D3boards.com

Post Patterns (Division III football) => General football => Topic started by: wally_wabash on October 09, 2017, 09:11:08 am

Title: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 09, 2017, 09:11:08 am
Feels like a good week to drop the first eliminator table (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8565.msg1767019#msg1767019) of the season and thinking about those at-large bids.  Plenty of interesting results through the first half of the season that have shaken things up a bit.  I'll have the first table up this evening. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2017, 11:40:48 am
Feels like a good week to drop the first eliminator table (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8565.msg1767019#msg1767019) of the season and thinking about those at-large bids.  Plenty of interesting results through the first half of the season that have shaken things up a bit.  I'll have the first table up this evening.
+1!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 09, 2017, 08:56:35 pm
So what I'm about to post (if you're new to this) is all of the D3 teams that can/would play in the postseason (sorry NESCAC).  All of these teams (minus the ones in gray) are eligible for invitation to the tournament should they not win their league.  What this table is doing is giving you a visual look at which teams have been eliminated from getting any of those at-large (Pool B or C) invitations.  Teams in the green are still alive, teams in the red are out. 

(https://i.imgur.com/GgUJGDh.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GC51bbn.png)
click to enlarge

Alright, so at this point in the season there's basically two ways to be eliminated:
- You've lost three games.  No team in the Pool A/B/C era has been invited with three losses. 
- You've lost twice out of conference.  If you're carrying two OOC losses, you are either going to run the table and qualify automatically or you're going to lose a game in conference which lumps you in with the three loss crowd. 

Yes, there are definitely teams in the green here that you know and I know have basically zero chance at getting into the tournament.  That'll sort itself out as we go along.  I'll start doing some more in-depth scrubbing of our two loss teams and their schedules to see if they are in the win-out-and-qualify-automatically group or not.  I'll also look more at upcoming schedules and see who has games that can boost an at-large profile (games vs. likely RROs, etc.), who's got SOS trouble, etc. 

A couple of other notes on the tables:
- The ASC, NEWMAC, and Independents are highlight in purple there to signify their Pool B status. 
- McMurry and Brevard are provisional members and not postseason eligible this year.  I've grayed them out. 

Alright, there you have it.  We're a little over halfway through the season and a little over half of the division has been knocked out of the at-large situation.  Feels about right. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bombers798891 on October 10, 2017, 10:38:23 am
Re: the teams in green. It's also worth pointing out that many of these two-loss teams who are on the bubble still have to play each other, so even if they're both in green now, we know they won't be, (RPI/Hobart is one example)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wesleydad on October 12, 2017, 11:06:35 am
Wally, with the current NJAC records and who has to play each other the rest of the way, it seems like Frostburg is the only team left that could be considered for pool C.  Everyone except Wesley, Salisbury, and Frostburg have 2 losses.  Wesley wins the league if they win out which would mean Salisbury has 2 losses.  Salisbury wins the league if they win out giving both Wesley and Frostburg 2 losses.  If Frostburg wins out they would only have 1 loss, to Wesley and would stack up well in the pool C selections.  Would Wesley, losses to Del Val and Salisbury, Salisbury, losses to Albright and Wesley, or Frostburg losses to Wesley and Salisbury look good enough for a pool C with 2 losses?  Seems like the best chance the NJAC has for getting 2 teams in is for Wesley and Frostburg to win out.  Wesley gets AQ via H2H and Frostburg has only 1 loss.  Thanks for doing this, it is cool to see how things change each week.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 12, 2017, 11:41:54 am
I disagree with nothing that you're saying, wesleydad.  But I do like to err on the side of inclusion, especially early on.  I also I don't have the time to scrub every conference schedule in the way you've done with the NJAC this early in the season, so I do like the input here as it helps clarify what to watch for as we go forward.

I'd also say that while two loss teams seem like a long shot (and historically they are), we also have to wait and see what happens in the region and nationally before declaring most two loss teams out.  If the East region cannibalizes itself (it happens more often than not) and a two loss NJAC team winds up being the top ranked at-large team in the region, they've got a shot.  As we get more results over the next few weeks most of the stuff like what you've laid out will sort itself out. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: MANDGSU on October 12, 2017, 12:18:50 pm
Wally, with the current NJAC records and who has to play each other the rest of the way, it seems like Frostburg is the only team left that could be considered for pool C.  Everyone except Wesley, Salisbury, and Frostburg have 2 losses.  Wesley wins the league if they win out which would mean Salisbury has 2 losses.  Salisbury wins the league if they win out giving both Wesley and Frostburg 2 losses.  If Frostburg wins out they would only have 1 loss, to Wesley and would stack up well in the pool C selections.  Would Wesley, losses to Del Val and Salisbury, Salisbury, losses to Albright and Wesley, or Frostburg losses to Wesley and Salisbury look good enough for a pool C with 2 losses?  Seems like the best chance the NJAC has for getting 2 teams in is for Wesley and Frostburg to win out.  Wesley gets AQ via H2H and Frostburg has only 1 loss.  Thanks for doing this, it is cool to see how things change each week.

Same scenario as last year. However, Frostburg wouldn't be left out regardless of Stevenson record. Sometimes it comes down to perception and history. History will tell you if Frostburg goes 9-1 back-to-back, they deserve to be in. However, I am hoping we knock both of you all out. However, I do think that the top two NJAC teams, whoever that may be, could win at least  two playoff games depending on matchups.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 12, 2017, 12:38:13 pm
Wally, with the current NJAC records and who has to play each other the rest of the way, it seems like Frostburg is the only team left that could be considered for pool C.  Everyone except Wesley, Salisbury, and Frostburg have 2 losses.  Wesley wins the league if they win out which would mean Salisbury has 2 losses.  Salisbury wins the league if they win out giving both Wesley and Frostburg 2 losses.  If Frostburg wins out they would only have 1 loss, to Wesley and would stack up well in the pool C selections.  Would Wesley, losses to Del Val and Salisbury, Salisbury, losses to Albright and Wesley, or Frostburg losses to Wesley and Salisbury look good enough for a pool C with 2 losses?  Seems like the best chance the NJAC has for getting 2 teams in is for Wesley and Frostburg to win out.  Wesley gets AQ via H2H and Frostburg has only 1 loss.  Thanks for doing this, it is cool to see how things change each week.

Same scenario as last year. However, Frostburg wouldn't be left out regardless of Stevenson record. Sometimes it comes down to perception and history. History will tell you if Frostburg goes 9-1 back-to-back, they deserve to be in. However, I am hoping we knock both of you all out. However, I do think that the top two NJAC teams, whoever that may be, could win at least  two playoff games depending on matchups.

The problem is "perception and history" are not part of the selection process.

The SOS will be a bigger deciding factor ... once those numbers are a bit more "solid" they can give a better sense of where teams in the NJAC stand. However, the idea of 2-loss teams making the playoffs is a tough one. We all know the history with that Mendoza Line.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on October 16, 2017, 12:15:10 am
Wally - what are the chances of a Two loss NWC team getting a pool C? If Linfield loses they will have a loss to #1 MHB and  Top 15 (I'd expect) GFU. If Linfield wins then GFU would have two losses to very highly ranked opponents. Don't know SOS yet... Would seem to be convenient for the NCAA... SCIAC winner to MHB... NWC teams play in first round... HSU gets a home game...

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 16, 2017, 12:42:20 am
Since we are now down to just 5(?) Pool C teams, I'd say the days of two-loss C teams are just about extinct.

VERY good teams are likely to be left out, alas.  Just too many AQs for a too-small tourney field.  Since the tourney field is highly unlikely to be expanded, there may have to be consideration of ways to reduce the AQs.  Require 8 (or even 9?) teams, rather than 7 for an AQ?  Make qualifiers from conferences that almost NEVER win a tourney game also meet some other standard to qualify?

I don't know the answer, and don't think we have YET reached the point where a legitimate contender for the Stagg Bowl will sit at home, but I think we are definitely headed that direction.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2017, 09:59:37 am
Wally - what are the chances of a Two loss NWC team getting a pool C? If Linfield loses they will have a loss to #1 MHB and  Top 15 (I'd expect) GFU. If Linfield wins then GFU would have two losses to very highly ranked opponents. Don't know SOS yet... Would seem to be convenient for the NCAA... SCIAC winner to MHB... NWC teams play in first round... HSU gets a home game...

Depends on how the regional rankings shake out.  In the West it seems likely that we're going to get a single-loss runner up in the MIAC (winner of C-MC/St. John's).  A single loss WIAC runner up is also possible, but seems less certain with Platteville having to play Whitewater and La Crosse still.  You've also still got the possibility of a single loss Lake Forest team emerging from the MWC, although truthfully I think if they lose to Monmouth, they would wind up behind an NWC runner up in the regional rankings. 

That's a long way around to get to an answer.  I think the best, plausible scenario for an NWC runner up to make the field is that Lake Forest wins the MWC outright, Platteville and La Crosse both wind up with multiple losses.  That could get your NWC runner up second in the at-large line from the region behind the MIAC runner up.  It does get tricky for George Fox and a little unfortunate because the game that probably puts them in play for a Pool C in the first place is that game against Platteville...which would also crush them if Platteville winds up 8-2 because it's hard to place George Fox ahead of Platteville given equal records and that h2h result.  That result also hurts Linfield w/ respect to Platteville because of common opponent results.  In any case, the best any 8-2 team can hope for is to get ranked high enough to get on the board and in the discussion for an invitation.  Once you're there, anything goes. 

It's kinda cool when we get these intersecting data points.  We're normally not that lucky. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bombers798891 on October 16, 2017, 10:06:54 am
I've long thought some sort of earned access could be a fair compromise. Something that would require an AQ team to be in the Top X of the regional rankings, for example. But, for some of these newer conferences, there's a stigma attached to playing them, which limits their opportunities to play quality opponents OOC and earn that ranking.

The better solution, in my mind, would simply be to increase the number of teams needed to have an AQ. Watching the E8 and LL do this absurd dance has convinced me that's the better option. It's simply silly to me that the Bombers moved from the E8 to the LL, and kept nearly their entire schedule the same. Buff State will probably do the same next season.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 16, 2017, 10:33:12 am
I've long thought some sort of earned access could be a fair compromise. Something that would require an AQ team to be in the Top X of the regional rankings, for example. But, for some of these newer conferences, there's a stigma attached to playing them, which limits their opportunities to play quality opponents OOC and earn that ranking.

The better solution, in my mind, would simply be to increase the number of teams needed to have an AQ. Watching the E8 and LL do this absurd dance has convinced me that's the better option. It's simply silly to me that the Bombers moved from the E8 to the LL, and kept nearly their entire schedule the same. Buff State will probably do the same next season.

Let me first point out that your first paragraph is what DII does in all lot - if not all - sports. They also have a lot more bids to give out since they have more money to spend (5% of the NCAA operational budget; 3.1% for DIII).

The second option is maybe something the NCAA has to look at, but it is a slippery slope. If they start getting sport-specific with AQ numbers it is going to become problematic. The real thing is that the entire division would have to approve such a thing and you know full well that isn't going to fly. Nearly every conference is going to vote against it because nearly every conference has some sport that has low numbers per the AQ. If they open the door for one sport, what will stop them from opening the doors to other sports. I don't disagree it is an idea worth considering, but knowing how schools and conferences think on things like this ... don't hold your breathe.

I will follow that up with the fact that the Presidents Council is looking into set ups like the old GSAC women's and the new ACAA in terms of conferences with the right numbers, but that is about it when it comes to conference AQ. It could be interesting what they decide to do to strengthen AQ requirements and if that trickles down to sport-specific or not.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 16, 2017, 11:06:05 am
if two PAC teams go 10-0, do we basically go down to four Pool C bids?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2017, 11:34:31 am
if two PAC teams go 10-0, do we basically go down to four Pool C bids?

No, thereís still 5 Pool C bids. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 16, 2017, 11:44:51 am
if two PAC teams go 10-0, do we basically go down to four Pool C bids?

No, thereís still 5 Pool C bids.

Both teams will go, and take a Pool C with them, but that's one of the five.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2017, 12:02:07 pm
if two PAC teams go 10-0, do we basically go down to four Pool C bids?

No, thereís still 5 Pool C bids.

Both teams will go, and take a Pool C with them, but that's one of the five.

That seems safe, but I woulnd't put a 100% lock on it.  CWRU's SOS is mega bad.  Like, almost worst in the division bad.  It will come up some, but it's still gonna be bad.  And if they wind up with an SOS ranking of 200+ and zero results against ranked opponents...who knows.  They probably don't get left out.  Probably...but the committee has favored and rewarded strong schedules recently (UWP last year...paying extra to reward HSU's season also last year).  I think it's very likely that 10-0 CWRU goes in as an at-large.  I don't know if it's automatic at this point.  Their profile beyond win% is really not good. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 16, 2017, 12:34:36 pm
I don't know how much control they have over their SOS. Case's schedule is backloaded, and they played Chicago, a traditional rival, in non-conference. Chicago's profile was no doubt better in the SAA than the MWC.

With Case's last three games, they could be 7-3 and then it would all be moot - like last year when they lost their last game to C-M.

Wasn't Centre's profile mediocre when they went 10-0?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 16, 2017, 12:40:38 pm
If both W&J and Case go 10-0, it looks like the tie-breaker would be "3) strength of conference wins (conference winning percentage of teams you beat in 8 PAC games" (http://www.pacathletics.org/sports/2012/9/24/pacsportsrulesregs1.aspx?id=29&#football #14)

It seems Case might be on the bubble of an at-large bid due to SOS, but what if Case gets the auto bid and leaves W&J for the pool C?  SJF isn't helping W&J's SOS at all.  I'm wondering who would be in more trouble as the Pool C candidate, Case or W&J?

a weird upset here or there and there might be some big time names sitting at home for the playoffs
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2017, 12:45:24 pm
About the paucity of Pool C bids, I posted this on the Pool B board a few days ago.

If Springfield loses, for sure.  Hardin-Simmons may well be selected before Springfield even if Springfield gets to 10-0 and Springfield would wind up going in via Pool C as Centre did a few years ago.
Wally, I am glad to hear your assessment. I did not want to sound like a "homer" on that point.

I would love to see HSU versus Springfield, even if it meant flying the Cowboys to Massachusetts!

A Pool B bid for HSU would take care of worthy team

Pool C for undefeated Springfield would seal up the East Region for a Pool C bid, and then throw the remaining 4 Pool C bids back to the selection committee.

Back in 2005, we had the Division IV Discussion when about 100 schools wanted to pull out.

If we had D-IV and a bid-to-access ratio of 1:6.5 for football, like we do for Hoops and Baseball, then we might have about a 12-team playoff for D-IV*** and its 80 schools and about a 26-team playoff of the remaining 170 schools in D-3.  Those extra 6 bids would alleviate the log jam that we have with the #2 and #3 and #4 contenders for Pool C in the Regional Rankings.



***Perhaps the NESCAC might participate with institutions of like minded mission / vision. There would less conflict with final exams.

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 16, 2017, 01:26:43 pm
If both W&J and Case go 10-0, it looks like the tie-breaker would be "3) strength of conference wins (conference winning percentage of teams you beat in 8 PAC games" (http://www.pacathletics.org/sports/2012/9/24/pacsportsrulesregs1.aspx?id=29&#football #14)

This is actually a good point and I hadn't considered that CWRU might get the league's Pool A bid.  With Thomas More losing a lot of games, this isn't as cut and dry as it was last year.  A quick glance looks like it comes down to whether or not Grove City finishes with a better record than Thomas More.  Still probably Thomas More which means CWRU still loses that tiebreak, but there's still work to do for Thomas More and Grove City before we can say that definitively. 

Wasn't Centre's profile mediocre when they went 10-0?

Yes it was, and Centre was also not selected at all in the Pool B (2 bids in 2014) and probably not until one of the last 2-3 picks in Pool C (6 bids in 2014).  That was a product of the regional rankings...same South region that CWRU is in now.  If the South RAC spits on that SOS and keeps CWRU ranked behind an ASC runner up, maybe an SAA runner up, maybe a CC runner up...CWRU could definitely not be safe. 

I did a projection the week before the 2014 selections were made that had Centre out.  They were out because they were ranked too low to ever get to the table.  They were never even considered in that mock selection.  Ultimately, Centre did go in and everything kind of worked out the way we thought it should, but the scenario where a 10-0 team with an extremely poor profile doesn't get in is plausible. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 16, 2017, 01:56:40 pm
If both W&J and Case go 10-0, it looks like the tie-breaker would be "3) strength of conference wins (conference winning percentage of teams you beat in 8 PAC games" (http://www.pacathletics.org/sports/2012/9/24/pacsportsrulesregs1.aspx?id=29&#football #14)

This is actually a good point and I hadn't considered that CWRU might get the league's Pool A bid.  With Thomas More losing a lot of games, this isn't as cut and dry as it was last year.  A quick glance looks like it comes down to whether or not Grove City finishes with a better record than Thomas More.  Still probably Thomas More which means CWRU still loses that tiebreak, but there's still work to do for Thomas More and Grove City before we can say that definitively. 

Wasn't Centre's profile mediocre when they went 10-0?

Yes it was, and Centre was also not selected at all in the Pool B (2 bids in 2014) and probably not until one of the last 2-3 picks in Pool C (6 bids in 2014).  That was a product of the regional rankings...same South region that CWRU is in now.  If the South RAC spits on that SOS and keeps CWRU ranked behind an ASC runner up, maybe an SAA runner up, maybe a CC runner up...CWRU could definitely not be safe. 

I did a projection the week before the 2014 selections were made that had Centre out.  They were out because they were ranked too low to ever get to the table.  They were never even considered in that mock selection.  Ultimately, Centre did go in and everything kind of worked out the way we thought it should, but the scenario where a 10-0 team with an extremely poor profile doesn't get in is plausible.

If it's basically Grove City vs Thomas Moore to determine the PAC Pool A, then it sort of looks like W&J has the advantage since TM beat GC.    Stranger things have happened I guess
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 16, 2017, 05:34:57 pm
if two PAC teams go 10-0, do we basically go down to four Pool C bids?

No, thereís still 5 Pool C bids.

Yeah - one team in the PAC gets the AQ, the other enters the Pool C fray for the 5 bids. Not that an undefeated team wouldn't make the tournament, but I don't think there is a rubber stamp, either.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 18, 2017, 03:33:33 am
Not really Pool C but no playoff thread to discuss it in yet.

Based on possible playoff teams... could it be possible to have a bracket with the SCIAC champ at UMHB, somebody (Plymouth St if they get in?) vs Husson... then NWC champ vs Hardin-Simmons, Huntingdon @ Berry and thus avoid a potential Texas rematch (or UMHB/Linfield rematch) until round 3? Two flights round 1, two flights round 2 and you group all the isolated teams who would likely need flights anyway in one bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 18, 2017, 09:14:34 am
The committee chair this year is the associate AD at UMHB, so if she can't make sure that an ASC rematch doesn't happen in Round 1, then it really isn't possible. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on October 18, 2017, 09:26:25 am
Wally, when you eliminate JCU on this list this week, will you make them a deeper shade of red than everyone else? I want to over dramatically emphasize how much they've disappointed me this year lol!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 18, 2017, 12:51:20 pm
The committee chair this year is the associate AD at UMHB, so if she can't make sure that an ASC rematch doesn't happen in Round 1, then it really isn't possible.

Technically she won't be able to take part in a conversation regarding her "team." On men's basketball committee, they still make sure everyone is involved. On the women's basketball committee in the past, they have actually removed people completely from the call. I like the men's plan, but it would still require the chair from staying out of conversations regarding her school.

The only chance the NCAA keeps the Texas schools from playing one another is if they suddenly decide to spend more money. Not saying that isn't possible. We have seen hints in the last year of more spending for common-sense things, but this one is a bit tougher considering every flight in football requires a charter flight - not commercial flights like a lot of other sports.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 18, 2017, 12:58:39 pm
That's interesting, Dave.  Considering where UMHB is likely to end up at the end of the regular season, are you saying that the committee chair has to sit out during the Pool B conversation (for at least one round) and then also sit out when they are bracketing?  And then where is that line- does she have to sit out just while they determine the first round matchup?  The pod?  The whole region?

Berry's HC is also on the committee.  Could you have a scenario where 25% of your committee has to sit out for 25% of the bracketing process?  Maybe?  That seems excessive to me though.     
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 18, 2017, 01:11:12 pm
That's interesting, Dave.  Considering where UMHB is likely to end up at the end of the regular season, are you saying that the committee chair has to sit out during the Pool B conversation (for at least one round) and then also sit out when they are bracketing?  And then where is that line- does she have to sit out just while they determine the first round matchup?  The pod?  The whole region?

Berry's HC is also on the committee.  Could you have a scenario where 25% of your committee has to sit out for 25% of the bracketing process?  Maybe?  That seems excessive to me though.   

This depends on the committee (though, I wish it was more of a rule). Let me walk it through:\

- For picks, those who have direct connections to the school (coach or admin) must remove themselves from the call. Some mute the call and listen, some hang up, I have heard lots of versions. They can not take part as long as their institution is "at the table." Once that is taken care of, they can return to the call. There has been some inconsistencies in what I am told, but it appears the more common tactic is to have another committee member from that respective RAC step in for that individual who has stepped off the call. However, I know that to not always be the case. I can't speak for football as I have not dived into the football committee's habits or even if they have changed.

- Bracketing: the men's basketball committee has told me on several occasions that those who have direct connections to schools in the tournament still remain involved, but away from their own institution. They may work on another section of the bracket or on other details. They cannot participate when it comes directly to their institution especially in the early rounds. Now, the women's basketball committee has told me that they remove those direct connections completely from the process and not have them involved at all. We had a case a few years ago where that basically left three or four people working on the brackets because four or five of the committee members had teams in the tournament. I told them that made less sense and did hint that having them work elsewhere only made sense. I got a hint that maybe that is something they are considering moving forward (it wasn't a major factor last year).

So in this case, she cannot be involved with UMHB's selection at all, though we know it will be taken care of anyway so her time away from the phone will be fairly brief. As for bracketing, it depends what football has for their own policy, but she will at the very least have nothing to do with UMHB's bracketing and other decisions. She can work on other things if involved.

Also keep in mind that more and more committees, men's basketball in particular, are starting to do the selection and bracketing process weeks in advance. They go through dummy scenarios and start compiling things well in advance. I have not said this before, but I know the men's basketball committee basically had a few mock brackets ready before Selection Sunday. They just had to figure out a few oddities or up-in-the-air scenarios before moving forward. Keep in mind, the committee chair had a team in the tournament due to an AQ last year. Football may have some of these items taken care of well before anyone has to step off a call.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 18, 2017, 01:52:45 pm
Interesting.

Could the NCAA accept a gift paying for flights? If someone wanted to pony up money for two additional charter flights, could the NCAA accept that?

(Don't look at me, I work in non-profit fundraising - I don't actually HAVE that kid of scratch...)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 18, 2017, 02:00:50 pm
Interesting.

Could the NCAA accept a gift paying for flights? If someone wanted to pony up money for two additional charter flights, could the NCAA accept that?

(Don't look at me, I work in non-profit fundraising - I don't actually HAVE that kid of scratch...)

I am quite sure that isn't allowed. It would open a Pandora's Box of problems that I am sure would include Title IX. They have an operating budget that they work under.

Everyone is able to see the information (fact sheet is always the easiest: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIII_FactsandFigures_20170919.pdf) and I always check it out on a yearly basis.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 18, 2017, 02:12:20 pm
Interesting.

Could the NCAA accept a gift paying for flights? If someone wanted to pony up money for two additional charter flights, could the NCAA accept that?

(Don't look at me, I work in non-profit fundraising - I don't actually HAVE that kid of scratch...)

If you do know those potential funders, send them my way instead.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 18, 2017, 02:23:59 pm
Also keep in mind that more and more committees, men's basketball in particular, are starting to do the selection and bracketing process weeks in advance. They go through dummy scenarios and start compiling things well in advance. I have not said this before, but I know the men's basketball committee basically had a few mock brackets ready before Selection Sunday. They just had to figure out a few oddities or up-in-the-air scenarios before moving forward. Keep in mind, the committee chair had a team in the tournament due to an AQ last year. Football may have some of these items taken care of well before anyone has to step off a call.

