, whoa, really?

We've been making all of our assumptions based on that!  Wow, this changes a lot!

Yeah, I'd root for Hope over Albion in week 11 anyway, but now it is really important for seeding purposes for IWU (I feel pretty confident of a pool C either way) - 2-1 vs. RROs looks considerably better than 1-1! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
By the way, it is NOT "once ranked, always ranked" this year, so Pacific being ranked would have helped PLU this week but not on Selection Sunday if Pacific doesn't remain ranked.

Whoa! So Pacific is probably meaningless for PLU, unless they pull off a huge upset.

UWW should be cheering hard for Wash U v. Chicago.

Bethel wants Wartburg to win out. Roll of the dice if the Cobbers could survive a 2nd loss to UST and still remain ranked. Maybe both get in, depending on how things play out. But probably safer to hope Cobbers and Wartburg prevail and count our blessings that we could be 2-0 v. RRO. If both lose, it's possible Bethel finishes 0-0 v. RRO. Talk about a shift!

Man, that is a huge swing in how the seeding and Pool C criteria will play out!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 07, 2013, 06:35:25 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 06:11:36 PM

Whoa! So Pacific is probably meaningless for PLU, unless they pull off a huge upset.


VERY little chance that Pacific beats Linfield in week 11.  The winner of this weekend's Pacific-Willamette game will merit some consideration in that final list, but will likely fall just short.  Redlands has a decent shot at the 9th or 10th slot with their strong SOS, which would help PLU.  Quite a few games of interest this week and next!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2013, 06:39:44 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:56:25 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 05:47:57 PM
Pat, that is news!  When (and why?) did they drop 'once ranked, always ranked'?

Honestly, they have gone back and forth several times in the course of this playoff structure. I know the why is likely because they feel that a win against a team that could well end up 7-3 or 6-3 is not necessarily a valuable data point.

I feel any data point is a worthy data point.
I agree. If a team is that good by the 9th week of the season, then they have to be on the edge of the Top 10.  In parts of the countyry where it is unlikely to schedule other ranked teams, or in conferences where you only have one OOC game (e.g., Centennial, OAC), I want every datum that I can get.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 07, 2013, 06:49:57 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2013, 06:39:44 PM
I agree. If a team is that good by the 9th week of the season, then they have to be on the edge of the Top 10.  In parts of the countyry where it is unlikely to schedule other ranked teams, or in conferences where you only have one OOC game (e.g., Centennial, OAC), I want every datum that I can get.

I don't know...can see the other side too.  Pacific is a good example.  They look good right now (7-1) with only a one-point loss to PLU.  IMO, they could/should have been ranked this week.  But it's very possible that they drop their last two (Willamette and Linfield).  So maybe they finish 7-3 and (under the previous rules) could have counted as a RRO where some team finishes 8-2 (say UST for example) might not count because they picked up their loses before week 10.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 07:19:08 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
By the way, it is NOT "once ranked, always ranked" this year, so Pacific being ranked would have helped PLU this week but not on Selection Sunday if Pacific doesn't remain ranked.

whoa, whoa, whoa, really?

We've been making all of our assumptions based on that!  Wow, this changes a lot!

Yeah, I'd root for Hope over Albion in week 11 anyway, but now it is really important for seeding purposes for IWU (I feel pretty confident of a pool C either way) - 2-1 vs. RROs looks considerably better than 1-1! ;)

Agreed, were I in your position!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2013, 08:13:32 PM
Grumbling about the moving away from the once ranked, always ranked situation.  There just aren't enough data points to be tossing some out...as noted.  I thought reducing the number of regional rankings was a nice compromise.  I guess I was wrong.  Also not a fan that the only rankings that really count are secret.  I'm not saying that the fine people on the national committee are up to no good, but if something head scratching happens between the last public release and tournament selection, it certainly opens the door for questions and doubts about the process having been done dutifully. 

But oh well...it is, as they say, what it is.  We shall carry on and have a great tournament as always. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 08, 2013, 07:32:22 AM
Do they only count the regionally ranked wins after the final secret regional rankings have been decided?  Or are they counting based upon the previous week's regional rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 08, 2013, 07:43:32 AM
Quote from: AO on November 08, 2013, 07:32:22 AM
Do they only count the regionally ranked wins after the final secret regional rankings have been decided?  Or are they counting based upon the previous week's regional rankings?


It could be a secret... ;D  "only the shadow knows" 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 08, 2013, 09:26:03 AM
AO brings up a great point. Assuming the regional committees are working independently of one another, whether or not teams move into or out of the rankings in the other regions can't be know. So the Regional rankings will get slotted in a cloudy way. This has the potential to affect how #1 seeds are allocated, but more so the Pool B/C order. The national committee will no doubt adjust the RRO data when it sees the final rankings of all four regions. But will they reslot any teams accordingly if they gained or lost any RRO?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 09:40:17 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2013, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2013, 05:35:52 PM
By the way, it is NOT "once ranked, always ranked" this year, so Pacific being ranked would have helped PLU this week but not on Selection Sunday if Pacific doesn't remain ranked.

Whoa! So Pacific is probably meaningless for PLU, unless they pull off a huge upset.

UWW should be cheering hard for Wash U v. Chicago.

Bethel wants Wartburg to win out. Roll of the dice if the Cobbers could survive a 2nd loss to UST and still remain ranked. Maybe both get in, depending on how things play out. But probably safer to hope Cobbers and Wartburg prevail and count our blessings that we could be 2-0 v. RRO. If both lose, it's possible Bethel finishes 0-0 v. RRO. Talk about a shift!

Man, that is a huge swing in how the seeding and Pool C criteria will play out!

So it's safe to say that Bethel probably can't count on St. John's as a regional win? Assuming Bethel takes care of the Johnnies?  ;)

You're right about Whitewater becoming a huge Wash U fan now!! Hopefully whoever loses between UWP and UWO doesn't fall off the rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 08, 2013, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 09:40:17 AM
So it's safe to say that Bethel probably can't count on St. John's as a regional win? Assuming Bethel takes care of the Johnnies?  ;)

You're right about Whitewater becoming a huge Wash U fan now!! Hopefully whoever loses between UWP and UWO doesn't fall off the rankings.
I don't know if anything is safe to say.  I think St. Thomas gets in to the regional rankings after beating Concordia giving them the best win of any of the 2 loss teams.  This in turn also gives St. John's a regionally ranked win that will be counted in the secret rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 10:03:33 AM
Quote from: AO on November 08, 2013, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 09:40:17 AM
So it's safe to say that Bethel probably can't count on St. John's as a regional win? Assuming Bethel takes care of the Johnnies?  ;)

You're right about Whitewater becoming a huge Wash U fan now!! Hopefully whoever loses between UWP and UWO doesn't fall off the rankings.
I don't know if anything is safe to say.  I think St. Thomas gets in to the regional rankings after beating Concordia giving them the best win of any of the 2 loss teams.  This in turn also gives St. John's a regionally ranked win that will be counted in the secret rankings?

Seems like Bethel can only count on a receiving a regional win against St. John's or St. thomas...but not both. If Concordia can knocks off UST (which is very possible), then Wartburg might be their only hope for a second regional win.

things just got a helluva lot interesting for the top spot in the West.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 08, 2013, 10:14:14 AM
it's always fun in the west. :)     I think the west has been in the stagg the last ten years? 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 08, 2013, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 10:03:33 AM
Quote from: AO on November 08, 2013, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 09:40:17 AM
So it's safe to say that Bethel probably can't count on St. John's as a regional win? Assuming Bethel takes care of the Johnnies?  ;)

You're right about Whitewater becoming a huge Wash U fan now!! Hopefully whoever loses between UWP and UWO doesn't fall off the rankings.
I don't know if anything is safe to say.  I think St. Thomas gets in to the regional rankings after beating Concordia giving them the best win of any of the 2 loss teams.  This in turn also gives St. John's a regionally ranked win that will be counted in the secret rankings?

Seems like Bethel can only count on a receiving a regional win against St. John's or St. thomas...but not both. If Concordia can knocks off UST (which is very possible), then Wartburg might be their only hope for a second regional win.

things just got a helluva lot interesting for the top spot in the West.

Yep, a 3 loss SJU is gone from the rankings, regardless of how UST v. Cobbers shakes out. If UST were to beat Concordia, there's a slight chance Concordia could stay in the rankings. They'd have to have a competitive loss, IMO. Then it's a question of how the committee stacks up all the two loss teams (Redlands, SJU, UST, Concordia, Wartburg, etc.)

For Whitewater's sake, I think you should be cheering for UWP. If UWO loses they could still stay in, UWP's SOS will be a big millstone to overcome.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 11:23:19 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 08, 2013, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 10:03:33 AM
Quote from: AO on November 08, 2013, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 09:40:17 AM
So it's safe to say that Bethel probably can't count on St. John's as a regional win? Assuming Bethel takes care of the Johnnies?  ;)

You're right about Whitewater becoming a huge Wash U fan now!! Hopefully whoever loses between UWP and UWO doesn't fall off the rankings.
I don't know if anything is safe to say.  I think St. Thomas gets in to the regional rankings after beating Concordia giving them the best win of any of the 2 loss teams.  This in turn also gives St. John's a regionally ranked win that will be counted in the secret rankings?

Seems like Bethel can only count on a receiving a regional win against St. John's or St. thomas...but not both. If Concordia can knocks off UST (which is very possible), then Wartburg might be their only hope for a second regional win.

things just got a helluva lot interesting for the top spot in the West.

Yep, a 3 loss SJU is gone from the rankings, regardless of how UST v. Cobbers shakes out. If UST were to beat Concordia, there's a slight chance Concordia could stay in the rankings. They'd have to have a competitive loss, IMO. Then it's a question of how the committee stacks up all the two loss teams (Redlands, SJU, UST, Concordia, Wartburg, etc.)

For Whitewater's sake, I think you should be cheering for UWP. If UWO loses they could still stay in, UWP's SOS will be a big millstone to overcome.

I have a feeling when it's all said and done. Bethel and UWW will be sitting with only two regional wins.

Since UWO and UWP play on the last week, we'll never now what the loser of that game will be regionally ranked. We don't get the regional rankings after the final week....because the tournament brackets released, right? If I'm looking at it correctly, we only get one more regional rankings, next week.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: jknezek on November 08, 2013, 11:32:21 AM
With the demise of "once ranked always ranked" two will be pretty good. Conferences are going to be hard pressed to have more than 2 RR teams at in the final rankings. A few might have a third, but most won't. So if you got one RRO from conference and one from your OOC schedule, that's going to be pretty favorable.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 08, 2013, 11:43:27 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 11:23:19 AM
I have a feeling when it's all said and done. Bethel and UWW will be sitting with only two regional wins.

Since UWO and UWP play on the last week, we'll never now what the loser of that game will be regionally ranked. We don't get the regional rankings after the final week....because the tournament brackets released, right? If I'm looking at it correctly, we only get one more regional rankings, next week.

Correct, we'll only see next Wednesday's rankings. The final ones are secret.

But we'll get some more clarity this week. How the UST game shakes out and how the committee responds will give us some clues. If Pacific wins it gets interesting. And if Wash U beats Chicago I think we can assume they'll stay ranked and remain a boost for UWW. If they loose, we should assume they fall out, as they'd have 3 losses.

Going into this weekend, I'd lean towards both UWW and Bethel having two. In which case, I don't see how UWW doesn't remain #1 in the West. Although I haven't looked at how their SOS or Bethel's will be affected by the remaining games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2013, 05:07:49 PM
Well, let me just say that this will be an INTERESTING week in Pool C and playoff projection land. Sigh.

I think it's very safe to say that no "B" will cross into "C" land and unless there's a shock in the RR's, or something nuts happens it'll probably be Framingham, Wesley and Millsaps. as a "B".

Franklin lost to Bluffton this week so insanity can happen.

My gut is that the "C"s will be JCU (or Mt. Union, heck, JCU looked that good), the WIAC runner up, Illinois Wesleyan, PLU (if they beat Whitworth), and dealer's choice from Wabash, Thomas More or Illinois College. Perhaps St. Thomas or St. John's could horn in if the West committee ranks them ahead of Illinois College.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 09, 2013, 05:55:03 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2013, 05:07:49 PM
Well, let me just say that this will be an INTERESTING week in Pool C and playoff projection land. Sigh.

I think it's very safe to say that no "B" will cross into "C" land and unless there's a shock in the RR's, or something nuts happens it'll probably be Framingham, Wesley and Millsaps. as a "B".

Franklin lost to Bluffton this week so insanity can happen.

My gut is that the "C"s will be JCU (or Mt. Union, heck, JCU looked that good), the WIAC runner up, Illinois Wesleyan, PLU (if they beat Whitworth), and dealer's choice from Wabash, Thomas More or Illinois College. Perhaps St. Thomas or St. John's could horn in if the West committee ranks them ahead of Illinois College.

I'd be shocked if Illinois College remains ranked in the West. They were already sitting at #8 as an unbeaten. Given a weak SOS, no results against RRO and the fact they won't even play St. Norberts, I think they are in trouble in the rankings.

For SJU to have a chance, they'll have to beat Bethel. If UST gets ranked, it would give them 2 wins against RRO's. I'd assume they get in over UST in this scenario. If SJU loses, UST has a sliver of hope. But have to hope UWP drops completely out, etc.

As we saw today, there's a whole lot more football left to be played. I'm predicting we have one of our crazier final weeks of the season (even as the West Coast games are still going on)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 09, 2013, 06:35:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 08, 2013, 11:43:27 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 11:23:19 AM
I have a feeling when it's all said and done. Bethel and UWW will be sitting with only two regional wins.

Since UWO and UWP play on the last week, we'll never now what the loser of that game will be regionally ranked. We don't get the regional rankings after the final week....because the tournament brackets released, right? If I'm looking at it correctly, we only get one more regional rankings, next week.

Correct, we'll only see next Wednesday's rankings. The final ones are secret.

But we'll get some more clarity this week. How the UST game shakes out and how the committee responds will give us some clues. If Pacific wins it gets interesting. And if Wash U beats Chicago I think we can assume they'll stay ranked and remain a boost for UWW. If they loose, we should assume they fall out, as they'd have 3 losses.

Going into this weekend, I'd lean towards both UWW and Bethel having two. In which case, I don't see how UWW doesn't remain #1 in the West. Although I haven't looked at how their SOS or Bethel's will be affected by the remaining games.

Whenever I read this in a post my first thought is "Oh yeah, the Dean Wormer Rankings".     :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2013, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 09, 2013, 06:35:18 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 08, 2013, 11:43:27 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 08, 2013, 11:23:19 AM
I have a feeling when it's all said and done. Bethel and UWW will be sitting with only two regional wins.

Since UWO and UWP play on the last week, we'll never now what the loser of that game will be regionally ranked. We don't get the regional rankings after the final week....because the tournament brackets released, right? If I'm looking at it correctly, we only get one more regional rankings, next week.

Correct, we'll only see next Wednesday's rankings. The final ones are secret.

But we'll get some more clarity this week. How the UST game shakes out and how the committee responds will give us some clues. If Pacific wins it gets interesting. And if Wash U beats Chicago I think we can assume they'll stay ranked and remain a boost for UWW. If they loose, we should assume they fall out, as they'd have 3 losses.

Going into this weekend, I'd lean towards both UWW and Bethel having two. In which case, I don't see how UWW doesn't remain #1 in the West. Although I haven't looked at how their SOS or Bethel's will be affected by the remaining games.

Whenever I read this in a post my first thought is "Oh yeah, the Dean Wormer Rankings".     :)

What is truly annoying is that with no 'once ranked, always ranked', those secret final rankings are the ONLY ones that matter.  Nice transparency, NCAA! :P ::) >:(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2013, 09:17:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week.
Gonna get interesting with 4 of the 10 losing today.....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:36:36 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2013, 09:17:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week.
Gonna get interesting with 4 of the 10 losing today.....

How they get ordered could be interesting, but really, I think the 10 you saw on Wednesday are going to be the same 10 you see this week.   Those 10 have pretty seriously lapped the field in the North region.  Those losses aren't going to knock anybody out of the rankings.  With the possible exception that a second MIAA team makes a brief cameo before picking up a 3rd loss next week. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2013, 09:43:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:36:36 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2013, 09:17:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week.
Gonna get interesting with 4 of the 10 losing today.....

How they get ordered could be interesting, but really, I think the 10 you saw on Wednesday are going to be the same 10 you see this week.   Those 10 have pretty seriously lapped the field in the North region.  Those losses aren't going to knock anybody out of the rankings.  With the possible exception that a second MIAA team makes a brief cameo before picking up a 3rd loss next week.
yes--good point.  The West Regional Rankings could be very interesting though----3 MIAC teams with 2 losses, 2 WIAC teams with 1 loss but with low SOS.......it will mostly work itself out by the end but for this week it could be a big mess!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2013, 10:05:19 PM
I agree with Wally - the only change of teams in the RRs for the North will be Albion instead of Hope when all is said and done. Unless, unless, B-W beats Heidelberg. That could happen. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week.

Not suggesting it would matter, was just curious. Didn't realize the north was quite so shallow that the 9th ranked team would lose by 6 touchdowns and stay ranked.  But I don't follow all this criteria stuff all that closely. I do love reading this board and thanks all of you who put the work in to sort it out for us. 

Now another question or two to REALLY show my ignorance. 

I have looked at the criteria for pool C. And I know that records against RRO is one of them.  My question is:  what are the criteria for Regional Rankings? More specifically, does it have anything to do with RRO? I"m guessing it can't because there's no way of knowing how another region will rank teams. For example, the committee for the West couldn't have known that Wash U would be ranked when they ranked UW-W #1, right? 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 09, 2013, 11:25:48 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
I have looked at the criteria for pool C. And I know that records against RRO is one of them.  My question is:  what are the criteria for Regional Rankings? More specifically, does it have anything to do with RRO? I"m guessing it can't because there's no way of knowing how another region will rank teams. For example, the committee for the West couldn't have known that Wash U would be ranked when they ranked UW-W #1, right?

RRO is a criteria for Regional Rankings. The first ranking is especially tricky, since for example, the West Com had no idea if Wash U would get ranked. The final RR can be adjusted by the national committee I believe. The RRO is certainly adjusted, especially this year since they just dropped the once-ranked-always-ranked criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 10, 2013, 12:12:30 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 09, 2013, 11:25:48 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
I have looked at the criteria for pool C. And I know that records against RRO is one of them.  My question is:  what are the criteria for Regional Rankings? More specifically, does it have anything to do with RRO? I"m guessing it can't because there's no way of knowing how another region will rank teams. For example, the committee for the West couldn't have known that Wash U would be ranked when they ranked UW-W #1, right?

RRO is a criteria for Regional Rankings. The first ranking is especially tricky, since for example, the West Com had no idea if Wash U would get ranked. The final RR can be adjusted by the national committee I believe. The RRO is certainly adjusted, especially this year since they just dropped the once-ranked-always-ranked criteria.

I know there aren't that many inter-region games like the UW-W/Wash U example. So maybe that makes it inconsequential.  But according to Keith (I believe), the committees' conversations start well before the rankings are announced on Wednesdays. I wonder if there might be some communication between the committees as well.  I know St. Thomas or St. John's could sneak into the West rankings this week and the #1 seed could flip. On the other hand, if UW-W was ranked #1 with the committee NOT knowing Wash U was ranked, maybe their ACTUAL presence in the rankings helps UW-W.  Again, my hat's off to you guys who study this and track it.  I just need the experts to tell me who are the winners and losers (both in terms of seedings and pool C contenders) of this weekend and we are good to go!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2013, 01:17:40 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 10, 2013, 12:12:30 AM
I know there aren't that many inter-region games like the UW-W/Wash U example. So maybe that makes it inconsequential.  But according to Keith (I believe), the committees' conversations start well before the rankings are announced on Wednesdays. I wonder if there might be some communication between the committees as well.  I know St. Thomas or St. John's could sneak into the West rankings this week and the #1 seed could flip. On the other hand, if UW-W was ranked #1 with the committee NOT knowing Wash U was ranked, maybe their ACTUAL presence in the rankings helps UW-W.  Again, my hat's off to you guys who study this and track it.  I just need the experts to tell me who are the winners and losers (both in terms of seedings and pool C contenders) of this weekend and we are good to go!  :)

The committee typically has a conference call earlier in the week, before the rankings are released on Wednesday. But I don't believe (in fact I'm almost sure) that they don't have multiple conference calls where they are interacting with the other committees. They discuss and rank, and then its released. They don't re-discuss after they hear how the other committees have ranked things. Since this would be a moot action, potentially shaking up the RR and possibly shuffling the pre-ranking. Which would then require another comparing of notes. At least that's how I understand it.

But you're correct, in UWW's case, this means they got the #1 spot in the first West ranking without the committee even knowing that Wash U was ranked in the South.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2013, 07:27:15 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week.

Not suggesting it would matter, was just curious. Didn't realize the north was quite so shallow that the 9th ranked team would lose by 6 touchdowns and stay ranked.  But I don't follow all this criteria stuff all that closely. I do love reading this board and thanks all of you who put the work in to sort it out for us. 

I don't necessarily think this shows that the North is that shallow.  That 9th-ranked team lost by 10 to the first-ranked team the week before.  I think it shows common sense among committee members to consider that a good team can struggle against another really good team (John Carroll is really, really, really effing good in case you haven't noticed) a week after losing their biggest game of the season.  Heidelberg's body of work suggests that they should stay in (ranking a team from a lesser conference just because they didn't have to play the region's best teams is even dumber than ranking a team that lost by 6 touchdowns).  There are comparable examples in just about every region.  Pacific Lutheran lost by four touchdowns to the third-ranked team in the West (I'm well aware that game was competitive late, just making a statement similar to yours) and is still ranked seventh (as they should be).  Wesley got as obliterated as you can get by UMHB (I don't care that the score was 'only' 35-7, they were outgained 400 to 26 through three quarters) and is fourth in the South (a criminally high ranking, BTW, but a ranking nevertheless).  A blowout loss does not preclude a team from sticking around the bottom of the rankings.  There is a chance that your deep West Region will rank St. Norbert this week with Illinois College's loss; you'll note that SNC lost by 41 points to that same John Carroll team in the opener.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 10, 2013, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2013, 07:27:15 AM
There is a chance that your deep West Region will rank St. Norbert this week with Illinois College's loss; you'll note that SNC lost by 41 points to that same John Carroll team in the opener.