I hope that helps.

This is fantastic policy and I hope committees are doing it increasingly.  I think doing mock brackets can only serve to help the committee build balanced brackets as best they can given geography and budget constraints.  The more you do it, the more outside-the-box kinds of things you can find that can produce better brackets than what you'd get doing it under the gun at who-knows-when on Selection Sunday eve.  I like it.  I hope this is a thing.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 18, 2017, 02:40:00 pm
Also keep in mind that more and more committees, men's basketball in particular, are starting to do the selection and bracketing process weeks in advance. They go through dummy scenarios and start compiling things well in advance. I have not said this before, but I know the men's basketball committee basically had a few mock brackets ready before Selection Sunday. They just had to figure out a few oddities or up-in-the-air scenarios before moving forward. Keep in mind, the committee chair had a team in the tournament due to an AQ last year. Football may have some of these items taken care of well before anyone has to step off a call.

I hope that helps.

This is fantastic policy and I hope committees are doing it increasingly.  I think doing mock brackets can only serve to help the committee build balanced brackets as best they can given geography and budget constraints.  The more you do it, the more outside-the-box kinds of things you can find that can produce better brackets than what you'd get doing it under the gun at who-knows-when on Selection Sunday eve.  I like it.  I hope this is a thing.

Men's basketball has been doing this for several years now... working weeks in advance on "what ifs." I do have a feeling maybe last year it became a bit more of a solo effort, but I can't really say for sure. If so, it went maybe a little too far, but these individuals in basketball have had such a desire to get this stuff right that sometimes they may try too hard. :)

I am not sure if it is the norm everywhere, but I do get a sense the committee was encouraged to do it. However, their liaison has left the NCAA and I couldn't even guess what the new liaison may say.

I agree that I think it should happen more often. I know the committee chairs meet every September, but I have found it pretty surprising how often committees don't compare notes (despite what they may say publicly). The fact the men's and women's basketball committees don't work in a more similar manner surprises me. Men's committee has started midday and done by mid-evening the last few years. Women start the same time, but aren't done until well into the night. I just figure some of these things are obvious. That all said, men's lacrosse is so far off the reservation that it constantly reminds me that sometimes the culture and atmosphere allowed in the sport keeps it from changing. That mentality by a lot of sports is what kept the final regional rankings from being released for many years. Finally the NCAA stepped in and ended that nonsense.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 18, 2017, 09:07:47 pm
Updated elimination table through Week 7:

(https://i.imgur.com/57u3MBS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MGbbySz.png)
click to enlarge

Changes this week:
- Newly eliminated teams have their names illuminated in white.  We lost 18 teams this week, leaving 94 still alive. 
- Grayed out Alfred State, Bellhaven, and Dean as they are also not eligible per the handbook. 
- Fun with fonts!  This week is papyrus. Why?  Because that SNL skit makes me laugh.   
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 19, 2017, 01:22:28 pm
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/papyrus-snl.jpg)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 24, 2017, 08:59:54 pm
Updated elimination table through Week 8:

(https://i.imgur.com/CX8QdFD.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4YpeKg.png)
click to enlarge

Changes this week:
- Newly eliminated teams have their names illuminated in white.  20 more teams are out.  73 teams remain (yes, there was a maths error last week). 
- Took Franklin off the board because if they don't qualify automatically, they'll have lost too many games to be viable. 
- Macalester (already a long shot) is out- they'll need to win the MWC championship to get in.  And if they don't, they'll have too many losses. 
- We've reached the point in the season where the UMACs are all out.  St. Scholastica and MacMurray are on track to decide the AQ.  Any losses by any non-AQ team here is too many.  So we can call the UMAC a one-bid league for sure at this point.
- Huntingdon has a two game lead in the USAC.  Losing that AQ will require multiple losses, which is too many for an at-large bid. 
- Albright in the MAC has just two losses, but there's not really a path for them at this point.  They'll have no quality wins and an SOS that is about to plummet.  They needed to beat Stevenson to stay viable, and didn't. 
- Fun with fonts!  Classed things up with Didot this week.   

Stay tuned...later this week I'll get out my first full at-large projection of 2017.  Hopefully tomorrow. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on October 25, 2017, 09:19:47 am
Updated elimination table through Week 8:

(https://i.imgur.com/CX8QdFD.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4YpeKg.png)
click to enlarge

Changes this week:
- Newly eliminated teams have their names illuminated in white.  20 more teams are out.  73 teams remain (yes, there was a maths error last week). 
- Took Franklin off the board because if they don't qualify automatically, they'll have lost too many games to be viable. 
- Macalester (already a long shot) is out- they'll need to win the MWC championship to get in.  And if they don't, they'll have too many losses. 
- We've reached the point in the season where the UMACs are all out.  St. Scholastica and MacMurray are on track to decide the AQ.  Any losses by any non-AQ team here is too many.  So we can call the UMAC a one-bid league for sure at this point.
- Huntingdon has a two game lead in the USAC.  Losing that AQ will require multiple losses, which is too many for an at-large bid. 
- Albright in the MAC has just two losses, but there's not really a path for them at this point.  They'll have no quality wins and an SOS that is about to plummet.  They needed to beat Stevenson to stay viable, and didn't. 
- Fun with fonts!  Classed things up with Didot this week.   

Stay tuned...later this week I'll get out my first full at-large projection of 2017.  Hopefully tomorrow.

Even though one of those losses is to a DI team? I'm not questioning it so much as I don't know what standard procedure is in a case like this!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 09:35:26 am
Changes this week:
- Newly eliminated teams have their names illuminated in white.  20 more teams are out.  73 teams remain (yes, there was a maths error last week). 
- Took Franklin off the board because if they don't qualify automatically, they'll have lost too many games to be viable. 
- Macalester (already a long shot) is out- they'll need to win the MWC championship to get in.  And if they don't, they'll have too many losses. 
- We've reached the point in the season where the UMACs are all out.  St. Scholastica and MacMurray are on track to decide the AQ.  Any losses by any non-AQ team here is too many.  So we can call the UMAC a one-bid league for sure at this point.
- Huntingdon has a two game lead in the USAC.  Losing that AQ will require multiple losses, which is too many for an at-large bid. 
- Albright in the MAC has just two losses, but there's not really a path for them at this point.  They'll have no quality wins and an SOS that is about to plummet.  They needed to beat Stevenson to stay viable, and didn't. 
- Fun with fonts!  Classed things up with Didot this week.   

Stay tuned...later this week I'll get out my first full at-large projection of 2017.  Hopefully tomorrow.

Even though one of those losses is to a DI team? I'm not questioning it so much as I don't know what standard procedure is in a case like this!
Per the criteria, Franklin would have just two D-III losses- so you're right about Franklin not being eliminated here based on having sustained three in-division losses.  However, for Franklin to wind up in the at-large pool at this point would require them to lose a game to MSJ, Anderson, or Hanover- any of which I think are disqualifying losses at this point in the season.  Franklin's SOS is also not very good (0.450, 194th ranked) and it will actually get worse before the season ends.  The Grizzlies won't have any RRO results (probably...outside chance RHIT could wind up ranked), and that game against Butler really doesn't help them at all because it was pretty noncompetitive- even then, non-divisional games are secondary criteria.  I don't see a reasonable way for Franklin to take a loss during the rankings period (starting this Saturday!) and wind up high enough in the regional rankings to be selected-  or really be ranked at all, if we're being honest. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on October 25, 2017, 09:38:22 am
Changes this week:
- Newly eliminated teams have their names illuminated in white.  20 more teams are out.  73 teams remain (yes, there was a maths error last week). 
- Took Franklin off the board because if they don't qualify automatically, they'll have lost too many games to be viable. 
- Macalester (already a long shot) is out- they'll need to win the MWC championship to get in.  And if they don't, they'll have too many losses. 
- We've reached the point in the season where the UMACs are all out.  St. Scholastica and MacMurray are on track to decide the AQ.  Any losses by any non-AQ team here is too many.  So we can call the UMAC a one-bid league for sure at this point.
- Huntingdon has a two game lead in the USAC.  Losing that AQ will require multiple losses, which is too many for an at-large bid. 
- Albright in the MAC has just two losses, but there's not really a path for them at this point.  They'll have no quality wins and an SOS that is about to plummet.  They needed to beat Stevenson to stay viable, and didn't. 
- Fun with fonts!  Classed things up with Didot this week.   

Stay tuned...later this week I'll get out my first full at-large projection of 2017.  Hopefully tomorrow.

Even though one of those losses is to a DI team? I'm not questioning it so much as I don't know what standard procedure is in a case like this!
Per the criteria, Franklin would have just two D-III losses- so you're right about Franklin not being eliminated here based on having sustained three in-division losses.  However, for Franklin to wind up in the at-large pool at this point would require them to lose a game to MSJ, Anderson, or Hanover- any of which I think are disqualifying losses at this point in the season.  Franklin's SOS is also not very good (0.450, 194th ranked) and it will actually get worse before the season ends.  The Grizzlies won't have any RRO results (probably...outside chance RHIT could wind up ranked), and that game against Butler really doesn't help them at all because it was pretty noncompetitive- even then, non-divisional games are secondary criteria.  I don't see a reasonable way for Franklin to take a loss during the rankings period (starting this Saturday!) and wind up high enough in the regional rankings to be selected-  or really be ranked at all, if we're being honest.

Makes sense! Thanks for clarifying!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 25, 2017, 11:43:59 am
Franklin would have to lose two of their last three to be in pool C. One loss would still tie for the title and they have the tiebreaker.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wesleydad on October 25, 2017, 11:46:42 am
Updated elimination table through Week 8:

(https://i.imgur.com/CX8QdFD.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4YpeKg.png)
click to enlarge

Changes this week:
- Newly eliminated teams have their names illuminated in white.  20 more teams are out.  73 teams remain (yes, there was a maths error last week). 
- Took Franklin off the board because if they don't qualify automatically, they'll have lost too many games to be viable. 
- Macalester (already a long shot) is out- they'll need to win the MWC championship to get in.  And if they don't, they'll have too many losses. 
- We've reached the point in the season where the UMACs are all out.  St. Scholastica and MacMurray are on track to decide the AQ.  Any losses by any non-AQ team here is too many.  So we can call the UMAC a one-bid league for sure at this point.
- Huntingdon has a two game lead in the USAC.  Losing that AQ will require multiple losses, which is too many for an at-large bid. 
- Albright in the MAC has just two losses, but there's not really a path for them at this point.  They'll have no quality wins and an SOS that is about to plummet.  They needed to beat Stevenson to stay viable, and didn't. 
- Fun with fonts!  Classed things up with Didot this week.   

Stay tuned...later this week I'll get out my first full at-large projection of 2017.  Hopefully tomorrow.

Wally, thanks for doing this.  Gives me something to read during lunch.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 12:15:11 pm
Key at-large games to watch for this weekend:
UW-Lax @ UW-Platteville
Wittenberg @ Wabash
WashU @ CWRU
Dubuque @ Wartburg
Johns Hopkins @ Muhlenberg
Salve Regina @ Western New England
Marietta @ Ohio Northern
Hendrix @ Trinity
Millikin @ Carthage
Monmouth @ Lake Forest
Cal Lutheran @ Chapman
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on October 25, 2017, 01:13:53 pm
Wally - Now that GFU and Linfield played with the Cats winning a wet, windy game 12-6 do you think it is better for Fox's playoff hopes if Linfield wins out versus going losing a game.  I believe that the way that the NWC works is that the conference winner of the auto bid in the event of a tie is the head to result.

Linfield at 9-1 with the auto bid.  GFU at 8-2 with two losses and I'd guess a fairly high regional ranking.

Versus Linfield at 8-2 with the auto bid and GFU at 8-2 looking for a Pool C.

Just curious and really appreciate all the work that you put into this!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: AO on October 25, 2017, 01:39:18 pm

- We've reached the point in the season where the UMACs are all out.  St. Scholastica and MacMurray are on track to decide the AQ.  Any losses by any non-AQ team here is too many.  So we can call the UMAC a one-bid league for sure at this point.
This can't be right, check your facts Wally.  We're a 3 bid league.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 01:41:23 pm
Wally - Now that GFU and Linfield played with the Cats winning a wet, windy game 12-6 do you think it is better for Fox's playoff hopes if Linfield wins out versus going losing a game.  I believe that the way that the NWC works is that the conference winner of the auto bid in the event of a tie is the head to result.

Linfield at 9-1 with the auto bid.  GFU at 8-2 with two losses and I'd guess a fairly high regional ranking.

Versus Linfield at 8-2 with the auto bid and GFU at 8-2 looking for a Pool C.

Just curious and really appreciate all the work that you put into this!

Yeah, the better Linfield finishes, the better it will be for George Fox's at-large chances.  A tight RRO loss against West #3/4 would sound better during an at large discussion than would a close loss to West #7/8. 

George Fox does have a tough road to hoe here though.  The West region is deep, Whitewater is out there potentially jamming everything up (GFU also really, really needs Platteville to beat Whitewater, btw.  Probably more important than whatever Linfield does, actually).  I think 8-2 is a tough spot for George Fox- they're among the top candidates with two losses for sure, but I don't know yet if there's going to be a lot of room for two-loss at-large teams this year. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 25, 2017, 01:45:32 pm
I think GF will have a tough board. UW-Platteville could be there with one loss if they beat Whitewater. If not, they'll have two losses and a better SOS. There also will be a one-loss team from the MIAC and a strong two loss team. The West is a beast to get a Pool C normally, but this year it seems extraordinarily crowded with quality teams.

Potential RRs:

1. Oshkosh
2. St. Thomas
3. Platteville (with one loss)
4. Linfield (SOS will decrease)
5. Wartburg (SOS will decrease)
6. St. John's / C-M / G-Fox (if St. John's wins out, I think...think they'll have a better SOS than GFox, who will decrease...)
7. George Fox / C-M (This will be interesting...)
....

Fox could be third on the board in the west, and with five C's...well that'll be tough with Hardin-Simmons, F-M, Platteville, St. Johns, Ill. Wesleyan or Millikin, CWRU (if undefeated, which will be a big test much like Centre a few years ago...)

Wally can drill holes through this, but for any West Pool C contender, don't lose again, period.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 25, 2017, 01:46:50 pm
This is a year where instead of the ECAC bowls, we should have the D3 Non Playoff Bowls...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 25, 2017, 01:48:11 pm
Wally - Now that GFU and Linfield played with the Cats winning a wet, windy game 12-6 do you think it is better for Fox's playoff hopes if Linfield wins out versus going losing a game.  I believe that the way that the NWC works is that the conference winner of the auto bid in the event of a tie is the head to result.

Linfield at 9-1 with the auto bid.  GFU at 8-2 with two losses and I'd guess a fairly high regional ranking.

Versus Linfield at 8-2 with the auto bid and GFU at 8-2 looking for a Pool C.

Just curious and really appreciate all the work that you put into this!

Yeah, the better Linfield finishes, the better it will be for George Fox's at-large chances.  A tight RRO loss against West #3/4 would sound better during an at large discussion than would a close loss to West #7/8. 

George Fox does have a tough road to hoe here though.  The West region is deep, Whitewater is out there potentially jamming everything up(GFU also really, really needs Platteville to beat Whitewater, btw .  Probably more important than whatever Linfield does, actually).  I think 8-2 is a tough spot for George Fox- they're among the top candidates with two losses for sure, but I don't know yet if there's going to be a lot of room for two-loss at-large teams this year.
explain this.  Are you saying a 3 loss Whitewater team has a shot at pool C over a 2 loss team (such as GFU)?  I understand how the process works but a 3 loss pool C team hasn't happened, right?    Or is it just that Whitewater beating Platteville then creates a logjam of sorts ( 2 loss Platteville Beat 2 loss Fox But  3 loss Whitewater beat Platteville so which team is the best of the 3)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 01:54:48 pm
This is a year where instead of the ECAC bowls, we should have the D3 Non Playoff Bowls...

Or in the case of more and more conferences... what you describe since they are skipping the ECAC bowls. :)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 02:05:08 pm
Wally - Now that GFU and Linfield played with the Cats winning a wet, windy game 12-6 do you think it is better for Fox's playoff hopes if Linfield wins out versus going losing a game.  I believe that the way that the NWC works is that the conference winner of the auto bid in the event of a tie is the head to result.

Linfield at 9-1 with the auto bid.  GFU at 8-2 with two losses and I'd guess a fairly high regional ranking.

Versus Linfield at 8-2 with the auto bid and GFU at 8-2 looking for a Pool C.

Just curious and really appreciate all the work that you put into this!

Yeah, the better Linfield finishes, the better it will be for George Fox's at-large chances.  A tight RRO loss against West #3/4 would sound better during an at large discussion than would a close loss to West #7/8. 

George Fox does have a tough road to hoe here though.  The West region is deep, Whitewater is out there potentially jamming everything up(GFU also really, really needs Platteville to beat Whitewater, btw .  Probably more important than whatever Linfield does, actually).  I think 8-2 is a tough spot for George Fox- they're among the top candidates with two losses for sure, but I don't know yet if there's going to be a lot of room for two-loss at-large teams this year.
explain this.  Are you saying a 3 loss Whitewater team has a shot at pool C over a 2 loss team (such as GFU)?  I understand how the process works but a 3 loss pool C team hasn't happened, right?    Or is it just that Whitewater beating Platteville then creates a logjam of sorts ( 2 loss Platteville Beat 2 loss Fox But  3 loss Whitewater beat Platteville so which team is the best of the 3)

I think you are onto something.  UWW can't win the national title, but they can really mess up the postseason if they win out.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 02:52:58 pm
Wally - Now that GFU and Linfield played with the Cats winning a wet, windy game 12-6 do you think it is better for Fox's playoff hopes if Linfield wins out versus going losing a game.  I believe that the way that the NWC works is that the conference winner of the auto bid in the event of a tie is the head to result.

Linfield at 9-1 with the auto bid.  GFU at 8-2 with two losses and I'd guess a fairly high regional ranking.

Versus Linfield at 8-2 with the auto bid and GFU at 8-2 looking for a Pool C.

Just curious and really appreciate all the work that you put into this!

Yeah, the better Linfield finishes, the better it will be for George Fox's at-large chances.  A tight RRO loss against West #3/4 would sound better during an at large discussion than would a close loss to West #7/8. 

George Fox does have a tough road to hoe here though.  The West region is deep, Whitewater is out there potentially jamming everything up(GFU also really, really needs Platteville to beat Whitewater, btw .  Probably more important than whatever Linfield does, actually).  I think 8-2 is a tough spot for George Fox- they're among the top candidates with two losses for sure, but I don't know yet if there's going to be a lot of room for two-loss at-large teams this year.
explain this.  Are you saying a 3 loss Whitewater team has a shot at pool C over a 2 loss team (such as GFU)?  I understand how the process works but a 3 loss pool C team hasn't happened, right?    Or is it just that Whitewater beating Platteville then creates a logjam of sorts ( 2 loss Platteville Beat 2 loss Fox But  3 loss Whitewater beat Platteville so which team is the best of the 3)

Consider the scenario where Whitewater beats Platteville.  They'd end up with a 0.700 win percentage vs. Platteville's 0.800.  Advantage Platteville.  But then, I think Whitewater would also wind up being 1-3 vs. RROs which is a crazy amount of ranked results to have (results that, btw, are not at all ugly), maybe the #1 ranked SOS, and- here's the hammer- a fresh h2h win over Platteville.  Mix it all together and you could certainly have a scenario where UWW could and should be ranked ahead of UWP.  UWW has zero chance of being selected to the national tournament with three losses.  But they could wind up ranked higher than Platteville and basically serve as an at-large blocker for the rest of the region below the MIAC runner up. 

How does that domino to George Fox?  I think George Fox has to be anchored behind UWP based on the h2h.  I'm trying to see a way around that necessarily being the order, but I don't see anything in the portfolios of GFU or UWP that should trump that h2h result.  The SOS gap between the two is going to widen.  GFU has no more opportunities for a quality win.  GFU just kind of has to be ranked behind UWP if they end with the same record. 

Whitewater winning the rest of their games could really ruin a lot of things for a lot of teams in the west.  Of course the West committee could avoid that problem completely by ranking Whitewater lower than all of those teams based strictly on win percentage- the smart thing to do if they're actively trying to game the system and secure bids for their region.  And it wouldn't even be that fishy- but there are certainly valid reasons to rank 7-3 Whitewater ahead of 8-2 Platteville (and thus, 8-2 George Fox) as well.  Next week's regional rankings will be interesting. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:02:26 pm
Are you trying to say that the NCAA would make things easier on themselves and screw a member school rather than do the right thing?  I can't believe it
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 25, 2017, 03:05:27 pm
So basically, Whitewater winning could put a cork in the West Region's Pool C chances....
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 03:09:59 pm
Are you trying to say that the NCAA would make things easier on themselves and screw a member school rather than do the right thing?  I can't believe it

I think I'm confused by this.  Which school is getting screwed-  GFU or UWW?

So basically, Whitewater winning could put a cork in the West Region's Pool C chances....

Yes, exactly.  Although in this current year, any of the 8-2 teams are really in a tough spot no matter what.  Whitewater winding up ranked ahead of the 8-2 teams in the West would remove any slim chances those teams might have had. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:14:11 pm
Are you trying to say that the NCAA would make things easier on themselves and screw a member school rather than do the right thing?  I can't believe it

I think I'm confused by this.  Which school is getting screwed-  GFU or UWW?


I thought you said that instead of ranking 7-3 UWW ahead of UWP and the rest, and effectively blocking the West, that the NCAA could rank UWP/GFU ahead of UWW and "game the system"
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 03:18:29 pm
Are you trying to say that the NCAA would make things easier on themselves and screw a member school rather than do the right thing?  I can't believe it

I think I'm confused by this.  Which school is getting screwed-  GFU or UWW?


I thought you said that instead of ranking 7-3 UWW ahead of UWP and the rest, and effectively blocking the West, that the NCAA could rank UWP/GFU ahead of UWW and "game the system"

Remember, those who initially rank the region is the regional committee and there is an argument that they are to do what is best for their region especially to position teams for at-large bids. That said, the final rankings are up to the national committee who can make whatever changes they want to keep things as universal across all regions as possible. The "NCAA" has nothing to do with it outside of these two committees. Decisions on travel and match-ups also play no role. It can sometimes be easy to blame the "NCAA" on things we don't like but these committees are made up of individuals from members schools. They make the decisions based on rules created by member institutions through convention vote or committees made up of members schools.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:24:13 pm
Are you trying to say that the NCAA would make things easier on themselves and screw a member school rather than do the right thing?  I can't believe it

I think I'm confused by this.  Which school is getting screwed-  GFU or UWW?


I thought you said that instead of ranking 7-3 UWW ahead of UWP and the rest, and effectively blocking the West, that the NCAA could rank UWP/GFU ahead of UWW and "game the system"

Remember, those who initially rank the region is the regional committee and there is an argument that they are to do what is best for their region especially to position teams for at-large bids. That said, the final rankings are up to the national committee who can make whatever changes they want to keep things as universal across all regions as possible. The "NCAA" has nothing to do with it outside of these two committees. Decisions on travel and match-ups also play no role. It can sometimes be easy to blame the "NCAA" on things we don't like but these committees are made up of individuals from members schools. They make the decisions based on rules created by member institutions through convention vote or committees made up of members schools.

thanks for the explanation.  good stuff
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 03:24:46 pm
Are you trying to say that the NCAA would make things easier on themselves and screw a member school rather than do the right thing?  I can't believe it

I think I'm confused by this.  Which school is getting screwed-  GFU or UWW?


I thought you said that instead of ranking 7-3 UWW ahead of UWP and the rest, and effectively blocking the West, that the NCAA could rank UWP/GFU ahead of UWW and "game the system"

Got it.  That could totally happen.  And while it wouldn't be a thing that I agreed with or the way I apply the criteria, it's justifiable.   Iv'e seen less explainable things in these regional rankings.  The folks on the West committee could/should be aware enough to know that a 7-3 team won't get selected.  If that influences their ranking of Whitewater on Nov. 11, who knows. 

Probably also a good time to try and curb blanketing these regional advisory committees as "The NCAA".  These regional committees are made up of coaches, school, and conference administrators from schools in their respective regions.  Ranking these teams within the construct of the limited criteria they have is really hard.  They take the job seriously, they care, they work hard at it, and I think deserve respect- even when we disagree. 

If you're curious about who is actually on each of the regional committees, you can look them up on pages 9-11 of the championship handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIMFB_PreChampsManual_20170922.pdf).  Getting names and affiliations of the people involved I think helps to separate this activity from the larger "The NCAA", which is oftentimes worthy of all that shade.  But probably not these committees. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 25, 2017, 03:28:27 pm
I do think the MIAC runner up with one loss will make it, then if everyone has 2 losses you're going to hope the rankings are in the West's favor.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 03:31:18 pm
Probably also a good time to try and curb blanketing these regional advisory committees as "The NCAA".  These regional committees are made up of coaches, school, and conference administrators from schools in their respective regions.  Ranking these teams within the construct of the limited criteria they have is really hard.  They take the job seriously, they care, they work hard at it, and I think deserve respect- even when we disagree. 

If you're curious about who is actually on each of the regional committees, you can look them up on pages 9-11 of the championship handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIMFB_PreChampsManual_20170922.pdf).  Getting names and affiliations of the people involved I think helps to separate this activity from the larger "The NCAA", which is oftentimes worthy of all that shade.  But probably not these committees.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:40:03 pm
thanks Wally and Dave.  I thought there was a set criteria that each region had to use to rank their teams.  I had no idea that there was discretion within the regional ranking.  Thanks guys
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on October 25, 2017, 03:40:17 pm
It could be a very interesting problem. If Hardin-Simmons and UMHB win out, very likely, I think they both get in. If CWRU wins out, I think they get in. Leaving out an undefeated team just isn't a good precedent. That sews up 3 of 7? 5 C and 2 B. So you've got 4 left. MIAC runner up with 1 loss, NJAC runner up with 1 loss are probably locks. 5 of 7. You've now got 2 left. When you start to think of it this way, you realize just how slight the odds are of getting 2 loss teams in. You are going to have more than 2 one loss teams, probably more than 2 just from the South with F&M and Centre. You could get a 1 loss conference champion from the CCC in the mix, or if CMU beats CWRU you'd have a 1 loss PAC runner up. You could have a one loss NCAC or CCIW runner up.

It is very difficult to look at a 2 loss team, especially one that is going to be 0-2 RRO at best with a moderate SOS and start to think they have much more than a very thin chance of making the field. And that doesn't mention someone like Westminster (PA), who if they win out could be a 1-2 or 2-2 RRO PAC runner up with both losses to highly RROs like W&J and Witt and wins over possible RROs like CWRU or CMU.

Competition for those few spots is brutally tough.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:44:09 pm
are you including Springfield as a Pool B team?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on October 25, 2017, 03:47:17 pm
are you including Springfield as a Pool B team?

Springfield, HSU, and UMHB are all going for 2 Pool B spots with one of them ending up in C. If Springfield goes undefeated I think they and UMHB get the B's, HSU will get one of the first C spots off the table. Lot of variables, but only a few spots.

The whole point is a 2 loss team has almost no shot, regardless of whether UWW bottles up the West or not...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on October 25, 2017, 03:48:05 pm
What are the chances that there might be 3 MIAC teams in the field? I know it doesn't seem likely, but there could be a scenario where Whitewater wins out, CMU loses only to St. Johns, and finishes ahead of UWW by virtue of higher win percentage and H2H.
Needless to say, a Whitewater win over Platteville could both screw many teams over, and also be a lot of fun for outside observers!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 03:49:41 pm
thanks Wally and Dave.  I thought there was a set criteria that each region had to use to rank their teams.  I had no idea that there was discretion within the regional ranking.  Thanks guys

There is criteria and not much discretion... but a RAC's job is to "advise" the national committee on how they would rank their respective regions. The national committee is made up of the chair of each RAC (unless it's men's lacrosse; don't get me started). So they look at their region and the criteria and go over and over and over it all to come up with their choices. The national committee may agree and may disagree and ultimately has final say. There are at least five "votes," so they get good at this. The first one is a practice probably done this week (Tuesday). There are the three in-season rankings and then there is the final ranking after the regular season is over that the national committee ultimately uses to select teams. It isn't an easy job. Many, many hours are spent on this - also depending on the sport. Football is pretty hard when there is so much less data (i.e. less games) to dissect and break down when doing this.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 03:54:03 pm
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 03:59:50 pm
What are the chances that there might be 3 MIAC teams in the field? I know it doesn't seem likely, but there could be a scenario where Whitewater wins out, CMU loses only to St. Johns, and finishes ahead of UWW by virtue of higher win percentage and H2H.
Needless to say, a Whitewater win over Platteville could both screw many teams over, and also be a lot of fun for outside observers!

Good question.  The Cobbers should always stay ranked ahead of Whitewater (one more pecking order problem for George Fox, actually), and could well wind up as the second at-large team in the region (after St. John's in your scenario).  But then the Cobbers have kind of a middling SOS (all of the boost they get from St. John's is negated by Carleton).  It'll depend on who else is available to select at that point in the voting process.  If they're on the board with something like Wheaton, CWRU, and Frostburg...I don't like their chances.  I think the Johnnies/Cobbers loser needs a lot of teams around the country to drop games over the next three weeks. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 04:02:45 pm
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

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

I should also mention that if a rep has a direct tie to a school (coach or admin), they have to remove themselves when their institution is being discussed. Not the case in your example - conference affiliation does not count - but worth keeping in mind.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wm4 on October 25, 2017, 04:04:26 pm
Switching to the top side of the regional rankings...who will the 4th #1 seed be?  I'm booking UMU, UMHB and UWO as locks.  Does is go to Delaware Valley, truly out of the East, or does it go to UST, the next highest ranked team? 

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:07:08 pm
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

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

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

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


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

Thanks man
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:11:24 pm
Switching to the top side of the regional rankings...who will the 4th #1 seed be?  I'm booking UMU, UMHB and UWO as locks.  Does is go to Delaware Valley, truly out of the East, or does it go to UST, the next highest ranked team?

The committee doesn't use our rankings in its process.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on October 25, 2017, 04:12:47 pm
Switching to the top side of the regional rankings...who will the 4th #1 seed be?  I'm booking UMU, UMHB and UWO as locks.  Does is go to Delaware Valley, truly out of the East, or does it go to UST, the next highest ranked team?

The National Committee will decide. I have a hard time seeing UST with a loss getting a top seed over an undefeated Del Val. Del Val's SOS is already higher than St. Thomas and is likely to at least stay in this range with the last 2 teams cancelling each other out and this week's opponent around .500. St. Thomas's opponents are all around .500 now and unlikely to gain on that as they are not the top teams in the conference.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:14:06 pm
Switching to the top side of the regional rankings...who will the 4th #1 seed be?  I'm booking UMU, UMHB and UWO as locks.  Does is go to Delaware Valley, truly out of the East, or does it go to UST, the next highest ranked team?

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

are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:14:52 pm
are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?

You can't be serious with the first question, I hope.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 04:17:00 pm
Wally, do you make a prediction after the Regional Rankings come out?  The Berg killed me last week but this stuff is so intriguing

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

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

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

I'll try to answer this as well once I get through that projection tonight.  Del Val is in play, certainly.  As is Brockport.  UST might be in play.  Hardin-Simmons?  Nobody is talking about undefeated Wartburg who I think might be a sleeper here.  Maybe Platteville if they end 9-1.  Without doing any real comparative analysis with these teams yet, that fourth #1 is wide open at first glance.  Lots of justifiable ways to go. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:17:53 pm
are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?

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

I was trying to interpret your response to the question.  I guess we both agree on the order of those top three then
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 25, 2017, 04:20:57 pm
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

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

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

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


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

Thanks man

You are welcome, though I am confused by your first sentence. Granted, I stay out of the football details since I have to focus on basketball by that point in the year, but what in the world did Mount fans have to complain about last year?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:22:37 pm
are you saying that you don't think Mount, UMHB and UWO are locks as #1 seeds?  or just the 4th one seed?

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

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

I think you know what I believe the order to be. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:26:21 pm
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

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

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

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


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

Thanks man

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

Road game in the first rd against Hobart?  c'mon man.  It's all good though.  Last year's QB injuries have led to a better Raiders
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:27:48 pm
Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:31:35 pm
Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.

we can agree to disagree, but that was last year.  Let's move on to 2017
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 04:33:15 pm
Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.

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

You're the one who brought up 2016!  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: merlecanlas on October 25, 2017, 04:35:31 pm
Losing a regular-season game put Mount Union in that position. We projected Mount Union to get a gift from the committee and have a four-seed and a first-round home game, but a five-seed was very justifiable.

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

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

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

Wally, hit us with a playoff prediction
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wm4 on October 25, 2017, 04:43:57 pm
Switching to the top side of the regional rankings...who will the 4th #1 seed be?  I'm booking UMU, UMHB and UWO as locks.  Does is go to Delaware Valley, truly out of the East, or does it go to UST, the next highest ranked team?

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

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

Those 3 are locks, assuming they win out.  The committee does not use D3.com rankings for selecting or seeding the tourney.  When the bracket comes out, it'll be interesting to interpret who the 4th #1 seed is.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: AO on October 25, 2017, 04:50:25 pm
this is much more fun than the FBS model of four teams.  As a Mount fan, I'm pretty happy there is an OAC person co-chairing the North Region.  great job everyone!

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

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

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


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

Thanks man

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

Road game in the first rd against Hobart?  c'mon man.  It's all good though.  Last year's QB injuries have led to a better Raiders
Hobart finished 30th in the Massey ratings last year.  Would you rather have played Platteville?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 25, 2017, 06:36:58 pm
The fourth seed. Those three teams are the lockiest of locks for #1 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 25, 2017, 10:48:32 pm
We're doing this.  If you're new to this, I kind of do it stream of consciousness style when I get to the at-large stuff.  Right now, all I've got is a Pool A table (coming below) and the list of ranked teams with some primary criteria data in a table.  I'll compare those teams and write about it as I'm looking at it. 

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

Pool A
The projected 25 Pool A's as of this moment:
(https://i.imgur.com/pqrJntI.png)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And off we go. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last call.  I think St. John's is better and should be in this tournament and I also don't think they're going to leave an undefeated team out.  CWRU is my last team in, but my-oh-my.  That's not an easy choice. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Caz Bombers on October 25, 2017, 10:57:43 pm
+K to Wally Wabash for this awesome work.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on October 25, 2017, 11:34:56 pm
Nice work Wally. An interesting read.

What are the major results that will happen with the teams in question for Pool C between now and the final selection?
St John's faces Concordia-Moorhead. If they win that, it should give them another RRO (actually, either team gets a boost). I'd be very surprised to not see the #2 MIAC team make it, but I'm also a MIAC homer.
IWU still has Millikin on the schedule.
Case Western still has Carnegie Mellon (and a matchup against Westminster that could be tough).
Platteville still has Lacrosse and Whitewater.
Frostburg still has Salisbury.

Am I missing anything from the top options?

And then my next question is self-serving. Will DelVal or Brockport (or Wartburg I guess?) take the 4th #1 seed with home field until the semis or will my Tommies somehow end up with it despite the early loss and the reality that Top 25 criteria is different from NCAA selection criteria? Maybe if we get that quarterfinal game at home, we can keep the turnovers below 8 this year.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 25, 2017, 11:59:08 pm
I think a UW-Platteville that wins out would be more likely to get a top seed than St. Thomas -- UW-P at 9-1 with a win vs. UW-Stout, where UST lost to UW-Stout.

Linfield similarly would have a better SOS (and a better loss).

These were the things that went through my mind when I created the reader poll that's on the front page, offering Brockport, Del Val, Linfield, St. Thomas and UW-Platteville as candidates for that fourth spot. UST's SOS is at .506 and its final three opponents are all 4-3 or 3-4 currently, so it's not likely to move a lot.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on October 26, 2017, 12:02:03 am
I think a UW-Platteville that wins out would be more likely to get a top seed than St. Thomas -- UW-P at 9-1 with a win vs. UW-Stout, where UST lost to UW-Stout.

Linfield similarly would have a better SOS (and a better loss).

These were the things that went through my mind when I created the reader poll that's on the front page, offering Brockport, Del Val, Linfield, St. Thomas and UW-Platteville as candidates for that fourth spot. UST's SOS is at .506 and its final three opponents are all 4-3 or 3-4 currently, so it's not likely to move a lot.

Quit ruining my dreams of a 3rd round home game (if we make it to that). I'm more likely to go to a meaningful Linfield playoff game (visiting family in Oregon for Thanksgiving) than a meaningful St Thomas playoff game this year.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 26, 2017, 12:07:01 am
Right now, I think the choice would be Delaware Valley.  The Wesley pelt is quite nice. 

Pat is all over the Platteville thing, though.  If they get to 9-1, with that SOS they are a very attractive option. 

This is going to be a lot easier to sift through after next Wednesday's rankings and we aren't guessing about who will or won't be ranked. 

Maybe if we get that quarterfinal game at home, we can keep the turnovers below 8 this year.

This is a good game plan. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 26, 2017, 12:12:52 am
I think a UW-Platteville that wins out would be more likely to get a top seed than St. Thomas -- UW-P at 9-1 with a win vs. UW-Stout, where UST lost to UW-Stout.

Linfield similarly would have a better SOS (and a better loss).

These were the things that went through my mind when I created the reader poll that's on the front page, offering Brockport, Del Val, Linfield, St. Thomas and UW-Platteville as candidates for that fourth spot. UST's SOS is at .506 and its final three opponents are all 4-3 or 3-4 currently, so it's not likely to move a lot.

Quit ruining my dreams of a 3rd round home game (if we make it to that). I'm more likely to go to a meaningful Linfield playoff game (visiting family in Oregon for Thanksgiving) than a meaningful St Thomas playoff game this year.

Well, nothing says the top seed has to advance to the quarterfinals. This part of the bracket is pretty tough, usually.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 26, 2017, 10:22:56 am
A lot of stuff is going to change between now and Selection Sunday, but I do think this first pass through the at-large process highlights a couple of things. 
- I think it's easier to see where the in/out line is and how it's a bit different than maybe we thought.  St. John's: not in.  Teams like George Fox, Wheaton, any OAC runner up, a third WIAC team...not even on the table.  You could easily have placed St. John's in and left CWRU out.  An undefeated team out- you get the idea.  The amount of runway that at-large teams have to land here is very, very small. 
- The presence of undefeated teams with no RRO results and not good strengths of schedule create issues for more traditional Pool C conference runners up.  I'm having a tough time figuring out how to handle them...it'll be interesting to see how the committee handles these scenarios if Springfield and CWRU do run the table. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 26, 2017, 10:30:11 am
Fascinating stuff.  I love this time of year (enough information to project but still time for everything to get flipped on it's head!).  Thanks Wally (and others) for the projections and explanations. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Exiled_Noble99 on October 26, 2017, 01:29:54 pm
A lot of stuff is going to change between now and Selection Sunday, but I do think this first pass through the at-large process highlights a couple of things. 
- I think it's easier to see where the in/out line is and how it's a bit different than maybe we thought.  St. John's: not in.  Teams like George Fox, Wheaton, any OAC runner up, a third WIAC team...not even on the table.  You could easily have placed St. John's in and left CWRU out.  An undefeated team out- you get the idea.  The amount of runway that at-large teams have to land here is very, very small. 
- The presence of undefeated teams with no RRO results and not good strengths of schedule create issues for more traditional Pool C conference runners up.  I'm having a tough time figuring out how to handle them...it'll be interesting to see how the committee handles these scenarios if Springfield and CWRU do run the table.

Wally is there anyway Wooster gets a C bid if they win out? Suppose Wittenberg is undefeated that last game and Wooster beats them? Will that be enough for the committee to get them in, or will other teams have to drop off for that to be possible?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 26, 2017, 01:42:27 pm
Wally is there anyway Wooster gets a C bid if they win out? Suppose Wittenberg is undefeated that last game and Wooster beats them? Will that be enough for the committee to get them in, or will other teams have to drop off for that to be possible?

Wooster winning out nets Wooster wins over Denison and Wittenberg.  They've still got h2h losses against Wabash and DePauw that are really troublesome.  Without diving into the quagmire that would be this tiebreak scenario, Wooster's best chance to make the tournament would be:
- Wabash beats Wittenberg on Saturday
- DePauw beats Wabash
- Allegheny (or Kenyon) beats DePauw

That gets a mess of teams at 7-2 in the league and a tiebreak that Wooster might win- I don't know.  Wooster's long win streak in this scenario might be the thing that puts them over. 

SCRATCH THAT.  Shame on me. 

Better hypothetical:
- Wabash beats Wittenberg
- Allegheny beats Wabash
- Wabash beats DePauw

Same mess of teams at 7-2, Wabash wins the Monon Bell.  This is MUCH better.  But all of that happening is probably more likely than Wooster getting an at-large bid if expected results hold.  Their losses are h2h with teams that are probably going to stay ahead of them in the rankings, even if Wooster beats Witt in Week 11. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Exiled_Noble99 on October 26, 2017, 01:49:40 pm
Wally is there anyway Wooster gets a C bid if they win out? Suppose Wittenberg is undefeated that last game and Wooster beats them? Will that be enough for the committee to get them in, or will other teams have to drop off for that to be possible?

Wooster winning out nets Wooster wins over Denison and Wittenberg.  They've still got h2h losses against Wabash and DePauw that are really troublesome.  Without diving into the quagmire that would be this tiebreak scenario, Wooster's best chance to make the tournament would be:
- Wabash beats Wittenberg on Saturday
- DePauw beats Wabash
- Allegheny (or Kenyon) beats DePauw

That gets a mess of teams at 7-2 in the league and a tiebreak that Wooster might win- I don't know.  Wooster's long win streak in this scenario might be the thing that puts them over. 

SCRATCH THAT.  Shame on me. 

Better hypothetical:
- Wabash beats Wittenberg
- Allegheny beats Wabash
- Wabash beats DePauw

Same mess of teams at 7-2, Wabash wins the Monon Bell.  This is MUCH better.  But all of that happening is probably more likely than Wooster getting an at-large bid if expected results hold.  Their losses are h2h with teams that are probably going to stay ahead of them in the rankings, even if Wooster beats Witt in Week 11.

Would the committee take into the circumstances that may have caused that slump? Obviously a team tragedy may reduce a teams ability to play at its best level. I appreciate the opinion Wally, thank you.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 26, 2017, 02:03:26 pm
I think it would be impossible for the selection committee to justify overriding game results, even in the unfortunate circumstance that Wooster endured this season.  I think the results have to stand on their own, and two losses are going to be a tough thing for any team trying to get an at-large bid.  I do think Pool A is the more likely route for Wooster than Pool C.  The results that I outlined needing to happen are not outrageous.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Exiled_Noble99 on October 26, 2017, 02:07:34 pm
I think it would be impossible for the selection committee to justify overriding game results, even in the unfortunate circumstance that Wooster endured this season.  I think the results have to stand on their own, and two losses are going to be a tough thing for any team trying to get an at-large bid.  I do think Pool A is the more likely route for Wooster than Pool C.  The results that I outlined needing to happen are not outrageous.

Thanks wally, this gives me a clear picture of what needs to happen.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on October 26, 2017, 02:53:49 pm
Great stuff Wally!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on October 26, 2017, 03:00:47 pm
Assuming that everyone wins out I'd bet that a 10-0 Delaware Valley gets the 4th #1 similar to Alfred in 2016 - undefeated team from the East being a Top seed in the East.  Alfred gave MUC a good run for the first 3 quarters which is encouraging... though giving up 70 points in the game is worrisome for a #1 seed.

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on October 27, 2017, 12:16:21 am
Wally, great work.

Why is Milliken no longer discussed after round 2?  It would seem to me based on the criteria you provided they had a better profile then Frostburg St. selected in round 4.

Or did other factors like third team from CCIW come into play?

And is SOS really that important of a criteria historically?  Maybe I misread your post, but it seems to be the trump card even over RRO results.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 27, 2017, 01:51:53 am
Wally, great work.

Why is Milliken no longer discussed after round 2?  It would seem to me based on the criteria you provided they had a better profile then Frostburg St. selected in round 4.

Or did other factors like third team from CCIW come into play?

And is SOS really that important of a criteria historically?  Maybe I misread your post, but it seems to be the trump card even over RRO results.
They do seem to have the edge on Frostburg. My guess is that because IWU and Millikin still have to play each other in the season finale, only one will be in the conversation so in trying to predict the where the potential bubble line might be this far from the end of the season it doesn't make sense to have both teams in.
And they're not really blocking anyone from the North region. Unless Trine or Witt get upset and fall into pool C, the only 1 loss teams would be IWU/Millikin and possibly DePauw with Wheaton likely being the best 2 loss option.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on October 27, 2017, 08:04:20 am
Wally, great work.

Why is Milliken no longer discussed after round 2?  It would seem to me based on the criteria you provided they had a better profile then Frostburg St. selected in round 4.

Or did other factors like third team from CCIW come into play?

And is SOS really that important of a criteria historically?  Maybe I misread your post, but it seems to be the trump card even over RRO results.
They do seem to have the edge on Frostburg. My guess is that because IWU and Millikin still have to play each other in the season finale, only one will be in the conversation so in trying to predict the where the potential bubble line might be this far from the end of the season it doesn't make sense to have both teams in.
And they're not really blocking anyone from the North region. Unless Trine or Witt get upset and fall into pool C, the only 1 loss teams would be IWU/Millikin and possibly DePauw with Wheaton likely being the best 2 loss option.

Thanks FCGrizzliesGrad.

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of looking at current info?  The 2nd place MIAC team (barring major upsets) is going to have a better profile as well after CM and St. John's play regardless of who wins.

And I agree that Wheaton is probably the strongest 2 loss team in the North no matter how the CCIW plays out.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 27, 2017, 08:57:26 am
Wally, great work.

Why is Milliken no longer discussed after round 2?  It would seem to me based on the criteria you provided they had a better profile then Frostburg St. selected in round 4.

You're right that Millikin is probably closer to the rest of the teams on the board than I've indicated.  I think there are a couple of separators here for me:
- Frostburg will have been in play since Round 1.  As silly as it sounds, the longer a team sits around on the board, the more vote capital they accrue.  Just by the mechanics of the voting process, Millikin is disadvantaged here slightly. 
- Looking at "results" vs. ranked opponents, it's not just Millikin's loss against North Central, it's 51-21 that's doing them no favors.  They're the only team on this board that is carrying a defeat of that magnitude.  Frostburg is missing an RRO win, but their RRO loss is an OT game vs. Wesley, which looks a lot better.  I know I also said that I have a strong preference for RRO wins and I'm kind of going against the grain by picking Frostburg, but I'm pretty sure that's how that would play out.  If Millikin can get to the finish line at 9-1, the dynamic changes a bit. 

Or did other factors like third team from CCIW come into play?

No.  We saw three teams from the WIAC go in last year, so it is possible, but very unlikely.  It isn't that the selectors (or me in this case) simply disqualified a team because there were already too many teams in from one region or one conference.  That shouldn't play into it. 

And is SOS really that important of a criteria historically?  Maybe I misread your post, but it seems to be the trump card even over RRO results.

We've seen committees place heavy emphasis on win percentage despite SOS and RRO results and we've seen committees really reward teams with high SOS's and favorable RRO results.  It depends on the makeup of the committee, which changes each year.  I will say that I think we've seen a trend toward heavier weight being placed on SOS in the last few years, which does have some influence over how I pick teams.   

One more note on RROs and the CCIW in particular.  Right now, the NRFP has got five CCIW teams ranked in the top 10, which bloats IWU's profile and helps Millikin here as well.  When the dust settles, I think probably only three of these teams will wind up ranked and it'll thin things out a bit. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on October 27, 2017, 09:40:21 am
If you are a Wheaton fan and clinging to the fading hopes of a spot in the playoffs you absolutely need a Carthage win over Millikin this weekend.

There are 2 scenarios where Wheaton could get in. The first is an AQ bid and that requires five 2 loss teams in a CCIW quagmire governed by the tie breaker rules. The second is for all the dominoes in the North to fall into place, followed by all the dominoes in the nation, to allow Wheaton to be the highest ranked team in the north with 2 losses and get to the table as early as possible.