I think this goes to the depth of the region. Is SNC much different from the MIAA teams? But IC was unbeaten and sitting at 8. SNC has an ugly loss (albeit to a very strong North team), no quality wins and won't even play the 2nd place team in the conference. That's a lot working against them. They could get ranked, but week 1 seems to show a committee more concerned with quality of play, opponents, etc. than straight W-L. I'd be surprised to see SNC.

That said, I don't think the North is weak. Just not as strong as a very stacked and deep West.

I'd argue the difficulty of regions goes in this order:

West - very strong top teams, bottom teams are maybe the best of any region. A lot of 1 loss teams that can't even crack the board
North - very strong top teams, middle teams have quality as well. Bottom of the ranking are a little light in places (not all of them) and once you get off the board it probably drops off even more
South - very strong top team, one maybe two (Wesley) strong teams, then a pack of good not greats
East - strong top team, a pack of good not greats

For parities sake, if they don't shuffle some teams out of the West and North those regions will be absolutely brutal. For clarities sake, I'm using 'very strong team' to refer to a team I think is a threat to make the semi's depending on how their region & seeding stacks up. Strong means a Regional Finals threat. Good not great means more likely to lose second round than win, unless they draw another good not great and get a favorable matchup.

To this point. I think most of the teams in the West ranking would be a threat to win the East. So they might get stuck in the West and appear to fall into the good not great category, but it's more owing to their draw than their actual strength.

All that said, there's bound to be some movement yet. Each region will have some weak Pool A's added to the mix, some quality teams are bound to lose in the final week. And some teams are going to surprise us in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 10, 2013, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2013, 07:27:15 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week.

Not suggesting it would matter, was just curious. Didn't realize the north was quite so shallow that the 9th ranked team would lose by 6 touchdowns and stay ranked.  But I don't follow all this criteria stuff all that closely. I do love reading this board and thanks all of you who put the work in to sort it out for us. 

I don't necessarily think this shows that the North is that shallow. That 9th-ranked team lost by 10 to the first-ranked team the week before.  I think it shows common sense among committee members to consider that a good team can struggle against another really good team (John Carroll is really, really, really effing good in case you haven't noticed) a week after losing their biggest game of the season.  Heidelberg's body of work suggests that they should stay in (ranking a team from a lesser conference just because they didn't have to play the region's best teams is even dumber than ranking a team that lost by 6 touchdowns).  There are comparable examples in just about every region.  Pacific Lutheran lost by four touchdowns to the third-ranked team in the West (I'm well aware that game was competitive late, just making a statement similar to yours) and is still ranked seventh (as they should be).  Wesley got as obliterated as you can get by UMHB (I don't care that the score was 'only' 35-7, they were outgained 400 to 26 through three quarters) and is fourth in the South (a criminally high ranking, BTW, but a ranking nevertheless).  A blowout loss does not preclude a team from sticking around the bottom of the rankings.  There is a chance that your deep West Region will rank St. Norbert this week with Illinois College's loss; you'll note that SNC lost by 41 points to that same John Carroll team in the opener.

Poor choice of words. My bad. I wasn't trying to slap the north. I was trying to make my point without being too wordy. What I should have said was that I didn't realize quite how set the top 10 must be in the North that a team could lose by 42 in week 10 and still probably remain ranked.  I think highly of the north. That's why I was thinking there must be a team on the edges of the Top 10 that would be ready to jump in there upon a result like that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2013, 06:59:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 05, 2013, 11:39:09 AM
Sure, but not everybody is undefeated like IC
So much for THAT!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2013, 07:25:22 PM
I imagine the better experts are waiting for the new RRs on Wednesday before prognosticating, but I can't wait. ;)

Locks:
(9-1) loser of UMU/JCU
(9-1) winner of UWP/UWO
(9-1) IWU (assuming no monumental upset at home vs Elmhurst)

Veritable Lock:
(8-1) Pac Lu (end of regular season)

That leaves for spot #5:
9-1 Wabash (assuming they win the Monon Bell)
9-1 Thomas More (assuming they win the Bridge Bowl)
the top 8-2 MIAC team (SJU if they upset Bethel, otherwise UST)
the top 8-2 E8 team (the winner of SJF/Alfred)
[I don't think one-loss Illinois College or Tx Lu has a prayer.  Nor do I think Wheaton, Heidelberg, or the UWP/UWO loser has a chance.]]

Anyone I've inadvertently omitted?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 03:46:41 PM
Ypsi, this is my group. And the SOS might mean that PLU goes in ahead of UWP/UWO, although they all have a common opponent in UWEC, which PLU beat just 21-19.

IWU might go in before UWP/O as well, but that would matter less since they won't likely be in the same bracket, although they could be.

QuotePool C (Seven for five spots)
John Carroll/Mount Union loser
UW-Platteville/UW-Oshkosh winner
Pacific Lutheran, 8-1, .545
Illinois Wesleyan, 8-1, .502
Wabash, 8-1, .514
Thomas More, 8-1, .470
Illinois College, 8-1, .460

That's not including Chapman, which is 7-1 with a .428
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I think it's both possible and a mostly moot point.

Certainly St. John's, on the heels of a win over Bethel, would be hard to keep out, and their SoS will rise from .464. The MIAC SoS numbers aren't as good as you might expect, Bethel aside.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I think it's both possible and a mostly moot point.

Certainly St. John's, on the heels of a win over Bethel, would be hard to keep out, and their SoS will rise from .464. The MIAC SoS numbers aren't as good as you might expect, Bethel aside.
How could the SOS get much better?  The MIAC has one non-conference loss.
Concordia-Moorhead .558 Regionally ranked win over St. John's
St. Thomas .537 Regionally ranked win over Concordia
Gustavus .568 Regionally ranked win over St. John's

Illinois College should be out of the West Top Ten with their .460
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2013, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2013, 07:25:22 PM
I imagine the better experts are waiting for the new RRs on Wednesday before prognosticating, but I can't wait. ;)

Locks:
(9-1) loser of UMU/JCU
(9-1) winner of UWP/UWO
(9-1) IWU (assuming no monumental upset at home vs Elmhurst)

Veritable Lock:
(8-1) Pac Lu (end of regular season)

That leaves for spot #5:
9-1 Wabash (assuming they win the Monon Bell)
9-1 Thomas More (assuming they win the Bridge Bowl)
the top 8-2 MIAC team (SJU if they upset Bethel, otherwise UST)
the top 8-2 E8 team (the winner of SJF/Alfred)
[I don't think one-loss Illinois College or Tx Lu has a prayer.  Nor do I think Wheaton, Heidelberg, or the UWP/UWO loser has a chance.]]

Anyone I've inadvertently omitted?

Basically my take as well, under the assumption that the three Pool B teams are Millsaps, Wesley, and Framingham State.  If TLU somehow gets picked over Framingham for the third Pool B bid, then I think Framingham will be atop the East's Pool C board and have a decent chance to get in.  I don't think that really should happen, but who knows exactly what we'll see.  Further out on the fringes is WashU, but that is wayyyy on the fringes (and being ranked behind TMC at the moment in the RR's, I think they're unlikely to ever reach the table for discussion).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2013, 04:35:01 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 10, 2013, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2013, 07:27:15 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2013, 09:09:00 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Mount Union. Now there's a team that is not talked about too often in this thread!

I have a question. With Franklin losing and Heidelberg getting destroyed today, the probability exists that, if John Carroll beat the Raiders next week, Mount will have zero wins against regionally ranked opponents. Assuming the Raiders are still a pool C lock, what kind of seed are they looking at with no RRO wins?

Mount Union hasn't lost a road game in 20 years.  I'm not sure it matters what their seed would be.

Even so, I think you're probably assuming that Heidelberg is dropping out of the North's RRs and I don't believe that they will.  I can't find a logical reason why the RAC wouldn't recognize Heidelberg as one of the top 10 teams in the region.   

To whit- The teams you would be looking at here are Concordia (Wis), Benedictine, Albion, and Hope.  The NACC teams both have worse SOSs than Heidelberg (which is no small feat).  Albion or Hope are going to pick up a loss.  So that pushes Heidelberg back in after week 11, even if they slipped out this week.

Not suggesting it would matter, was just curious. Didn't realize the north was quite so shallow that the 9th ranked team would lose by 6 touchdowns and stay ranked.  But I don't follow all this criteria stuff all that closely. I do love reading this board and thanks all of you who put the work in to sort it out for us. 

I don't necessarily think this shows that the North is that shallow. That 9th-ranked team lost by 10 to the first-ranked team the week before.  I think it shows common sense among committee members to consider that a good team can struggle against another really good team (John Carroll is really, really, really effing good in case you haven't noticed) a week after losing their biggest game of the season.  Heidelberg's body of work suggests that they should stay in (ranking a team from a lesser conference just because they didn't have to play the region's best teams is even dumber than ranking a team that lost by 6 touchdowns).  There are comparable examples in just about every region.  Pacific Lutheran lost by four touchdowns to the third-ranked team in the West (I'm well aware that game was competitive late, just making a statement similar to yours) and is still ranked seventh (as they should be).  Wesley got as obliterated as you can get by UMHB (I don't care that the score was 'only' 35-7, they were outgained 400 to 26 through three quarters) and is fourth in the South (a criminally high ranking, BTW, but a ranking nevertheless).  A blowout loss does not preclude a team from sticking around the bottom of the rankings.  There is a chance that your deep West Region will rank St. Norbert this week with Illinois College's loss; you'll note that SNC lost by 41 points to that same John Carroll team in the opener.

Poor choice of words. My bad. I wasn't trying to slap the north. I was trying to make my point without being too wordy. What I should have said was that I didn't realize quite how set the top 10 must be in the North that a team could lose by 42 in week 10 and still probably remain ranked.  I think highly of the north. That's why I was thinking there must be a team on the edges of the Top 10 that would be ready to jump in there upon a result like that.

Understood - the bolded is probably a more accurate phrasing.  The North is very good...but it's pretty well-accepted that the top 9 teams, in particular, are well ahead of the teams on the fringes in that 10-14 range, which can either be used to say that the North is deep to have nine teams that are so good, or that it is shallow to say that there is a steep drop-off after the top 9 (although Hope's close loss to IWU and impressive run since their first MIAA loss suggests that they might be a worthy #10).  So it's kind of "both" deep and shallow.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 04:42:53 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I think it's both possible and a mostly moot point.

Certainly St. John's, on the heels of a win over Bethel, would be hard to keep out, and their SoS will rise from .464. The MIAC SoS numbers aren't as good as you might expect, Bethel aside.
How could the SOS get much better?  The MIAC has one non-conference loss.Concordia-Moorhead .558 Regionally ranked win over St. John's
St. Thomas .537 Regionally ranked win over Concordia
Gustavus .568 Regionally ranked win over St. John's

Illinois College should be out of the West Top Ten with their .460

That is phenomenal.  It also doesn't mean that God's own D-III conference is out there wailing away on D-III elites on the reg.  Among the giants slain by the mighty MIAC:

0-9 UW-River Falls...twice
1-8 UW-Eau Claire...twice
3-6 Buena Vista...twice
3-6 Macalester...twice
2-7 Grinnell
3-7 Minnesota-Morris
something called Jamestown, which appears to be a 3-7 NAIA team
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:55:41 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I think it's both possible and a mostly moot point.

Certainly St. John's, on the heels of a win over Bethel, would be hard to keep out, and their SoS will rise from .464. The MIAC SoS numbers aren't as good as you might expect, Bethel aside.

How could the SOS get much better?  The MIAC has one non-conference loss.
Concordia-Moorhead .558 Regionally ranked win over St. John's
St. Thomas .537 Regionally ranked win over Concordia
Gustavus .568 Regionally ranked win over St. John's

Illinois College should be out of the West Top Ten with their .460

Guess I was mostly referring to St. John's and St. Thomas and the fact that as you mention, the conference has one non-conference loss, yet nobody has an outlandish SoS. I realize that it can only grow so much when big conferences have few non-conference games ... it was just a ham-handed compliment, saying that my opinion of this year's MIAC is even higher than the SoS numbers are.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2013, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 04:42:53 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I think it's both possible and a mostly moot point.

Certainly St. John's, on the heels of a win over Bethel, would be hard to keep out, and their SoS will rise from .464. The MIAC SoS numbers aren't as good as you might expect, Bethel aside.
How could the SOS get much better?  The MIAC has one non-conference loss.Concordia-Moorhead .558 Regionally ranked win over St. John's
St. Thomas .537 Regionally ranked win over Concordia
Gustavus .568 Regionally ranked win over St. John's

Illinois College should be out of the West Top Ten with their .460

That is phenomenal.  It also doesn't mean that God's own D-III conference is out there wailing away on D-III elites on the reg.  Among the giants slain by the mighty MIAC:

0-9 UW-River Falls...twice
1-8 UW-Eau Claire...twice
3-6 Buena Vista...twice
3-6 Macalester...twice
2-7 Grinnell
3-7 Minnesota-Morris
something called Jamestown, which appears to be a 3-7 NAIA team

I hear what you're saying Wally, but all those teams listed actually already pull down the SoS numbers for the MIAC. You also left off the better Non-Con games.

And I think the top 3 teams you listed would all have better records playing in the NCAC, just saying  ;)

And I don't fault UST or SJU for playing UWEC. That's a traditional rival for SJU. And UWRF makes a ton of sense from a recruiting standpoint. Kudos to them for scheduling WIAC schools also located in the part of WI they are hoping to recruit heavily. They can't help how bad they ended up this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:57:50 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 04:42:53 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I think it's both possible and a mostly moot point.

Certainly St. John's, on the heels of a win over Bethel, would be hard to keep out, and their SoS will rise from .464. The MIAC SoS numbers aren't as good as you might expect, Bethel aside.
How could the SOS get much better?  The MIAC has one non-conference loss.Concordia-Moorhead .558 Regionally ranked win over St. John's
St. Thomas .537 Regionally ranked win over Concordia
Gustavus .568 Regionally ranked win over St. John's

Illinois College should be out of the West Top Ten with their .460

That is phenomenal.  It also doesn't mean that God's own D-III conference is out there wailing away on D-III elites on the reg.  Among the giants slain by the mighty MIAC:

0-9 UW-River Falls...twice
1-8 UW-Eau Claire...twice
3-6 Buena Vista...twice
3-6 Macalester...twice
2-7 Grinnell
3-7 Minnesota-Morris
something called Jamestown, which appears to be a 3-7 NAIA team
You exclude the results of the game you played so Buena Vista is really 3-4, etc. Eau-Claire and River Falls also give the MIAC a boost in OOWP.  The point remains that the MIAC runner up will be better than the rest of the Pool Cs on the board for the final at-large bid.  They will also likely have an advantage in regionally ranked wins and if St. Thomas is the team the tiebreaker allowing them to consider last year's run to the Stagg will settle it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2013, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2013, 07:25:22 PM
I imagine the better experts are waiting for the new RRs on Wednesday before prognosticating, but I can't wait. ;)

Locks:
(9-1) loser of UMU/JCU
(9-1) winner of UWP/UWO
(9-1) IWU (assuming no monumental upset at home vs Elmhurst)

Veritable Lock:
(8-1) Pac Lu (end of regular season)

That leaves for spot #5:
9-1 Wabash (assuming they win the Monon Bell)
9-1 Thomas More (assuming they win the Bridge Bowl)
the top 8-2 MIAC team (SJU if they upset Bethel, otherwise UST)
the top 8-2 E8 team (the winner of SJF/Alfred)
[I don't think one-loss Illinois College or Tx Lu has a prayer.  Nor do I think Wheaton, Heidelberg, or the UWP/UWO loser has a chance.]]

Anyone I've inadvertently omitted?

Basically my take as well, under the assumption that the three Pool B teams are Millsaps, Wesley, and Framingham State.  If TLU somehow gets picked over Framingham for the third Pool B bid, then I think Framingham will be atop the East's Pool C board and have a decent chance to get in.  I don't think that really should happen, but who knows exactly what we'll see.  Further out on the fringes is WashU, but that is wayyyy on the fringes (and being ranked behind TMC at the moment in the RR's, I think they're unlikely to ever reach the table for discussion).

Interesting thought and scenario, but what would be the rationale for taking 8-1, 4-something over 9-1, 5-something, with a result vs. an RRO?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 11, 2013, 06:06:18 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:57:50 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 04:42:53 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Keith, you don't think a St. Thomas or St. John's would jump ahead of Illinois College and Chapman in the West rankings?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I think it's both possible and a mostly moot point.

Certainly St. John's, on the heels of a win over Bethel, would be hard to keep out, and their SoS will rise from .464. The MIAC SoS numbers aren't as good as you might expect, Bethel aside.
How could the SOS get much better?  The MIAC has one non-conference loss.Concordia-Moorhead .558 Regionally ranked win over St. John's
St. Thomas .537 Regionally ranked win over Concordia
Gustavus .568 Regionally ranked win over St. John's

Illinois College should be out of the West Top Ten with their .460

That is phenomenal.  It also doesn't mean that God's own D-III conference is out there wailing away on D-III elites on the reg.  Among the giants slain by the mighty MIAC:

0-9 UW-River Falls...twice
1-8 UW-Eau Claire...twice
3-6 Buena Vista...twice
3-6 Macalester...twice
2-7 Grinnell
3-7 Minnesota-Morris
something called Jamestown, which appears to be a 3-7 NAIA team
You exclude the results of the game you played so Buena Vista is really 3-4, etc. Eau-Claire and River Falls also give the MIAC a boost in OOWP.  The point remains that the MIAC runner up will be better than the rest of the Pool Cs on the board for the final at-large bid.  They will also likely have an advantage in regionally ranked wins and if St. Thomas is the team the tiebreaker allowing them to consider last year's run to the Stagg will settle it.
[/b]


I think that will only be considered if They are Unbeaten and tied ? :o that is my understanding but, I have been wrong once before ? ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:57:50 PM
You exclude the results of the game you played so Buena Vista is really 3-4, etc. Eau-Claire and River Falls also give the MIAC a boost in OOWP.  The point remains that the MIAC runner up will be better than the rest of the Pool Cs on the board for the final at-large bid.  They will also likely have an advantage in regionally ranked wins and if St. Thomas is the team the tiebreaker allowing them to consider last year's run to the Stagg will settle it.

Wait.  Do we know this?  I don't think we know this. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: jknezek on November 11, 2013, 07:14:52 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:57:50 PM
You exclude the results of the game you played so Buena Vista is really 3-4, etc. Eau-Claire and River Falls also give the MIAC a boost in OOWP.  The point remains that the MIAC runner up will be better than the rest of the Pool Cs on the board for the final at-large bid.  They will also likely have an advantage in regionally ranked wins and if St. Thomas is the team the tiebreaker allowing them to consider last year's run to the Stagg will settle it.

Wait.  Do we know this?  I don't think we know this.

Of course we don't know this. If you are a MIAC partisan you BELIEVE it because you have credible reason to believe you play in the hardest conference in the country this year. However, that doesn't make your runner-up better than a different runner-up, although it also doesn't make the assumption wrong. Always fun to state opinions as facts...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2013, 07:52:33 PM
What fun is it to state opinions as opinions  ;D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 11, 2013, 08:17:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 04:57:50 PM
You exclude the results of the game you played so Buena Vista is really 3-4, etc. Eau-Claire and River Falls also give the MIAC a boost in OOWP.  The point remains that the MIAC runner up will be better than the rest of the Pool Cs on the board for the final at-large bid.  They will also likely have an advantage in regionally ranked wins and if St. Thomas is the team the tiebreaker allowing them to consider last year's run to the Stagg will settle it.

Wait.  Do we know this?  I don't think we know this.

Yeah, I was definitely confused by that as well.  I would consult Guru but he's in Paris now and probably asleep.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 11, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 11, 2013, 06:06:18 PM
I think that will only be considered if They are Unbeaten and tied ? :o that is my understanding but, I have been wrong once before ? ;D
dang it, I was mistaken.  You're right, they refuse to consider past playoff results among "beaten teams" because too much data makes their head hurt. 

I also meant to say that the likely MIAC team on the table (odds are this is St. Thomas) for the 5th bid would have a better SOS, not that they would be clearly considered by the d3football.com poll or by the majority of fans to be the best.   The Tommies SOS will drop by playing 1-9 St. Olaf .536 OOWP and Wabash's will drop less by playing 4-5 DePauw .4366 OOWP, but I don't think enough to cover the spread between the two.  I've got to think it's likely Concordia would stay in the regional rankings with a win over Gustavus, giving St. Thomas another advantage.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 11, 2013, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 11, 2013, 06:06:18 PM
I think that will only be considered if They are Unbeaten and tied ? :o that is my understanding but, I have been wrong once before ? ;D
dang it, I was mistaken.  You're right, they refuse to consider past playoff results among "beaten teams" because too much data makes their head hurt. 

I also meant to say that the likely MIAC team on the table (odds are this is St. Thomas) for the 5th bid would have a better SOS, not that they would be clearly considered by the d3football.com poll or by the majority of fans to be the best.   The Tommies SOS will drop by playing 1-9 St. Olaf .536 OOWP and Wabash's will drop less by playing 4-5 DePauw .4366 OOWP, but I












But, Oregon is nice this time of year ? ;)
















Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 09:39:18 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 11, 2013, 06:06:18 PM
I think that will only be considered if They are Unbeaten and tied ? :o that is my understanding but, I have been wrong once before ? ;D
dang it, I was mistaken.  You're right, they refuse to consider past playoff results among "beaten teams" because too much data makes their head hurt. 

I also meant to say that the likely MIAC team on the table (odds are this is St. Thomas) for the 5th bid would have a better SOS, not that they would be clearly considered by the d3football.com poll or by the majority of fans to be the best.   The Tommies SOS will drop by playing 1-9 St. Olaf .536 OOWP and Wabash's will drop less by playing 4-5 DePauw .4366 OOWP, but I don't think enough to cover the spread between the two.  I've got to think it's likely Concordia would stay in the regional rankings with a win over Gustavus, giving St. Thomas another advantage.