For any of that to happen Carthage needs to beat Millikin this weekend. Wheaton can't afford to have two 9-1 teams (IWU and Millikin) playing each other in the final weekend because both of them beat Wheaton.

Wheaton needs Millikin to lose this weekend and beat IWU in the final weekend for the AQ (combined with Carthage beating NCC---hmmmm).
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on October 27, 2017, 10:01:45 am
If you are a Wheaton fan and clinging to the fading hopes of a spot in the playoffs you absolutely need a Carthage win over Millikin this weekend.

There are 2 scenarios where Wheaton could get in. The first is an AQ bid and that requires five 2 loss teams in a CCIW quagmire governed by the tie breaker rules. The second is for all the dominoes in the North to fall into place, followed by all the dominoes in the nation, to allow Wheaton to be the highest ranked team in the north with 2 losses and get to the table as early as possible.

For any of that to happen Carthage needs to beat Millikin this weekend. Wheaton can't afford to have two 9-1 teams (IWU and Millikin) playing each other in the final weekend because both of them beat Wheaton.

Wheaton needs Millikin to lose this weekend and beat IWU in the final weekend for the AQ (combined with Carthage beating NCC---hmmmm).

USee,

One possible exception to your scenario is if Carthage beats NCC, then the IWU-Millikan game is for the AQ and the loser is tied with both Wheaton and NCC which makes Wheaton look a lot better given the Bell result (or results from wally's perspective).

And to wally's other point that could keep 4 CCIW teams in the RR and make things really interesting.

These last three weeks could be a fun ride for all involved.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on October 27, 2017, 10:04:36 am
Wally, great work.

Why is Milliken no longer discussed after round 2?  It would seem to me based on the criteria you provided they had a better profile then Frostburg St. selected in round 4.

You're right that Millikin is probably closer to the rest of the teams on the board than I've indicated.  I think there are a couple of separators here for me:
- Frostburg will have been in play since Round 1.  As silly as it sounds, the longer a team sits around on the board, the more vote capital they accrue.  Just by the mechanics of the voting process, Millikin is disadvantaged here slightly. 
- Looking at "results" vs. ranked opponents, it's not just Millikin's loss against North Central, it's 51-21 that's doing them no favors.  They're the only team on this board that is carrying a defeat of that magnitude.  Frostburg is missing an RRO win, but their RRO loss is an OT game vs. Wesley, which looks a lot better.  I know I also said that I have a strong preference for RRO wins and I'm kind of going against the grain by picking Frostburg, but I'm pretty sure that's how that would play out.  If Millikin can get to the finish line at 9-1, the dynamic changes a bit. 

Or did other factors like third team from CCIW come into play?

No.  We saw three teams from the WIAC go in last year, so it is possible, but very unlikely.  It isn't that the selectors (or me in this case) simply disqualified a team because there were already too many teams in from one region or one conference.  That shouldn't play into it. 

And is SOS really that important of a criteria historically?  Maybe I misread your post, but it seems to be the trump card even over RRO results.

We've seen committees place heavy emphasis on win percentage despite SOS and RRO results and we've seen committees really reward teams with high SOS's and favorable RRO results.  It depends on the makeup of the committee, which changes each year.  I will say that I think we've seen a trend toward heavier weight being placed on SOS in the last few years, which does have some influence over how I pick teams.   

One more note on RROs and the CCIW in particular.  Right now, the NRFP has got five CCIW teams ranked in the top 10, which bloats IWU's profile and helps Millikin here as well.  When the dust settles, I think probably only three of these teams will wind up ranked and it'll thin things out a bit.

Thanks Wally.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on October 27, 2017, 10:04:51 am
Others may disagree but 3 two loss CCIW teams in Pool C consideration,  who all lost to each,  other probably makes the committee avoid that mess for other options IMO.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 27, 2017, 11:15:26 am
Others may disagree but 3 two loss CCIW teams in Pool C consideration,  who all lost to each,  other probably makes the committee avoid that mess for other options IMO.

I think a single-loss runner up from the NCAC would be ranked ahead of a trio of two-loss CCIW teams.  Maybe two-loss ONU would get ahead?  I'm looking at this now and, nevermind.  They wouldn't.  I don't know how ONU can get ahead of Heidelberg and I don't think Heidelberg needs to be ranked at all.  Couldn't be RHIT with their h2h result vs. Millikin.  Single-loss Trine might be ahead of the CCIWs. 

There really aren't a ton of viable options in the North region.  The regional committee is going to have to sort that business out one way or the other.  I hope they don't cop out with ties in the rankings! 

Moving up to the national picture, two losses is a tough thing to deal with right now.  There's some losing that needs to be done around the nation to get two-loss teams in play for Pool C. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2017, 08:34:12 pm
Winners in bold.
Key at-large games to watch for this weekend:
UW-Lax @ UW-Platteville
Wittenberg @ Wabash
WashU @ CWRU
Dubuque @ Wartburg
Johns Hopkins @ Muhlenberg
Salve Regina @ Western New England
Marietta @ Ohio Northern
Hendrix @ Trinity
Millikin @ Carthage
Monmouth @ Lake Forest
Cal Lutheran @ Chapman
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 28, 2017, 08:49:56 pm
wally, as our current playoff guru, will UWO having to comeback to nip 2-6 UWRF by 3 mean they are no longer an absolute lock for a #1 seed (leaving UMHB and UMU as locks and a battle for TWO slots), or are they still a lock if they remain undefeated?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 28, 2017, 09:04:40 pm
wally, as our current playoff guru, will UWO having to comeback to nip 2-6 UWRF by 3 mean they are no longer an absolute lock for a #1 seed (leaving UMHB and UMU as locks and a battle for TWO slots), or are they still a lock if they remain undefeated?

No, they're a #1 as long as they finish undefeated.  Maybe the committee could have a micro discussion about it, but I think Oshkosh is locked in as a top seed if they run the table. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Toby Taff on October 28, 2017, 09:13:26 pm
wally, as our current playoff guru, will UWO having to comeback to nip 2-6 UWRF by 3 mean they are no longer an absolute lock for a #1 seed (leaving UMHB and UMU as locks and a battle for TWO slots), or are they still a lock if they remain undefeated?

No, they're a #1 as long as they finish undefeated.  Maybe the committee could have a micro discussion about it, but I think Oshkosh is locked in as a top seed if they run the table.
doesnt last years results come in to play for seeding? i would think that would help lock it up.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on October 28, 2017, 09:14:24 pm
wally, as our current playoff guru, will UWO having to comeback to nip 2-6 UWRF by 3 mean they are no longer an absolute lock for a #1 seed (leaving UMHB and UMU as locks and a battle for TWO slots), or are they still a lock if they remain undefeated?

No, they're a #1 as long as they finish undefeated.  Maybe the committee could have a micro discussion about it, but I think Oshkosh is locked in as a top seed if they run the table.

Agreed. UW-Platteville is on yhe outside looking in now though and I presume the St John's/Concordia winner takes that spot (if one takes your assumption that they were out). I think I agree with you now though that 4th 1 seed belongs to DelVal or Brockport or maybe even undefeated Wartburg?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2017, 12:03:17 am
I think CWRU is breathing easier, as is the MIAC runner-up.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2017, 12:36:16 am
I think CWRU is breathing easier, as is the MIAC runner-up.
MIAC #2 definitely. Should put them at the front of the line in the West.
I don't think Case is breathing too easy... not with their two hardest games of the season Westminster and Carnegie Mellon still to play. If I had to guess who will have their bubble popped the next two weeks I think they'd be at the top of my list.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: RtSLl3100 on October 29, 2017, 08:34:09 am
With DVC and Brockport playing so well, if the both finish 10-0 thoughts they get the #1 for the east,, leave mount in the north, uwo in the west and UMHB in the south?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2017, 12:12:44 pm
I think CWRU is breathing easier, as is the MIAC runner-up.
MIAC #2 definitely. Should put them at the front of the line in the West.
I don't think Case is breathing too easy... not with their two hardest games of the season Westminster and Carnegie Mellon still to play. If I had to guess who will have their bubble popped the next two weeks I think they'd be at the top of my list.

The Platteville loss is huge for them, though. If they do go unbeaten, I don't see anything in their way of the playoffs. IF, of course.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 29, 2017, 10:17:10 pm
With DVC and Brockport playing so well, if the both finish 10-0 thoughts they get the #1 for the east,, leave mount in the north, uwo in the west and UMHB in the south?

While they don't award top seeds specifically by geographic region, DVC and Brockport are definitely in play for one of the four top seeds. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2017, 10:20:15 pm
Something for the researchers out there... has a team ever been a "top seed" without being undefeated?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2017, 09:11:12 am
Something for the researchers out there... has a team ever been a "top seed" without being undefeated?

Oshkosh was a top seed in 2015 with a regular season loss, but that was out of division.  I'll keep hunting for a top seed with an in-division loss. 

Same for Wesley in 2014 (loss to Charlotte).

UWW was a top seed in 2007 with a loss to St. Cloud State.

Alright, this gets trickier before 2007 as brackets with records are not popping up immediately.  To be continued. 

FWIW, I don't think there will be a top seed with a loss this year.  Platteville was the one team that I think had a reasonable shot. 

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2017, 09:50:53 am
Good analysis on Pool C. +1!

Kickoff commented about how strong the middle of the ASC had become.

ETBU, Southwestern, Texas Lutheran and Sul Ross State (which beat D-2 UT Permian Basin) have knocked off one another.

I believe that each of those teams are worthy of Top 10 in the South Region Fan Poll, and head to head, would beat the #8, #9 and #10 in this week's  South Region Rankings.

Unfortunately, the lack of dominance of a third place team in the conference has denied Hardin-Simmons another result against a Regionally Ranked Opponent (RRO).
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: art76 on October 30, 2017, 10:02:27 am
Wally,

Thanx again for taking on this thread year in and year out - it is very much appreciated!

There is still two weeks of drama left in this season, so anything done now will likely be tossed as we draw closer to what the selection committee comes up with.

I'd like to get input from fellow D3 fans on who should be the fourth #1 seed in their quadrant, or the fourth seed in the over-all tourney (even though the NCAA doesn't seed the teams - officially). After 9 weeks of playing there are only 11 undefeated teams still looking to make the field. I've copied and pasted their SOS scores below:

2 UW-Oshkosh                    6-0    1.000    .6829 (3)     .5916    0.652
9 Wartburg                            8-0    1.000    .6207 (11)    .5543    0.599
31 Mount Union                    8-0    1.000    .5714 (39)    .5430    0.562
41 Mary Hardin-Baylor            8-0    1.000    .5686 (47)    .5266    0.555
50 Wittenberg                    8-0    1.000    .5536 (58)    .5310    0.546
58 Delaware Valley                    8-0    1.000    .5536 (59)    .5101    0.539
71 Brockport                            8-0    1.000    .5179 (104)    .5596    0.532
83 Springfield                            8-0    1.000    .5370 (81)    .5036    0.526
114 Berry                            9-0    1.000    .5085 (119)    .5121    0.510
197 Trine                             8-0    1.000    .4259 (207)    .5174    0.456
235 Case Western Reserve    8-0    1.000    .2857 (236)    .5220    0.364

So, why isn't Wartburg getting more love out there in D3 land? Why not make Wartburg the #1 seed in the West, Oshkosh in the North, Mount Union in the East and UMHB in the South? At least we can all look at the "objective criteria" and understand why the committee makes this kind of call. Thoughts welcomed.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2017, 10:26:54 am
Iíve been saying that Wartburg is a sneaky candidate for the fourth top seed. Wartburgís issue may wind up being RROs.  Maybe Monmouth will be ranked- Iím not sure. But thatís the only RRO result that Wartburg will have. Their current SOS is also a high water mark. Thatís going to come down over the next two weeks. I think the undefeated teams in the East are still more likely, but Wartburg certainly has a case.  Weíll see on Wednesday if the West RAC thinks highly enough of the Knights to make them #2 in the rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on October 30, 2017, 10:33:02 am
Iíve been saying that Wartburg is a sneaky candidate for the fourth top seed. Wartburgís issue may wind up being RROs.  Maybe Monmouth will be ranked- Iím not sure. But thatís the only RRO result that Wartburg will have. Their current SOS is also a high water mark. Thatís going to come down over the next two weeks. I think the undefeated teams in the East are still more likely, but Wartburg certainly has a case.  Weíll see on Wednesday if the West RAC thinks highly enough of the Knights to make them #2 in the rankings.

Wally,

Thoughts on Trine and the North RAC rankings? I am of the opinion they will be #3 behind MUC and Witt and ahead of whatever CCIW logjam shows up. Also wondering how the RAC treats Depauw. The fun has started but heats up this week!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2017, 10:41:14 am
Iíve been saying that Wartburg is a sneaky candidate for the fourth top seed. Wartburgís issue may wind up being RROs.  Maybe Monmouth will be ranked- Iím not sure. But thatís the only RRO result that Wartburg will have. Their current SOS is also a high water mark. Thatís going to come down over the next two weeks. I think the undefeated teams in the East are still more likely, but Wartburg certainly has a case.  Weíll see on Wednesday if the West RAC thinks highly enough of the Knights to make them #2 in the rankings.

Wally,

Thoughts on Trine and the North RAC rankings? I am of the opinion they will be #3 behind MUC and Witt and ahead of whatever CCIW logjam shows up. Also wondering how the RAC treats Depauw. The fun has started but heats up this week!

Trineís SOS is poor and they have zero RRO results. I think theyíll slot in behind NCC/IWU at #5 in the region.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: miac952 on October 30, 2017, 10:45:39 am
Something for the researchers out there... has a team ever been a "top seed" without being undefeated?

Oshkosh was a top seed in 2015 with a regular season loss, but that was out of division.  I'll keep hunting for a top seed with an in-division loss. 

Same for Wesley in 2014 (loss to Charlotte).

UWW was a top seed in 2007 with a loss to St. Cloud State.

Alright, this gets trickier before 2007 as brackets with records are not popping up immediately.  To be continued. 

FWIW, I don't think there will be a top seed with a loss this year.  Platteville was the one team that I think had a reasonable shot.

That UST loss to Stout could haunt them for a 1 seed. They are clicking on all cylinders right now. Will be interesting to see how the regional rankings flesh out and where we sit in 2 weeks. From my quick glance the Pool C candidates this year appear stronger than prior years and could create a lot more mayhem in the brackets. We had a taste of that last year.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: D3MAFAN on October 30, 2017, 11:03:31 am
Something for the researchers out there... has a team ever been a "top seed" without being undefeated?

Oshkosh was a top seed in 2015 with a regular season loss, but that was out of division.  I'll keep hunting for a top seed with an in-division loss. 

Same for Wesley in 2014 (loss to Charlotte).

UWW was a top seed in 2007 with a loss to St. Cloud State.

Alright, this gets trickier before 2007 as brackets with records are not popping up immediately.  To be continued. 

FWIW, I don't think there will be a top seed with a loss this year.  Platteville was the one team that I think had a reasonable shot.

That UST loss to Stout could haunt them for a 1 seed. They are clicking on all cylinders right now. Will be interesting to see how the regional rankings flesh out and where we sit in 2 weeks. From my quick glance the Pool C candidates this year appear stronger than prior years and could create a lot more mayhem in the brackets. We had a taste of that last year.

They'll still have two first round games as a clear #2 seed, most likely in the weakest #1 seed bracket. Some year's ago (2011), UST got that 3rd round home game.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on October 30, 2017, 11:13:22 am
Something for the researchers out there... has a team ever been a "top seed" without being undefeated?

Oshkosh was a top seed in 2015 with a regular season loss, but that was out of division.  I'll keep hunting for a top seed with an in-division loss. 

Same for Wesley in 2014 (loss to Charlotte).

UWW was a top seed in 2007 with a loss to St. Cloud State.

Alright, this gets trickier before 2007 as brackets with records are not popping up immediately.  To be continued. 

FWIW, I don't think there will be a top seed with a loss this year.  Platteville was the one team that I think had a reasonable shot.

That UST loss to Stout could haunt them for a 1 seed. They are clicking on all cylinders right now. Will be interesting to see how the regional rankings flesh out and where we sit in 2 weeks. From my quick glance the Pool C candidates this year appear stronger than prior years and could create a lot more mayhem in the brackets. We had a taste of that last year.

They'll still have to first round games as a clear #2 seed, most likely in the weakest #1 seed bracket. Some year's ago (2011), UST got that 3rd round home game.

If we assume that the weakest #1 seed is the team out east, I'd happily take that matchup and feel ok about going to DelVal or Brockport to get to the semis. Would they really send us out east though? There would either be a midwest pod in the east region OR the NCAA would be paying to send a few east teams our way after round 1. I guess I need to check the historical brackets to see how this played out. I know St John Fisher came our way a few years back.

I think I'd feel the same way with Wartburg as the #1 seed. I have my doubts that the committee is really going to care much about the top #2 seed and matching them up with the worst #1 seed, rather than going with the geographical matchups that make the most sense. Have they really given weight to that in the past?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on October 30, 2017, 11:24:11 am
If we assume that the weakest #1 seed is the team out east, I'd happily take that matchup and feel ok about going to DelVal or Brockport to get to the semis. Would they really send us out east though? There would either be a midwest pod in the east region OR the NCAA would be paying to send a few east teams our way after round 1. I guess I need to check the historical brackets to see how this played out. I know St John Fisher came our way a few years back.

I think I'd feel the same way with Wartburg as the #1 seed. I have my doubts that the committee is really going to care much about the top #2 seed and matching them up with the worst #1 seed, rather than going with the geographical matchups that make the most sense. Have they really given weight to that in the past?

It seems unlikely to me that UST would be out East for a quarterfinal game. 

What's been happening lately is that the committee is building four team pods around the top 8 seeds.  Usually, you can pair off those pods in a way that will probably avoid a quarterfinal flight in 3/4 of the quadrants.  Historically, that fourth region will require somebody to go to Texas or the northwest and a flight is inevitable.  I haven't done any mock bracketing yet, but a general feeling of which teams are going to wind up as those top 8 seeds leads me to think there are better (read: more cost effective) partners for a UST pod than either DVC or Brockport. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: miac952 on October 30, 2017, 11:37:17 am
It could be dumb luck, but it seems its been a right of passage for the UST playoff runs to get an East or North team for the 2nd or 3rd round over the years. Wabash, Elmhurst, Hobart, and St John Fischer come to mind. I know Elmhust met the driving requirement, but I think the other 3 were flights. Interesting how it ended up that way.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: roocru on November 01, 2017, 03:31:44 am
Good analysis on Pool C. +1!

Kickoff commented about how strong the middle of the ASC had become.

ETBU, Southwestern, Texas Lutheran and Sul Ross State (which beat D-2 UT Permian Basin) have knocked off one another.

I believe that each of those teams are worthy of Top 10 in the South Region Fan Poll, and head to head, would beat the #8, #9 and #10 in this week's  South Region Rankings.

Unfortunately, the lack of dominance of a third place team in the conference has denied Hardin-Simmons another result against a Regionally Ranked Opponent (RRO).

Ralph, see my post concerning this on the South Regional Fan Poll thread.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2017, 03:16:45 pm
Interesting (http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/first-regional-ranking).

I'll do a projection tonight with today's rankings and just know that my first instinct here is that it's gonna be very different from last week, and it's gonna be very different from next week.  Some of these rankings feel a little unpolished to me.  But we'll do it anyway. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on November 01, 2017, 05:56:58 pm
if two PAC teams go 10-0, do we basically go down to four Pool C bids?

No, thereís still 5 Pool C bids.

Seeing where CWRU is ranked regionally, it could be a tough decision for the committee. Do they bump up CWRU's rankings, or allow a 10-0 team to miss the playoffs?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HScoach on November 01, 2017, 07:11:38 pm
with that schedule and a dwindling list of Pool C slots, I say leave them home.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ohsaa13 on November 01, 2017, 07:19:00 pm
I find it interesting W&J is ranked 4th in the RR, one spot ahead of CWRU in the Natl Ranking, but we all dismiss what is happening on the field.  Over the next two weeks CWRU will play Westminster &CMU. Clearly their two toughest games all season.  However, if CWRU wins both games decisively and goes 10-0 does this change how the committee evaluates their final rankings?  It could be said at the end of the day CWRU a better team than W&J.  W&J is assumed to be better because they beat Thomas More early in the season which provided them a slightly better SOS.  They are playing the same teams and Case is actually putting up more impressive numbers, but we all, including me (I don't have a horse in this race), assume W&J deserves a better ranking than CWRU.

Wally...what would happen if CWRU wins out and the PAC is decided by coin flip based on the criteria the PAC has (there are multiple criteria they have, and assuming Case wins out it will come to this last point).  Case gets automatic bid for being PAC champ.  Does the committee then look at W&J with the same view they look at Case today? 

Again, no tie to either program, but found this conference interesting when looking at comments based on what folks are saying about the pool C bids
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2017, 08:40:59 pm
I find it interesting W&J is ranked 4th in the RR, one spot ahead of CWRU in the Natl Ranking, but we all dismiss what is happening on the field.  Over the next two weeks CWRU will play Westminster &CMU. Clearly their two toughest games all season.  However, if CWRU wins both games decisively and goes 10-0 does this change how the committee evaluates their final rankings?  It could be said at the end of the day CWRU a better team than W&J.  W&J is assumed to be better because they beat Thomas More early in the season which provided them a slightly better SOS.  They are playing the same teams and Case is actually putting up more impressive numbers, but we all, including me (I don't have a horse in this race), assume W&J deserves a better ranking than CWRU.

Wally...what would happen if CWRU wins out and the PAC is decided by coin flip based on the criteria the PAC has (there are multiple criteria they have, and assuming Case wins out it will come to this last point).  Case gets automatic bid for being PAC champ.  Does the committee then look at W&J with the same view they look at Case today? 

Again, no tie to either program, but found this conference interesting when looking at comments based on what folks are saying about the pool C bids

I'm about to work through this, but my quick thoughts on CWRU are:
- not ideal rankings today for the Spartans
- Their profile will improve.  Well, their SOS will improve.  They'll eliminate any chance for RRO wins by winning their last two games.  The point is- this is the low water mark for CWRU.
- IF CWRU does wind up getting left out, they can blame the PAC for not giving them a fair chance.  They could have fixed it, they didn't, and here we are. 

I haven't started my exercise quite yet today, but I don't expect to project CWRU in based on today's rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 01, 2017, 08:45:19 pm
W&J's SOS is 70+ spots higher. That plays a role and it's mostly because the teams W&J has already played have higher SOS than the teams that Case has played. With Case's two remaining opponents over .500, and W&J's last opponents with 4 wins between them, they will end up with a very similar SOS. Chicago winning out and SJF continuing a tough season will probably have W&J and Case just about even, since it is likely TMC and GC will have pretty much identical records. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 01, 2017, 09:19:26 pm
I find it interesting W&J is ranked 4th in the RR, one spot ahead of CWRU in the Natl Ranking, but we all dismiss what is happening on the field.  Over the next two weeks CWRU will play Westminster &CMU. Clearly their two toughest games all season.  However, if CWRU wins both games decisively and goes 10-0 does this change how the committee evaluates their final rankings?  It could be said at the end of the day CWRU a better team than W&J.  W&J is assumed to be better because they beat Thomas More early in the season which provided them a slightly better SOS.  They are playing the same teams and Case is actually putting up more impressive numbers, but we all, including me (I don't have a horse in this race), assume W&J deserves a better ranking than CWRU.

Wally...what would happen if CWRU wins out and the PAC is decided by coin flip based on the criteria the PAC has (there are multiple criteria they have, and assuming Case wins out it will come to this last point).  Case gets automatic bid for being PAC champ.  Does the committee then look at W&J with the same view they look at Case today? 

Again, no tie to either program, but found this conference interesting when looking at comments based on what folks are saying about the pool C bids

So the easiest answer to this is the following:

The rankings change every week. New data is inputted, like vRRO which wasn't available for the first week to the committees, and it changes the complexion and the decisions. I am not sure if football does this exactly, but other committees have often told me how they basically nearly start from scratch each week. Just because a team is ahead of another team the previous week does NOT mean they will stay there just because. Results versus Regionally Ranked Opponents will change a lot next week.