We probably shouldn't forget win-loss percentage as a primary criteria.  That one is important, too. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 12, 2013, 08:41:16 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2013, 09:39:18 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 11, 2013, 06:06:18 PM
I think that will only be considered if They are Unbeaten and tied ? :o that is my understanding but, I have been wrong once before ? ;D
dang it, I was mistaken.  You're right, they refuse to consider past playoff results among "beaten teams" because too much data makes their head hurt. 

I also meant to say that the likely MIAC team on the table (odds are this is St. Thomas) for the 5th bid would have a better SOS, not that they would be clearly considered by the d3football.com poll or by the majority of fans to be the best.   The Tommies SOS will drop by playing 1-9 St. Olaf .536 OOWP and Wabash's will drop less by playing 4-5 DePauw .4366 OOWP, but I don't think enough to cover the spread between the two.  I've got to think it's likely Concordia would stay in the regional rankings with a win over Gustavus, giving St. Thomas another advantage.

We probably shouldn't forget win-loss percentage as a primary criteria.  That one is important, too.

After listening to this week's podcast and hearing the list of one loss teams (and seeing who they play this week), I think the chances of any two loss teams making it are very, very slim. And the good thing is, none of them would have a valid complaint. Win your games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 12, 2013, 08:51:31 AM
^^ I'd second this. Chaos on Saturday seems unlikely. And every 2 loss team has blown 2 chances to secure their fate.

I'm saying that as a Bethel fan that saw his team get in last year with two losses. I was glad we made it and think the field was stronger with us in it. But at the end of the day, if we'd been left home we'd have had no one to blame but ourselves.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 12, 2013, 09:06:41 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 12, 2013, 08:41:16 AM
After listening to this week's podcast and hearing the list of one loss teams (and seeing who they play this week), I think the chances of any two loss teams making it are very, very slim. And the good thing is, none of them would have a valid complaint. Win your games.
The one loss teams didn't win their games either.  We see plenty of examples of 2 loss teams ranked ahead of 1 loss teams in the regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: art76 on November 12, 2013, 10:29:26 AM
It is unlikely that any of us discussing the possibilities on this board will be sitting in the selection committee. Do they lurk? Unknown to me, Pat might know. One could hope that it was required reading because then they would have a feel for what "the country" is thinking in a collective sense. (Or at least what the vocal fans were saying/thinking.) Every year for the past 5 or so that I've been following closely here on D3.com a similar song gets sung - "my 2 or 3 loss team can beat your 1 loss team, so it should get in to Pool C".

Here's where teams with those 2 or 3 losses are at the mercy of the selection committee. Every year the criteria are set before the committee and for all fans to see. Where it can "go sideways" is because there is no hard and fast if/then logic involved. The committee has been given the leeway to "read the tea leaves" and look at the "body of work" that a team has posted up until the last game of the season. Because that's how it is done, 2 loss teams have a shot for Pool C.

Will it happen this year? I think not. In the West the best 2 loss team will most likely be St. Thomas and I am not certain that their body of work says that they deserve to get in over another team's 1 loss body of work. Can they still beat most of the field in the playoffs - oh yeah, but that's not who they are being compared to when they get selected. It will be three other teams, one from each region that the committee has to chose from, and most likely those three will only have a single loss this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 12, 2013, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 12, 2013, 10:29:26 AM
It is unlikely that any of us discussing the possibilities on this board will be sitting in the selection committee. Do they lurk? Unknown to me, Pat might know. One could hope that it was required reading because then they would have a feel for what "the country" is thinking in a collective sense. (Or at least what the vocal fans were saying/thinking.) Every year for the past 5 or so that I've been following closely here on D3.com a similar song gets sung - "my 2 or 3 loss team can beat your 1 loss team, so it should get in to Pool C".

I'd disagree with this for the following reasons:

1. There is a good deal of homerism on these boards. Some posters are well informed and others just aren't. Unless you follow the boards closely for the duration of a season, and even over the course of a few years, you don't know who to lend an ear to and who to tune out.

2. They shouldn't be making this decision at all based on what the fans are saying/thinking. Not...at...all. I've said before, I'd love to see Pat or Keith get a seat on the nominating committee, to bring in an exhaustive knowledge of D3, the playoff history, a national perspective, etc. But I don't want even the most knowledgable fan anywhere close to the selection criteria.

3. Added to this is that what is represented here on the boards is in no way, shape, or form a fair sampling of what 'the country is thinking.' Not that it should even matter, but what we see on here is anecdotal evidence of opinions. Some teams are more represented, and their fans post more frequently and more vocally. That shouldn't bias the selection process. Where a team having a good season, but with few d3football.com posters doesn't pass the 'smell test' because they aren't getting mentioned as much or as passionately in the conversation.

4. As the Regional Committees are now set up, they are generally representative of the regions. Members can speak to the teams they've seen and played against. Representation is happening. And let's be honest, the coach who spends 80-90 hours preparing to face team X, then actually faces off against them on the field, has a much better sense of who they are than any of us casual fans. I've seen every Bethel game this year and watched portions or full games of a dozen other teams that are in the hunt. But I don't for a second think I have the best read on UST, Concordia and SJU. Johnson and Horan have hundreds of hours seeing these teams. Same goes for the other reps. The AD's have no doubt been informed of their respective coaches opinions.

I just don't want the Regional or National committees sniffing anywhere around these boards. Some great things find there way on here. But there's also plenty that is way out in left field. Just my 22¢  :)

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2013, 11:32:47 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 12, 2013, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 12, 2013, 10:29:26 AM
It is unlikely that any of us discussing the possibilities on this board will be sitting in the selection committee. Do they lurk? Unknown to me, Pat might know. One could hope that it was required reading because then they would have a feel for what "the country" is thinking in a collective sense. (Or at least what the vocal fans were saying/thinking.) Every year for the past 5 or so that I've been following closely here on D3.com a similar song gets sung - "my 2 or 3 loss team can beat your 1 loss team, so it should get in to Pool C".

I'd disagree with this for the following reasons:

1. There is a good deal of homerism on these boards. Some posters are well informed and others just aren't. Unless you follow the boards closely for the duration of a season, and even over the course of a few years, you don't know who to lend an ear to and who to tune out.

2. They shouldn't be making this decision at all based on what the fans are saying/thinking. Not...at...all. I've said before, I'd love to see Pat or Keith get a seat on the nominating committee, to bring in an exhaustive knowledge of D3, the playoff history, a national perspective, etc. But I don't want even the most knowledgable fan anywhere close to the selection criteria.

3. Added to this is that what is represented here on the boards is in no way, shape, or form a fair sampling of what 'the country is thinking.' Not that it should even matter, but what we see on here is anecdotal evidence of opinions. Some teams are more represented, and their fans post more frequently and more vocally. That shouldn't bias the selection process. Where a team having a good season, but with few d3football.com posters doesn't pass the 'smell test' because they aren't getting mentioned as much or as passionately in the conversation.

4. As the Regional Committees are now set up, they are generally representative of the regions. Members can speak to the teams they've seen and played against. Representation is happening. And let's be honest, the coach who spends 80-90 hours preparing to face team X, then actually faces off against them on the field, has a much better sense of who they are than any of us casual fans. I've seen every Bethel game this year and watched portions or full games of a dozen other teams that are in the hunt. But I don't for a second think I have the best read on UST, Concordia and SJU. Johnson and Horan have hundreds of hours seeing these teams. Same goes for the other reps. The AD's have no doubt been informed of their respective coaches opinions.

I just don't want the Regional or National committees sniffing anywhere around these boards. Some great things find there way on here. But there's also plenty that is way out in left field. Just my 22¢  :)

I just tried to +K you for this post and got rejected because you dropped so much wisdom that I already did so this morning.  This is beautifully stated.  The D3boards realm is by and large a reasonable and thoughtful community but we are all at least somewhat homer-ish...and even if we weren't, you are absolutely correct that philosophically, the national committee and regional committees should pay no attention to fans' opinions, no matter how well-informed those fans are.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 12, 2013, 11:40:28 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2013, 09:06:41 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 12, 2013, 08:41:16 AM
After listening to this week's podcast and hearing the list of one loss teams (and seeing who they play this week), I think the chances of any two loss teams making it are very, very slim. And the good thing is, none of them would have a valid complaint. Win your games.
The one loss teams didn't win their games either.  We see plenty of examples of 2 loss teams ranked ahead of 1 loss teams in the regional rankings.

That is true as well.  It is always frustrating for teams who "barely miss out" on a pool C bid, especially for teams that feel they could beat at least half of the field.  But at the end of the day, the true pathway for Pool A teams to make the playoffs is winning your conference.  If your team doesn't do that, you may be frustrated by not getting a Pool C bid, but ultimately need to realize it was because your team didn't win conference. At the beginning of the season, all Pool A teams have a pathway. If you don't take it,  you are asking for disappointment.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 12, 2013, 11:48:33 AM
I think we're giving a little too much credit to the committees.  They are restrained by the criteria.  They can't use their knowledge from watching film or even a ranking system that utilizes margin of victory in its calculation.  We're left to guess which criteria the current makeup of the committee favors.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2013, 11:56:30 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2013, 11:48:33 AM
I think we're giving a little too much credit to the committees.  They are restrained by the criteria.  They can't use their knowledge from watching film or even a ranking system that utilizes margin of victory in its calculation.  We're left to guess which criteria the current makeup of the committee favors.

Bingo.  It's different every year.  As I've said, once you're down to the final four for that last spot this year, you can make a perfectly reasonable argument for pretty much any of the four.  It's anybody's guess as to who wins that debate. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 12, 2013, 12:18:44 PM
HENCE     "LEAVE NO DOUBT"  Been there done that.. ;)

Just win baby.. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2013, 01:45:08 PM
Win your league.
Failing that, lose just one game.
Failing that, you probably failed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2013, 01:52:30 PM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2013, 11:48:33 AM
I think we're giving a little too much credit to the committees.  They are restrained by the criteria.  They can't use their knowledge from watching film or even a ranking system that utilizes margin of victory in its calculation.  We're left to guess which criteria the current makeup of the committee favors.

Agree 100% - can't wait to hear the reasoning annually.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:32:26 AM
If anybody's awake, I soft-published an ATN regional ranking primer with full examinations of Pools B and C and a Q&A sesh at the end.

I proofread it, but I won't add it to the front rotation until the morning. If you examine the numbers and see something wrong, or that I missed, please let me know.

http://www.d3football.com/x/twl9c
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 01:50:55 AM
Looks good to me, Keith. Particularly your note about the mechanics of the process and what it means for SJF/Alfred. SJF, at the table all night with their SOS and the WJ result (if WJ wins this week) makes the Wabash fan in me more nervous than anything else, St Thomas included.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 09:20:04 AM
Thanks. I can always count on you and Smed and the longtime posters.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 12:59:14 PM
The "C" decisions really will determine how many teams get 'moved'. I think it's safe to say the OAC winner and UW-Whitwater will be leading brackets along with Linfield and UMHB. I think it's pretty safe that St. Norbert will follow UW-Whitewater, perhaps, and that if the "C" team is Wabash or Thomas More the OAC runner up will move "East". But if the MIAC gets a "C" or the East gets a "C", then that'll start the wheels spinning.

Of course this is conjecture. Who knows what the committee will cook up and if they'll just focus on round one on 'close by' matchups.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 12:59:14 PM
The "C" decisions really will determine how many teams get 'moved'. I think it's safe to say the OAC winner and UW-Whitwater will be leading brackets along with Linfield and UMHB. I think it's pretty safe that St. Norbert will follow UW-Whitewater, perhaps, and that if the "C" team is Wabash or Thomas More the OAC runner up will move "East". But if the MIAC gets a "C" or the East gets a "C", then that'll start the wheels spinning.

Of course this is conjecture. Who knows what the committee will cook up and if they'll just focus on round one on 'close by' matchups.

I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially if St. Thomas gets into the rankings this week. That gives Bethel a whopping four results vs. RROs -- St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead and Wartburg were all ranked last week.

If they are 10-0 and have a power SoS, I don't see how you can deny them a 1 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 12:59:14 PM
The "C" decisions really will determine how many teams get 'moved'. I think it's safe to say the OAC winner and UW-Whitwater will be leading brackets along with Linfield and UMHB. I think it's pretty safe that St. Norbert will follow UW-Whitewater, perhaps, and that if the "C" team is Wabash or Thomas More the OAC runner up will move "East". But if the MIAC gets a "C" or the East gets a "C", then that'll start the wheels spinning.

Of course this is conjecture. Who knows what the committee will cook up and if they'll just focus on round one on 'close by' matchups.

I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially if St. Thomas gets into the rankings this week. That gives Bethel a whopping four results vs. RROs -- St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead and Wartburg were all ranked last week.

If they are 10-0 and have a power SoS, I don't see how you can deny them a 1 seed.

Should Bethel beat SJU, the Johnnies will disappear, but then you're still left with Bethel being 10-0, with a monster SOS and likely 3-0 vs. RROs, which in the absence of once-ranked-always-ranked is insane.  If Bethel isn't at the top of one of the four quadrants, there ought to be an investigation. 

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 12:59:14 PM
Of course this is conjecture. Who knows what the committee will cook up and if they'll just focus on round one on 'close by' matchups.

It's so hard to figure out how they'll bracket things.  They did 4-team pods a couple of years ago and mixed and matched those pods in interesting ways and it was awesome.  I think I remember reading somewhere that there is an increased re-emphasis on travel costs this year, so I think we'll probably wind up with a the more traditional/old school/boring geographic clusters, but it's anybody's guess really. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 13, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:14:26 PM

I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially if St. Thomas gets into the rankings this week. That gives Bethel a whopping four results vs. RROs -- St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead and Wartburg were all ranked last week.

If they are 10-0 and have a power SoS, I don't see how you can deny them a 1 seed.

Should Bethel beat SJU, the Johnnies will disappear, but then you're still left with Bethel being 10-0, with a monster SOS and likely 3-0 vs. RROs, which in the absence of once-ranked-always-ranked is insane.  If Bethel isn't at the top of one of the four quadrants, there ought to be an investigation. 

But that assumes Concordia-Moorhead is still ranked after losing this week, right?  Could be just Wartburg and the possibility of UST.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 12:59:14 PM
The "C" decisions really will determine how many teams get 'moved'. I think it's safe to say the OAC winner and UW-Whitwater will be leading brackets along with Linfield and UMHB. I think it's pretty safe that St. Norbert will follow UW-Whitewater, perhaps, and that if the "C" team is Wabash or Thomas More the OAC runner up will move "East". But if the MIAC gets a "C" or the East gets a "C", then that'll start the wheels spinning.

Of course this is conjecture. Who knows what the committee will cook up and if they'll just focus on round one on 'close by' matchups.

I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially if St. Thomas gets into the rankings this week. That gives Bethel a whopping four results vs. RROs -- St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead and Wartburg were all ranked last week.

If they are 10-0 and have a power SoS, I don't see how you can deny them a 1 seed.

I can see that IF C-M is still regionally ranked. After this week, Linfield's SOS will rise, as will the OAC winner. UW-W will drop. It will all depend on where the West decides to RR these guys, I guess. I forgot Bethel was ahead of Linfield in the RRs. If that holds, then swap Bethel and Linfield, but still the premise works. There will be a shift, maybe two.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 13, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:14:26 PM

I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially if St. Thomas gets into the rankings this week. That gives Bethel a whopping four results vs. RROs -- St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead and Wartburg were all ranked last week.

If they are 10-0 and have a power SoS, I don't see how you can deny them a 1 seed.

Should Bethel beat SJU, the Johnnies will disappear, but then you're still left with Bethel being 10-0, with a monster SOS and likely 3-0 vs. RROs, which in the absence of once-ranked-always-ranked is insane.  If Bethel isn't at the top of one of the four quadrants, there ought to be an investigation. 

But that assumes Concordia-Moorhead is still ranked after losing this week, right?  Could be just Wartburg and the possibility of UST.
That raises my previous question about what is a regionally ranked win.  If St. John's was in the ranking last week, Concordia would have a regionally ranked win this week but perhaps not in the secret rankings if the Johnnies fall out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 13, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:14:26 PM

I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially if St. Thomas gets into the rankings this week. That gives Bethel a whopping four results vs. RROs -- St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead and Wartburg were all ranked last week.

If they are 10-0 and have a power SoS, I don't see how you can deny them a 1 seed.

Should Bethel beat SJU, the Johnnies will disappear, but then you're still left with Bethel being 10-0, with a monster SOS and likely 3-0 vs. RROs, which in the absence of once-ranked-always-ranked is insane.  If Bethel isn't at the top of one of the four quadrants, there ought to be an investigation. 

But that assumes Concordia-Moorhead is still ranked after losing this week, right?  Could be just Wartburg and the possibility of UST.
That raises my previous question about what is a regionally ranked win.  If St. John's was in the ranking last week, Concordia would have a regionally ranked win this week but perhaps not in the secret rankings if the Johnnies fall out.

That's correct.  I think the with the number of quality teams lingering between 5 and the hypothetical 15th-ish position in the RR, it's pretty safe to assume that if SJU loses on Saturday, they won't be part of the final secret rankings and C-M won't have that notch in their belt. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:10:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
That's correct.  I think the with the number of quality teams lingering between 5 and the hypothetical 15th-ish position in the RR, it's pretty safe to assume that if SJU loses on Saturday, they won't be part of the final secret rankings and C-M won't have that notch in their belt.
Let me see if I have this right.

On Selection Sunday the secret regional rankings are done using the previous week's public regional rankings to count which games are regionally ranked.  Then when the pool C teams get to the table in front of the national committee the number of regionally ranked wins and losses is calculated again based on the secret regional rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 13, 2013, 02:11:01 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:10:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
That's correct.  I think the with the number of quality teams lingering between 5 and the hypothetical 15th-ish position in the RR, it's pretty safe to assume that if SJU loses on Saturday, they won't be part of the final secret rankings and C-M won't have that notch in their belt.
Let me see if I have this right.

On Selection Sunday the regional rankings are done using the previous week's public regional rankings to count which games are regionally ranked.  Then when the pool C teams get to the table in front of the national committee the number of regionally ranked wins and losses is calculated again based on the secret regional rankings?

We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 13, 2013, 02:16:02 PM
+k  boys  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:10:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
That's correct.  I think the with the number of quality teams lingering between 5 and the hypothetical 15th-ish position in the RR, it's pretty safe to assume that if SJU loses on Saturday, they won't be part of the final secret rankings and C-M won't have that notch in their belt.
Let me see if I have this right.

On Selection Sunday the regional rankings are done using the previous week's public regional rankings to count which games are regionally ranked.  Then when the pool C teams get to the table in front of the national committee the number of regionally ranked wins and losses is calculated again based on the secret regional rankings?

Seems that would be the case, but I think maybe that the regional committees are a little more constrained to strictly regional data...so for instance, SJF's win against WJ probably means more to the national committee than it does to the East RAC.  Otherwise, you're right.  I'm not sure how each RAC can ever settle on a list of 10 if they require the other region's list to make decisions.  It's a cycle that never ends.  This is why it's really kind of absurd to toss away the once ranked, always ranked instruction.  That's valuable data (like recognizing that beating SJU is noteworthy) that's going to be ignored. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 02:23:18 PM
No. They do a third set of regional rankings, it just never gets released to the public because by the time we all woke up and digested it, there'd be playoff brackets to chirp about. At least that's my theory, it could be more sinister than that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 02:30:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.

Was just about to say, weren't they out around this time last week?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 13, 2013, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly. 

I wonder if UW-O and UW-P being ranked ahead of all four of those matter. And add in #8Wash u. Are all RRO created equal? Not sure.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 13, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 13, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 01:14:26 PM

I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially if St. Thomas gets into the rankings this week. That gives Bethel a whopping four results vs. RROs -- St. John's, Concordia-Moorhead and Wartburg were all ranked last week.

If they are 10-0 and have a power SoS, I don't see how you can deny them a 1 seed.

Should Bethel beat SJU, the Johnnies will disappear, but then you're still left with Bethel being 10-0, with a monster SOS and likely 3-0 vs. RROs, which in the absence of once-ranked-always-ranked is insane.  If Bethel isn't at the top of one of the four quadrants, there ought to be an investigation. 

But that assumes Concordia-Moorhead is still ranked after losing this week, right?  Could be just Wartburg and the possibility of UST.
yes. CM #9
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:35:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:18:42 PM
Seems that would be the case, but I think maybe that the regional committees are a little more constrained to strictly regional data...so for instance, SJF's win against WJ probably means more to the national committee than it does to the East RAC.  Otherwise, you're right.  I'm not sure how each RAC can ever settle on a list of 10 if they require the other region's list to make decisions.  It's a cycle that never ends.  This is why it's really kind of absurd to toss away the once ranked, always ranked instruction.  That's valuable data (like recognizing that beating SJU is noteworthy) that's going to be ignored.
Why would they be constrained to regional data if they're using the previous week's rankings?  The national committee uses the secret rankings to compare teams from different regions, but I'd still think the East RAC would count the SJF win over WJ.

So, if St. John's is on this week's rankings, we can guarantee that Concordia will get credit for that win and be on the secret regional rankings (helping Bethel/St. Thomas).  Bethel or St. Thomas may not get credit from the national committee for the St. John's game as the Johnnies might not be on the secret rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 13, 2013, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.

My strong guess is this will end up a moot point.  If all goes according to form this weekend, we are likely looking at brackets built around UMU/JC winner, UMHB, UW-W, and Bethel.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethels wins are all in-region.  That group of people know who is on their list currently- they don't have to guess at what's going on on other regions' rankings.  There's not a good criteria-based excuse for Bethel to be behind Whitewater if that's the top ten that they made this week. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethels wins are all in-region.  That group of people know who is on their list currently- they don't have to guess at what's going on on other regions' rankings.  There's not a good criteria-based excuse for Bethel to be behind Whitewater if that's the top ten that they made this week.
I meant to say regionally ranked wins, not just regional wins.

This means that next week Bethel will move ahead of Whitewater in the secret regional rankings since the RAC will then count St. Thomas as their 4th regionally ranked win.  However, once the national committee gets to decide who is the #1 seed, etc. Bethel might only have 3 regionally ranked wins if the Johnnies fall out of the secret rankings.

So, we know exactly what data the regional committee is using to create the secret regional rankings, but the data regarding regionally ranked wins the national committee uses to seed and select is secret.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 13, 2013, 02:58:18 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:47:34 PM
This means that next week Bethel will move ahead of Whitewater in the secret regional rankings...

So, we know exactly what data the regional committee is using...

You're really that sure?  I mean maybe you're right, but have you ever heard of confirmation bias?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 13, 2013, 03:01:19 PM
Looking at the top of possible brackets (#1 seeds), here is a comparison of the final "public" regional rankings to the actual brackets themselves:

2012
Final Public Rankings: Hobart, Mount, UMHB, Linfield
Actual Top Seeds: Mount, UMHB, LInfield, St. Thomas

Note: Tommies were ranked 3rd in west in final "public" ranking, leaped Oshkosh (2nd) with a win over #5 C-M on final week.  No East #1

2011
Final Public Rankings: Del Val, Mount, UMHB, UWW
Actual Top Seeds: Del Val, Mount, UMHB, UWW

2010
Final Public Rankings: Del Val, Mount, Wesley, St. Thomas
Actual Top Seeds Mount, Wesley, St. Thomas, North Central

Note: North Central was #2 in the North behind Mount. Replaced Del Val as a 1. No East #1

2009
Final Public Rankings: Del Val, Mount, Wesley, UW-W
Actual Top Seeds: Mount, Wesley, UW-W, St. Johns

Note: St. John's was #2 in the West. Replaced Del Val as a 1. No East #1


Since 2009, the only #1 regionally ranked teams listed in the final "public" rankings to have been replaced as #1 seeds in the actual brackets have been from the East. Only the 2012 Hobart team was undefeated and still replaced.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 03:10:36 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethel hasn't actually played St. John's yet.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 03:14:05 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 03:10:36 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethel hasn't actually played St. John's yet.
Then it's going to be really weird next week when the regional committee sees that Bethel moved from 2 to 4 regionally ranked wins despite the fact that St. John's will likely fall out of the rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MasterJedi on November 13, 2013, 03:15:18 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 03:14:05 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 03:10:36 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethel hasn't actually played St. John's yet.
Then it's going to be really weird next week when the regional committee sees that Bethel moved from 2 to 4 regionally ranked wins despite St. John's falling out of the rankings.

St Johns wouldn't be ranked then.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 03:16:02 PM
I'm pretty thrilled that I nailed a bunch of observations in the primer -- that Brockport was the 10th East team, that nobody new would move in in the North, that Millsaps would leap Wesley (by saying that an unbeaten can't go before a two-loss) and that all four of Bethel's opponents would be ranked in the West.

No major surprises in there for me.

However, I need to be more about once-ranked, always ranked. Pat has said that's not in the handbook this year, but I wonder if it also specifically says that's not how it is. It was definitely in effect last year. I will have to take a closer look.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 03:16:57 PM
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 13, 2013, 03:15:18 PM
St Johns wouldn't be ranked then.
Have you been following along at all?  The regional committee counts it as a regionally ranked win as they don't anticipate their own regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 03:19:00 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 03:16:02 PM
However, I need to be more about once-ranked, always ranked. Pat has said that's not in the handbook this year, but I wonder if it also specifically says that's not how it is. It was definitely in effect last year. I will have to take a closer look.
2013:
Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the
rankings at the time of selection. Conference
postseason contests are included

2012:
In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

Opponents are considered ranked once they appear one time in sport's official rankings.

Conference postseason contests are included.

Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 13, 2013, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 03:16:02 PM
I'm pretty thrilled that I nailed a bunch of observations in the primer -- that Brockport was the 10th East team, that nobody new would move in in the North, that Millsaps would leap Wesley (by saying that an unbeaten can't go before a two-loss) and that all four of Bethel's opponents would be ranked in the West.

No major surprises in there for me.

However, I need to be more about once-ranked, always ranked. Pat has said that's not in the handbook this year, but I wonder if it also specifically says that's not how it is. It was definitely in effect last year. I will have to take a closer look.

Definitely a great job! +k
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 03:54:46 PM
While we wait for RRs today, we can chew on what we know for a bit.  I'll add on to this post after the RRs are released and I go through my at-large picks.  But for now, Pool A:

   League   
  Team
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Gallaudet   
   E8   
   Itahca   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Wartburg   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MAC   
   Lebanon Valley   
   MIAC   
   Bethel   
   MWC   
   St. Norbert   
   MIAA   
   Albion   
   NACC   
   Concordia (Wis.)   
   NCAC   
   Wittenberg   
   NEFC   
   Salve Regina   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Hampden-Sydney   
   PAC   
   Washington & Jefferson   
   SCIAC   
   Redlands   
   UMAC   
   St. Scholastica   
   USAC   
   Maryville   
   WIAC   
   UW-Whitewater   

Last week we had zero teams qualified.  This week we have 14.  Ten more coming on Saturday.  In the table if you are bolded, you are a conference champion and are qualified for the tournament.  If you are italicized, you're new to the table this week.  Notables here:
- Ithaca's win over Salisbury captures the E8 for the Bombers and sets up a huge Pool C game between SJF and Alfred on Saturday.
- St. Norbert benefits from IC's loss and is in the driver's seat for the MWC despite not having to play one another.  Silly. 
- Wittenberg's win at Wabash knocks Wabash into Pool C.  Not a big wave as the NCAC runner up was going to be in the mix here either way. 

The good news for Pool C hopefuls is that of the ten unsettled AQ leagues, none can produce a surprise Pool C team (OAC will produce an at-large team, but we've been counting on that)....we won't see bubbles pop because of surprises in Week 11. 

Pool B:

As we talked about last week, it was weird that Millsaps was behind Wesley and that was fixed.  So the Pool B board looks like this:

Millsaps (9-0 overall, 8-0 D3, 0.507 SOS, 0-0 vs RRO)
Wesley (7-2 overall, 4-2 D3, 0.678 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Framingham State (8-1 overall, 8-1 D3, 0.574 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)

Texas Lutheran (7-1 overall, 7-1 D3, 0.424 SOS, 0-0 vs RRO)

So Millsaps, Wesley and Framingham are the three.  Whether you prefer to take Framingham before Wesley or Wesley before Framingham, you'll end up in the same place.  Washington is lingering around down there just below TLU, but being the fourth ranked B team in the same region is just a killer for WashU's very slim chances.  Doesn't get better for the Bears when we head on over to the C Pool.  Grab your towel...here we go. 

Pool C:

Quickly to take a look at the top of the C board from each region:
North: JCU, IWU, Wabash (taken as is...and despite IWU's second RRO win, I'm not sure they'll get over the JCU/UMU loser so we'll keep this as it is)
South: Thomas More, Texas Lutheran, WashU (taken as is)
East: Alfred, SJF, Brockport (which I'll take as Alfred/SJF winner, Brockport)
West: UW-O, UW-P, PLU, St. Thomas, C-M, SJU (I'm treating UW-O and UW-P as the same team as I did with SJF/Alfred because they play this week)

Let's pick.  We know how it goes...top team from each region is on the board, we assess per the criteria and select.  Here we go.  Round 1:
John Carroll (9-0, 0.490 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (8-1, 0.470 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Alfred/SJF (7-2, 0.539/0.560 SOS, 1-1/1-1 vs RRO)
UW-Oshkosh/Platteville (8-1, 0.443/0.455 SOS, 0-1/0-1 vs RRO)

I'm gong to peel John Carroll off here first.  I think the SOS factor is the big player here.  Both JCU and the UWs will have 1 regional loss vs. the #1 ranked team in their region and a regional win against their league's third place team.  So that's all more or less a wash.  The gap in SOS I think makes you lean toward the Streaks. 

Round 2:
Illinois Wesleyan (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 2-1 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (8-1, 0.470 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Alfred/SJF (7-2, 0.539/0.560 SOS, 1-1/1-1 vs RRO)
UW-Oshkosh/Platteville (8-1, 0.443/0.455 SOS, 0-1/0-1 vs RRO)

Illinois Wesleyan is actually an easier pick here than John carroll in the round before.  Better SOS (still a big gap to the UWs) and a bonus RRO thanks to Hope's placement in the North.  That goes away if Albion beats Hope on Saturday. 

Round 3:
Wabash (8-1, 0..513 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (8-1, 0.470 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Alfred/SJF (7-2, 0.539/0.560 SOS, 1-1/1-1 vs RRO)
UW-Oshkosh/Platteville (8-1, 0.443/0.455 SOS, 0-1/0-1 vs RRO)

Now we get to the UWs.  The winner of Oshkosh/Platteville is going in here (or before).  Now we've got a quality win to help offset some of that SOS trouble.  The other 1-loss teams here don't have a quality win and Alfred/SJF are carrying a second loss. 

Round 4:
Wabash (8-1, 0..513 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (8-1, 0.470 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Alfred/SJF (7-2, 0.539/0.560 SOS, 1-1/1-1 vs RRO)
Pacific Lutheran (8-1, 0.553 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)

I think the choice here comes down to PLU or Wabash, but now we also have to start paying close attention to Alfred/SJF.  The folks on the East RAC are freaking brilliant.  Last year they made a last minute switcheroo to have a better profile on the board at the end (Bridgewater State).  This year they've slipped Brockport into the bottom of their rankings which gives Alfred an RRO win that wasn't there before.  We'll never ever know for sure, but I've got a dollar that says the loser of Alfred/SJF stays ranked and gives the winner a 2-1 record vs. RROs.  Because why not?   I digress.  I'm taking PLU here because of their lofty SOS and (for the moment) I don't think the RRO win for Alfred/SJF offsets the extra loss.  PLU could really, really, really benefit from Redlands getting ranked after Saturday (maybe replacing SJU at the bottom of the West's rankings). 

Round 5:
Wabash (8-1, 0..513 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (8-1, 0.470 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Alfred/SJF (7-2, 0.539/0.560 SOS, 1-1/1-1 vs RRO)
St. Thomas (7-2, 0.537 SOS, 1-2 vs RRO)

And here we go.  Do you favor win percentage?  Do you like SOS (although these teams don't have huge SOS separations...save SJF)?  I'm going to select Wabash here because it makes me feel good, but I'm going to be honest- you can pick any one of these teams you want and be justified doing so. 

I will offer this caveat and it's one that has been mentioned briefly but not explored in detail.  If SJF wins on Saturday, SJF will be lingering around on the board from the get go.  Which means they are getting discussed for at least two more selections than Wabash/St.Thomas.  Whether that discussion accumulates any selection capital as teams are plucked off the board and new teams arrive, who knows.  Thomas More is also on the board from the start, but Thomas More-in addition to underwhelming SOS and RRO results- has a hideous common opponent problem with SJF (W&J....and this is the same scenario that got CWRU passed over in 2011) so the Saints are doomed if they are in direct competition with SJF.  So if you're looking at SJF/Wabash/St. Thomas for that last spot, SJF has been lingering for a while, they have a great SOS, and (especially if the East RAC doesn't drop Alfred all the way out which they should do but probably won't) 2 RRO wins.  That is a damn compelling at-large case and might be the only one of the 2-loss teams that could break through the 1-loss candidates. 

So anyway, my Pool C's are:
John Carroll
IWU
UW-Oskhosh/Platteville winner
Pacific Lutheran
Wabash


This is in no way groundbreaking as this is what we've kind of been pointing toward since Saturday evening and was pretty strongly alluded to (if not said outright) in the ATN piece that went up today. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 04:00:54 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 13, 2013, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 03:16:02 PM
I'm pretty thrilled that I nailed a bunch of observations in the primer -- that Brockport was the 10th East team, that nobody new would move in in the North, that Millsaps would leap Wesley (by saying that an unbeaten can't go before a two-loss) and that all four of Bethel's opponents would be ranked in the West.

No major surprises in there for me.

However, I need to be more about once-ranked, always ranked. Pat has said that's not in the handbook this year, but I wonder if it also specifically says that's not how it is. It was definitely in effect last year. I will have to take a closer look.

Definitely a great job! +k

Thanks. I didn't mean it to pat myself on the back so much as when going through all the numbers, obsessively, down to minute details, I'm always afraid I'll miss something obvious.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 13, 2013, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 03:54:46 PM
So if you're looking at SJF/Wabash/St. Thomas for that last spot, SJF has been lingering for a while, they have a great SOS, and (especially if the East RAC doesn't drop Alfred all the way out which they should do but probably won't) 2 RRO wins.  That is a damn compelling at-large case and might be the only one of the 2-loss teams that could break through the 1-loss candidates. 
SJF/Alfred could go from 2 RR wins to O with a little help from Waynesburg/Morrisville State and if the East RAC drops the loser out (more likely if Alfred loses).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 04:11:26 PM
I would probably take IWU before John Carroll and PLU before the UW-O/P loser, but it gets us to the same place in the end. All four of those teams seem pretty solid, and the fifth spot is the only one where any doubt might creep in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 03:54:46 PM
So if you're looking at SJF/Wabash/St. Thomas for that last spot, SJF has been lingering for a while, they have a great SOS, and (especially if the East RAC doesn't drop Alfred all the way out which they should do but probably won't) 2 RRO wins.  That is a damn compelling at-large case and might be the only one of the 2-loss teams that could break through the 1-loss candidates. 
SJF/Alfred could go from 2 RR wins to O with a little help from Waynesburg/Morrisville State and if the East RAC drops the loser out (more likely if Alfred loses).

Absolutely true.  That's where I think a lot of the at-large intrigue lies this week...not so much with the games amongst the teams we've identified as at-large players but with the fringe games against RR'd teams that could have that kind of impact on a team's criteria. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 13, 2013, 04:16:32 PM
Nice Job Wally  +k ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: art76 on November 13, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 03:54:46 PM

So anyway, my Pool C's are:
John Carroll
IWU
UW-Oskhosh/Platteville winner
Pacific Lutheran
Wabash


This is in no way groundbreaking as this is what we've kind of been pointing toward since Saturday evening and was pretty strongly alluded to (if not said outright) in the ATN piece that went up today.

Wally, you do a great job of this every year, thanx! If John Caroll does beat Mount Union so that UMU is now in the Pool C festivities, does it really change anything?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 13, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 13, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 03:54:46 PM

So anyway, my Pool C's are:
John Carroll
IWU
UW-Oskhosh/Platteville winner
Pacific Lutheran
Wabash


This is in no way groundbreaking as this is what we've kind of been pointing toward since Saturday evening and was pretty strongly alluded to (if not said outright) in the ATN piece that went up today.

Wally, you do a great job of this every year, thanx! If John Caroll does beat Mount Union so that UMU is now in the Pool C festivities, does it really change anything?

It probably doesn't change the end result, but if Mount is not granted special treatment, they may fall a notch or two lower in the Pool C pecking order (stress on MIGHT).  Mount's SOS is marginally lower than John Carroll's (JCU got a boost from St. Norbert's big year), but the difference is pretty slight and other than that, they're identical on paper.  I think Keith may be right that Illinois Wesleyan will be just a notch higher than the Mount/JCU loser (as he said, they're all so similar on paper: a loss against their undefeated conference champ, a win over their conference's RR third-place team, IWU has a minimally higher SOS that may even disappear this week with Mount/JCU playing one another) but they probably all go in regardless.  As wally and Keith have both said, the first four Pool C choices LOOK like virtual locks.  That fifth slot is verrrrrrrrry tough.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wesleydad on November 13, 2013, 05:57:28 PM
just great info.  fun to read and follow.  you guys do a great job with all this.  I like following the whole nation and this helps me keep up with it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2013, 06:02:52 PM
It's kind of a letdown to have it mostly figured out now. What are we going to do for the next 2-3 days?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 06:27:52 PM
Speculate on the unforseen and unimaginable. Maybe see if we can do a mind meld with the committee to tell us, "YES, Wabash is in with a win. Otherwise it's SJF or St. Thomas, depending, or Thomas More depending depending..."

I was racking my brain to see how TLU could get an at large, but that would take some undertaking including one result that I can't even fathom.  ;)

Also thinking of how much more intrigue there'd be for SJF / Alfred had the Saxons' not screwed up against RPI way back when.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 06:47:28 PM
Just wanted to throw up the Massey win probabilities for the "B" and "C" contenders this final week:

"B" teams

Millsaps @ Rhodes - 55%. A negative result by the Majors could throw them off the "B" train and into the "C" conversation, perhaps. But then they'd have the same issues as the other South "C" teams.

Framingham St @ Worcester St. - 97%

Wesley vs. Alfred St. - 100%

Texas Lutheran vs. Howard Payne - 87%

Wash U. vs. Chicago - 92%

"C"

PLU has done all they can do.

John Carroll @ Mt. Union - Massey has the plucky upstarts as 62% favorites over the Purple. Hmmm...of course Massey's algorithms don't care of Mt. Union has any legacy, its just data attached to a name. Comparing the Heidelberg results, along with the sinking of Franklin and the JCU pasting of St. Norbert's, no doubt contribute to this.

Platteville @ Oshkosh - Oshkosh 67%.

Illinois Wesleyan vs. Elmhurst - 97%

Wabash @ Depauw - 92%

Thomas More @ Mt. St. Joseph - 93%

Alfred @ St. John's Fisher - Massey says SJF 52% of the time.

St. Thomas @ St. Olaf - 99%

St. John's @ Bethel - 6%.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Schwami on November 13, 2013, 07:02:31 PM
Smed, what does Massey say about W&J vs. Waynesburg (since this result may affect several Pool C hopefuls)?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2013, 07:11:35 PM
Looking at alot of data, Thomas More is probably the ONLY Pool C hopeful impacted by W&J/Waynesburg.
And, if W&J wins, it's gonna be hard for TMC to make it, though RR's are giving the Saints as much help as "is defensible."...

I'm really not sure TMC can make it at 9-1, strength of schedule an issue along with 0 wins against RRO....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Schwami on November 13, 2013, 07:35:15 PM
If Waynesburg wins, Thomas More isn't Pool C anymore, and SJF loses a win against a RRO.  Probably not much difference as between Thomas More and Texas Lutheran (who would be next up on the board from the South).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2013, 07:50:31 PM
I don't see SJF getting in whether W&J wins or loses.  Just don't see them, or Thomas More getting the final spot over Wabash, or the third spot over the UW runnerup.  Thomas More gets AQ is W&J loses.  And gets nothing if W&J wins.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 13, 2013, 08:52:00 PM
This is some great analysis, thanks guys. I love reading this stuff. It's hard to be as excited about this without my team in the mix but I really enjoy seeing the data. For the record, I agree with Wally and think his picks are the best 5 candidates based on the data, despite his red and white bias!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2013, 09:20:32 PM
Wally, I'd prefer to see Wabash get that 5th spot, but IF SJF keeps their 2 wins over RROs, their SoS advantage just might overcome 2 losses vs. 1.  It all depends how the committee weights the various criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 11:21:24 PM
W&J has an 84% chance of beating Waynesburg.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 14, 2013, 08:03:55 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethels wins are all in-region.  That group of people know who is on their list currently- they don't have to guess at what's going on on other regions' rankings.  There's not a good criteria-based excuse for Bethel to be behind Whitewater if that's the top ten that they made this week.

First of all, you do an awesome job in analyzing and explaining all this. +k!

But I do have a question...

Is there something in the handbook that suggests that all RRO must be considered exactly equal? In other words, is a win over Mount Union to be treated the exact same way as a win over Brockport State (3 losses)? If the answer is yes, then that's ridiculous.  If the answer is no, I don't understand your position AT ALL.  Bethel's three RRO all have two losses.  Two of UW-W's opponents haven't lost a single game other than to them (obviously, that makes them ONE loss teams).  The other has two losses. In addition, coming into this week UW-W is ranked 13th compared to 23rd for Bethel in SOS (Maybe the margin is negligible, but for sure it isn't a huge Bethel edge).  I'm not sure what the criteria based excuse would be to put Bethel ahead of Whitewater. I'm sure I am missing something because you rarely do. If you could explain it to me, that would be great.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 08:49:56 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 14, 2013, 08:03:55 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethels wins are all in-region.  That group of people know who is on their list currently- they don't have to guess at what's going on on other regions' rankings.  There's not a good criteria-based excuse for Bethel to be behind Whitewater if that's the top ten that they made this week.

First of all, you do an awesome job in analyzing and explaining all this. +k!

But I do have a question...

Is there something in the handbook that suggests that all RRO must be considered exactly equal? In other words, is a win over Mount Union to be treated the exact same way as a win over Brockport State (3 losses)? If the answer is yes, then that's ridiculous.  If the answer is no, I don't understand your position AT ALL.  Bethel's three RRO all have two losses.  Two of UW-W's opponents haven't lost a single game other than to them (obviously, that makes them ONE loss teams).  The other has two losses. In addition, coming into this week UW-W is ranked 13th compared to 23rd for Bethel in SOS (Maybe the margin is negligible, but for sure it isn't a huge Bethel edge).  I'm not sure what the criteria based excuse would be to put Bethel ahead of Whitewater. I'm sure I am missing something because you rarely do. If you could explain it to me, that would be great.

Both teams have three wins over regional ranked teams, with Whitewater having the slight edge in SOS.

So I'm guessing Whitewater's lead over Bethel for the #1 spot in the West is VERY minimal.

This will all be moot if/when Whitewater ends up in the North.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 14, 2013, 08:58:04 AM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 03:54:46 PM
So if you're looking at SJF/Wabash/St. Thomas for that last spot, SJF has been lingering for a while, they have a great SOS, and (especially if the East RAC doesn't drop Alfred all the way out which they should do but probably won't) 2 RRO wins.  That is a damn compelling at-large case and might be the only one of the 2-loss teams that could break through the 1-loss candidates. 
SJF/Alfred could go from 2 RR wins to O with a little help from Waynesburg/Morrisville State and if the East RAC drops the loser out (more likely if Alfred loses).

If Brockport remains in the East RR for the secret, final ballot then I can't see Alfred sliding past them due to head-to-head result (though in my mind I consider an OT win a tie).

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2013, 06:27:52 PM
Also thinking of how much more intrigue there'd be for SJF / Alfred had the Saxons' not screwed up against RPI way back when.