Per your example, if CWRU wins the next two weeks, they input plenty of new data into the equation that probably doesn't leave them that low. That said, every other team in the region (and the country) has results which will also have some kind of impact - small to big.

The rankings will change. Don't put too much stock in these rankings because in a week's time they will basically mean nothing. Week 2's will be more important moving forward.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 01, 2017, 10:07:24 pm
I find it interesting W&J is ranked 4th in the RR, one spot ahead of CWRU in the Natl Ranking, but we all dismiss what is happening on the field.  Over the next two weeks CWRU will play Westminster &CMU. Clearly their two toughest games all season.  However, if CWRU wins both games decisively and goes 10-0 does this change how the committee evaluates their final rankings?  It could be said at the end of the day CWRU a better team than W&J.  W&J is assumed to be better because they beat Thomas More early in the season which provided them a slightly better SOS.  They are playing the same teams and Case is actually putting up more impressive numbers, but we all, including me (I don't have a horse in this race), assume W&J deserves a better ranking than CWRU.

Wally...what would happen if CWRU wins out and the PAC is decided by coin flip based on the criteria the PAC has (there are multiple criteria they have, and assuming Case wins out it will come to this last point).  Case gets automatic bid for being PAC champ.  Does the committee then look at W&J with the same view they look at Case today? 

Again, no tie to either program, but found this conference interesting when looking at comments based on what folks are saying about the pool C bids

Two quick thoughts here:

1) I've seen this movie before with Case, where they run up big numbers against the lesser lights on their schedule and then drop their toughest game or two of the season, but nevertheless it's a reasonable point that we're defaulting to the assumption that W&J is better than Case although i) they'll finish the season having played essentially the same schedule and ii) CWRU has been equal-or-better than W&J against all common opponents.

W&J's only game against a non-PAC opponent was a 37-27 win against usually-good-but-currently 2-6 St. John Fisher; they also have a result against Grove City that was officially counted as a non-league game (hold this thought).  Meanwhile, CWRU's non-league games are a 34-14 win over 4-4 Chicago and 45-28 win over 2-6 WashU (worth noting - WashU is likely better than that 2-6 record suggests, considering that they have been competitive in nearly every game including toughies against UW-Whitewater, Wartburg, North Central). 

I think it's fair to consider the WashU result for CWRU similar to the SJF result for W&J, and the Chicago result is an okay (not great, but not terrible) non-league win.  If Case beats Westminster and CMU (neither of which is a given) they will pick up two reasonable quality wins - regardless of official "RRO" status for the criteria, Westminster gave a legit battle to likely NCAC champion Wittenberg and took W&J to overtime while CMU also took W&J down to the wire.  If Case beats both of those teams, their profile is going to be a whole lot better than it is today, and truth be told it will be nearly identical to W&J's profile.

Which brings us down to the official PAC schedule and an interesting little kink in the PAC tiebreaker that we may be overlooking...
 
2) As noted above, W&J's game against Grove City was officially a non-league game (owing to the overstuffed PAC, and the addition of CMU and CWRU who were originally trying to keep their "UAA" games, to balance out the official PAC schedule, some of the PAC teams play one another in games that are not officially league games).  So the only difference between W&J and CWRU's PAC league schedule was one game: W&J played Thomas More, while CWRU played Grove City (I know, I know, it's confusing because W&J played Grove City too, but it was officially a non-league game).  The remainder of their league games are all common opponents.

Why harp on this so much?  Well, the PAC tiebreaker is...

1) Head-to-head competition: in this setting they have not played, NEXT
2) Record against highest-ranked team not in the tie: in this setting both are undefeated, NEXT
3) Strength of conference record (conference winning percentage of teams you beat in 8 PAC games): so this is going to get fun!  We'll dive into this below.  A few weeks ago, it seemed like a slam dunk that this tiebreaker would favor W&J because Thomas More > Grove City.  Now I'm not so sure.
4) Overall record: both would be 10-0, NEXT
5) Record vs. common non-league opponents: no common non-league opponents, NEXT
6) ???? No further criteria are listed in the PAC Manual...

OK, revisiting the #3 tiebreaker above: until a few weeks ago, it seemed abundantly obvious that this would favor W&J, because their opponent that CWRU missed (Thomas More) spent the last couple years competing for and winning conference titles while CWRU's not-common-opponent (Grove City) was coming off three straight 0-fer seasons.  But then a funny thing happened; with alum-so-young-that-XTP-played-against-him Andrew DiDonato reviving the program, Grove City won a conference game...and then another...and then another....and suddenly Grove City is officially sitting at 3-3 in the conference with two very winnable games left versus Bethany and Thiel (given the way they've been playing, Grove City is arguably the favorite in both games).  Meanwhile, Thomas More is 4-3 in the league with Thiel to play.  It's very possible that both TMC and GCC finish with a 5-3 league record (remember, W&J's game against Grove City doesn't count in their conference record - it's a non league game). I'm not sure if Thomas More's win over Grove City is relevant at all or if it's only the "strength of record" of your conference opponents, but if I am reading this correctly, in the Grove-City-wins-out-scenario, the tiebreaker criteria here would be exhausted without breaking the tie between W&J and CWRU.

Point is, to clinch the title for real, W&J needs either Westminster or CMU to beat CWRU (both of which are possible), or failing that, for Thiel or Bethany to beat Grove City (also possible).  CWRU needs every single result to go their way, but if it all does, they might not be forfeiting that claim on the league title just yet.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 01, 2017, 10:38:48 pm
New projection time.  I'm using today's regional rankings (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/first-regional-ranking) as if they were the final rankings.  Click here for a full rundown of the mechanics (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8708.msg1825587#msg1825587).  25 A, 2 B, 5 C.  Off we go. 

Pool A
The projected 25 Pool A's as of this moment:
(https://i.imgur.com/Omm6RQL.png)

- Three teams have clinched (the gold cells because golden ticket, obvs)
- Made two changes to the projected winners.  Eureka took control in the UMAC, and I actually picked somebody to win the ODAC (Washington & Lee)

Pool B

Round 1:
1S Mary Hardin-Baylor: 8-0, 2-0 vs. RROs, 0.555 (41st) SOS
3E Springfield: 8-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.526 (83)

Same analysis as last week- UMHB has advantages in all criteria.  They are the obvious choice.

Round 2:
2S Hardin-Simmons: 6-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.559 (35)
3E Springfield: 8-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.526 (83)

This is a really hard call, and the way you do this has a significant impact on how the rest of this at-large process dominos (looking at you, Frostburg).  I'm going to continue to honor Springfield's win percentage advantage, however, we'll see where that SOS goes over the next two weeks.  This isn't an obvious choice.   

Now after UMHB and Springfield come out of our rankings lists, the remaining regional boards look as follows:
East: Frostburg, Western Connecticut, Curry
North: DePauw, Illinois Wesleyan, Heidelberg, Wheaton, Millikin
South: Hardin-Simmons, Centre, Case Western Reserve, Franklin & Marshall, Westminster
West: St. John's, UW-La Crosse, Concordia-Moorhead, UW-Platteville, George Fox

So, I mean this is where it's weird and we're just going to roll with it this week.  DePauw should not be ranked higher than IWU.  The people in the North RAC know this and I don't get why they pushed this unfinished trash out today.  Nor should Heidelberg be ahead of Wheaton, but whatever. Our friends in the North just mailed it in. 

In the South, CWRU sits third and they probably have no shot today.  They're in worse shape than Centre was a few years ago, TBH.  Going to be interesting to see if they get enough SOS help over the next 10 days to climb up in the South rankings. 

Enough of my babble.  Let's pick some teams.

Pool C:
Round 1:
5N DePauw - 7-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.568 (23)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 6-1, 0-1 RROs, 0.559 (35)
5E Frostburg St. - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.459 (194)
5W St. John's - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.524 (88)

For everybody who is unfamiliar, this is kinda what DePauw does.  They show up in weird places that they don't belong and make everyone feel uncomfortable and just kind of make everything a little awkward.  So, everyone here is a one loss team with a loss to their league champion.  We have varying degrees of SOS.  Examining the results vs. ranked opponents is useful.  HSU, FSU, and SJU all played fairly competitive games.  DePauw got pantsed to the tune of 52-6 in their own yard.  That matters.  Cowboys are the pick. 

Round 2:
5N DePauw - 7-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.568 (23)
6S Centre - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.529 (76)
5E Frostburg St. - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.459 (194)
5W St. John's - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.524 (88)

Last week (albeit a little later in the process), I took Frostburg ahead of St. John's.  Frostburg's SOS took a big hit this week and so I'm going to flip that order.  Our new player is Centre, but they don't offer anything particularly different than what we've got already- namely an RRO win.  Platteville losing really took the Johnnies off the bubble in a big way. 

Round 3:
5N DePauw - 7-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.568 (23)
6S Centre - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.529 (76)
5E Frostburg St. - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.459 (194)
6W UW-La Crosse - 6-2, 1-1, 0.557 (38)

Alright, now it's fun.  La Crosse is new, they have a quality win and they have very nice SOS.  They also carry an extra loss, that to an unranked team which is a bummer for them (losing to Whitewater is a bummer...strange times, y'all).  And then there's DePauw, still here, still messing things up.  If the order was correct and IWU was here, we'd have common opponent stuff to play with...DePauw is the worst.  Also, that SOS is a myth.  The NCAC up and down does not produce 23rd strongest schedule while Frostburg's NJAC schedule is 194.  That doesn't make any sense.  La Crosse has the best win on the board.  Frostburg still has the best loss (OT vs. 4E Wesley). I know I'm hand waving over the SOS on this one, but Frostburg is my pick and I'm calling shenanigans on the SOS.   

Round 4:
5N DePauw - 7-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.568 (23)
6S Centre - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.529 (76)
8E Western Connecticut - 7-1, 1-0 vs RRO, 0.500 (127)
6W UW-La Crosse - 6-2, 1-1, 0.557 (38)

I've been staring at this board for a while.  I'm down to Centre or La Crosse.  Looking at the RRO results, La Crosse lost a 14 point game to 1W Oshkosh who is quite good and they just beat Platteville, who last week I thought could be a top seed in the tournament.  The extra loss is Whitewater, which is not exactly your run of the mill non-ranked loss.  Centre lost a 14 point game to 3S Berry.  La Crosse holds an SOS advantage as well and I think I'm gonna do it.  Yep.  Eagles in. 

Round 5:
5N DePauw - 7-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.568 (23)
6S Centre - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.529 (76)
8E Western Connecticut - 7-1, 1-0 vs RRO, 0.500 (127)
8W Concordia-Moorhead - 7-1, 0-1 vs RRO, 0.468 (184)

The Cobbers make their obligatory appearance in one of my projections...rolling in late with a crummy SOS, an 0-1 RRO record, and a make or break game with SJU looming.  We do this every year.   The Cobbers don't have the profile at this moment so we can rule them out.  52-6 is still basically a disqualifier for me, so sorry DePauw (and sorry, IWU Titans...our friends in Bloomington didn't deserve this this week).  So, Centre or Western Conn.?  Western Conn. has an RRO win over my projected MASCAC champion.  Surprised to see two MASCACs in the rankings, tbh.  They do also have an SOS deficit to Centre.  I'm going to pick the Colonels here because I think Western Conn wins the MASCAC outright if they win their last two (I'm projecting a loss to Framingham), or they lose and won't be in play here.  The East's rankings were both logical and strange. 

Alright, so that's the field.  I'm not real happy with this today, primarily because the North region gave us erroneous rankings and it blew up the entire exercise.  I may revisit this tomorrow and do a lightning round projection where IWU and DePauw are ranked properly.  That really threw off the whole thing this week. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2017, 10:50:38 pm
Hardin-Simmons SOS takes a hit with the games against Belhaven and McMurry.

Springfield gets good SOS with MIT but Maine Maritime will knock it down.

Wally, why Centre over DePauw?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2017, 11:20:22 pm
I'm wondering how different things would look if H-S was Pool B and Springfield started Pool C at the table. St John's probably first off as Springfield has a similar SoS and better record but no RRO. If you say Springfield is in #2 then you'd have the same four at the table as the projection but with Frostburg just now joining instead of being there from the start.
Adding in IWU as they should move up once RRO are factored in (1-1 right now, with a game vs #10N Millikin and a win over currently unranked but possibly #11N Carthage) and a SoS of .495 would likely get picked before Frostburg.

Just to throw another example (out of the 800 or so that have been collected over the years) of SoS "usefullness"... Frostburg is at .459 while Minnesota-Morris playing no one but UMAC teams (their non-conference game was a second game with Martin Luther) is at .462
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2017, 12:24:24 am
IWU is still WILDLY in play as far as RRO.  Carthage is almost surely #11 in the North.  UWW is likely #11 in the West.  Both are wins.  And they are yet to play #10 (North) Millikin (who would likely drop out if we beat them).

So conceivably as high as FIVE RROs.  I wonder what the record is?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2017, 12:58:03 am
Wally, why Centre over DePauw?

I've got two reasons.  The first is that I find DePauw's SOS to be dubiously high.  They have 0-8 Kenyon coming up which is going to rectify that.  The East RAC today exercised a mild bit of subjectivity with respect to curious SOS figures when they went ahead and (correctly, IMO) ranked Frostburg ahead of Husson and Union.  I think you can do the same with DePauw.  The NCAC does not produce the 23rd best schedule in the division.  The second is DePauw's RRO result vs. 2N Wittenberg.  52-6 is a disqualifying result (except for maaaaybe extreme cases like games vs. Mount Union).  Centre was at least competitive in their lone loss to Berry.  When I'm looking for at-large teams, I want to find teams that I believe can be competitive in the tournament.  52-6 indicates to me that DePauw are paper tigers (ha). 

We also know that on the first pass, the regional committees don't (officially) factor in RRO results at all.  That helps explain the funky order of things in the North.  I hope they do a more thorough job next week because quite frankly this week it looks like they made a standings table and called it a day.  I think it takes about 8 seconds of semi-thoughtful conversation to see that IWU needs to be ranked ahead of DePauw, and it just didn't happen from that group this week. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2017, 01:10:00 am
Thanks, Wally
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2017, 09:09:22 am
On CWRU...

XTP makes a ton of great observations.  I also want to point out that while yesterday's rankings weren't great for the Spartans, it's not a doomsday situation either.  They are going to get a big SOS boost over the next two weeks.  I'm not going to do all the math on this, but to give you an idea from an example that is really easy for me to look up, last week Frostburg had a 0.511 SOS ranked 109th in the division.  Not awesome, not terrible.  Good enough to not make you want to count them out.  Then they played 0-7 Southern Virginia and this week that SOS is 0.459 ranked 194th in the division.  Now it looks like Frostburg has played one of the weakest schedules in the division.  That's how much this thing can change.  Over the next two weeks, I expect that CWRU's SOS number will approach 0.48, they might even pass W&J in SOS, and I think if they do get all the way to 10-0, with the SOS increase, they'll be next in line after Hardin-Simmons. 

Also, CWRU may not even wind up in Pool C thanks to the resurgent GCC Wolverines.  That would put W&J in the hot seat. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 02, 2017, 11:31:04 am
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2017, 11:38:54 am
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The one that I do before we get the regional rankings (where I'm using the fan polls as surrogate rankings) I will tinker with the order where the voters are missing something from the criteria that's obvious.  Not that the fan polls are "wrong" just that they aren't bound by the NCAA's criteria.  I don't edit the official NCAA rankings though.  I almost did yesterday though. 

It's true that the national selection committee does reserve the right to reorder the regional rankings, but I think past chairs have said that they don't really do this- for football.  I believe Dave McHugh has reported that for basketball, they do tinker with the rankings.  My guess here is that if this were the list submitted by the North RAC to the national committee on 11/11, they'd change it, specifically the IWU/DePauw order.  It's just so obviously incorrect and not representative of the seasons those two teams have had. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 02, 2017, 11:50:10 am
Also, CWRU may not even wind up in Pool C thanks to the resurgent GCC Wolverines.  That would put W&J in the hot seat.

Nope :)

That would be some kind of resurgence!

EDIT:  I'm wrong. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: AO on November 02, 2017, 12:29:36 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

Not that the fan polls are "wrong" just that they aren't bound by the NCAA's criteria. 
The East RAC doesn't seem to feel very bound by the criteria either...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 02, 2017, 12:30:55 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The one that I do before we get the regional rankings (where I'm using the fan polls as surrogate rankings) I will tinker with the order where the voters are missing something from the criteria that's obvious.  Not that the fan polls are "wrong" just that they aren't bound by the NCAA's criteria.  I don't edit the official NCAA rankings though.  I almost did yesterday though. 

It's true that the national selection committee does reserve the right to reorder the regional rankings, but I think past chairs have said that they don't really do this- for football.  I believe Dave McHugh has reported that for basketball, they do tinker with the rankings.  My guess here is that if this were the list submitted by the North RAC to the national committee on 11/11, they'd change it, specifically the IWU/DePauw order.  It's just so obviously incorrect and not representative of the seasons those two teams have had.

They can get away with saying that because, until last season, those final regional rankings weren't released. I've spoken with coaches who had been on both committees in the past, and yeah, it happens a little more often than I think most people realize.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2017, 12:35:11 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The one that I do before we get the regional rankings (where I'm using the fan polls as surrogate rankings) I will tinker with the order where the voters are missing something from the criteria that's obvious.  Not that the fan polls are "wrong" just that they aren't bound by the NCAA's criteria.  I don't edit the official NCAA rankings though.  I almost did yesterday though. 

It's true that the national selection committee does reserve the right to reorder the regional rankings, but I think past chairs have said that they don't really do this- for football.  I believe Dave McHugh has reported that for basketball, they do tinker with the rankings.  My guess here is that if this were the list submitted by the North RAC to the national committee on 11/11, they'd change it, specifically the IWU/DePauw order. It's just so obviously incorrect and not representative of the seasons those two teams have had.
;)

You are too modest.  If Wabash has its say about the Dannies, then 11/11 will take care of the IWU/DePauw order. Monon Bell game with national implications!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 02, 2017, 01:46:22 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The national committee does it prior to the rankings being released. So if the national committee felt IWU should be higher, they would already be higher.

The RACs rank and send it on to the national committee basically as a recommendation. If the national committee concurs, that's that. If they disagree, they adjust. Then it is released.

So I doubt Wally would reorder considering it would throw the entire projections out of order. What we see in the regional rankings is how the national committee has set those regions and thus how we should forecast selections and matchups accordingly.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 02, 2017, 02:03:18 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The national committee does it prior to the rankings being released. So if the national committee felt IWU should be higher, they would already be higher.

The RACs rank and send it on to the national committee basically as a recommendation. If the national committee concurs, that's that. If they disagree, they adjust. Then it is released.

So I doubt Wally would reorder considering it would throw the entire projections out of order. What we see in the regional rankings is how the national committee has set those regions and thus how we should forecast selections and matchups accordingly.

Are you saying the national committee does this for every iteration of the rankings, or just the final?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 02, 2017, 02:10:38 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The national committee does it prior to the rankings being released. So if the national committee felt IWU should be higher, they would already be higher.

The RACs rank and send it on to the national committee basically as a recommendation. If the national committee concurs, that's that. If they disagree, they adjust. Then it is released.

So I doubt Wally would reorder considering it would throw the entire projections out of order. What we see in the regional rankings is how the national committee has set those regions and thus how we should forecast selections and matchups accordingly.

Are you saying the national committee does this for every iteration of the rankings, or just the final?

Every. There was one year, at least for basketball, where the committees weren't allowed to touch the in-season ones and just make suggestions. That was several years ago after some changes to the process. However, that was quickly scuttled because of how many problems it created unintentionally.

Every single regional ranking that is preoduced by the national committee has been effectively been gone over by the national committee and any changes they want to make are made.

Something that I have been reminded of often: the RAC stands for Regional Advisory Committee. Their role is to advise. The national committee instructs them how they want them to conduct the regional work. They then trust the RAC to the bulk of that work and given them a sense of the region, but if the national committee finds fault in their process or decisions, they will make the ultimate decision(s).

Every week.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 02, 2017, 02:20:15 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The national committee does it prior to the rankings being released. So if the national committee felt IWU should be higher, they would already be higher.

The RACs rank and send it on to the national committee basically as a recommendation. If the national committee concurs, that's that. If they disagree, they adjust. Then it is released.

So I doubt Wally would reorder considering it would throw the entire projections out of order. What we see in the regional rankings is how the national committee has set those regions and thus how we should forecast selections and matchups accordingly.

Are you saying the national committee does this for every iteration of the rankings, or just the final?

Every. There was one year, at least for basketball, where the committees weren't allowed to touch the in-season ones and just make suggestions. That was several years ago after some changes to the process. However, that was quickly scuttled because of how many problems it created unintentionally.

Every single regional ranking that is preoduced by the national committee has been effectively been gone over by the national committee and any changes they want to make are made.

Something that I have been reminded of often: the RAC stands for Regional Advisory Committee. Their role is to advise. The national committee instructs them how they want them to conduct the regional work. They then trust the RAC to the bulk of that work and given them a sense of the region, but if the national committee finds fault in their process or decisions, they will make the ultimate decision(s).

Every week.

Thanks for clarifying. I was under the impression the RACs were given autonomy to produce their rankings according to the established criteria, and the national committee didn't get involved until the final week of the process.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 02, 2017, 02:25:56 pm
Wally, when you do these projections, do you ever reorder the regional rankings if you feel the most deserving Pool C team isn't on the board? We know the National Committee does this, and I feel like IWU is probably the most-deserving Pool C team in the entire country. I would consider their exclusion from the tournament, if they win out, to be the biggest "miss" by the committee since the Pool system started.

The national committee does it prior to the rankings being released. So if the national committee felt IWU should be higher, they would already be higher.

The RACs rank and send it on to the national committee basically as a recommendation. If the national committee concurs, that's that. If they disagree, they adjust. Then it is released.

So I doubt Wally would reorder considering it would throw the entire projections out of order. What we see in the regional rankings is how the national committee has set those regions and thus how we should forecast selections and matchups accordingly.

Are you saying the national committee does this for every iteration of the rankings, or just the final?

Every. There was one year, at least for basketball, where the committees weren't allowed to touch the in-season ones and just make suggestions. That was several years ago after some changes to the process. However, that was quickly scuttled because of how many problems it created unintentionally.

Every single regional ranking that is preoduced by the national committee has been effectively been gone over by the national committee and any changes they want to make are made.

Something that I have been reminded of often: the RAC stands for Regional Advisory Committee. Their role is to advise. The national committee instructs them how they want them to conduct the regional work. They then trust the RAC to the bulk of that work and given them a sense of the region, but if the national committee finds fault in their process or decisions, they will make the ultimate decision(s).

Every week.

Thanks for clarifying. I was under the impression the RACs were given autonomy to produce their rankings according to the established criteria, and the national committee didn't get involved until the final week of the process.

Nope... I think there was an attempt to try that, but there is no way to make sure the RACs do a consistent job across the board in all regions if the national committee isn't working on them and talking with them all the time. Furthermore, it is the regional rankings technically according to the national committee, so they need to have a say.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 03, 2017, 05:13:39 pm
The national committee is not going to leave a PAC 10-0 team out of the playoffs.  It's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2017, 08:46:45 pm
The national committee is not going to leave a PAC 10-0 team out of the playoffs.  It's not going to happen.
I agree. I cannot see that happening either.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2017, 01:48:10 pm
South Region Projections
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor 9-0                          Pool B #1
2. Hardin-Simmons 7-1 +                           Pool C #1
3. Berry 9-0                                               SAA Pool A
4. Washington & Jefferson 9-0                      Pres AC Pool A
5. Johns Hopkins 8-1                                  Projecting Centennial Pool A
6. Centre 8-1
7. Case Western Reserve 9-0                        a 10-0 CWRU Pool C #5
8. Franklin & Marshall 8-1
9. Huntingdon 7-1 +                                       USA South Pool A
10. Westminster (Pa.) 6-3


ODAC Pool A bid   ???
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2017, 01:55:29 pm
My West Region Projections (Games thru 11/04)
1. UW-Oshkosh 7-0 +                       WIAC Pool A
2. Linfield 7-1                                   NWC  Pool A
2. Wartburg 8-0                                IIAC Pool A
4. St. Thomas 7-1                             MIAC Pool A
5. St. John's 7-1 +                            Pool C
6. UW-La Crosse 7-2
7. Monmouth 8-1                               MWC Pool A (Projecting Monmouth over St Norbert)
8. Concordia-Moorhead 8-1           
9. UW-Platteville 6-3
10. George Fox 6-3   

Chapman 6-2                                    SCIAC  Pool A
Eureka   8-2                                      UMAC  Pool A
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2017, 02:04:36 pm
My North Region Projections  (Games thru 11/04)
1. Mount Union 9-0             OAC Pool A
2. Wittenberg 9-0                NCAC Pool A
3. Trine 9-0                         MIAA Pool A
4. North Central 7-1
5. DePauw 8-1
6. Illinois Wesleyan 8-1
7. Franklin 7-1                    HCAC Pool A
8. Heidelberg 6-3
9. Wheaton (Ill.) 7-2
10. Millikin 7-2

Lakeland 7-2                            NACC  Pool A



CCIW  Still up for grabs
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2017, 02:17:54 pm
My East Region Projections  (Games thru 11/04)

1. Delaware Valley 8-0                 (Widener at Del Val; winner take all)
2. Brockport 9-0                            Empire 8 Pool A
3. Springfield 9-0                           NEWMAC Pool B #2
4. Wesley 8-1                                 NJAC Pool A
5. Frostburg State 8-1
6. Husson 7-1 +                            ECFC Pool A
7. Union 8-1  7-2                            Hosting RPI for the Shoes & LL Pool A bid; RPI can earn the bid with a win.
8. Western Connecticut 7-2
9. Plymouth State 9-1                      MASCAC Pool A
10. Curry 7-2

Western New England  7-2                CCC Pool A bid   
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bleedpurple on November 05, 2017, 09:45:00 pm
My West Region Projections (Games thru 11/04)
1. UW-Oshkosh 7-0 +                       WIAC Pool A
2. Linfield 7-1                                   NWC  Pool A
2. Wartburg 8-0                                IIAC Pool A
4. St. Thomas 7-1                             MIAC Pool A
5. St. John's 7-1 +                            Pool C
6. UW-La Crosse 7-2
7. Monmouth 8-1                               MWC Pool A (Projecting Monmouth over St Norbert)
8. Concordia-Moorhead 8-1           
9. UW-Platteville 6-3
10. George Fox 6-3   

Chapman 6-2                                    SCIAC  Pool A
Eureka   8-2                                      UMAC  Pool A

Ralph,
Just curious as to your reasoning for projecting UW-P to be regionally ranked and not UW-W, given:
Both teams are 6-3 and UW-W won the head to head match-up.
Common opponents: UW-W beat UW-L and UW-P lost to them.
Conference standings: UW-W is second in the WIAC (5-1) UW-P is tied for fourth (3-3)

I know these facts aren't criteria, but I would think they would matter.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: cubs on November 05, 2017, 10:11:32 pm
Ralph,
Just curious as to your reasoning for projecting UW-P to be regionally ranked and not UW-W, given:
Both teams are 6-3 and UW-W won the head to head match-up.
Common opponents: UW-W beat UW-L and UW-P lost to them.
Conference standings: UW-W is second in the WIAC (5-1) UW-P is tied for fourth (3-3)

I know these facts aren't criteria, but I would think they would matter.
Pretty sure Ralph is using the last set of Regional Rankings that were released last week, and not predicting what this week's Regional Rankings might look like...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 05, 2017, 11:45:10 pm
I'm really interested to see what happens this week with Concordia-Moorhead and La Crosse, particularly if Whitewater gets ranked.  The SOS difference is still large (though not quite as large as last week), and the Cobbers have a favorable common opponent result (Whitewater).  We also know they don't take into account RRO in the first rankings (lazy, imo), but we could see UWW in and UWP out which swings an RRO win over to the Cobbers as well. 

What I'm saying is that I think C-M could and maybe should be ranked ahead of La Crosse- even if they end up losing to St. John's by a non-comical margin. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2017, 12:04:00 am
My West Region Projections (Games thru 11/04)
1. UW-Oshkosh 7-0 +                       WIAC Pool A
2. Linfield 7-1                                   NWC  Pool A
2. Wartburg 8-0                                IIAC Pool A
4. St. Thomas 7-1                             MIAC Pool A
5. St. John's 7-1 +                            Pool C
6. UW-La Crosse 7-2
7. Monmouth 8-1                               MWC Pool A (Projecting Monmouth over St Norbert)
8. Concordia-Moorhead 8-1           
9. UW-Platteville 6-3
10. George Fox 6-3   

Chapman 6-2                                    SCIAC  Pool A
Eureka   8-2                                      UMAC  Pool A

Ralph,
Just curious as to your reasoning for projecting UW-P to be regionally ranked and not UW-W, given:
Both teams are 6-3 and UW-W won the head to head match-up.
Common opponents: UW-W beat UW-L and UW-P lost to them.
Conference standings: UW-W is second in the WIAC (5-1) UW-P is tied for fourth (3-3)

I know these facts aren't criteria, but I would think they would matter.
Ralph,
Just curious as to your reasoning for projecting UW-P to be regionally ranked and not UW-W, given:
Both teams are 6-3 and UW-W won the head to head match-up.
Common opponents: UW-W beat UW-L and UW-P lost to them.
Conference standings: UW-W is second in the WIAC (5-1) UW-P is tied for fourth (3-3)

I know these facts aren't criteria, but I would think they would matter.
Pretty sure Ralph is using the last set of Regional Rankings that were released last week, and not predicting what this week's Regional Rankings might look like...

Cubs is correct.  With only 5 Pool C bids,  three strong Pool B candidates (undefeated UMHB, undefeated Springfield and HSU #2 in the South Region), and potentially an undefeated CWRU from the Pres AC, I only see other 3 Pool C bids to award.

I posted my update to prompt some discussion on how tight this is gonna be!

More accurately, I might "reserve" one of those Pool C bids for the winner of the Concordia-Moorhead/ Johnnies game.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bombers798891 on November 06, 2017, 09:03:18 am

7. Union 8-1                                     Hosting RPI for the Shoes & LL Pool A bid


Union is 7-2 and eliminated from Pool A contention. A Union win gives Ithaca the Pool A
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 06, 2017, 09:34:37 am
I am skeptical it will get to this but if LAX and Wheaton are on the table as 2 loss pool C candidates, I think there is an interesting discussion. Of course a lot can happen but when Depauw loses to my good friends in Crawfordsville this weekend and if IWU beats Millikin,  Wheaton stands to be the highest rated team in the north after IWU. IWU will be 2-1 v RRO's (assuming UWW ends up ranked) and will get selected early. The East and CWRU will have a lot to say with what's left but  if the cards fall right, those two could be there at the end.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: ITH radio on November 06, 2017, 09:58:23 am
Wally -

I'm guessing in the Rd 2 ERR's you'll see West Conn, Curry and Union drop out. Plymouth St will move up one, Fram St will get a spot, and my guess is barring a huge surprise of a 8-1 SUNY-M team, WNE and RPI round out the Top 10.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2017, 10:44:15 am

7. Union 8-1                                     Hosting RPI for the Shoes & LL Pool A bid


Union is 7-2 and eliminated from Pool A contention. A Union win gives Ithaca the Pool A
+1, thanks Bombers and good luck!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: MANDGSU on November 06, 2017, 10:50:35 am
Wally -

I'm guessing in the Rd 2 ERR's you'll see West Conn, Curry and Union drop out. Plymouth St will move up one, Fram St will get a spot, and my guess is barring a huge surprise of a 8-1 SUNY-M team, WNE and RPI round out the Top 10.

I think an 7-2 Albright or Widener team may get consideration. I would also think my Gulls may get some consideration as well.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2017, 11:12:23 am
Wally -

I'm guessing in the Rd 2 ERR's you'll see West Conn, Curry and Union drop out. Plymouth St will move up one, Fram St will get a spot, and my guess is barring a huge surprise of a 8-1 SUNY-M team, WNE and RPI round out the Top 10.

I think an 7-2 Albright or Widener team may get consideration. I would also think my Gulls may get some consideration as well.

Albright is out of play.  Widener can only qualify automatically with a win this weekend.  A loss and they're definitely out also. 

Salisbury needs to win, probably impressively.  The at-large scenario in the East is fairly thin behind Springfield.  Salisbury could definitely leapfrog all the way up behind Springfield in the at-large line with a win this weekend. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2017, 03:26:17 pm
Wally -

I'm guessing in the Rd 2 ERR's you'll see West Conn, Curry and Union drop out. Plymouth St will move up one, Fram St will get a spot, and my guess is barring a huge surprise of a 8-1 SUNY-M team, WNE and RPI round out the Top 10.

You might also see Wesley go in front of Springfield. Those SOS's traded places this week.  Does Springfield at 4E instead of 3E make them less sexy for the second Pool B?  Maybe?  Would that even matter?  I think it does for Frostburg. 

But then Springfield is going to get a boost on Saturday with MIT while Wesley is about to eat the 9 Ls on William Patterson's record, so nevermind.  Any swapping due to SOS fluctuation will be undone after Saturday anyway.  Scratch all of that.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wesleydad on November 06, 2017, 06:27:54 pm
Wally -

I'm guessing in the Rd 2 ERR's you'll see West Conn, Curry and Union drop out. Plymouth St will move up one, Fram St will get a spot, and my guess is barring a huge surprise of a 8-1 SUNY-M team, WNE and RPI round out the Top 10.

You might also see Wesley go in front of Springfield. Those SOS's traded places this week.  Does Springfield at 4E instead of 3E make them less sexy for the second Pool B?  Maybe?  Would that even matter?  I think it does for Frostburg. 

But then Springfield is going to get a boost on Saturday with MIT while Wesley is about to eat the 9 Ls on William Patterson's record, so nevermind.  Any swapping due to SOS fluctuation will be undone after Saturday anyway.  Scratch all of that.   :)

Wally, Wesley plays CNU on Saturday.  Already ate the 9L's from willy p.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 07, 2017, 06:01:21 pm
My North Region Projections  (Games thru 11/04)
1. Mount Union 9-0             OAC Pool A
2. Wittenberg 9-0                NCAC Pool A
3. Trine 9-0                         MIAA Pool A
4. North Central 7-1
5. DePauw 8-1
6. Illinois Wesleyan 8-1
7. Franklin 7-1                    HCAC Pool A
8. Heidelberg 6-3
9. Wheaton (Ill.) 7-2
10. Millikin 7-2

Lakeland 7-2                            NACC  Pool A



CCIW  Still up for grabs

My best guess on the North RR tomorrow will be:

(Team, Record, RRO, SOS, Pool)
1. Mount Union 9-0, 0-0, .517  A           
2. Wittenberg 9-0, 0-0, .539 A         
3. Trine 9-0, 1-0, .478   A                     
4. North Central 7-1, 2-1, .542 A
5. Illinois Wesleyan 8-1, 3-1, .503 C
6. DePauw 8-1, 0-1, .518  C             
7. Wheaton (Ill.) 7-2, 1-2, .536  C
8. Franklin 7-2, 0-0, .449 A
9. Millikin 7-2, 1-2, .508  C
10. Hope 7-2, 0-1, .550  C
                           

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on November 07, 2017, 06:14:28 pm
My North Region Projections  (Games thru 11/04)
1. Mount Union 9-0             OAC Pool A
2. Wittenberg 9-0                NCAC Pool A
3. Trine 9-0                         MIAA Pool A
4. North Central 7-1
5. DePauw 8-1
6. Illinois Wesleyan 8-1
7. Franklin 7-1                    HCAC Pool A
8. Heidelberg 6-3
9. Wheaton (Ill.) 7-2
10. Millikin 7-2

Lakeland 7-2                            NACC  Pool A



CCIW  Still up for grabs

My best guess on the North RR tomorrow will be:

(Team, Record, RRO, SOS, Pool)
1. Mount Union 9-0, 0-0, .517  A           
2. Wittenberg 9-0, 0-0, .539 A         
3. Trine 9-0, 1-0, .478   A                     
4. North Central 7-1, 2-1, .542 A
5. Illinois Wesleyan 8-1, 3-1, .503 C
6. DePauw 8-1, 0-1, .518  C             
7. Wheaton (Ill.) 7-2, 1-2, .536  C
8. Franklin 7-2, 0-0, .449 A
9. Millikin 7-2, 1-2, .508  C
10. Hope 7-2, 0-1, .550  C
                           

Nice call USee.

One small issue,  IWU is only 2-1, they have not beat Millikin yet. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 07, 2017, 07:19:29 pm
But they did beat UWW which I expect will appear in the West!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on November 07, 2017, 07:55:49 pm
But they did beat UWW which I expect will appear in the West!

Right - wins over Wheaton and UWW, lost to NCC.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2017, 09:10:09 pm
But they did beat UWW which I expect will appear in the West!

Right - wins over Wheaton and UWW, lost to NCC.

As a Titan fan, I had noted that USee was prematurely granting a win to us on Saturday (thanks, USee ;D).  My worry is that if and when we beat Millikin, will they remain ranked?  At 2-1 RRO, we'd be formidable; at 3-1 probably an absolute lock.  (Of course, if Millikin drops out, Carthage might be the replacement, in which case we'd still be 3-1.)

If tomorrow's ranking don't move (correctly) IWU ahead of Depauw, I will for once have a rooting interest in the Monon Bell -GO LGs, crush the Tigers!  IF IWU is the top Pool C candidate in the North, I think they are off the board quite early.  IF DePauw is the top C candidate, I fear IWU will never even reach the table.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2017, 09:24:22 pm
But they did beat UWW which I expect will appear in the West!

Right - wins over Wheaton and UWW, lost to NCC.

As a Titan fan, I had noted that USee was prematurely granting a win to us on Saturday (thanks, USee ;D).  My worry is that if and when we beat Millikin, will they remain ranked?  At 2-1 RRO, we'd be formidable; at 3-1 probably an absolute lock.  (Of course, if Millikin drops out, Carthage might be the replacement, in which case we'd still be 3-1.)

If tomorrow's ranking don't move (correctly) IWU ahead of Depauw, I will for once have a rooting interest in the Monon Bell -GO LGs, crush the Tigers!  IF IWU is the top Pool C candidate in the North, I think they are off the board quite early.  IF DePauw is the top C candidate, I fear IWU will never even reach the table.

Everybody outside of Greencastle should have a pro-Wabash rooting interest in the Monon Bell game on general principle.  It's just the right thing to do. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2017, 09:36:13 pm
But they did beat UWW which I expect will appear in the West!

Right - wins over Wheaton and UWW, lost to NCC.

As a Titan fan, I had noted that USee was prematurely granting a win to us on Saturday (thanks, USee ;D).  My worry is that if and when we beat Millikin, will they remain ranked?  At 2-1 RRO, we'd be formidable; at 3-1 probably an absolute lock.  (Of course, if Millikin drops out, Carthage might be the replacement, in which case we'd still be 3-1.)

If tomorrow's ranking don't move (correctly) IWU ahead of Depauw, I will for once have a rooting interest in the Monon Bell -GO LGs, crush the Tigers!  IF IWU is the top Pool C candidate in the North, I think they are off the board quite early.  IF DePauw is the top C candidate, I fear IWU will never even reach the table.

Everybody outside of Greencastle should have a pro-Wabash rooting interest in the Monon Bell game on general principle. It's just the right thing to do.

Not that you're biased or anything! ;D 

I'd assume there are DPU grads who move, and parents of DPU students from elsewhere, so there just might be legitimate reasons for people outside of Greencastle to NOT support Wabash.  Until it affects IWU, I try to stay neutral on such rivalries as the Monon Bell or Hope/Calvin basketball - why risk getting shot at from either side?! :P
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2017, 09:53:25 pm
There's a right side to be on here, Mr. Y.  Search your feelings.   :)

Alright, I missed the eliminator table last week.  I could tell you that I was swamped and busy and didn't get to it, but the truth is I just didn't do it.  Could have, didn't.  So, apologies for that.  Here's an update today:

(https://i.imgur.com/BF7EgAW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/TKV7RCH.png)

- Newly eliminated teams in white typeface. 
- A lot of teams eliminated this week because they clinched Pool A bids. 
- I took Hope out because it definitely looks like they're going to be behind at least two CCIW teams, and probably at least one NCAC team and that's just too many teams to be behind, particularly when there may only be one really viable Pool C team in the whole bunch (IWU). 
- I could have probably done the same thing with a number of other teams here (Whitworth, ETBU, Carnegie Mellon, Hendrix, Union, WPI to name a few), but my confidence in how those regions will move around this week isn't quite as high as it is for the North region.  But any of those teams that don't appear in tomorrow's rankings are almost certainly out as well.  I don't know that any of them can do enough with one game AND get enough help to go from out of the rankings into the tournament. 

The big games this weekend for at-large teams are:
Wabash @ DePauw
Millikin @ IWU
Concordia-Moorhead @ St. John's
CWRU @ Carnegie Mellon
Widener @ Delaware Valley
Frostburg St. @ Salisbury

Other games are likely to have impact, but these are the biggies. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on November 07, 2017, 10:25:53 pm

The big games this weekend for at-large teams are:
Wabash @ DePauw
Millikin @ IWU
Concordia-Moorhead @ St. John's
CWRU @ Carnegie Mellon
Widener @ Delaware Valley
Frostburg St. @ Salisbury

Other games are likely to have impact, but these are the biggies.

I would add MIT @ Springfield - given that a lost by Springfield might open up another Pool C slot.

And I will be rooting for both Wabash and IWU (and several other teams).
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2017, 10:34:43 pm
Good catch, tf.  I knew I missed one.  Springfield getting to 10-0 (or not) is definitely a big deal for at-large watchers this weekend. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 08, 2017, 09:40:03 am
By my model, these are the teams with the biggest games in terms of playoff leverage. Obviously, the Pool A clinching games are going to be huge, but there's also the games Wally mentioned. There's also a few games that should be lopsided, but could cause some additional drama if they don't go the way we think.
(https://i.imgur.com/BI6oyjr.png)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 08, 2017, 11:15:36 am
Isnít UWL at UWRF also a big game for playoff implications?
UWRF may get overlooked based on record, but they have proven to be a very tough out for every team theyíve played. 5 games lost by a total of 35 Points.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 11:33:53 am
It could be, emma.  I'll be interested to see what happens to La Crosse in today's rankings.  UWP going out hurts them a lot.  UWW may be in (or UWW may have to wait until they get to 7-3 to get in) which helps La Crosse just a bit (RRO losses are better than losses to unranked teams).  But La Crosse has a common opponent problem with Concordia-Moorhead via Whitewater.  And without that RRO win vs. Platteville, it seems reasonable to me that the Cobbers could be ahead of La Crosse today and even on Saturday night regardless of their result against St. John's (unless the margin is huge).  UWW beating UWPmight have torpedoed UWL's shot at the tournament. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 08, 2017, 11:56:48 am
Ahhh right. That was my rooting conundrum last week.
If Concordia-Moorhead beats St. John's by a good margin, is it fair to assume CM is first in (especially if the committee acknowledges the loss to St. Thomas was without their starting QB)?

That pushes St. John's down to compete for attention with UWL, but then you get the issue with UWW.
I love the intrigue.
 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 12:11:06 pm
Ahhh right. That was my rooting conundrum last week.
If Concordia-Moorhead beats St. John's by a good margin, is it fair to assume CM is first in (especially if the committee acknowledges the loss to St. Thomas was without their starting QB)?

That pushes St. John's down to compete for attention with UWL, but then you get the issue with UWW.
I love the intrigue.
 

The St. John's/Concordia game is probably an elimination game.  I don't think either can get in with two losses- especially St. John's as they have zilch on their profile other than a (deceptive) 3-point loss to St. Thomas.  Concordia would at least have the UWW result to fall back on, but having a win over West #9/10 probably doesn't get you in the field.  I think it's better for La Crosse if Concordia wins and gets selected quickly.  The Eagles would at least have a shot in that scenario. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 08, 2017, 12:27:24 pm
Ahhh right. That was my rooting conundrum last week.
If Concordia-Moorhead beats St. John's by a good margin, is it fair to assume CM is first in (especially if the committee acknowledges the loss to St. Thomas was without their starting QB)?

That pushes St. John's down to compete for attention with UWL, but then you get the issue with UWW.
I love the intrigue.
 

They are still without him and I don't think he's coming back, so I'm not sure they get a pass for this.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 08, 2017, 12:48:55 pm
  I think it's better for La Crosse if Concordia wins and gets selected quickly.  The Eagles would at least have a shot in that scenario.

Similar scenario for 2 loss Wheaton in North. Best case is Wabash beats Depauw this weekend, IWU beats Millikin,  gets selected 1st or 2nd, and then Wheaton is there for last 3 rounds and a win vs an RRO no one else has. I think Wheaton should be ranked ahead of a 1 loss Depauw in the RR but that's unlikely due to win %. SOS will be similar (Depauw likely to be better than Wheaton after this weekend) and Wheaton has a much better RRo profile.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 08, 2017, 01:22:31 pm
Wheaton needs a slight change to the selection criteria. If each potential Pool B & C team could submit one video of their best half of football, Wheaton would be the shoe in.

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 08, 2017, 01:35:25 pm
Wheaton needs a slight change to the selection criteria. If each potential Pool B & C team could submit one video of their best half of football, Wheaton would be the shoe in.

Good point. Beating your arch rival and #4 ranked team in the country 35-7 and dominating the LOS on both sides should count as a separate game.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 03:34:50 pm
Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: AO on November 08, 2017, 03:50:29 pm
  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 
Projection coming later!
Pretty funny seeing Lake Forest pop up ahead of Whitewater.  Wouldn't have guessed that would be a possibility earlier this season when Lake Forest gave up 46 points to Carleton. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 04:17:58 pm
  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 
Projection coming later!
Pretty funny seeing Lake Forest pop up ahead of Whitewater.  Wouldn't have guessed that would be a possibility earlier this season when Lake Forest gave up 46 points to Carleton.

I could totally be making this up, but I'm pretty sure I remember hearing in 2015 when North Central had three losses and couldn't get ranked that there is what amounts to a 0.700 win percentage prerequisite to get ranked.  If there's any truth to that at all, Whitewater won't get ranked until after Saturday's games, even though they probably should be ranked today.  Thankfully this year we don't have to guess and we'll be able to see those rankings that used to be a secret. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2017, 04:39:31 pm
That has definitely been a standard that has been thrown out before (I think it's actually that WL% must be > .667.)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 08, 2017, 05:45:19 pm
Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I almost have the feeling the north region committee is playing chicken with the selection committee. Maybe they think that there's no way IWU will be left out (and fear DePauw will be), so they're making it so the national selection committee will have to take DePauw to get to Ill. Wesleyan, essentially ensuring the north two at large bids.
On a side note Wally, congrats on your 1000th smite lol! It takes dedication to post enough to get that many! :)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2017, 06:21:10 pm
Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I almost have the feeling the north region committee is playing chicken with the selection committee. Maybe they think that there's no way IWU will be left out (and fear DePauw will be), so they're making it so the national selection committee will have to take DePauw to get to Ill. Wesleyan, essentially ensuring the north two at large bids.
On a side note Wally, congrats on your 1000th smite lol! It takes dedication to post enough to get that many! :)
[/b]

Pssht, wally's practically a rookie poster - I've got over 3,000 smites! 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 09:12:24 pm
New projection time.  I'm using today's regional rankings (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/second-regional-ranking) as if they were the final rankings.  Click here for a full rundown of the mechanics (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8708.msg1825587#msg1825587).  25 A, 2 B, 5 C.  Off we go. 

Pool A
The projected 25 Pool A's as of this moment:
(https://i.imgur.com/yW6LFKx.png)

- Teams in gold cells have clinched.
- I think the only change this week was projecting RPI in the Liberty League.  The rest are just a whole lot of clinchers from this past week. 

Pool B

Round 1:
1S Mary Hardin-Baylor: 9-0, 2-0 vs. RROs, 0.519 (86th) SOS
3E Springfield: 9-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.500 (132)

No changes here.  UMHB are the pick and the top seed in the tournament. 