Yes, not dropping that first game out of the gate would have made things a little more "exiting this saterday" as we say on the East boards.  One wonders whether we had started with the frosh QB that we turned to down 28-0 at Brockport instead of the frosh QB we started the season with whether the results would have been any different.  But, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 09:49:29 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 14, 2013, 08:03:55 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2013, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
RRs are out.  STT, Wartburg, C-M, and SJU are 7-10 in the West.  Bethel is #2.  If those four teams are all ranked, Bethel can't be #2.  Just can't.  Total whiff by the West RAC.  The criteria have to matter, especially when the criteria are that overwhelming. 

Alright...projections coming shortly.
I think this proves my theory correct.  The regional committees don't readjust themselves after calculating the regional wins from the previous week's rankings.  They only considered Bethel to have 3 regionally ranked wins this week.

Bethels wins are all in-region.  That group of people know who is on their list currently- they don't have to guess at what's going on on other regions' rankings.  There's not a good criteria-based excuse for Bethel to be behind Whitewater if that's the top ten that they made this week.

First of all, you do an awesome job in analyzing and explaining all this. +k!

But I do have a question...

Is there something in the handbook that suggests that all RRO must be considered exactly equal? In other words, is a win over Mount Union to be treated the exact same way as a win over Brockport State (3 losses)? If the answer is yes, then that's ridiculous.  If the answer is no, I don't understand your position AT ALL.  Bethel's three RRO all have two losses.  Two of UW-W's opponents haven't lost a single game other than to them (obviously, that makes them ONE loss teams).  The other has two losses. In addition, coming into this week UW-W is ranked 13th compared to 23rd for Bethel in SOS (Maybe the margin is negligible, but for sure it isn't a huge Bethel edge).  I'm not sure what the criteria based excuse would be to put Bethel ahead of Whitewater. I'm sure I am missing something because you rarely do. If you could explain it to me, that would be great.

A little mea culpa on this.  Somebody had brought up that Bethel had not yet played SJU so they don't get credit for that RRO win just yet.  And if they do beat SJU, then SJU is getting bounced off the back of the West RR wagon anyway.  That's my bad.  One other thing that I admittedly overlooked is Washington being regionally ranked in the South.  I keep forgetting that either 1) UWW played Washington and/or 2) WashU is ranked.  I also missed the part where Whitewater had a better SOS than Bethel.  So that's my bad.  Whitewater is a perfectly good choice for #1 in the West. 

As for your question...the answer is an emphatic NO.  The committee doesn't have to treat all RRO wins the same.  In fact, they aren't even limited to just reviewing RRO wins.  The criteria uses the phrase "results against regionally ranked opponents" which opens up the opportunity for a committee to take into acount any result against RROs, win or loss.  How the committee members want to weigh those results is up to the individual member I would guess. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 14, 2013, 10:08:24 AM
So the lose of PLU to Linfield is a good thing? 29-0 They held linfield to only 7 points for 3qt's and then held them to a season low 29 points?   If I read you right .. Good thing for PLU..  ;) they are a very good team.  Would win most other 1st round games if they could get moved east,north,south anywhere but the catdome.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 10:19:23 AM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 14, 2013, 10:08:24 AM
So the lose of PLU to Linfield is a good thing? 29-0 They held linfield to only 7 points for 3qt's and then held them to a season low 29 points?   If I read you right .. Good thing for PLU..  ;) they are a very good team.  Would win most other 1st round games if they could get moved east,north,south anywhere but the catdome.  ;)

I think the general feeling is that it is better to play against an RRO and lose than to not play against an RRO at all.  So, strange as it may sound, PLU being 8-1 and 0-1 vs. RRO is probably better than being 8-1 and 0-0 vs. RRO.  As long as you don't lose by 70 or something silly like that, which PLU didn't.  I'm pretty confident that PLU is going to be fine on Sunday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 14, 2013, 10:21:36 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 09:49:29 AM
A little mea culpa on this.  Somebody had brought up that Bethel had not yet played SJU so they don't get credit for that RRO win just yet.  And if they do beat SJU, then SJU is getting bounced off the back of the West RR wagon anyway.  That's my bad.  One other thing that I admittedly overlooked is Washington being regionally ranked in the South.  I keep forgetting that either 1) UWW played Washington and/or 2) WashU is ranked.  I also missed the part where Whitewater had a better SOS than Bethel.  So that's my bad.  Whitewater is a perfectly good choice for #1 in the West. 

As for your question...the answer is an emphatic NO.  The committee doesn't have to treat all RRO wins the same.  In fact, they aren't even limited to just reviewing RRO wins.  The criteria uses the phrase "results against regionally ranked opponents" which opens up the opportunity for a committee to take into acount any result against RROs, win or loss.  How the committee members want to weigh those results is up to the individual member I would guess.

Great clarification Wally. I made the same mistake initially, looking at 4 RRO and saying, they're all on Bethel's schedule. Except they haven't played the last one yet! Oops

The West 1 spot would seem to come down to a few things (assuming both UWW and Bethel win on Saturday).

1. Will Wash U win out and remain regionally ranked. And does it even matter, aka, will the West committee look at a Wash U loss and think, they won't be ranked. Or will they just assume they are ranked, even though once-ranked-always-ranked doesn't exist.

2. Will the loser of the UWP v. UWO game keep it competitive. I think its a good game. But if say, UWP got blown out by UWO, they could conceivably drop out of the rankings. 2nd loss, final week, in ugly fashion wouldn't bode well. Especially with Redlands, Chapman, St. Scholastica and St. Norberts presumably lurking just off the board.

3. What will the final SoS numbers look like? Bethel is going to get a boost and UWW is going to take a hit. What we don't know is how their other non-con opponents will fair. For instance, if BVU pulls off the upset (which is possibly considering how competitive they've been in IIAC losses) and Wartburg win, Bethel's number will creep a little higher or vice versa. Here a Wash U loss, regardless of what the committee does with RRO result, would affect UWW's Sos.

At the end of the day, I think it's probably a moot point. I'd expect both UWW and Bethel to get 1 seeds. But stranger things have happened, and so both teams would no doubt prefer to be the West 1 and basically guaranteed a 1 seed. Given name recognition (albeit not an actual criteria), I think UWW as a 2 in the West Rankings is in better shape than Bethel for a 1 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 14, 2013, 10:29:56 AM
^^ And to get way ahead of ourselves, the team that gets the 1 spot in the final West Ranking would be in a better position to host a semifinal game should they win their region. Not a lock, but I think the team that gets slotted 2 and then seeded 1 is probably the lowest 1 seed in the bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MasterJedi on November 14, 2013, 10:42:50 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2013, 10:29:56 AM
^^ And to get way ahead of ourselves, the team that gets the 1 spot in the final West Ranking would be in a better position to host a semifinal game should they win their region. Not a lock, but I think the team that gets slotted 2 and then seeded 1 is probably the lowest 1 seed in the bracket.

Wouldn't mind a road trip to Bethel! And a win.  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 14, 2013, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 10:19:23 AM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 14, 2013, 10:08:24 AM
So the lose of PLU to Linfield is a good thing? 29-0 They held linfield to only 7 points for 3qt's and then held them to a season low 29 points?   If I read you right .. Good thing for PLU..  ;) they are a very good team.  Would win most other 1st round games if they could get moved east,north,south anywhere but the catdome.  ;)

I think the general feeling is that it is better to play against an RRO and lose than to not play against an RRO at all.  So, strange as it may sound, PLU being 8-1 and 0-1 vs. RRO is probably better than being 8-1 and 0-0 vs. RRO.  As long as you don't lose by 70 or something silly like that, which PLU didn't. I'm pretty confident that PLU is going to be fine on Sunday.

Wally
I agree Plu will be fine on Sunday but , it's a different story on the next sat at the catdome..  Always a tough game for both teams.  It would be nice if the NCAA would fly them somewhere else?  but the $$$ will rule again this year I think. :(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 11:18:09 AM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 14, 2013, 10:46:46 AM
Wally
I agree Plu will be fine on Sunday but , it's a different story on the next sat at the catdome..  Always a tough game for both teams.  It would be nice if the NCAA would fly them somewhere else?  but the $$$ will rule again this year I think. :(

I've got to dive into this later when I have more time to see if there is any reasonable way to split up the NWC teams.  Right now it doesn't look like it, unfortunately.  Redlands is orphaned and is going to have to go somewhere.  Somebody is going to have to go to Texas.  I think Millsaps can just barely drive to UMHB, but I doubt that will happen if you can easily fly Redlands to Texas.  But I'll have to see the rest of the field and try to pair teams off to see if there are any odd teams out in the midwest/mid-Atlantic/northeast.  Last year North Central was the odd team out and got paired up out West for their games.  If there's another situation like that, then maybe you can bus Millsaps to Texas, fly Redlands to McMinnville, and let PLU go play anybody other than Linfield.  Maybe. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: jknezek on November 14, 2013, 11:22:08 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 11:18:09 AM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 14, 2013, 10:46:46 AM
Wally
I agree Plu will be fine on Sunday but , it's a different story on the next sat at the catdome..  Always a tough game for both teams.  It would be nice if the NCAA would fly them somewhere else?  but the $$$ will rule again this year I think. :(

I've got to dive into this later when I have more time to see if there is any reasonable way to split up the NWC teams.  Right now it doesn't look like it, unfortunately.  Redlands is orphaned and is going to have to go somewhere.  Somebody is going to have to go to Texas.  I think Millsaps can just barely drive to UMHB, but I doubt that will happen if you can easily fly Redlands to Texas.  But I'll have to see the rest of the field and try to pair teams off to see if there are any odd teams out in the midwest/mid-Atlantic/northeast.  Last year North Central was the odd team out and got paired up out West for their games.  If there's another situation like that, then maybe you can bus Millsaps to Texas, fly Redlands to McMinnville, and let PLU go play anybody other than Linfield.  Maybe.

Wally, don't forget about Maryville from the USASC. As a Pool A, they can only bus to Millsaps (490) or the ODAC champion (more likely the 2 loss ODAC champ would go to Maryville). Everyone else is 500+ miles for them (JHU at 543 is closest I believe). I think they would pretty much guarantee Redlands to UMHB, Maryville to Millsaps, winners to meet in Rd 2 with the committee thinking the home teams would then be a bus ride. If it works out for the favorites, you would get away with 1 flight and eliminate 3 orphans in a somewhat legitimate 4 team pod.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 14, 2013, 11:23:15 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2013, 10:29:56 AM
^^ And to get way ahead of ourselves, the team that gets the 1 spot in the final West Ranking would be in a better position to host a semifinal game should they win their region. Not a lock, but I think the team that gets slotted 2 and then seeded 1 is probably the lowest 1 seed in the bracket.

Unless....

And that's where the secrecy of the final Regional Rankings come in.  I am sure they don't release them because they are moot when the field is selected. The Regional Rankings are done by "advisory" committees, anyway. We tend to look at them and dissect them and, to a degree, forget they are advisory.  The national committee, made up of 2 "advisors" in each region, will form a group that may (or may not) embrace the same lines of thinking.  I am hoping this year's committee will use the pod approach around their 4 number 1 seeds.  There is enough overlap in the west and north regions to mix it up pretty well. In that case, they could conceivably seed the #1's in whatever order they do and we might never even be able to figure out who the #1 in the west was in the final regional ranking. In other words, if UW-W is ranked #1 in the west in the final regional ranking, but the national committee still wanted to rank Bethel as a 1 seed higher than UWW, they could do that. We might just assume that Bethel passed them on the regional level whether it was the case or not.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 11:32:14 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 14, 2013, 11:22:08 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 11:18:09 AM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 14, 2013, 10:46:46 AM
Wally
I agree Plu will be fine on Sunday but , it's a different story on the next sat at the catdome..  Always a tough game for both teams.  It would be nice if the NCAA would fly them somewhere else?  but the $$$ will rule again this year I think. :(

I've got to dive into this later when I have more time to see if there is any reasonable way to split up the NWC teams.  Right now it doesn't look like it, unfortunately.  Redlands is orphaned and is going to have to go somewhere.  Somebody is going to have to go to Texas.  I think Millsaps can just barely drive to UMHB, but I doubt that will happen if you can easily fly Redlands to Texas.  But I'll have to see the rest of the field and try to pair teams off to see if there are any odd teams out in the midwest/mid-Atlantic/northeast.  Last year North Central was the odd team out and got paired up out West for their games.  If there's another situation like that, then maybe you can bus Millsaps to Texas, fly Redlands to McMinnville, and let PLU go play anybody other than Linfield.  Maybe.

Wally, don't forget about Maryville from the USASC. As a Pool A, they can only bus to Millsaps (490) or the ODAC champion (more likely the 2 loss ODAC champ would go to Maryville). Everyone else is 500+ miles for them (JHU at 543 is closest I believe). I think they would pretty much guarantee Redlands to UMHB, Maryville to Millsaps, winners to meet in Rd 2 with the committee thinking the home teams would then be a bus ride. If it works out for the favorites, you would get away with 1 flight and eliminate 3 orphans in a somewhat legitimate 4 team pod.

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff that I need to sit down with a map and see visually who is close enough to who to get on the bus.  I was just saying that if there has to be two flights in the first round, you could conceivablly elect to shoot Redlands up to Linfield and then have PLU go play anybody else.  But if there only needs to be one flight, then that's probably what will happen.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: jknezek on November 14, 2013, 11:45:45 AM
I need to ammend my post. Thomas More and W&J is also within Maryville's range. Also Franklin and Wittenberg and Wabash. So I guess they don't really qualify as an orphan. Once I saw how far West Maryville is it opened up Indiana and Ohio.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 14, 2013, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 14, 2013, 10:42:50 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2013, 10:29:56 AM
^^ And to get way ahead of ourselves, the team that gets the 1 spot in the final West Ranking would be in a better position to host a semifinal game should they win their region. Not a lock, but I think the team that gets slotted 2 and then seeded 1 is probably the lowest 1 seed in the bracket.

Wouldn't mind a road trip to Bethel! And a win.  ;)  ;D

And I wouldn't mind a Whitewater road trip and Bethel win  ;)

But my preference is to see two West region teams make the Stagg Bowl. That would be fun to see, at least from where I sit! Some mix of Linfield, Bethel, UWW or UWO/UWP. Obvious preference for Bethel, but barring that, an All West final would be awesome!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2013, 11:55:29 AM
This is where I'm torn.

I really don't like the whining about, "Well, we have to play X and Y early and..." since you had to beat X and Y anyway to win the title. Admittedly, it's worse in the NCAA D-1 hoops land, where the commentators who slurp the BCS conferences complain about tough matchups for the 4th place teams in the Big 12. But part of me doesn't like the fact that X has to play Y so early. Play early, play late - you still have to beat them.

HOWEVER...there really shouldn't be any rematches in the first week. And the NCAA should actually follow a reasonable facsimile of seeding so you don't have the third and fourth best team in the region playing in week one just because they're close and no one else can get there without a flight.

Instead of spending time disqualifying cross country runners for participating in a fun run for charity, the NCAA should cough up some dough to fix the travel for the best football tournament in the land!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:34:57 PM
Any word if there's going to be some sort of selection show (ESPNU? ESPN3? ect..). As well as a time on sunday?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wesleydad on November 14, 2013, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.

Agreed.  Have gotten to see Hobart and Linfield in the last couple of years which has made for interesting match ups earlier than the quarters or semis.  It is tough on the CA and TX teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.

More specifcally the Pool C rep out in CA, or the SCIAC Pool A winner...one of those two schools is a safe bet to open up in Linfield each playoff.

Past four seasons:
2012: Pacific Lutheran
2011-2009: Cal Lutheran
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:34:57 PM
Any word if there's going to be some sort of selection show (ESPNU? ESPN3? ect..). As well as a time on sunday?

Not on a network I'm fairly sure.  The NCAA is streaming the selection show at 6pm ET Sunday from ncaa.com. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:47:50 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:34:57 PM
Any word if there's going to be some sort of selection show (ESPNU? ESPN3? ect..). As well as a time on sunday?

Not on a network I'm fairly sure.  The NCAA is streaming the selection show at 6pm ET Sunday from ncaa.com.

I figured as much. Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 01:51:33 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 14, 2013, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX, Washington, Oregon and continually get screwed in the first round.

Agreed.  Have gotten to see Hobart and Linfield in the last couple of years which has made for interesting match ups earlier than the quarters or semis.  It is tough on the CA and TX teams.
fixed

And yes--I consider having a first round (even at home game)  against a team you've already played that season getting screwed (at least from a fan's perspective).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.

More specifcally the Pool C rep out in CA, or the SCIAC Pool A winner...one of those two schools is a safe bet to open up in Linfield each playoff.

Past four seasons:
2012: Pacific Lutheran
2011-2009: Cal Lutheran
FWIW--PLU is from Washington. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: middlerelief on November 14, 2013, 02:11:57 PM
Pool Cs =. PAC Lutheran, UW-Oshkosh, IL-Wes, Wanash and MUC (or John Carrol, I think JC has a real chance though )

That's it -- that's the list

Notables that are probably good enough to be there be but just not enough slots: SJF, STU, Platteville, and Concordia

Team that wi be there buy shouldn't: Wesley


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 14, 2013, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.

More specifcally the Pool C rep out in CA, or the SCIAC Pool A winner...one of those two schools is a safe bet to open up in Linfield each playoff.

Past four seasons:
2012: Pacific Lutheran
2011-2009: Cal Lutheran
FWIW--PLU is from Washington. :)
There was Cal Lu, they were from Phoenix; Pacific Lutheran, they were from Detroit.  Texas Lutheran, well I don't remember where Tex come from.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 14, 2013, 02:11:57 PM
Pool Cs =. PAC Lutheran, UW-Oshkosh, IL-Wes, Wanash and MUC (or John Carrol, I think JC has a real chance though )

That's it -- that's the list

Notables that are probably good enough to be there be but just not enough slots: SJF, STU, Platteville, and Concordia

Team that wi be there buy shouldn't: Wesley

Wanash Always Fights   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.

More specifcally the Pool C rep out in CA, or the SCIAC Pool A winner...one of those two schools is a safe bet to open up in Linfield each playoff.

Past four seasons:
2012: Pacific Lutheran
2011-2009: Cal Lutheran
FWIW--PLU is from Washington. :)

I'm sure you consider WI and MN the same out here.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2013, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 14, 2013, 02:11:57 PM


Team that wi be there buy shouldn't: Wesley

Wesley is buying their "B" bid? Certainly Wash U. has more money - they can probably out bid them!

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.

More specifcally the Pool C rep out in CA, or the SCIAC Pool A winner...one of those two schools is a safe bet to open up in Linfield each playoff.

Past four seasons:
2012: Pacific Lutheran
2011-2009: Cal Lutheran
FWIW--PLU is from Washington. :)

I'm sure you consider WI and MN the same out here.  ;D
NO way--one has cheese....the other lakes, right?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 03:29:20 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Not that it has anything to do with Pool C, but the discussion of Bethel vs Whitewater in the West got me thinking.   The recent NCAA shifting of teams between regions (ala Mount to the east and UWW to the north) has made for a much more balanced bracket over what we saw a decade + ago.   Which I think is a factor in making the semi-finals seem more competitive recently too.   I also like the ability to see new teams in the early rounds instead of the same regional teams year after year.   As a follower of a north region team that is within driving distance to most of D3, I'm glad we're not on an island like CA or TX and continually get screwed in the first round.

More specifcally the Pool C rep out in CA, or the SCIAC Pool A winner...one of those two schools is a safe bet to open up in Linfield each playoff.

Past four seasons:
2012: Pacific Lutheran
2011-2009: Cal Lutheran
FWIW--PLU is from Washington. :)

I'm sure you consider WI and MN the same out here.  ;D
NO way--one has cheese....the other lakes, right?

right-o  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: retagent on November 14, 2013, 04:24:58 PM
Mull this over mullers. What if Bethel beats St John's in a tight game (4 or less margin of victory) Does that keep SJU in the RR's? Does that help Bethel with another RR victory? Does SJU get hurt, even though the score was close, and drop out of the RR list?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: d-train on November 14, 2013, 04:35:24 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 14, 2013, 04:24:58 PM
Mull this over mullers. What if Bethel beats St John's in a tight game (4 or less margin of victory) Does that keep SJU in the RR's? Does that help Bethel with another RR victory? Does SJU get hurt, even though the score was close, and drop out of the RR list?
Redlands has a very strong SOS.. I think they'd slide in over a three-loss SJU. I certainly hope so for PLU's sake.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 14, 2013, 04:37:05 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 14, 2013, 04:35:24 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 14, 2013, 04:24:58 PM
Mull this over mullers. What if Bethel beats St John's in a tight game (4 or less margin of victory) Does that keep SJU in the RR's? Does that help Bethel with another RR victory? Does SJU get hurt, even though the score was close, and drop out of the RR list?
Redlands has a very strong SOS.. I think they'd slide in over a three-loss SJU. I certainly hope so for PLU's sake.
While that would help PLU, I think the feeling seems to be that PLU is a pretty safe bet for Pool C.  And it's not like seeding is going to matter as we all know where PLU is going to end up......
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 14, 2013, 04:24:58 PM
Mull this over mullers. What if Bethel beats St John's in a tight game (4 or less margin of victory) Does that keep SJU in the RR's? Does that help Bethel with another RR victory? Does SJU get hurt, even though the score was close, and drop out of the RR list?

No, SJU is out with a loss of any sort.  There are too many quality teams waiting in line outside the West Region club for SJU to stick with three losses. 

Bethel's help comes from being 10-0, 3-0 vs. RROs and they'll get a little nudge on their SOS.  I would guess that the only way Bethel gets up to #1 in the West is if the Platteville/Oshkosh loser falls all the way out (I don't think so) or WashU loses and falls out of the South rankings (maybe). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: art76 on November 14, 2013, 04:59:33 PM
After the dust settles on Saturday I will be very surprised if there are less than 3 teams between BU and UWW in the SOS rankings, and I'm hoping for more than 6 or 8. Once the "whole body of work" is complete, then the SOS numbers will mean more.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2013, 05:04:22 PM
Only time the West Region rankings will potentially matter is when pairing the regions in the semi-finals.   IMHO, it's a virtual lock that Whitewater and Bethel will both be #1 seeds. 

Where it gets interesting is how the NCAA slots the #1 seeds against each other. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2013, 05:48:20 PM
The MIAA title game (Albion @ Hope) has interesting ramifications for the CCIW.  With a Hope win, nothing changes, but if Albion wins, IWU loses a RRO (falling from 2-1 to 1-1), while Wheaton gains a RRO (one they beat 66-0!) to move from 0-2 to 1-2.  Probably nothing ultimately changes, but IWU might slip from a 4-seed to a 5-seed and go on the road.  I don't think Wheaton's gain would get them in, because (barring major upsets in the region) I think they are blocked from even reaching the table to be discussed.  But an Albion win just might instigate a scenario where 2008 is repeated - 2-loss Wheaton is almost certainly the last team in, then proceeds to make it to the semi's before encountering The Machine.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 14, 2013, 06:22:30 PM
Ypsi,

That's just not going to happen. No way Wheaton gets in over a 2 loss St Thomas (I can't believe I even thought about that long enough to type it).

Some perspective on Albion's loss to Wheaton, Albion played without their starting QB, who was hurt the week before at the end of the game (concussion). Their backup was atrocious and they never threatened to score.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2013, 06:52:09 PM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2013, 06:22:30 PM
Ypsi,

That's just not going to happen. No way Wheaton gets in over a 2 loss St Thomas (I can't believe I even thought about that long enough to type it).

Some perspective on Albion's loss to Wheaton, Albion played without their starting QB, who was hurt the week before at the end of the game (concussion). Their backup was atrocious and they never threatened to score.

Actually, I think a 2-loss SJF would be even more potent competition than 2-loss UST.  Just thought I'd toss out that tantalizing (however remote) possibility.  And Hope is gonna beat Albion anyway! ;D  (And I'm reasonably certain Wheaton will never make it to the table: they'll be behind the UMU/JCU loser, plus IWU and Wabash (barring monumental upsets); those three (if Wabash even makes it) plus the UWO/UWP winner and PLU take up all 5 C spots.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2013, 07:04:16 PM
With a ranked Albion, Wheaton > St. Thomas but probably not better than SJF/Alfred. And as noted, Wheaton needs big help this weekend to get to the table.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2013, 10:36:25 PM
USee, not meaning to get your hopes up, but IF Albion beats Hope, and IF DePauw beats Wabash in the Monon Bell (also NOT a prediction, but Bell games have a history of upsets that no one outside of the locker room (or most fevered fans) would have predicted) Wheaton actually does have a shot slightly better than the proverbial 'snowball in hell'.  (An IWU loss to Elmhurst does not help you due to the h-to-h.)

But since Hope, Wabash, and IWU are all winning (so says my crystal ball ;)), it is all moot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2013, 08:04:29 PM
So this was fun...I went ahead and made a mock bracket with the 32 teams that I selected on Wednesday.  Here's how I did it.  First, I ranked the teams 1-32 (full disclosure- I didn't scrub every schedule for common opponents so there may be something glaring that I missed and have a team way out of whack but I went through this fairly quickly...I did use the regional rankings as a guide here, so hopefully that takes care of most of that for me).  Grabbed the top four seeds based on the criteria.  They are:
1- Mount Union (not as big of an SOS as Bethel or UWW, but this is where previous tournament performance comes into play)
2- UWW
3- Bethel
4- UMHB

Then I grabbed the next four teams:
North Central, Linfield, Hobart, Johns Hopkins.

Keeping geography in mind, I tried to match these 8 teams up with another team in the bottom 8 of my list.  Then I took the teams ranked 9-16 and 17-24 and paired them off (I'm trying to keep some semblance of competitve balance here).  So I got 16 games.  I paired them in groups of two games (four teams) that helped avoid egregious travel in the second round and this is what I've got. 

Starting in the upper left corner of your mind's bracket:
Albion @ Mount Union
Gallaudet @ Rowan
Franklin @ Wittenberg
St. Norbert @ North Central

Bottom half, left side:
Redlands @ UMHB (sorry for the rematch...only way to do this with one flight)
Maryville @ Millsaps
Framingham State @ Ithaca
W&J @ Hobart

Upper half, right side:
Concordia (Wis) @ UW-Whitewater
Wartburg @ IWU
Wesley @ Lebanon Valley
Salve Regina @ Johns Hopkins

Lower half, right side:
St. Scholastica @ Bethel
Wabash @ UW-Oshkosh
Hampden Sydney @ John Carroll (499 miles! this one might not be ok)
PLU @ Linfield (sorry again)

So yeah, Hampden Sydney/John Carroll might have to go to Oregon, but somebody has to go and you can pretty much pick any game you want to pair up with PLU/Linfield.  There are about a zillion ways to put this together.  Just thought I'd share what I came up going through it quickly. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2013, 08:21:54 PM
Conversely, if you wanted to ultra-regionalize it, you'd probably "ship" UMU east and UWW north and wind up with something that looks like this:

East:
W&J (8) @ Mount Union (1)
Rowan (5) @ Lebanon Valley (4)
Framingham State (7) @ Hobart (2)
Gallaudet (6) @ Ithaca (3)

South:
Redlands (8-ish...sorry) @ UMHB (1)
Maryville (5) @ Millsaps (3)
Salve Regina (7) @ Johns Hopkins (2)
Hampden Sydney (6) @ Wesley (4)

North:
Albion (8) @ UW-Whitewater (1)'
IWU (5) @ Witt (4)
Franklin (7) @ North Central (2)
Wabash (6) @ John Carroll (3)

West:
St. Scholastica (7/8) @ Bethel (1)
St. Norbert (6) @ Wartburg (5)
Concordia (Wis) (7/8) @ UW-Oshkosh (3)
PLU (4) @ Linfield (2)...boo to this

That is in no way a better way to put this thing together. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2013, 09:00:18 PM
One correction ( ;)); my crystal ball says it will be Hope, not Albion.  But, alas, either way you are probably correct that they will go on the road to an insurmountable foe.  Don Quixote didn't win either! ::)  (But The Impossible Quest is still an incredible song, even if it has become WAY to much a cliche.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2013, 09:02:57 PM
I actually like your 2nd version better.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 15, 2013, 09:21:35 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2013, 08:21:54 PM
Conversely, if you wanted to ultra-regionalize it, you'd probably "ship" UMU east and UWW north and wind up with something that looks like this:

East:
W&J (8) @ Mount Union (1)
Rowan (5) @ Lebanon Valley (4)
Framingham State (7) @ Hobart (2)
Gallaudet (6) @ Ithaca (3)

South:
Redlands (8-ish...sorry) @ UMHB (1)
Maryville (5) @ Millsaps (3)
Salve Regina (7) @ Johns Hopkins (2)
Hampden Sydney (6) @ Wesley (4)

North:
Albion (8) @ UW-Whitewater (1)'
IWU (5) @ Witt (4)
Franklin (7) @ North Central (2)
Wabash (6) @ John Carroll (3)

West:
St. Scholastica (7/8) @ Bethel (1)
St. Norbert (6) @ Wartburg (5)
Concordia (Wis) (7/8) @ UW-Oshkosh (3)
PLU (4) @ Linfield (2)...boo to this

That is in no way a better way to put this thing together.
I like this one best--and then, since we (Linfield) get the cheapskate rematch again, they can reward us with the winner of St. Norbert v. Wartburg for round 2....  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 15, 2013, 09:49:57 PM
Yeah, version 1 all but gives UWW a semifinal berth. Their quad was noticeably weaker than the other 3.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 15, 2013, 10:06:57 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 15, 2013, 09:49:57 PM
Yeah, version 1 all but gives UWW a semifinal berth. Their quad was noticeably weaker than the other 3.

Who was the big challenge to UMHB in version 1?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2013, 10:10:15 PM
No matter how you draw it up, there's going to be two teams that have the 'perception' of having weak #2s. Mind you, Hobart and Johns Hopkins will have earned their #2 seeds on merit, and are excellent teams. So, I wouldn't crow just yet.

Wabash losing to Witt means IF they get in, they get joys to play like John Carroll or Oshkosh (or someone like that, fun).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2013, 10:18:26 PM
My initial "bracket" here had the Wesley/LebVal/Salve/Hopkins pod lumped in the UMU region and the Franklin/Witt/Norbert/NCC pod with Whitewater.  I switched it thinking that the UMU region looked really unbalanced.  But then doesn't any region look unbalanced when Mount Union is at the top?

The beauty of building 4-team pods around the top 8 teams is that you can pretty much mix and match them any way you want. 

I think there is also going to be some imbalance perception when the real deal happens because Franklin is probably going to be seeded well below their potential.  Franklin being lumped in with 6/7 seeds like Salve Regina, St. Norbert, and Gallaudet (for example) is going to look weird.  But Franklin earned their seed and it's going to add a little depth to whatever corner of the bracket they wind up in. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bleedpurple on November 15, 2013, 10:31:45 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2013, 10:18:26 PM
My initial "bracket" here had the Wesley/LebVal/Salve/Hopkins pod lumped in the UMU region and the Franklin/Witt/Norbert/NCC pod with Whitewater.  I switched it thinking that the UMU region looked really unbalanced.  But then doesn't any region look unbalanced when Mount Union is at the top?

The beauty of building 4-team pods around the top 8 teams is that you can pretty much mix and match them any way you want.

Thanks for putting these together. It does help us get our arms around the possibilities.

I agree with you about the 4-team pods and I really hope the committee has that line of thinking. I hope they get creative and produce some interesting match-ups.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: hazzben on November 15, 2013, 10:43:56 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 15, 2013, 10:06:57 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 15, 2013, 09:49:57 PM
Yeah, version 1 all but gives UWW a semifinal berth. Their quad was noticeably weaker than the other 3.

Who was the big challenge to UMHB in version 1?

Fair enough, but that just makes version one that much worse. Half the bracket is loaded, half isn't.

I'm not trying to dump on it, it's a hard thing to do pulling these brackets together.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: art76 on November 16, 2013, 07:00:14 AM
Been kind of waiting for someone to put out a tentative bracket - thanx Wally. I have to ask again now, what if John Carroll wins today? Does this bump UWW and Bethel to the top? As you may have gathered, I'm really pulling (hoping for) that Bethel would be at home (provided they keep winning) until the last game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 16, 2013, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2013, 08:04:29 PM
So this was fun...I went ahead and made a mock bracket with the 32 teams that I selected on Wednesday.  Here's how I did it.  First, I ranked the teams 1-32 (full disclosure- I didn't scrub every schedule for common opponents so there may be something glaring that I missed and have a team way out of whack but I went through this fairly quickly...I did use the regional rankings as a guide here, so hopefully that takes care of most of that for me).  Grabbed the top four seeds based on the criteria.  They are:
1- Mount Union (not as big of an SOS as Bethel or UWW, but this is where previous tournament performance comes into play)
2- UWW
3- Bethel
4- UMHB

Then I grabbed the next four teams:
North Central, Linfield, Hobart, Johns Hopkins.

Keeping geography in mind, I tried to match these 8 teams up with another team in the bottom 8 of my list.  Then I took the teams ranked 9-16 and 17-24 and paired them off (I'm trying to keep some semblance of competitve balance here).  So I got 16 games.  I paired them in groups of two games (four teams) that helped avoid egregious travel in the second round and this is what I've got. 

Starting in the upper left corner of your mind's bracket:
Albion @ Mount Union
Gallaudet @ Rowan
Franklin @ Wittenberg
St. Norbert @ North Central

Bottom half, left side:
Redlands @ UMHB (sorry for the rematch...only way to do this with one flight)
Maryville @ Millsaps
Framingham State @ Ithaca
W&J @ Hobart

Upper half, right side:
Concordia (Wis) @ UW-Whitewater
Wartburg @ IWU
Wesley @ Lebanon Valley
Salve Regina @ Johns Hopkins

Lower half, right side:
St. Scholastica @ Bethel
Wabash @ UW-Oshkosh
Hampden Sydney @ John Carroll (499 miles! this one might not be ok)
PLU @ Linfield (sorry again)

So yeah, Hampden Sydney/John Carroll might have to go to Oregon, but somebody has to go and you can pretty much pick any game you want to pair up with PLU/Linfield
.  There are about a zillion ways to put this together.  Just thought I'd share what I came up going through it quickly.




nice job Wally , no surprise I like this one.. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 05:07:51 PM
So...what we know. We have what we thought we'd have

Wabash wins! (We kept the Bell!)
JCU is now in "C" land.
IWU wins.
Thomas More wins.
SJF wins in resounding fashion.
St. Thomas wins. St. John's loses to Bethel as expected.

Milsaps loses, maybe knocking them out of "B" land and probably on the board behind Thomas More (and maybe Wash U. and possibly Rhodes, who lost two games this year by four total points. Ye Gods!) The last "B" spot is a mess.

So there were no upsets for the main contenders (though Millspas was a minor upset - it probably didn't change the "C" complexion) and pending the UW-P UW-O result we have our contenders. I just can't see Millsaps staying ahead of Thomas More.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
UW-Platteville kicks a game winning FG on the road at Oshkosh, probably assuring them a "C" bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: pumkinattack on November 16, 2013, 05:55:01 PM
While part of me fully resented the Hobart is a weak two seed (and I think we still beat JHU by 14+, so they're even more overrated IMO), I think some of you may be right .  I've watched all but one Hobart game this year and they've been less than mediocre the last two weeks.  I'd love to think its a rope a door, but between the high number of injuries and some do the deficiencies of late I would personally seed them a #3 and make them go on the road in round 2 (assuming they win round one, which I have limited confidence in right now).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:01:57 PM
The 'secret' RRs in the East and South will be...interesting.

The East messed all over itself, but I don't know how it will help SJF any more than it already did if teams shuffle in and out and SJF's ranking is boosted. They still have two losses and a great SOS.

It'll be interesting to see where the South winds up putting Millsaps, Thomas More, Wash U, Rhodes, and TLU.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
Ok, scores are in,  here's going to be the Pool C Bids!

John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific
Wabash
Ill-Wesleyan


That leaves 3 Saints on the outside looking in: a 9-1 Thomas More (W&J gets AQ I believe) and 2 solid 8-2 teams in St. Thomas and St. John Fisher

I do not agree with the concept that the highest non-AQ team in the "Regionally Rankings" gets a nod. I was under the impression that "regionalizing" the brackets came to an end a few years ago. Instead of an East, West, North South they have just given the top seed to the highest ranked teams period. 

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:08:31 PM
The BRACKETS are not really regionally motivated (much) but the selections are still made by taking one region against the others.

Pacific? Even if they upset Linfield they won't jump PLU.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2013, 06:09:36 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
Ok, scores are in,  here's going to be the Pool C Bids!

John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific
Wabash
Ill-Wesleyan


That leaves 3 Saints on the outside looking in: a 9-1 Thomas More (W&J gets AQ I believe) and 2 solid 8-2 teams in St. Thomas and St. John Fisher

I do not agree with the concept that the highest non-AQ team in the "Regionally Rankings" gets a nod. I was under the impression that "regionalizing" the brackets came to an end a few years ago. Instead of an East, West, North South they have just given the top seed to the highest ranked teams period.

I would add UW-Oshkosh as a solid 8-2 team. Only losses where to two playoff teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:10:15 PM
Heidelberg is a solid 8-2 team as well. Lots of good two loss teams packing their equipment.

But he said three SAINTS, Oshkosh isn't a Saint... ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: TitanPride on November 16, 2013, 06:11:02 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
Ok, scores are in,  here's going to be the Pool C Bids!

John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific
Wabash
Ill-Wesleyan


That leaves 3 Saints on the outside looking in: a 9-1 Thomas More (W&J gets AQ I believe) and 2 solid 8-2 teams in St. Thomas and St. John Fisher

I do not agree with the concept that the highest non-AQ team in the "Regionally Rankings" gets a nod. I was under the impression that "regionalizing" the brackets came to an end a few years ago. Instead of an East, West, North South they have just given the top seed to the highest ranked teams period.

Perhaps he means Pac Lutheran?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:13:13 PM
Quote from: TitanPride on November 16, 2013, 06:11:02 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
Ok, scores are in,  here's going to be the Pool C Bids!

John Carroll
UW-Platteville
Pacific
Wabash
Ill-Wesleyan


That leaves 3 Saints on the outside looking in: a 9-1 Thomas More (W&J gets AQ I believe) and 2 solid 8-2 teams in St. Thomas and St. John Fisher

I do not agree with the concept that the highest non-AQ team in the "Regionally Rankings" gets a nod. I was under the impression that "regionalizing" the brackets came to an end a few years ago. Instead of an East, West, North South they have just given the top seed to the highest ranked teams period.

Perhaps he means Pac Lutheran?

Yes I did mean Pac Lutheran my bad.  sorry about that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 16, 2013, 06:22:41 PM
Wheaton's only losses are to #4 and #14 who are both playoff teams. Also holds a win over a playoff team, Albion.  Ain't gonna happen for the two lossers.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:24:50 PM
The only one I can see if SJF, since their SOS is miles above any one else's that will be on the board with them. The only rankings that matter are regional rankings, too, so it will be interesting to see if the crash and burn of many of the East's RR teams help SJF at all.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: art76 on November 16, 2013, 06:30:24 PM
Bethel now leads UW Whitewater as unbeaten teams by 39 teams in the SOS Rankings. All the scores are not in yet so there may be some more motion, but I think Bethel will have the best in the country this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 16, 2013, 06:30:24 PM
Bethel now leads UW Whitewater as unbeaten teams by 39 teams in the SOS Rankings. All the scores are not in yet so there may be some more motion, but I think Bethel will have the best in the country this year.

Based on 2013 results -- you could make a very strong case that Bethel should be the #1 ranked team in the country headed into the playoffs. I understand the whole you're the Champ until someone beats, and obviously it'll get sorted out over the next 5 weeks, but Bethel should be #1, followed by UWW.  I don't buy MHB's ranking year in and year out. Should be great tourney this year, MUC played three ranked teams, all of them gave them a pretty strong challenge compared to prior years.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: BashDad on November 16, 2013, 06:42:13 PM
No. To all of that. No.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:44:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:24:50 PM
The only one I can see if SJF, since their SOS is miles above any one else's that will be on the board with them. The only rankings that matter are regional rankings, too, so it will be interesting to see if the crash and burn of many of the East's RR teams help SJF at all.

where can I see strength of schedule?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:46:33 PM
I cannot see the West jumping Bethel over UW-W in their RRs. I think the first seeds are all but sewn up. MUC, Bethel, UW-W and UMHB.

SOS is here: http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2013/schedule?tmpl=sos-template
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Toby Taff on November 16, 2013, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 16, 2013, 06:30:24 PM
Bethel now leads UW Whitewater as unbeaten teams by 39 teams in the SOS Rankings. All the scores are not in yet so there may be some more motion, but I think Bethel will have the best in the country this year.

I don't buy MHB's ranking year in and year out. Should be great tourney this year, MUC played three ranked teams, all of them gave them a pretty strong challenge compared to prior years.
I'm curious as to why?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: art76 on November 16, 2013, 06:47:24 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 06:44:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:24:50 PM
The only one I can see if SJF, since their SOS is miles above any one else's that will be on the board with them. The only rankings that matter are regional rankings, too, so it will be interesting to see if the crash and burn of many of the East's RR teams help SJF at all.

where can I see strength of schedule?

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2013/schedule?tmpl=sos-template
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: HScoach on November 16, 2013, 06:54:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:46:33 PM
...... I think the first seeds are all but sewn up. MUC, Bethel, UW-W and UMHB.


I agree 100%.   The only question left is how the NCAA seeds the four #1's.   My prediction is as follows:

1.  Whitewater
2.  Mount
3.  Bethel
4.  MHB

I realize Bethel has good numbers and those numbers say they should be higher than #3 overall, but I'm not sure the #2 west region teams is the #2 seed overall.   Plus factoring in that Mount was the #2 overall last year with worse numbers than they have this season.  They have 3 wins over RRO and their SoS is right were it should be playing in a 10 team conference.   

What's interesting this season is that the four #1's are obvious and an argument could be made that 3 of them (UWW, Bethel and Mount) are easily good enough to be slotted at the top spot and MHB isn't far behind.  Some years we struggle to find four really solid top seeds.   Not this season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:59:05 PM
Meanwhile, the wait goes on. Can't wait to see what Wally cooks up, but the SJF SOS really scares me as a Wabash fan even though they have two losses. I don't think Thomas More jumps Wabash, and since UW-O and St. Thomas have on par equal or worse SOS than Wabash then that's not a criteria. If Millsaps isn't a "B" I really can't see them as a "C". I don't think the South will rank them ahead of Thomas More.

Who really knows though.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 16, 2013, 07:18:01 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2013, 06:54:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:46:33 PM
...... I think the first seeds are all but sewn up. MUC, Bethel, UW-W and UMHB.


I agree 100%.   The only question left is how the NCAA seeds the four #1's.   My prediction is as follows:

1.  Whitewater
2.  Mount
3.  Bethel
4.  MHB

I realize Bethel has good numbers and those numbers say they should be higher than #3 overall, but I'm not sure the #2 west region teams is the #2 seed overall.   Plus factoring in that Mount was the #2 overall last year with worse numbers than they have this season.  They have 3 wins over RRO and their SoS is right were it should be playing in a 10 team conference.   

What's interesting this season is that the four #1's are obvious and an argument could be made that 3 of them (UWW, Bethel and Mount) are easily good enough to be slotted at the top spot and MHB isn't far behind.  Some years we struggle to find four really solid top seeds.   Not this season.
An argument could be made that the West has 3 teams that are #1 worthy (when comparing them to MHB anyway). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 07:19:26 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2013, 06:54:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:46:33 PM
...... I think the first seeds are all but sewn up. MUC, Bethel, UW-W and UMHB.


I agree 100%.   The only question left is how the NCAA seeds the four #1's.   My prediction is as follows:

1.  Whitewater
2.  Mount
3.  Bethel
4.  MHB

I realize Bethel has good numbers and those numbers say they should be higher than #3 overall, but I'm not sure the #2 west region teams is the #2 seed overall.   Plus factoring in that Mount was the #2 overall last year with worse numbers than they have this season.  They have 3 wins over RRO and their SoS is right were it should be playing in a 10 team conference.   