Round 2:
2S Hardin-Simmons: 7-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.526 (66)
3E Springfield: 9-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.500 (132)

I went Springfield here last week despite a larger SOS margin.  Both of these two saw their SOS's fall, but the gap is a smidge lower, so I'll stick with Springfield. 

Now after UMHB and Springfield come out of our rankings lists, the remaining regional boards look as follows:
East: Frostburg State, Framingham State
North: DePauw, Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, Hope Millikin
South: Hardin-Simmons, Case Western Reserve, Centre, Franklin & Marshall, Hendrix
West: St. John's, UW-La Crosse, Concordia-Moorhead, Lake Forest, Whitworth

Last week I promised y'all that IWU wouldn't be ranked ahead of DePauw this week, and I was wrong.  For whatever reason, the North RAC is sticking with that.  I really don't get it.   

Better news for CWRU this week as they got bumped up ahead of Centre and are next in line after Hardin-Simmons.  That's the best case scenario for the Spartans, and it's now clear that they are in an win-and-in situation.  We don't have to wonder if they'd put CWRU in position to be selected- they've done it. 

One other new thing is that I'm adding in how I would order the teams were I a voting member of the committee after each selection. 

Time to fill out my made-up tournament field. 

Pool C:
Round 1:
5N DePauw - 8-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.518 (88)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 7-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.526 (66)
5E Frostburg St. - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.474 (183)
5W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.491 (154)

Hardin-Simmons has the highest SOS on the board, I think they have the best RRO result in a not-so-bad defeat to 1S UMHB.  Frostburg and St. John's have close losses as well, but to lower ranked teams.  DePauw's loss looked like the aftermath of a Game of Thrones battle scene.  Cowboys are in and we all wait and see if the NCAA cuts loose the money to avoid a first round game in Belton.   
H-SU, SJU, FSU, DU

Round 2:
5N DePauw - 8-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.518 (88)
5S CWRU - 9-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.409 (231)
5E Frostburg St. - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.474 (183)
5W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.491 (154)

The good news for CWRU is that the SOS's they're in play with here aren't really great.  DePauw's is ok, but there's still no covering up that 52-6 result vs. Wittenberg.  St. John's took an SOS hit this week, which makes this a very difficult choice.  I'm going to stick with the Johnnies in this spot this week, but it's definitely close between all four. 
SJU, FSU, CWRU, DU

Round 3:
5N DePauw - 8-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.518 (88)
5S CWRU - 9-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.409 (231)
5E Frostburg St. - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.474 (183)
6W UW-La Crosse - 7-2, 0-1 RRO, 0.550 (33)

La Crosse joins the party now with a very large SOS, but they've got a second loss and a loss to an unranked team which none of our other teams in play have.  On my little scorecard here, Frostburg gets the nod mostly because of their OT result with Wesley being the best RRO result on the board.
FSU, CWRU, DU, UWL

Round 4:
5N DePauw - 8-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.518 (88)
5S CWRU - 9-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.409 (231)
8E Framingham St. - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.488 (160)
6W UW-La Crosse - 7-2, 0-1 RRO, 0.550 (33)

Getting down to the nitty gritty here.  Framingham actually presents a better profile than you might think.  Their loss is a field goal game to E7 Plymouth State, so as far as RRO losses goes, that isn't bad.  However, other RRO losses on the board currently are to N2 and W1 and then there's an undefeated team out there as well.  I think Framingham, despite being better than you think, is at the end of the line.  I'm taking the Spartans here because even though that SOS is still nearly worst-in-division-trash, DePauw has that 52-6 result that I really think is basically a disqualifier.   
CWRU, DU, UWL, FSU

Round 5:
5N DePauw - 8-1, 0-1 vs RROs, 0.518 (88)
7S Centre - 8-1, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.495 (143)
8E Framingham St. - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.488 (160)
6W UW-La Crosse - 7-2, 0-1 RRO, 0.550 (33)

Isn't this interesting.  Centre has rolled up here with an SOS that compares well with our other at-large selections so far, a not-terrible loss to S3, and- this is huge- an actual RRO win!  I love RRO wins!  So for the last spot- La Crosse is out for me because of the unranked loss and an extra loss.  The SOS just doesn't balance those things out.  Framingham is out with the lowest SOS here and a loss to a lower ranked team than the rest.  And we're down to former SCAC rivals DePauw and Centre.  Based on the way I tend to weigh things, Centre is my pick.  I will readily admit here that it is highly unlikely, no matter how smelly I think that DPU result vs. Witt is, that they would be the first team up from the North and not get picked.  But, their profile is not that good and while RRO losses are generally better than unranked losses, when that result is 52-6, you've kind of exposed yourself as a team that maybe doesn't need to keep playing.  At least that's my take.  And even if I'm wrong about the damning nature of that one result, DePauw does not compare favorably with the other teams selected and remain a block to Illinois Wesleyan who absolutely deserve to be in the field. 
Centre, DU, UWL, FSU
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 08, 2017, 09:31:52 pm
So bubble teams are hoping fellow bubble DePauw win as they keep IWU off the board. Don't see that scenario too often.
If everything was the same except DePauw was out of the way (say by losing some game this weekend that no one has heard of ;)), where would IWU fall in the pecking order? And with IWU in, could Wheaton get to the table and have any say in proceedings (probably not)?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 08, 2017, 09:44:18 pm
Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I almost have the feeling the north region committee is playing chicken with the selection committee. Maybe they think that there's no way IWU will be left out (and fear DePauw will be), so they're making it so the national selection committee will have to take DePauw to get to Ill. Wesleyan, essentially ensuring the north two at large bids.
On a side note Wally, congrats on your 1000th smite lol! It takes dedication to post enough to get that many! :)

Remember, the national committee approves the regional committee's work or changes it every week these are released. The RAC can't play too many games or try and pull one over on the national committee who is the selection committee... because the national committee is paying attention every week.

That said, the national committee isn't apparently changing this as of right now. Not sure why and I am not going to guess... but it isn't like the RAC can be all that tricky in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 09:47:39 pm
So bubble teams are hoping fellow bubble DePauw win as they keep IWU off the board. Don't see that scenario too often.
If everything was the same except DePauw was out of the way (say by losing some game this weekend that no one has heard of ;)), where would IWU fall in the pecking order? And with IWU in, could Wheaton get to the table and have any say in proceedings (probably not)?

I think they'd go in either right before or right after H-SU.  And then Wheaton would be in play, and they present an interesting case. 

That IWU is such a clear and obvious choice for one of these spots based on the same criteria that the committees are supposed to be using to rank teams makes it all the more puzzling to me how DePauw can stay ranked ahead of IWU.  0.015 points of SOS just doesn't eclipse IWU's advantages over DePauw in the rest of the criteria.  I'd love to know what I'm missing about 2017 DePauw that ranks them ahead of Illinois Wesleyan.   
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2017, 10:00:34 pm
So bubble teams are hoping fellow bubble DePauw win as they keep IWU off the board. Don't see that scenario too often.
If everything was the same except DePauw was out of the way (say by losing some game this weekend that no one has heard of ;)), where would IWU fall in the pecking order? And with IWU in, could Wheaton get to the table and have any say in proceedings (probably not)?

I think they'd go in either right before or right after H-SU.  And then Wheaton would be in play, and they present an interesting case. 

That IWU is such a clear and obvious choice for one of these spots based on the same criteria that the committees are supposed to be using to rank teams makes it all the more puzzling to me how DePauw can stay ranked ahead of IWU.  0.015 points of SOS just doesn't eclipse IWU's advantages over DePauw in the rest of the criteria.  I'd love to know what I'm missing about 2017 DePauw that ranks them ahead of Illinois Wesleyan.   

A humungous bribe by some Dannie alum?! :o ;)

It makes no sense.  LGs, make it a moot point in the Monon Bell!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: RtSLl3100 on November 08, 2017, 10:17:58 pm
Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I don't understand the South; you move CWRU up 2 spots. I see the argument they are still undefeated, but such a weak SOS compared to centre and JHU. I think the committee is trying to cover themselves by hoping CWRU gets to the table before Centre, bc if they don't then they would be potentially leaving a 10-0 team out of the tournament(assuming they beat CMU). Also what would that do to a JHU team;hopefully a pool A selection but being 6S does that hurt their chances to potential to host a 1st round game? It seems like they are doing what everyone else feels the north has failed to do by keeping IWU behind DPU.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 08, 2017, 10:22:01 pm
I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here (https://www.hansenratings.com/single-post/2017/11/08/Breaking-Down-Regional-Rankings). The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIChamps_RAC_Rosters_as_of_Sept1_20170911.pdf) of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 08, 2017, 10:25:08 pm
I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here (https://www.hansenratings.com/single-post/2017/11/08/Breaking-Down-Regional-Rankings). The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIChamps_RAC_Rosters_as_of_Sept1_20170911.pdf) of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.

FYI - the Lake Forest coach is not allowed to be involved in the call when his team is discussed. Furthermore, each member votes on their own on a computer after they have had conversations. So while you have a popular conspiracy theory used in a lot of sports, the NCAA has made a lot of efforts to remove that from the scenarios. Furthermore, he (or really the other co-chair) has to defend that pick with the national committee. If they don't like the reasoning (i.e. because he is co-chair), the national committee would quickly change it. I promise you, they aren't leaving it there because of any "boys network" per se.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 10:39:15 pm
Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I don't understand the South; you move CWRU up 2 spots. I see the argument they are still undefeated, but such a weak SOS compared to centre and JHU. I think the committee is trying to cover themselves by hoping CWRU gets to the table before Centre, bc if they don't then they would be potentially leaving a 10-0 team out of the tournament(assuming they beat CMU). Also what would that do to a JHU team;hopefully a pool A selection but being 6S does that hurt their chances to potential to host a 1st round game? It seems like they are doing what everyone else feels the north has failed to do by keeping IWU behind DPU.

Being undefeated is a big deal.  I think there are 12 such teams left in the entire division.  Bad SOS or no, being undefeated matters. 

The committee isn't covering anything really.  The South RAC is setting the order here- CWRU and Centre will never be considered at the same time nationally. 

Hopkins is not hopefully a Pool A team, they're it.  Waaaait.  Nope- they have to win this week.  I need to fix that in my table.  But, if they do win this week, they qualify automatically.  No selection involved with Hopkins.  Now, Hopkins did lose to an unranked team and when you do that, you definitely open yourself up to playing on the road.  That's not games the committee is playing, that's just the razor thin margins for error that any team has when it comes to seeding. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 08, 2017, 10:53:20 pm
I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here (https://www.hansenratings.com/single-post/2017/11/08/Breaking-Down-Regional-Rankings). The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIChamps_RAC_Rosters_as_of_Sept1_20170911.pdf) of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.

FYI - the Lake Forest coach is not allowed to be involved in the call when his team is discussed. Furthermore, each member votes on their own on a computer after they have had conversations. So while you have a popular conspiracy theory used in a lot of sports, the NCAA has made a lot of efforts to remove that from the scenarios. Furthermore, he (or really the other co-chair) has to defend that pick with the national committee. If they don't like the reasoning (i.e. because he is co-chair), the national committee would quickly change it. I promise you, they aren't leaving it there because of any "boys network" per se.

I wasn't aware of the individual voting process, but I did know coaches weren't on the call when their team is discussed. Even with those caveats, I believe that the subconscious biases of the other coaches, knowing Catanzaro is on the committee with them, is the only reason they're ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: RtSLl3100 on November 08, 2017, 10:59:09 pm
Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I don't understand the South; you move CWRU up 2 spots. I see the argument they are still undefeated, but such a weak SOS compared to centre and JHU. I think the committee is trying to cover themselves by hoping CWRU gets to the table before Centre, bc if they don't then they would be potentially leaving a 10-0 team out of the tournament(assuming they beat CMU). Also what would that do to a JHU team;hopefully a pool A selection but being 6S does that hurt their chances to potential to host a 1st round game? It seems like they are doing what everyone else feels the north has failed to do by keeping IWU behind DPU.

Being undefeated is a big deal.  I think there are 12 such teams left in the entire division.  Bad SOS or no, being undefeated matters. 

The committee isn't covering anything really.  The South RAC is setting the order here- CWRU and Centre will never be considered at the same time nationally. 

Hopkins is not hopefully a Pool A team, they're it.  Waaaait.  Nope- they have to win this week.  I need to fix that in my table.  But, if they do win this week, they qualify automatically.  No selection involved with Hopkins.  Now, Hopkins did lose to an unranked team and when you do that, you definitely open yourself up to playing on the road.  That's not games the committee is playing, that's just the razor thin margins for error that any team has when it comes to seeding.

I do think it is a fair and understandable argument, but what changed some much from the week 1 regional rankings to week 2 for them to move CWRU up to spots is more the question? If your saying being undefeated is more important than SOS, why not have them ranked higher in the first ranking?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2017, 11:15:17 pm
I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here (https://www.hansenratings.com/single-post/2017/11/08/Breaking-Down-Regional-Rankings). The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIChamps_RAC_Rosters_as_of_Sept1_20170911.pdf) of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.

FYI - the Lake Forest coach is not allowed to be involved in the call when his team is discussed. Furthermore, each member votes on their own on a computer after they have had conversations. So while you have a popular conspiracy theory used in a lot of sports, the NCAA has made a lot of efforts to remove that from the scenarios. Furthermore, he (or really the other co-chair) has to defend that pick with the national committee. If they don't like the reasoning (i.e. because he is co-chair), the national committee would quickly change it. I promise you, they aren't leaving it there because of any "boys network" per se.

I wasn't aware of the individual voting process, but I did know coaches weren't on the call when their team is discussed. Even with those caveats, I believe that the subconscious biases of the other coaches, knowing Catanzaro is on the committee with them, is the only reason they're ranked.

I was wondering if you felt the same about the West Region's other co-chair. You only singled out one when ...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 08, 2017, 11:21:38 pm
Those on these committees (coaches and administrators, never less than 50% admins) take these jobs seriously. Do you really think the admins, especially, suddenly want to kiss the rear end of the co-chair and thus vote them higher?

Please can we leave these ideas in the past. There is a history in DIII of this. We can all talk about those days. However, the criteria, committee makeups, and data have pretty much eliminated these things. Each individual does vote on their own on a computer after the call and that has been in place for about five years or so. Driving this conspiracy theory is something I don't think does anything for anyone.

And personally, it is an easy way to make up a reason for the decision. When I find a decision that doesn't add up at first I do two things: I dive into the information to try and discover why the committee made the choice the way they did; I contact someone and simply ask the question and find out the answer (and question more if I have to). Maybe you can't do the second one, but to try and indicate that the reason behind the decision was because people wanted to be nice to the co-chair is a theory too far in my opinion.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 08, 2017, 11:47:46 pm
Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 09, 2017, 12:18:26 am
I do know that Rod Sandberg, Whitworth HC, is the co-chair of the West RAC and a member of the national committee. It should be noted he played and then coached at Wheaton for  a dozen years or so. His best friend is also former Wabash HC Chris Creighton. I can assure you he is well aware of the quality of football in the North Region. While Rod has as much integrity as you would imagine, he is not un-informed. He is also just one vote.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 09, 2017, 12:42:37 am
Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?

I just think by entertaining the idea... it opens the door. By saying it is subconscious, you are giving it the idea of it happening.

I don't think even subconsciously it happens. I especially point out the admins not because they are free from bias, but that they aren't usually wrapped up in the games that coaches play themselves. I am certainly not saying they are perfectly logical, but I have found admins to sometimes be so out of touch (to some degree) that the idea that their subconscious would push them to reward the co-chair a stretch.

Honestly if anything, I think more people would be keen to vote in the opposite direction and try as hard to keep a bias from being formed as to look for any possible reason NOT to vote for said team. I think in these cases, it is harder for them to achieve a position because they have to explain it to said coach when he returns to the call or when the vote comes in.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on November 09, 2017, 01:12:53 am
On the North RR, my problem is the apparent inconsistency. If SOS is so important between IWU and DePauw, why is Wheaton ahead of Hope?

And for that matter, what did Hope do to jump Millikin?  Both teams won handily against a lower tier members of their respective conferences.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2017, 01:17:14 am
Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?

I just think by entertaining the idea... it opens the door. By saying it is subconscious, you are giving it the idea of it happening.

I don't think even subconsciously it happens. I especially point out the admins not because they are free from bias, but that they aren't usually wrapped up in the games that coaches play themselves. I am certainly not saying they are perfectly logical, but I have found admins to sometimes be so out of touch (to some degree) that the idea that their subconscious would push them to reward the co-chair a stretch.

Honestly if anything, I think more people would be keen to vote in the opposite direction and try as hard to keep a bias from being formed as to look for any possible reason NOT to vote for said team. I think in these cases, it is harder for them to achieve a position because they have to explain it to said coach when he returns to the call or when the vote comes in.
I am with Dave on this one. I believe that the members on the committee want to be remembered as having served on the committee honorably and having the best intentions of improving the playoffs each year.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 09:03:05 am
Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?

I just think by entertaining the idea... it opens the door. By saying it is subconscious, you are giving it the idea of it happening.

I don't think even subconsciously it happens. I especially point out the admins not because they are free from bias, but that they aren't usually wrapped up in the games that coaches play themselves. I am certainly not saying they are perfectly logical, but I have found admins to sometimes be so out of touch (to some degree) that the idea that their subconscious would push them to reward the co-chair a stretch.

Honestly if anything, I think more people would be keen to vote in the opposite direction and try as hard to keep a bias from being formed as to look for any possible reason NOT to vote for said team. I think in these cases, it is harder for them to achieve a position because they have to explain it to said coach when he returns to the call or when the vote comes in.

By saying the mere acknowledgment that people are biased is somehow taboo, you lost me. We're not going to be able to come to any sort of common ground if you truly believe that. The process wouldn't be as thorough or robust as it is if it weren't for such discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 09, 2017, 09:31:10 am
I have worked in the media for a very long time. My wife likes to smile and joke with me when I sit watching a game of my favorite team and I don't even react in a big play. The first season I went to NFL games as a fan, I would just sit there until I remember I was allowed to stand and cheer. I was so used to sitting in a press box, not reacting, doing my job, and not being bias.

The point? I don't think bias plays as strong a role as you and others like to make it out to be. I feel those who sign up for these committees check not only their egos at the door, but also their biases. I feel they work very hard to do their jobs with honor and not even let subconscious results.

You want to clearly ride that harder than most (most don't bring it up no matter what). To say that because I actually believe, in my many years of talking to committee members of all levels, they can actually leave their bias at the door is somehow a disqualifying measure to discuss these things with you is disappointing.

How about not looking for conspiracy theories even if they are subconscious and try and discover reasons why the results actually happened. If you can't find an answer, than ask the appropriate questions. I find we either get the answers or we discover mistakes were made - mistakes do happen. However, there just isn't enough evidence to approach someone and say, "looks like the rest of the committee's subconscious biases made sure Lake Forest was ranked where they were, huh?" I'd lose more respect with that move than I can think. If that is your line of demarkation in terms of "common ground" ... like I said, disappointing.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 09:39:27 am
Dave, this isn't a "conspiracy theory." People have biases. It's impossible to rid ourselves of them.

Lake Forest being ranked in the regional top 10 is an historic outlier. I believe the fact that their HC is the co-chair of the committee is partially responsible for their ranking. I do not believe anyone on the committee is acting in any way unethical or outside the bounds of their directive.

If you believe committee members "leave their bias at the door," you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the human condition.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 09, 2017, 09:44:53 am
I agree with HR, to say biases don't exist is as preposterous as saying they equate to a conspiracy. I believe most committee members try to eliminate biases and make decisions rationally but everyone has them, it's human nature. You don't "leave them at the door".

The fact that the different RAC's used the same criteria and ranked similar teams differently is pretty strong evidence that there is some bias in play. It may be a preference to SOS over RRO or win %, but the criteria are inconsistently applied and I don't think that's a debate is it?  If that's not based on bias what is it?

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2017, 09:54:18 am
I won't pretend to know the reason for it, but Lake Forest being ranked in the west region with a 0.419 SOS (229th/237 teams...literally THE worst SOS in the region) and a 42-7 loss to W6 Monmouth is positively weird.  That might be more weird than what's going on in the North with IWU/DePauw, frankly. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 09, 2017, 10:07:55 am
I agree with HR, to say biases don't exist is as preposterous as saying they equate to a conspiracy. I believe most committee members try to eliminate biases and make decisions rationally but everyone has them, it's human nature. You don't "leave them at the door".

The fact that the different RAC's used the same criteria and ranked similar teams differently is pretty strong evidence that there is some bias in play. It may be a preference to SOS over RRO or win %, but the criteria are inconsistently applied and I don't think that's a debate is it?  If that's not based on bias what is it?

I don't think the RACs having different results is a sign of bias... the criteria allows for a lot of interruption. If it was cut and dry enough to allow for biases to be a deciding factor, then we would probably be able to nail every single at-large in every single sport without much effort. The criteria is designed to narrow things down, but does not reveal the answers easily. They aren't a computer program. You see it as inconsistently applied, but if you ask those in those RACs they will make usually logical arguments for those decisions. They read the data and the criteria one way while someone else reads it another way. There is a reason the national committee members don't tend to be individuals who didn't spend time on the RACs honing things first. It isn't really is.

The criteria being interrupted differently also allows for a different point of view from where you sit. You may call that bias, but I see it as perspective.

If bias was really in play, I could point to a number of situations where a coach sitting on a panel who hates another team or coach (and they exist) and punishing them accordingly. I have found the opposite (in most sports, there is still one that has issues actually and we aren't talking about that sport in this discussion). I feel those who sit on these committees do their best to treat everyone without bias and with respect and to read the criteria the best they can from their vantage point.

And I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

Now listen, I am not saying bias doesn't exist in the world. It does. However, I feel people on these committees for the most part are very capable of pushing that bias, or leaning, to the side and work accordingly. I feel that if they have a legit reason to put Team A ahead of Team B that they don't necessarily listen to the "voice in my head" which says ignore those reasons and put Team B ahead instead (rather simplistic, but...). I also think there are enough checks and balances in place to keep biases from having too much affect. An individual directly related to the team cannot participate in the call (and lobbying at other times is strictly forbidden), individuals vote on their own after being able to vote how they feel versus any pressure, and the national committee can make changes in which the chairs of those appropriate RACs have to make the argument (and again, the coach in this case would have to step away from the conversation).

I just don't think even mentioning that Lake Forest is positioned where they are is because their coach is a co-chair of the committee is a legit thing to comment about even if the part of it being "subconscious" is the argument. Present that as a legit question to someone on the national committee or the RAC and see what the answer is. If the answer seems suspicious, you may get me to change my mind.

Let me also say, I have no horse in this race. I agree on a quick look and per what Wally says the selection is odd. However, I rather question them on the reasons than go straight towards bias. I have found that there are many reasons I don't consider or their logic is flawed before I ever get to bias being a problem.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: izzy stradlin on November 09, 2017, 10:45:59 am
Dave, this isn't a "conspiracy theory." People have biases. It's impossible to rid ourselves of them.

Lake Forest being ranked in the regional top 10 is an historic outlier. I believe the fact that their HC is the co-chair of the committee is partially responsible for their ranking. I do not believe anyone on the committee is acting in any way unethical or outside the bounds of their directive.

If you believe committee members "leave their bias at the door," you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the human condition.

Exactly.  I donít think Dave understands how bias works is data collection and analysis. It is not something you ďcheckĒ or consciously remove.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: retagent on November 09, 2017, 10:57:28 am
I believe that Dave "d-mac" has actually argued that "bias" is in play. He just doesn't call it bias. Whether you look at historical performance, SOS, Regional power, or win %, in order to come up with different outcomes means you have put more weight on some criteria than other criteria. That is the definition of bias. It is not necessarily an indictment of wrongdoing, it is an observation. That's my take on reading the past couple of pages. Your bias will determine how much weight you give that take.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2017, 12:01:42 pm
Whether it's bias or some other human deficiency, I find the problem lies with this concept:
Quote
And I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

It's been said that the RAC's only advise and the National Committee makes the decisions for each regional and final ranking. If that's the case, why is the National Committee acting inconsistently for different regions?