What's interesting this season is that the four #1's are obvious and an argument could be made that 3 of them (UWW, Bethel and Mount) are easily good enough to be slotted at the top spot and MHB isn't far behind.  Some years we struggle to find four really solid top seeds.   Not this season.

Linfield gets a top seed over MHB in my opine.  MHB season was filled with door mats except 1 game I think.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 07:21:04 PM
The waxing of Wesley will help UMHB, though since they're RRd.  And by criteria North Central, Johns Hopkins and Hobart are all right there with Mt. Union and UMHB. I haven't worked out W/L vs. RR teams, and with the 'secret' rankings and the possible removal of the 'once ranked always ranked' codicil we may never know. That plays a HUGE factor when looking at it without regional biases.

Meanwhile, the SOS for the Main "C" teams as of right this second:

PLU - .549 (36th)
John Carroll - .520 (79th)
Wabash - .503 (109th)
Illinois Wesleyan - . 499 (120th)
Thomas More - .488 (147th)
UW - Platteville . 477 (164th)


Millsaps - .523 (73rd)
Texas Lutheran - .421 (226th)
Wash U - .565 (14th)
Rhodes - .538 (51st)

St. John Fisher - .575 (6th)
St. Thomas - .504 (99th)
UW - Oshkosh - .488 (145th)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Toby Taff on November 16, 2013, 07:33:21 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 07:19:26 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2013, 06:54:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 06:46:33 PM
...... I think the first seeds are all but sewn up. MUC, Bethel, UW-W and UMHB.


I agree 100%.   The only question left is how the NCAA seeds the four #1's.   My prediction is as follows:

1.  Whitewater
2.  Mount
3.  Bethel
4.  MHB

I realize Bethel has good numbers and those numbers say they should be higher than #3 overall, but I'm not sure the #2 west region teams is the #2 seed overall.   Plus factoring in that Mount was the #2 overall last year with worse numbers than they have this season.  They have 3 wins over RRO and their SoS is right were it should be playing in a 10 team conference.   

What's interesting this season is that the four #1's are obvious and an argument could be made that 3 of them (UWW, Bethel and Mount) are easily good enough to be slotted at the top spot and MHB isn't far behind.  Some years we struggle to find four really solid top seeds.   Not this season.

Linfield gets a top seed over MHB in my opine.  MHB season was filled with door mats except 1 game I think.
You say that as if they scheduled doormats. They played their conference schedule, and their non conference schedule was set 2 years ago the year after Kean, Wesley and Trinity were all playoff teams. Redlands was a fill in game because TLU bailed on the conference. not much you can do if they turn out to be doormats at that point.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 07:36:28 PM
Someone claimed playoff-bound Redlands a doormat?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 07:50:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 07:36:28 PM
Someone claimed playoff-bound Redlands a doormat?

I did, I'm sorry if that is disrespectful.  Redlands is headed to the tourney via AQ.

The view I'm trying to communicate is that it is tough to gage a team, in this case MHB,  they don't really have an annual tough conference schedule that challenges you week in and week out. The only tough teams MHB seems to have are an occasional non-conference.  To me, Bethel going undefeated in the MIAC, or an E8 winner is much more indicative of a top program than steamrolling the ASC year in and year out. Linfield gets the top seed over MHB.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: jknezek on November 16, 2013, 07:58:48 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 07:50:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 07:36:28 PM
Someone claimed playoff-bound Redlands a doormat?

I did, I'm sorry if that is disrespectful.  Redlands is headed to the tourney via AQ.

The view I'm trying to communicate is that it is tough to gage a team, in this case MHB,  they don't really have an annual tough conference schedule that challenges you week in and week out. The only tough teams MHB seems to have are an occasional non-conference.  To me, Bethel going undefeated in the MIAC, or an E8 winner is much more indicative of a top program than steamrolling the ASC year in and year out. Linfield gets the top seed over MHB.

The ASC is usually a very credible conference a few teams deep for at least playoff quality. This year is an exceptionally bad year. I think UMHB has proven their bonafides by averaging 13+ games per year since about 2002. That means Final 8 trips on average, plus 4 13+ game seasons since 2004. The MIAC champ has comparable numbers over the same period, though the runner-up has also gone deep multiple times. The E8 champion seems to average at least one game less over the same time period.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wesleydad on November 16, 2013, 08:20:27 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 07:50:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 07:36:28 PM
Someone claimed playoff-bound Redlands a doormat?

I did, I'm sorry if that is disrespectful.  Redlands is headed to the tourney via AQ.

The view I'm trying to communicate is that it is tough to gage a team, in this case MHB,  they don't really have an annual tough conference schedule that challenges you week in and week out. The only tough teams MHB seems to have are an occasional non-conference.  To me, Bethel going undefeated in the MIAC, or an E8 winner is much more indicative of a top program than steamrolling the ASC year in and year out. Linfield gets the top seed over MHB.

Having seen both UMHB and the E8 winner, you are insulting UMHB to mention them in the same sentence.  Ithaca lost to a very average Cortland St team today.  They would get steamrolled by UMHB  If you are unsure of how good UMHB is, just ask Mount from last year or anyone who plays them in the playoffs.  They are a top notch program and will be a tough out for anyone who plays them this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Upstate on November 16, 2013, 08:32:05 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2013, 08:20:27 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 07:50:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 07:36:28 PM
Someone claimed playoff-bound Redlands a doormat?

I did, I'm sorry if that is disrespectful.  Redlands is headed to the tourney via AQ.

The view I'm trying to communicate is that it is tough to gage a team, in this case MHB,  they don't really have an annual tough conference schedule that challenges you week in and week out. The only tough teams MHB seems to have are an occasional non-conference.  To me, Bethel going undefeated in the MIAC, or an E8 winner is much more indicative of a top program than steamrolling the ASC year in and year out. Linfield gets the top seed over MHB.

Having seen both UMHB and the E8 winner, you are insulting UMHB to mention them in the same sentence.  Ithaca lost to a very average Cortland St team today.  They would get steamrolled by UMHB  If you are unsure of how good UMHB is, just ask Mount from last year or anyone who plays them in the playoffs.  They are a top notch program and will be a tough out for anyone who plays them this year.

Agree...

I don't think IC, SU or SJF can stay within 24-28 points of UMHB...

Sure they're not MUC but they'd wipe the floor with the vast majority of the D3 teams out there...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: @d3jason on November 16, 2013, 08:57:02 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on November 16, 2013, 07:50:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 07:36:28 PM
Someone claimed playoff-bound Redlands a doormat?

I did, I'm sorry if that is disrespectful.  Redlands is headed to the tourney via AQ.

The view I'm trying to communicate is that it is tough to gage a team, in this case MHB,  they don't really have an annual tough conference schedule that challenges you week in and week out. The only tough teams MHB seems to have are an occasional non-conference.  To me, Bethel going undefeated in the MIAC, or an E8 winner is much more indicative of a top program than steamrolling the ASC year in and year out. Linfield gets the top seed over MHB.
I'm pretty sure UMHB would roll the E8 every year too.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2013, 09:59:49 PM
Let us project.  The gurus are putting their full bracket out shortly, so I'm going to skip the bracketing and just give you my projections.  Pool A is as follows:

   League   
   Team   
   ASC   
   UMHB   
   CC   
   Johns Hopkins   
   CCIW   
   North Central   
   ECFC   
   Gallaudet   
   E8   
   Itahca   
   HCAC   
   Franklin   
   IIAC   
   Wartburg   
   LL   
   Hobart   
   MAC   
   Lebanon Valley   
   MIAC   
   Bethel   
   MWC   
   St. Norbert   
   MIAA   
   Albion   
   NACC   
   Concordia (Wis.)   
   NCAC   
   Wittenberg   
   NEFC   
   Endicott   
   NJAC   
   Rowan   
   NWC   
   Linfield   
   OAC   
   Mount Union   
   ODAC   
   Hampden-Sydney   
   PAC   
   Washington & Jefferson   
   SCIAC   
   Redlands   
   UMAC   
   St. Scholastica   
   USAC   
   Maryville   
   WIAC   
   UW-Whitewater   

I think that speaks for itself. 

Pool B:
This got more interesting than it needed to be today thanks to Millsaps losing.  And a bunch of stuff going down in the East.  My three picks are:

Framingham State (9-1, 0.557 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
Wesley (4-2, 0.673 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
Millsaps (9-1, 0.523, 0-0 vs. RRO)

Framingham doesn't have a regionally ranked win...that we know of.  I had to take a stab at some secret regional rankings and I ranked Endicott, so FSU gets one and that one gets them the first pick.  Then it's all South all the time.  Wesley leapfrogs Millsaps from last week.  Which leaves what to do with Millsaps.  I couldn't move  TLU above Millsaps because Millsaps still has a monster SOS advantage that I can't get over.  So Millsaps is the choice. 

A quick note on WashU as well: I didn't see any results today that would make more move WashU ahead of TLU or Millsaps (despite the common Rhodes result with Millsaps).  Now, Maryville lost which could knock them out and put somebody like Rhodes into the bottom of the South's rankings...that gives WashU a RRO win which for me would put them ahead of TLU but probably still not Millsaps.  And not Thomas More either which affects their Pool C situation. 

Speaking of...let's do the Pool C dance.  Quickly how I ranked the Pool C contenders in each region:
North: John Carroll, IWU, Wabash- Hope getting knocked out of the rankings removes the advantage IWU would have had over the Streaks
South: Thomas More, TLU, WashU
East: SJF, Del Val, Alfred - spent about 2 hours trying to rank the East.  I have no idea.  Honestly. 
West: UW-Platteville, PLU, St. Thomas - I ranked Redlands which gave PLU a RRO win, but Platteville also got a RRO win that is actually better than the Redlands win.  So PLatteville and PLU didn't flip. 
Here we go. 

Round 1:
John Carroll (9-1, .520 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Thomas More (9-1, 0.488, 0-1 vs RRO)
St. John Fisher (8-2, 0.575 SOS, 2-1 vs RRO) - side note: Alfred remains ranked in my "secret" rankings
UW-Platteville (9-1, 0.477 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

JCU is my first pick.  Best SOS amongst the 1-loss teams plus the RRO win and not getting wiped out by Mount Union didn't hurt. 

Round 2:
Illinois Wesleyan (9-1, .499 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Thomas More (9-1, 0.488, 0-1 vs RRO)
St. John Fisher (8-2, 0.575 SOS, 2-1 vs RRO)
UW-Platteville (9-1, 0.477 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

You could go either way here I think with IWU or Platteville.  They're really about even in terms of quality of wins and SOS (slight advantage IWU).  It's not going to matter a whole bunch because both of these teams are going to the tournament. 

Round 3:
Wabash (9-1, .503 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Thomas More (9-1, 0.488, 0-1 vs RRO)
St. John Fisher (8-2, 0.575 SOS, 2-1 vs RRO)
UW-Platteville (9-1, 0.477 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

Platteville was more or less even with the previous selection, so it's pretty natural to pick them here.  One loss, plus the RRO win puts them in here. 

Round 4:
Wabash (9-1, .503 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Thomas More (9-1, 0.488, 0-1 vs RRO)
St. John Fisher (8-2, 0.575 SOS, 2-1 vs RRO)
Pacific Lutheran (8-1, 0.548 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

You could talk yourself into ranking PLU ahead of Platteville.  I thought I had, but then I noticed that they weren't behind Platteville last week and I'm not sure that Platteville going on the road and beating Oshkosh is reason to have an idle PLU jump them.  Again, not much matter here because both teams are in.  PLU did pick up a RRO win by my count because I slipped Redlands in to replace St. Johns. 

Round 5:
Wabash (9-1, .503 SOS, 0-1 vs RRO)
Thomas More (9-1, 0.488, 0-1 vs RRO)
St. John Fisher (8-2, 0.575 SOS, 2-1 vs RRO)
St. Thomas  (8-2, 0.504 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)

Playing the win percentage card here.  There are a lot of good reasons to pick Wabash.  There are a lot of good reasons to pick SJF and their big SOS and two RRO wins (provided Alfred doesn't get dumped out by my hunch is that the East RAC won't do that...they hedged against that by ranking Brockport, who Alfred beat earlier, last week). 

So my Cs are:
John Carroll
Illinois Wesleyan
UW-Platteville
Pacific Lutheran
Wabash


And now we wait. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 16, 2013, 10:01:52 PM
By the way---the projections by d3 are on the front page now.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 10:35:36 PM
So they pick Wash U. over Millsaps due to common opponents, and SJF over Wabash due to SOS. Hmmm...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2013, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 10:35:36 PM
So they pick Wash U. over Millsaps due to common opponents, and SJF over Wabash due to SOS. Hmmm...

And RRO wins. Alfred ought not be ranked, but they probably will be. That move was beautifully hedged last week.

Rank Wooster. It's the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2013, 10:40:46 PM
I looked at the East rankings quite a bit and I couldn't find another team I would want to rank. Frankly, I have Alfred No. 8 in the East, even.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2013, 10:47:39 PM
Del Val is an option.  That win over what I'm assuming is East #2 Rowan is mighty nice. 

It's an impossible mishmash of 3 loss teams to try and sort out.  It's just unfortunate that the top 9-10 in the North region did separate itself so much from the rest to not bring three loss teams into play for RROs. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2013, 10:58:22 PM
I'm still HOPEing for IWU to be a 4-seed with a home game, but Hope missing OT (and possibly a win) by inches on the FG was devastating.  The drop from 2-1 against RROs to 1-1 was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.  But did you have to project the only two North C's facing each other in the first round??!! :o

I'll hold out Hope that the committee will go with Wabash, and we can host them!  (Of course, even better would be hosting someone I'm sure we can beat!  Though I also thought that a couple of years ago before we met Mr. Tanney! ::))
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2013, 11:11:45 PM
I ended up using the teams Wally had in trying to project a bracket... I'm not perfectly satisfied with it, but it's something that everyone can contemplate... I could have done it in just 1 flight, but I didn't really like what that forced so I went with 2 flights in the first round which I think is a reasonable decision.

I haven't ranked the #1 seeds or anything, just tried to put some 4 team pods together and keep teams reasonably close to where I think they should be seeded


1) Mount Union                    1) UW-Whitewater
8) Albion                         8) Concordia (WI)
4) Ithaca                         4) Illinois Wesleyan
5) Framingham St                  5) Wabash

3) Rowan                          3) Wittenberg
6) Lebanon Valley                 6) Maryville
2) Hobart                         2) North Central
7) Endicott                       7) Franklin


1) Bethel                         1) Mary Hardin-Baylor
8) St. Scholastica                5) Millsaps
4) UW-Plattsburg                  4) Wesley
5) Wartburg                       6) Hampden-Sydney

3) Pacific Lutheran               3) John Carroll
6) Redlands                       7) Wash & Jeff
2) Linfield                       2) Johns Hopkins
7) St Norbert                     8) Gallaudet


Maryville ends up at Witt because that's the only team worthy of hosting within 500 miles. By sending Redlands to Pac Lutheran you can bring one of the weaker teams out west to Linfield and avoid a first round rematch.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: bashgiant on November 17, 2013, 09:44:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2013, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2013, 10:35:36 PM
So they pick Wash U. over Millsaps due to common opponents, and SJF over Wabash due to SOS. Hmmm...

And RRO wins. Alfred ought not be ranked, but they probably will be. That move was beautifully hedged last week.

Rank Wooster. It's the right thing to do.

I agree with ranking Wooster I think they would surprise quite a few teams with their explosive offense. Barnes is a player!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 11:01:54 AM
Albion is 8-2 and won the MIAA, though, so they'll probably get the last spot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 17, 2013, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 11:01:54 AM
Albion is 8-2 and won the MIAA, though, so they'll probably get the last spot.

True, but Wally has pointed out that the East RAC has been very intentional last year(STJ made it as only 2 loss team) and this year, to position their pool C candidates for success. If the North RAC were to take that kind of action they would absolutely consider ranking Wooster to help Wabash as ranking Albion, who gets in via AQ, does nothing for anyone except Wheaton, who is decidedly behind Wabash in the North regionals.

You have to fight fire with fire boys and its time for the North Region to come together and kick some D3 butt.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 17, 2013, 11:27:28 AM
Rank Denison, too. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 17, 2013, 11:34:37 AM
Totally. rank em all. Hanover, Kenyon, even Depauw.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: desertcat1 on November 17, 2013, 12:03:52 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 16, 2013, 11:11:45 PM
I ended up using the teams Wally had in trying to project a bracket... I'm not perfectly satisfied with it, but it's something that everyone can contemplate... I could have done it in just 1 flight, but I didn't really like what that forced so I went with 2 flights in the first round which I think is a reasonable decision.I haven't ranked the #1 seeds or anything, just tried to put some 4 team pods together and keep teams reasonably close to where I think they should be seeded


1) Mount Union                    1) UW-Whitewater
8) Albion                         8) Concordia (WI)
4) Ithaca                         4) Illinois Wesleyan
5) Framingham St                  5) Wabash

3) Rowan                          3) Wittenberg
6) Lebanon Valley                 6) Maryville
2) Hobart                         2) North Central
7) Endicott                       7) Franklin


1) Bethel                         1) Mary Hardin-Baylor
8) St. Scholastica                5) Millsaps
4) UW-Plattsburg                  4) Wesley
5) Wartburg                       6) Hampden-Sydney

3) Pacific Lutheran                3) John Carroll
6) Redlands                       7) Wash & Jeff
2) Linfield                       2) Johns Hopkins
7) St Norbert                     8) Gallaudet


Maryville ends up at Witt because that's the only team worthy of hosting within 500 miles. By sending Redlands to Pac Lutheran you can bring one of the weaker teams out west to Linfield and avoid a first round rematch.


Wished you had a VOTE  today? ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Upstate on November 17, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2013, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 11:01:54 AM
Albion is 8-2 and won the MIAA, though, so they'll probably get the last spot.

True, but Wally has pointed out that the East RAC has been very intentional last year(STJ made it as only 2 loss team) and this year, to position their pool C candidates for success. If the North RAC were to take that kind of action they would absolutely consider ranking Wooster to help Wabash as ranking Albion, who gets in via AQ, does nothing for anyone except Wheaton, who is decidedly behind Wabash in the North regionals.

You have to fight fire with fire boys and its time for the North Region to come together and kick some D3 butt.

So you're saying Fisher didn't belong in the NCAA's when they made it as a 2 loss team?

Even though they went on the road and knocked off the 10-0 and 13th ranked Johns Hopkins and 11-0, 11th ranked Delaware Valley you're still bitching about their inclusion?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 17, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Nope. Not saying that at all.  Simply stating the fact that if the east RAC had not ranked them where they did they wouldn't have been in the field.  Don't read any more into it that that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ITH radio on November 17, 2013, 12:56:20 PM
Pls tweet us any questions you have for tonight's interview with Duey Naatz.  He joins us live around 7:55 pm et. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 17, 2013, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: Upstate on November 17, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2013, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 11:01:54 AM
Albion is 8-2 and won the MIAA, though, so they'll probably get the last spot.

True, but Wally has pointed out that the East RAC has been very intentional last year(STJ made it as only 2 loss team) and this year, to position their pool C candidates for success. If the North RAC were to take that kind of action they would absolutely consider ranking Wooster to help Wabash as ranking Albion, who gets in via AQ, does nothing for anyone except Wheaton, who is decidedly behind Wabash in the North regionals.

You have to fight fire with fire boys and its time for the North Region to come together and kick some D3 butt.

So you're saying Fisher didn't belong in the NCAA's when they made it as a 2 loss team?

Even though they went on the road and knocked off the 10-0 and 13th ranked Johns Hopkins and 11-0, 11th ranked Delaware Valley you're still bitching about their inclusion?

Here's a thing that I think gets too much traction...that a team's performance in the tournament somehow validates (or invalidates) their selection.  It doesn't.  Last year Bridgewater State got in and got blasted.  I didn't like BSU's selection because their movement in the RRs after week 11 didn't make sense.  It ought to have been Lycoming on the board and not BSU.  The only thing Lycoming did in week 11 is win a game 38-0.  BSU was idle.  No reason to shuffle the order of those two teams at that point, but it was done. 

In 2011, SJF had a big SOS advantage, RRO advantages, and (this is the biggie) a favorable common opponent result with CWRU.  SJF's inclusion in 2011 was the right call because of all of those things.  It wasn't right because SJF wound up winning a couple of games.  That's a separate thing completely.  What if SJF had been paired up with Wesley in the first round and lost by three touchdowns?  Does that mean they didn't deserve to be invited?  Of course it doesn't. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 01:15:39 PM
The way the East ate itself yesterday, and RR they do can be justified and not be called 'gaming'. I just don't know how they're going to do it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 17, 2013, 01:36:33 PM
By ranking Brockport last week, they protected Alfred's position in the rankings by virtue of the Alfred/Bport h2h result.  There is some case to be made for Brockport being ranked.  There's also some case to be made for about a half dozen other 3-loss East teams.  Of course, Brockport's inclusion had the most advantageous domino effect. 

We talked about it last week after Heidelberg got blasted and whether or not they would fall out because of it...they didn't and rightly so.  The top of the North has so cleanly separated itself from the rest of the region that we aren't even considering 3-loss teams to be ranked.  The East doesn't particularly have a cream that rises to the top as neatly, and the options are limitless.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Schwami on November 17, 2013, 02:09:31 PM
Here's a thought --- rank Wooster in the East  :D

#RankWooster
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wabndy on November 17, 2013, 06:38:39 PM
Is it fair to say that had the scac not imploded there would have been 6 pool c teams this year? Not surprised for many reasons. I'm sure an unwritten criteria was that the committee couldn't take all the pool c teams from the west and north. That effectively what dividing into four regions does- allows for some degree of geographical balance.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
I don't think it's unwritten criteria at all. Let's take the tin foil off.

The "B" and "C" selections showed the committee valued SOS and wins over Regional Ranked teams more than anything.

The spin off of the MASCAC from the NEFC put those teams in the "B" pool.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wabndy on November 17, 2013, 07:48:07 PM
I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy or anything. If they didn't want some regional balance in pool c they wouldn't be talking about regional rankings anyway. It'd be results against nationally ranked opponents as the criteria. Beyond that- I still can't imagine that a committee member has sat through the pool c selection and seen two north and two west teams go in- with the east and south's number one still on the board. Had Wabash gotten a win against an rro id imagine it would have been no contest and they'd still be in. Given that you could evenly square off the north #3 and east #1 for the last pool c slot- there would undoubtedly be some leaning toward leaning the undeniably close criteria in favor of the east. I'm absolutely not claiming sour grapes- the committee appears to have followed things to the letter. At the same time- had the committee emphasized wins- I don't think anyone could have complained either.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 19, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2013, 11:55:29 AM
This is where I'm torn.

I really don't like the whining about, "Well, we have to play X and Y early and..." since you had to beat X and Y anyway to win the title. Admittedly, it's worse in the NCAA D-1 hoops land, where the commentators who slurp the BCS conferences complain about tough matchups for the 4th place teams in the Big 12. But part of me doesn't like the fact that X has to play Y so early. Play early, play late - you still have to beat them.

HOWEVER...there really shouldn't be any rematches in the first week. And the NCAA should actually follow a reasonable facsimile of seeding so you don't have the third and fourth best team in the region playing in week one just because they're close and no one else can get there without a flight.

Instead of spending time disqualifying cross country runners for participating in a fun run for charity, the NCAA should cough up some dough to fix the travel for the best football tournament in the land!

I'm with you right up until the very end. I'm never a big fan of people saying "well, xxx has enough money and should just pay for it." That's like a homeless guy coming up to you and saying "you look like you're pretty well off, you should just give me $100."

Analogy aside, if the money source were identified, I would get behind the idea.

Considering that D-III gate probably wouldn't pay for all the travel in the D-III tournament, I'm a little hesitant to complain about the focus on money.

That said, PLU (in my top 8) at Linfield (in my top 3) in Round 1 will always stink.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: AO on November 19, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.
I'd agree with Duey if he's referring to the lack of objective data available to compare teams from different regions because very few teams play many non-conference games outside of their region.  The St. John Fisher SOS wouldn't be nearly as high if more East teams played teams from the West and the North.  This is a national tournament selecting at-large bids by using regional criteria. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 03:38:56 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.

Agreed.  Good point.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wally_wabash on November 19, 2013, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.

If that's what he intended to say, he missed the mark by quite a bit.  I think I'd prefer that the committee chariman not approach the selection process with any preconceived notion of how many teams from which regions should or shouldn't qualify.  Like you said, if the best five teams per the criteria are all West region teams, then those are the five teams that should get picked.  We shouldn't ever be talking about "the third team up from the North" because that's not a thing that should enter the thought process.  It's Wabash and their criteria up against the other three teams and their criteria.  Not where you're ranked or how long you've been lingering around on the board.  Just the teams and their criteria.  As soon as anything else comes into play, the process has been failed.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 04:22:08 PM
Heck, he could have even said, "It's going to be hard for a region to have three out of five at large teams in a given year," and be fine by me. Because normally, it is.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2013, 11:55:29 AM
This is where I'm torn.

I really don't like the whining about, "Well, we have to play X and Y early and..." since you had to beat X and Y anyway to win the title. Admittedly, it's worse in the NCAA D-1 hoops land, where the commentators who slurp the BCS conferences complain about tough matchups for the 4th place teams in the Big 12. But part of me doesn't like the fact that X has to play Y so early. Play early, play late - you still have to beat them.

HOWEVER...there really shouldn't be any rematches in the first week. And the NCAA should actually follow a reasonable facsimile of seeding so you don't have the third and fourth best team in the region playing in week one just because they're close and no one else can get there without a flight.

Instead of spending time disqualifying cross country runners for participating in a fun run for charity, the NCAA should cough up some dough to fix the travel for the best football tournament in the land!

I'm with you right up until the very end. I'm never a big fan of people saying "well, xxx has enough money and should just pay for it." That's like a homeless guy coming up to you and saying "you look like you're pretty well off, you should just give me $100."

Analogy aside, if the money source were identified, I would get behind the idea.

Considering that D-III gate probably wouldn't pay for all the travel in the D-III tournament, I'm a little hesitant to complain about the focus on money.

That said, PLU (in my top 8) at Linfield (in my top 3) in Round 1 will always stink.

As much as we'd like to have each are self-sufficient in a large organization such as the NCAA, or even at College or University, many times they are not, and funds get moved from one area to another. 

I think other sports would also benefit for a tournament structure that eliminates first round re-matches and a better bracket. Sure, you gotta beat em all to win it, but knock heads against someone else at first.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ADL70 on November 19, 2013, 06:48:01 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 04:22:08 PM
Heck, he could have even said, "It's going to be hard for a region to have three out of five at large teams in a given year," and be fine by me. Because normally, it is.

How many of us have used the "modify" function when we've typed something that didn't quite come out right?

I know I have!   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wabndy on November 20, 2013, 09:51:18 AM
Of course there is a way to ensure plane ticket costs aren't a part of the bracketing process. If d3 were at a level that ESPN wanted to produce a broadcast of the whole shebang  (I.e - there were ratings to support such an investment) then we could do this. Until then - I think we do have to be grateful that we even have a 32 team tournament- however seeded.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2013, 10:48:43 AM
And we have to pray that the upper echelons of D1 football and D1 basketball don't decide to take their ball and go form their own exclusive non-NCAA org so they can keep ALL of the money generated by those sports.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2013, 12:01:48 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2013, 10:48:43 AM
And we have to pray that the upper echelons of D1 football and D1 basketball don't decide to take their ball and go form their own exclusive non-NCAA org so they can keep ALL of the money generated by those sports.    
I just wanted to emphasize Ron's point.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: wabndy on November 21, 2013, 04:10:40 PM
Did I see a stat somewhere that all of Division III amounted to something like 6% of the NCAA's total budget?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: jknezek on November 21, 2013, 04:23:11 PM
Quote from: wabndy on November 21, 2013, 04:10:40 PM
Did I see a stat somewhere that all of Division III amounted to something like 6% of the NCAA's total budget?

Here's the expense breakdown for 2011/2012:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/Finances+Expenses

Here's the revenue for the same period:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/Revenue

With 81% of revenue coming from Television and Marketing Rights (Division 1 primarily), the 3% spent on DIII championships and programs is a gift. I'm assuming part of the 13% spent association wide, 3% limited liability, and 4% spent on General and Admin can be pro-rated to DIII expenses as well. 6% probably is not unreasonable.

$25.3 million is spent on D3, including 18.7 for championships.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 21, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
After being off the boards for a couple days due to travel, it took me a couple days to read through the pages of thoughtful and passionate rhetoric on the NCAC board about the selection process for Pool C and the subsequent communication. I have a small dog in this fight as my team (Wheaton) was likely the 4th team on the North Pool C board behind Wabash. I have followed these boards closely since inception and have been active in discussions and arguments around the selection process, particularly in past years when it was relevant for my team.

It seems the arguments can be broken into categories: Transparency, consistency, and communication.

Transparency is the issue that can shed light on all other issues. If the committee was open about how they did what they did, we wouldn't have many of the questions we have now. If you look at this very site as a test case. Pat and Keith and company spend hours going through their mock picks and then explaining the rationale for why they did what they did. They happen to have a high rate of accuracy on the actual picks that come out on Selection Sunday. They show their work. Heck Wally Wabash went through the criteria and came up with the same dilemma as everyone else. He picked his team, Wabash, but in doing so, he expressed quite clearly it could go the other way. If the public saw the criteria and how the committee made their decisions, they may not agree, but it would create some accountability and credibility into the process. I think most of us would agree with that.

Conistency is another problem. As Wabash fans have pointed out, they have been on both sides of the issue and lost every time. The criteria has stayed the same, committees have changed and different interpretations of the criteria has been the result. Transparancy wouldn't solve that problem, but it would likely help.

Communication (or lack of it) is a derivative of transparency. If we had visibility into the process, communication would be a natural result. Pat and Keith communicate why they made their picks. That communication, given their high accuracy rate of picking playoff teams, actually serves as a proxy for us fans to explain why some teams made it and some didn't. What's more, Wally, Pat, ets, all explained the current field in a way that made sense (SJF over Wabash was understandable, based on the criteria). What sent the room into the uproar is the Chair's communication and subsequent interpretation of those comments. If the committee had given transparency into the process, those words would have had far less impact (or more depending on the process!). Because we can't see what they did, we can only go by their comments, which were not thoughtfully presented, regardless of the context.

Finally, let's provide another scenario.....suppose Wabash had an SOS equal to SJF but were 9-1 when they popped up on the board? What happens then? If 3 teams from a region are decidedly better than any other teams at the table, why wouldn't they be the ones selected? The explanations in defense of the Chair's comments don't seem to address that. Unless I missed something.

The system isn't perfect. I think it should be much more open for review with a desire to learn from smart people and make it better in a thoughtful way. If we had transparency, consistency can be tolerated and communication can be understood.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 21, 2013, 09:27:29 PM
The WORST non-transparency is the secret final regional rankings.  Since they did away with 'once ranked, always ranked', the secret final RRs are the ONLY ones that matter.  It is therefore impossible to know one of the key criteria, results vs. RROs.  (We can speculate, and probably come pretty close, but we can't KNOW.)  This alone makes the whole process open to conspiracy theorists!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Boxer7806 on November 21, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 21, 2013, 09:27:29 PM
The WORST non-transparency is the secret final regional rankings.  Since they did away with 'once ranked, always ranked', the secret final RRs are the ONLY ones that matter.  It is therefore impossible to know one of the key criteria, results vs. RROs.  (We can speculate, and probably come pretty close, but we can't KNOW.)  This alone makes the whole process open to conspiracy theorists!

100% True. +k
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: mattvsmith on November 22, 2013, 06:10:30 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 21, 2013, 09:27:29 PM
The WORST non-transparency is the secret final regional rankings.  Since they did away with 'once ranked, always ranked', the secret final RRs are the ONLY ones that matter.  It is therefore impossible to know one of the key criteria, results vs. RROs.  (We can speculate, and probably come pretty close, but we can't KNOW.)  This alone makes the whole process open to conspiracy theorists!

As a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist celebrating the most sacred holiday of the conspiracy year,* I can assure you, Mr Ypsi, that there is nothing in D3 worth conspiring for or against.

* - The Kennedy assassination is our high holy day, on which we lay the blame on Lyndon Johnson and George HW Bush.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 22, 2013, 10:07:15 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2013, 11:55:29 AM
This is where I'm torn.

I really don't like the whining about, "Well, we have to play X and Y early and..." since you had to beat X and Y anyway to win the title. Admittedly, it's worse in the NCAA D-1 hoops land, where the commentators who slurp the BCS conferences complain about tough matchups for the 4th place teams in the Big 12. But part of me doesn't like the fact that X has to play Y so early. Play early, play late - you still have to beat them.

HOWEVER...there really shouldn't be any rematches in the first week. And the NCAA should actually follow a reasonable facsimile of seeding so you don't have the third and fourth best team in the region playing in week one just because they're close and no one else can get there without a flight.

Instead of spending time disqualifying cross country runners for participating in a fun run for charity, the NCAA should cough up some dough to fix the travel for the best football tournament in the land!

I'm with you right up until the very end. I'm never a big fan of people saying "well, xxx has enough money and should just pay for it." That's like a homeless guy coming up to you and saying "you look like you're pretty well off, you should just give me $100."

Analogy aside, if the money source were identified, I would get behind the idea.

Considering that D-III gate probably wouldn't pay for all the travel in the D-III tournament, I'm a little hesitant to complain about the focus on money.

That said, PLU (in my top 8) at Linfield (in my top 3) in Round 1 will always stink.

As much as we'd like to have each are self-sufficient in a large organization such as the NCAA, or even at College or University, many times they are not, and funds get moved from one area to another. 

I think other sports would also benefit for a tournament structure that eliminates first round re-matches and a better bracket. Sure, you gotta beat em all to win it, but knock heads against someone else at first.

I would support a hard and fast no-rematches in Round 1 rule.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on November 22, 2013, 10:12:06 AM
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 21, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 21, 2013, 09:27:29 PM
The WORST non-transparency is the secret final regional rankings.  Since they did away with 'once ranked, always ranked', the secret final RRs are the ONLY ones that matter.  It is therefore impossible to know one of the key criteria, results vs. RROs.  (We can speculate, and probably come pretty close, but we can't KNOW.)  This alone makes the whole process open to conspiracy theorists!

100% True. +k

Solid post. Although not releasing seeds is in the competition for worst transparency.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: smedindy on November 22, 2013, 11:01:32 AM
"Seeds"... ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2013, 08:05:53 AM
Soooo, Jonny, how did our Pool C contestants do?

UW-Platteville 54, Concordia 20: UWP was never really in question as a slam-dunk Pool C choice, but this game doesn't really tell us much as it came against one of the lesser Pool A entrants.  Nonetheless, they won handily.  Well done UWP.

Linfield 42, Pacific Lutheran 21: The one team in the field that I can feel "bad" for, as much as I can feel "bad" for any playoff team, is PLU just because we don't get to see how they would have done against a few other teams.  Nonetheless, I think we all would agree that PLU was a deserving Pool C choice and it's their bad fortune to get stuck with a Linfield rematch.

Wartburg 41, Illinois Wesleyan 7: the "WTF happened here?" award goes to Illinois Wesleyan!  Is Wartburg a fine team?  Of course!  They played Bethel quite respectably in their OOC loss and the only in-conference blemish came against a decent Coe squad that made last year's playoffs and defeated 2013 playoff team WashU as well as Wartburg.  But Illinois Wesleyan was, on paper, one of the strongest Pool C teams if not THE strongest, and I really expected them to win this one.  Perhaps I should heed the comments from the CCIW folks that the conference as a whole is a notch down from its peak strength.

St. John Fisher 25, John Carroll 16: annnnnd two of our Pool C entrants played one another!  (I didn't even really notice this quirk until now, but that seems a bit awkward to me; I know we're already discussing the vagaries of bracketology and the fact that we would prefer to avoid first-round rematches, but I also wonder if perhaps we should in theory match all of the Pool C selections against Pool A teams in the first round?  Something doesn't strike me as quite right that AQ teams have to play against/eliminate one another while one at-large team is guaranteed to get into the sweet 16; this might be an unpopular opinion among those who argue that the Pool C teams are stronger than many of the Pool A teams in the field, but that's fine, even that is an argument to split the five Pool C teams and distribute them against Pool A's as much as possible).  This was also a surprising result to me.  The E8 always handles itself well in the playoffs but I had the feeling that the conference's top teams were not quite as good as in years past and that JCU was a legit title contender.

Two of the five Pool C teams advance, although one was eliminated by another.  IWU is definitely the biggest disappointment in Pool C, IMO, and PLU did about what could be expected.  UWP vs. North Central next week might be one of the best second-round games!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 24, 2013, 10:31:45 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2013, 08:05:53 AM
Soooo, Jonny, how did our Pool C contestants do?

UW-Platteville 54, Concordia 20: UWP was never really in question as a slam-dunk Pool C choice, but this game doesn't really tell us much as it came against one of the lesser Pool A entrants.  Nonetheless, they won handily.  Well done UWP.

Linfield 42, Pacific Lutheran 21: The one team in the field that I can feel "bad" for, as much as I can feel "bad" for any playoff team, is PLU just because we don't get to see how they would have done against a few other teams.  Nonetheless, I think we all would agree that PLU was a deserving Pool C choice and it's their bad fortune to get stuck with a Linfield rematch.

Wartburg 41, Illinois Wesleyan 7: the "WTF happened here?" award goes to Illinois Wesleyan!  Is Wartburg a fine team?  Of course!  They played Bethel quite respectably in their OOC loss and the only in-conference blemish came against a decent Coe squad that made last year's playoffs and defeated 2013 playoff team WashU as well as Wartburg.  But Illinois Wesleyan was, on paper, one of the strongest Pool C teams if not THE strongest, and I really expected them to win this one.  Perhaps I should heed the comments from the CCIW folks that the conference as a whole is a notch down from its peak strength.

St. John Fisher 25, John Carroll 16: annnnnd two of our Pool C entrants played one another!  (I didn't even really notice this quirk until now, but that seems a bit awkward to me; I know we're already discussing the vagaries of bracketology and the fact that we would prefer to avoid first-round rematches, but I also wonder if perhaps we should in theory match all of the Pool C selections against Pool A teams in the first round?  Something doesn't strike me as quite right that AQ teams have to play against/eliminate one another while one at-large team is guaranteed to get into the sweet 16; this might be an unpopular opinion among those who argue that the Pool C teams are stronger than many of the Pool A teams in the field, but that's fine, even that is an argument to split the five Pool C teams and distribute them against Pool A's as much as possible).  This was also a surprising result to me.  The E8 always handles itself well in the playoffs but I had the feeling that the conference's top teams were not quite as good as in years past and that JCU was a legit title contender.
Two of the five Pool C teams advance, although one was eliminated by another.  IWU is definitely the biggest disappointment in Pool C, IMO, and PLU did about what could be expected.  UWP vs. North Central next week might be one of the best second-round games!
Good assessment. +1!
I was very impressed by SJF and the way that they beat JCU.  I also thought that the very upper level of the E8 was down this year. However, I believe that SJF's past playoff experience (2010, that strong quarterfinal run in 2011 and 2012) may have helped the team in preparation this week, "been there, done that".
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: USee on November 24, 2013, 03:54:53 PM
Wartburg's loss to Bethel was far from respectable. They were down 30-0 when Bethel called off the dogs. Final was 30-17. Wartburg also beat Luther by 3 after trailing in the 4th quarter. Wheaton beat Luther 38-12. All this to say IWU stunk up the place w 7 turnovers. They weren't prepared to play and must have thought Wartburg wouldn't bring any game. Wartburg was much, much better than many teams I have seen this year and IWU didn't play anywhere near where they have been playing. This should have been closer, but Wartburg was still better. I think Act II in Arden Hills won't be the same blowout from earlier this season. Wartburg can play.

Is the CCIW down? I think so, that score seems to say so. I'll be interested to see NCC's performance the next couple weeks. Prior to yesterday I had a group of teams in the North stacked pretty tightly (Witt, IWU, Heidleberg, Franklin, Wabash, Wheaton) together and fairly interchangeable. Not sure one game changes my opinion. I would give more credit to Wartburg for stepping up their game. Impressive performance on the road.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on December 10, 2013, 12:38:27 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2013, 08:05:53 AM
Soooo, Jonny, how did our Pool C contestants do?

UW-Platteville 54, Concordia 20: UWP was never really in question as a slam-dunk Pool C choice, but this game doesn't really tell us much as it came against one of the lesser Pool A entrants.  Nonetheless, they won handily.  Well done UWP.

Linfield 42, Pacific Lutheran 21: The one team in the field that I can feel "bad" for, as much as I can feel "bad" for any playoff team, is PLU just because we don't get to see how they would have done against a few other teams.  Nonetheless, I think we all would agree that PLU was a deserving Pool C choice and it's their bad fortune to get stuck with a Linfield rematch.

Wartburg 41, Illinois Wesleyan 7: the "WTF happened here?" award goes to Illinois Wesleyan!  Is Wartburg a fine team?  Of course!  They played Bethel quite respectably in their OOC loss and the only in-conference blemish came against a decent Coe squad that made last year's playoffs and defeated 2013 playoff team WashU as well as Wartburg.  But Illinois Wesleyan was, on paper, one of the strongest Pool C teams if not THE strongest, and I really expected them to win this one.  Perhaps I should heed the comments from the CCIW folks that the conference as a whole is a notch down from its peak strength.

St. John Fisher 25, John Carroll 16: annnnnd two of our Pool C entrants played one another!  (I didn't even really notice this quirk until now, but that seems a bit awkward to me; I know we're already discussing the vagaries of bracketology and the fact that we would prefer to avoid first-round rematches, but I also wonder if perhaps we should in theory match all of the Pool C selections against Pool A teams in the first round?  Something doesn't strike me as quite right that AQ teams have to play against/eliminate one another while one at-large team is guaranteed to get into the sweet 16; this might be an unpopular opinion among those who argue that the Pool C teams are stronger than many of the Pool A teams in the field, but that's fine, even that is an argument to split the five Pool C teams and distribute them against Pool A's as much as possible).  This was also a surprising result to me.  The E8 always handles itself well in the playoffs but I had the feeling that the conference's top teams were not quite as good as in years past and that JCU was a legit title contender.

Two of the five Pool C teams advance, although one was eliminated by another.  IWU is definitely the biggest disappointment in Pool C, IMO, and PLU did about what could be expected.  UWP vs. North Central next week might be one of the best second-round games!

Our final Pool C update:

Round II:

North Central 52, UW-Platteville 24

St. John Fisher 27, Hobart 6

Quarterfinals:

UMHB 45, St. John Fisher 23

Final tallies from our five Pool C contestants:

2-3 first round (one head-to-head loss; 1-2 against Pool A teams)
1-1 second round
0-1 quarterfinals

St. John Fisher gets a gold star for making the quarterfinals as a Pool C entrant (likely the last one in), although part of that is certainly due to the draw; no disrespect intended to Fisher since they beat one of the other Pool C's and a very good Hobart team, but it is at least vaguely possible that PLU, UWP, JCU might - repeat: might - have advanced to the quarters as well with a different draw (this is NOT to say any of them would beat SJF, but merely pointing out that the draw influences how far a given team advances).  They also played a respectable game against a real UMHB juggernaut.  Well done to SJF and a hat tip to the Empire 8.

UWP gets a nice check-mark for doing about what expected.  Big win over lackluster round 1 opponent and competitive-for-30-minutes loss against semifinalist North Central.

Lumps of coal to John Carroll and Illinois Wesleyan for being presumed contenders to advance a few rounds and instead bowing out early. 

(Don't get all worked up, anybody, that's a joke)

PLU gets the hard-luck award.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Craft_Beermeister on December 10, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
I guess you can say "everyone out of the poll"
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 10, 2013, 06:26:19 PM
A big +1! to ExTartanPlayer for the updates that he gave on Pool C. They will make a nice archive for our review when we want to compare Pool C's in the future.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2013
Post by: K-Mack on December 12, 2013, 10:31:26 AM
Agreed. That was good.

Also
QuoteThey will make a nice archive for our review when we want to compare Pool C's in the future, like when a columnist has to write a year-in-review thingamabob.