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 09, 2017, 01:55:15 pm
Whether it's bias or some other human deficiency, I find the problem lies with this concept:
Quote
And I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

It's been said that the RAC's only advise and the National Committee makes the decisions for each regional and final ranking. If that's the case, why is the National Committee acting inconsistently for different regions?

Depends on the person's point of view of what is inconsistent... and one can easily ask them that question and see what they say.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2017, 06:40:08 pm
Whether it's bias or some other human deficiency, I find the problem lies with this concept:
Quote
And I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

It's been said that the RAC's only advise and the National Committee makes the decisions for each regional and final ranking. If that's the case, why is the National Committee acting inconsistently for different regions?

Depends on the person's point of view of what is inconsistent... and one can easily ask them that question and see what they say.

You've mentioned this a couple of times. Are you aware of the specific way I can directly ask a National Committee member a question with reasonable expectation I'd receive an answer?
If so, that's pretty cool and I may very well try it.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 07:32:08 pm
You've mentioned this a couple of times. Are you aware of the specific way I can directly ask a National Committee member a question with reasonable expectation I'd receive an answer?
If so, that's pretty cool and I may very well try it.

You could FOIA Coach Walker at UWRF for all email correspondence pertaining to the RAC. Probably your best bet to get an honest, unfiltered answer.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2017, 04:52:13 pm
Carnegie Mellon upsets Case Western, and yíall can quit worrying about the ďtwo 10-0 teams from the PACĒ thing.

EDIT: to be clear, that wasnít a declaration of what did happen, but a hopeful post when CMU took the lead and got a stop. CWRU managed a block punt touchdown to take the lead. Lest anyone read this andmisinterpet the chain of posts here...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 11, 2017, 04:55:55 pm
Carnegie Mellon upsets Case Western, and yíall can quit worrying about the ďtwo 10-0 teams from the PACĒ thing.

Not so fast.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 11, 2017, 04:58:41 pm
CWRU saves the Pool C bid with a blocked punt returned for a TD with about 30 seconds to go.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: MANDGSU on November 11, 2017, 05:02:04 pm
CWRU saves the Pool C bid with a blocked punt returned for a TD with about 30 seconds to go.

OT NOW
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 11, 2017, 05:02:20 pm
I spoke too soon also.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2017, 05:08:45 pm
This is getting ridiculous, lol.

Both teams have had the game won and lost in the last two minutes.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2017, 05:41:11 pm
40 seconds to go and kneeling down to win, CMU takes penalty, has to punt, blocked, returned for TD.
CWRU over-celebrates, has to KO from own 20, does a short squib.
CMU kicks FG sending game to OT, then can't block anybody for Benger on 3rd & 5, 4th & 4 in OT...

How much stupidity can be crammed into 40 second of the Academic Bowl?

Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, shoved back where it came from and is projectile-vomited back.
Crazy (and exciting) end to that one....

I'm not sure CWRU will sleep soundly tonight, but, in the end, they'll get in the dance at 10-0.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: edward de vere on November 11, 2017, 05:51:12 pm
"How much stupidity can be crammed into 40 seconds of the Academic Bowl?"

Okay, I know funny and THAT'S funny.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Titan Q on November 11, 2017, 06:22:34 pm
So bubble teams are hoping fellow bubble DePauw win as they keep IWU off the board. Don't see that scenario too often.
If everything was the same except DePauw was out of the way (say by losing some game this weekend that no one has heard of ;)), where would IWU fall in the pecking order? And with IWU in, could Wheaton get to the table and have any say in proceedings (probably not)?

With the Wabash win over DePauw, IWU definitely leapfrogs DePauw in the North...and I think Wheaton does too.

I think IWU, the North's top Pool C candidate, gets picked very early in the process...and Wheaton hits the board for the final 2-3 picks.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 11, 2017, 06:26:46 pm
"How much stupidity can be crammed into 40 seconds of the Academic Bowl?"

Okay, I know funny and THAT'S funny.

That LT for CMU learned about keeping your poise and I bet the CMU staff learned a lesson about putting a senior backup QB in to kneel.  If he goes straight down to his knee none of the stuff happens afterward.

Sad to see Benger go out like that..
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2017, 06:47:12 pm
Bob, I don't think you've been clear- do you think there's any chance CWRU won't make the field tomorrow? 

So bubble teams are hoping fellow bubble DePauw win as they keep IWU off the board. Don't see that scenario too often.
If everything was the same except DePauw was out of the way (say by losing some game this weekend that no one has heard of ;)), where would IWU fall in the pecking order? And with IWU in, could Wheaton get to the table and have any say in proceedings (probably not)?

With the Wabash win over DePauw, IWU definitely leapfrogs DePauw in the North...and I think Wheaton does too.

I think IWU, the North's top Pool C candidate, gets picked very early in the process...and Wheaton hits the board for the final 2-3 picks.

Maybe Wabash jumps Wheaton?  LGs have an SOS advantage and I suspect DPU will count as a regionally ranked win.  This shouldn't happen, but the first two rankings put out by the North RAC also shouldn't have happened, so who knows. 

I think Wheaton really, really needed CWRU to not block that punt.  Wheaton needed a jillion dominoes to fall over the last month of the year, and they almost all did.  All but that last one. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2017, 11:01:50 pm
One last projection.  D3Football.com will do one with a full bracket sometime later tonight/tomorrow AM.  Today's results really shouldn't jumble the regional rankings in ways that make projecting the at-larges weird.  I'll talk about where the regional rankings shuffle and how it impacts things below.  Click here for a full rundown of the mechanics (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8708.msg1825587#msg1825587).  25 A, 2 B, 5 C.  Off we go. 

Pool A
Here are your automatic qualifiers:
(https://i.imgur.com/dM0JiOo.png)

Pool B
Before I jump into the Pool B's nothing in the regional rankings that I've mocked up tonight changes.  At least not the order for our B-eligible teams.  It's still the same three teams in the same three places for these two spots. 

Round 1:
1S Mary Hardin-Baylor: 10-0, 2-0 vs. RROs, 0.538 SOS
3E Springfield: 10-0, 1-0 vs. RROs, 0.513

No news here.  The Crusaders are in first.   

Round 2:
2S Hardin-Simmons: 8-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.508
3E Springfield: 10-0, 1-0 vs. RROs, 0.513

So, an interesting thing has happened over the last couple of weeks in that the SOS gap between the Pride and the Cowboys has not only shrunk, but has reversed.  Now the Pride have the higher SOS rating, they also have an RRO win vs E10 Western New England.  As of tonight, I don't see a good reason to not put Springfield in before Hardin-Simmons and I won't.   

Now after UMHB and Springfield come out of our rankings lists, the remaining regional boards look as follows:
East: 5E Frostburg State, 8E Framingham State
North: 5N Illinois Wesleyan, 7N Wheaton, 8N Wabash, 9N Hope, 10N DePauw
South: 2S Hardin-Simmons, 5S Case Western Reserve, 7S Centre, 8A Franklin & Marshall, 10S Hendrix
West: 5W St. John's, 7W UW-La Crosse, 8W Concordia-Moorhead, 9W Whitworth, 10W UW-Whitewater

Some notes on what I did with the regional rankings:
East- I actually changed nothing here.  Didn't see results out that region this week that shake things up. 
North- The DePauw losing creates some shuffling and relieves a lot of stress over in Lincoln Land.  I glibly suggested earlier that Wabash could be ranked ahead of Wheaton...it's not crazy.  I didn't do it, but the criteria would kind of support it and the North RAC has forgone common sense this season. 
South- I didn't really mess with these rankings either.  The one thing that I waffled on for a while is whether or not to rank W&L in front of Hendrix.  Ultimately I didn't, but that's definitely a thing that could happen and I think that's a thing that really matters. 
West - Lake Forest, who shouldn't have been ranked anyway, lost and took care of that.  You might be able to replace Whitworth with Chapman if you really wanted to, but you could have done that last week also.  So I left Whitworth in.  Also pushed Whitewater in finally.  And the other thing that is important here is that I left UW-La Crosse ahead of Concordia-Moorhead despite some criteria advantages that C-M have over UWL.  It's hard to see the Cobbers jump La Crosse after losing a game. 

Alright, hope that covers about everything with the rankings...time to pick teams. 

Pool C:
Round 1:
5N Illinois Wesleyan - 9-1, 2-1 vs. RROs, 0.522 SOS
2S Hardin-Simmons - 8-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.508
5E Frostburg St. - 9-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.499
5W St. John's - 8-1, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.519

After a couple of weeks of getting blocked by wholly unworthy DePauw, Illinois Wesleyan is first in line and they are the strongest C-candidate in the field- even better than Hardin-Simmons despite the ordinal ranking difference.  The emergence of Whitewater in the West rankings really makes this choice clear.  The other interesting thing happening this week is that St. John's scooped up an RRO win, so they're a bit more attractive w/ respect to Hardin-Simmons than they have been in previous projections.   
IWU, SJU, HSU, FSU

Round 2:
7N Wheaton - 8-2, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.507 SOS
2S Hardin-Simmons - 8-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.508
5E Frostburg St. - 9-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.499
5W St. John's - 8-1, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.519

The moons have lined up to get Wheaton to the doorstep after everything that has happened with them this season.  The trouble at this point is that Millikin is knocked out and they've got an unranked loss now amongst their multiple losses and their SOS is ok, but not great and lower than other teams around them.  This looks like tough sledding for Wheaton.  On the other hand, St. John's and Hardin-Simmons still look good and I think St. John's has jumped ahead of the Cowboys, so the Johnnies are my pick.   
SJU, HSU, FSU, WC

Round 3:
7N Wheaton - 8-2, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.507 SOS
2S Hardin-Simmons - 8-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.508
5E Frostburg St. - 9-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.499
7W UW-La Crosse - 8-2, 0-2 vs. RROs, 0.550

It's going to be the Cowboys' time now, and not a moment too soon, right Spartans?  La Crosse is new and they get a smidgen of help with Whitewater showing up in the rankings because losses to ranked teams are better than losses to unranked teams (sorry, Wheaton).  I think the Eagles however still fall behind the single loss teams.  Bit of a toss up with Wheaton, though.  I'm breaking the tie using the common opponent result with Carroll.   :)
H-SU, FSU, WC, UWL

Round 4:
7N Wheaton - 8-2, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.507 SOS
5S Case Western Reserve -  10-0, 0-0 vs. RROs, 0.448
5E Frostburg St. - 9-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.499
7W UW-La Crosse - 8-2, 0-2 vs. RROs, 0.550

Even though the Spartans couldn't get that SOS out of the 200+ ranking zone, they did drag it up almost 100 points in two weeks.  It's still a bad number, but they're undefeated and they're going in.  And they're probably going in the second they hit the board. 
CWRU, FSU, WC, UWL

Round 5:
7N Wheaton - 8-2, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.507 SOS
7S Centre -  9-1, 1-1 vs. RROs, 0.480
5E Frostburg St. - 9-1, 0-1 vs. RROs, 0.499
7W UW-La Crosse - 8-2, 0-2 vs. RROs, 0.550

And now we're back to Centre again this week.  Here's where the bottom end of the South's rankings really matter.  Last week's S10 Hendrix is 8-2 with 0-2 RROs.  Poking around the South region, you've also got 8-2 Washington & Lee, with a brand new ODAC championship in tow.  After today's games, W&L has a better SOS than Hendrix.  Interesting.  W&L also lost very close to S6 Johns Hopkins as their RRO result whereas Hendrix lost not-so-close games to the other two ranked SAA teams.  W&L does have a bad loss on their record against E&H, which is a big anchor.  However, there are reasons to place W&L ahead of Hendrix and doing so chops out Centre's RRO win, which is a huge chip to play against the rest of this board.  The other thing going on here is that Frostburg has been hanging out since Round 1, accumulating vote capital.  You can see through my not-so-secret ballot how Frostburg has rolled up to the top pending whatever I decide to do with Centre.  I'm going to select Frostburg as my final team in.  However I want to preface this by saying that it's totally reasonable to see Centre selected here, particularly if they carry an RRO win vs. Hendrix.  If the Colonels don't have that, it shouldn't be a question and Frostburg is a fairly easy choice. 
FSU, Centre, WC, UWL

And to think that the last selection into this field between Centre and Frostburg may well have been decided by Washington & Lee vs. Emory & Henry.  It's all connected, folks. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: thunderdog on November 11, 2017, 11:10:55 pm
Great stuff Wally... hereís to hoping youíre wrong on your pool C #5 selection ;)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2017, 11:21:27 pm
Great stuff Wally... hereís to hoping youíre wrong on your pool C #5 selection ;)

I'm sure I will be.   :)

Weirder things have happened here than Wheaton being invited tomorrow. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: thunderdog on November 11, 2017, 11:32:50 pm
Interesting concept u brought up with Frosty accumulating ďvote capitalĒ by round 5 for being at the table since round 1. This didnít seem to help them last year when they were the 1st team up in the East and the East was shut-out in 2016... but interesting nonetheless...

Looking closer at a Frosty vs Wheaton analysis:

Wheaton has a slight edge in SOS, 507 vs .499. Wheaton also has the edge in RRO, 1-1 vs 0-1. The quality of Wheatonís 1 RRO win is stronger than just about any other RRO out there. Itís against the CCIW champ and AQ, and it was in impressive fashion. Plus, Wheaton will have almost as much ďvote capitalĒ built up by round 5 if IWU is the first team selected. Will that be enough to overcome a Wheaton 8-2 record vs Frostyís 9-1?

Itís possible!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2017, 11:44:18 pm
You also have to remember that Wheaton has lost to an unranked team.  Nobody else in the conversation for at-large bids carries that distinction.  Without an overwhelming SOS or multiple RRO wins, Wheaton is not in a strong position, in my opinion.  And we also don't know what the committee will choose to do with that North Central result.  In the end, however the committee parses the Brass Bell game, Wheaton not being in the tournament happens because they lost a second game.  They could have absorbed one, but definitely not two.  Not this year. 

But they are probably on the board which means anything is possible. 

(truthfully, it's probably done at this point...we just don't get to know until tomorrow night)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2017, 11:52:01 pm
It looks like D3Football.com landed on the same at-large selections (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/final-playoff-projection) as I did, just slightly different with the order and the way they ranked teams.  Really, a pretty calm week 11 results wise.  I know there were same crazy games out there today, but expected results kind of carried the day. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2017, 12:47:26 am
Good job Wally.  +1!

Congrats on the Monon Bell Game.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2017, 10:17:46 am
CWRU at W&J makes a good #5 vs #4 South Region playoff game IMHO
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 12, 2017, 12:41:31 pm
It looks like D3Football.com landed on the same at-large selections (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/final-playoff-projection) as I did, just slightly different with the order and the way they ranked teams.  Really, a pretty calm week 11 results wise.  I know there were same crazy games out there today, but expected results kind of carried the day.

As did my model.

Some caveats before I post the full results of the model. First, the model doesn't account for this years' previous regional rankings at all. I would have liked to, but I frankly didn't have time. Second, the purpose of the model is to determine the most-likely Pool C candidates each year by assuming the committee acts predictably each year, and that each RAC behaves in the same way. It's pretty obvious that isn't the case.

So read the output as saying, "If the committee values these factors equally each year, based on who got in previous seasons, this is how often a team with a similar resume made the tournament." Based on all this, if there's one team the model thinks may sneak up on us, it's F&M. I would agree, if they weren't stuck behind Centre and if they hadn't been blown out by JHU in their only loss. The most-likely two-loss team should/could be Concordia, but if they're still stuck behind UWL, that doesn't seem likely either. Redlands is also sneaking in at the bottom of my list. Knowing that Whitworth has been in the regional rankings and Redlands wasn't, you could probably just switch out Redlands for Whitworth.

Team   Overall W-L   DIII W-L   Conf W-L   NCAA SOS   My SOS   Non-Conf SOS   SOR   Pool C Odds   
Case Western Reserve   10-0   10-0   8-0   0.448   0.524   0.712   13%   91%   
Illinois Wesleyan   9-1   9-1   7-1   0.522   0.827   0.914   1%   83%   
Frostburg State   9-1   9-1   8-1   0.499   0.622   0.871   26%   75%   
St. John's   9-1   8-1   7-1   0.519   0.657   0.342   10%   71%   
Hardin-Simmons   9-1   8-1   8-1   0.503   0.645   N/A   11%   61%   
Franklin & Marshall   9-1   9-1   8-1   0.520   0.580   0.540   34%   46%   
Concordia-Moorhead   8-2   8-2   6-2   0.503   0.782   0.890   7%   31%   
Wheaton   8-2   8-2   6-2   0.507   0.672   0.371   31%   15%   
Framingham State   9-1   9-1   7-1   0.497   0.362   0.625   90%   9%   
UW-La Crosse   8-2   8-2   5-2   0.539   0.827   0.316   6%   7%   
Hope   8-2   8-2   5-1   0.524   0.554   0.463   61%   5%   
Redlands   7-2   7-2   5-1   0.527   0.510   0.741   71%   4%   
Centre   9-1   9-1   7-1   0.480   0.366   0.077   74%   2%   
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on November 12, 2017, 02:58:34 pm
General questions for the Pool C experts.

How much of association with a team would cause a member of the regional or national committee to recuse themselves?   For example, would Coach Sandberg recuse himself from discussing Wheaton because of his past ties?

Do they take into account injuries like the FBS supposedly does?  I would guess not as the information is probably not available, but was just wondering.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: D3MAFAN on November 12, 2017, 03:08:49 pm
General questions for the Pool C experts.

How much of association with a team would cause a member of the regional or national committee to recuse themselves?   For example, would Coach Sandberg recuse himself from discussing Wheaton because of his past ties?

Do they take into account injuries like the FBS supposedly does?  I would guess not as the information is probably not available, but was just wondering.

Yes, members associated with team recuse themselves. I am not an expert, but Division III playoffs is totally more of a true playoff than Division I FBS. However, Division III plays fewer OOC games to be more subjective when placing teams like Division I FBS. I can't stand Division I FBS playoff.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: lmitzel on November 12, 2017, 03:14:54 pm
General questions for the Pool C experts.

How much of association with a team would cause a member of the regional or national committee to recuse themselves?   For example, would Coach Sandberg recuse himself from discussing Wheaton because of his past ties?

Do they take into account injuries like the FBS supposedly does?  I would guess not as the information is probably not available, but was just wondering.

I don't think injuries are an explicit part of the selection criteria, but I can't be sure if it becomes part of the implicit criteria. I'd be inclined to say no, but I'm not in with the committees, nor am I even close to being part of one, so I'm guessing.

I can't stand Division I FBS playoff.

I mean, it's better than the old BCS, not that that's saying much...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2017, 04:01:15 pm
CWRU at W&J makes a good #5 vs #4 South Region playoff game IMHO

And worth noting itís a NCAA-mandated (and not PAC-mandated) 12:00pm Kickoff, so W&J couldnít force a night game onto CWRU.   ;D
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2017, 04:29:11 pm
When the conference actually scheduled W&J to play AT Case-Western the last time, CWRU made it a night game. What's the issue?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2017, 04:40:47 pm
When the conference actually scheduled W&J to play AT Case-Western the last time, CWRU made it a night game. What's the issue?

Did that night game happen despite W&J asking CWRU to play during the day?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 12, 2017, 04:51:31 pm
Don't know. 
PAC guidelines clearly allow the home team to set game time until the end of October.
Then, games are to be played afternoon barring agreement by both teams.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wesleydad on November 12, 2017, 05:47:32 pm
Nice job Wally and D3 for getting all 7 at large bids correct. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2017, 02:24:08 pm
I finally got a chance to listen to In The Huddle's interview with the committee chair aaaand there wasn't a ton of substance there.  Not ITH's fault- Darla Kirby just didn't really say much.  If I'm picking up anything interesting, I think what I'm hearing is that this particular committee steered really hard into win percentage and really didn't pay much attention to SOS.  That's a departure from recent trends.  She hinted at SOS being a bit of an illusion sometimes, which is fine.  I like an official acknowledgement that the SOS number itself isn't great, but it IS a piece of the primary criteria.  I guess any one committee member can put as much or as little weight on that piece of criteria as they wish, including dismissing it completely- but if the metric isn't useful, the championships committee should consider dumping it entirely or change it into something that is useful. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2017, 02:55:01 pm
The one loss teams out - I don't think they have a good case this year to be honest. They're all good teams, but their loss isn't that compelling of an argument.

Franklin & Marshall - Lost 45-7 to Johns Hopkins. Best win was probably Susquehanna, who lost to a meh Gettysburg team.
Centre - Gave Berry a game for a half, really, and three interceptions killed their chances. Best win was Hendrix. I think Centre needs to avoid the HCAC bottom feeders in non-conference. (They beat Anderson 61-10, whoop de damn do).
Framingham St. - A nice win over Cortland. But a one loss team here needs to Hulk Smash everyone else, and they didn't.
NY Maritime - A great season for them, just too many close wins against non-factors. It's really going to be tough to get a "C" from their schedule.

Wheaton may have an tiney argument, but they lost twice and you really can't argue with any selection, especially with two undefeated teams in the B / C mix. I have four non-playoff teams in my Top 25 fan poll, but all 21-24.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 14, 2017, 03:31:18 pm
I finally got a chance to listen to In The Huddle's interview with the committee chair aaaand there wasn't a ton of substance there.  Not ITH's fault- Darla Kirby just didn't really say much.  If I'm picking up anything interesting, I think what I'm hearing is that this particular committee steered really hard into win percentage and really didn't pay much attention to SOS.  That's a departure from recent trends.  She hinted at SOS being a bit of an illusion sometimes, which is fine.  I like an official acknowledgement that the SOS number itself isn't great, but it IS a piece of the primary criteria.  I guess any one committee member can put as much or as little weight on that piece of criteria as they wish, including dismissing it completely- but if the metric isn't useful, the championships committee should consider dumping it entirely or change it into something that is useful.

Wally, I was really disappointed with her answer to the question regarding the difficulty of UMHBís bracket in comparison to Mtís. This is not a ďMt has it easyĒ rant. I just ask for honesty and transparency- and I want to know she and the committee put as much effort into creating the most balanced brackets as the D3 guys and posters like yourself. Itís flat out disingenuous on her part to suggest Mt would make a claim that their bracket is harder or that all brackets would make the same case. Only one top team has three other top 10 teams in the bracket and that is UMHB and that makes their bracket the hardest. The committee doesnít follow D3 rankings, we all know, but they donít live in a cave either. Answer the dang questions honestly.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2017, 03:47:42 pm
I finally got a chance to listen to In The Huddle's interview with the committee chair aaaand there wasn't a ton of substance there.  Not ITH's fault- Darla Kirby just didn't really say much.  If I'm picking up anything interesting, I think what I'm hearing is that this particular committee steered really hard into win percentage and really didn't pay much attention to SOS.  That's a departure from recent trends.  She hinted at SOS being a bit of an illusion sometimes, which is fine.  I like an official acknowledgement that the SOS number itself isn't great, but it IS a piece of the primary criteria.  I guess any one committee member can put as much or as little weight on that piece of criteria as they wish, including dismissing it completely- but if the metric isn't useful, the championships committee should consider dumping it entirely or change it into something that is useful.

Wally, I was really disappointed with her answer to the question regarding the difficulty of UMHBís bracket in comparison to Mtís. This is not a ďMt has it easyĒ rant. I just ask for honesty and transparency- and I want to know she and the committee put as much effort into creating the most balanced brackets as the D3 guys and posters like yourself. Itís flat out disingenuous on her part to suggest Mt would make a claim that their bracket is harder or that all brackets would make the same case. Only one top team has three other top 10 teams in the bracket and that is UMHB and that makes their bracket the hardest. The committee doesnít follow D3 rankings, we all know, but they donít live in a cave either. Answer the dang questions honestly.

To be honest.... you will never get a committee chair to answer that kind of question. I have had similar conversations on the basketball side and what they discuss with me on the air compared to off the air about those questions is very, very different. They are fully aware of the rankings and the national landscape... but the restrictions and allowances put in place for the tournament don't give them much room to make brackets "balanced" or "even." The most you might get from a chair is that they may explain why the mileage restrictions kept them from putting together some other matchups they liked... which basically alludes to that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 14, 2017, 03:52:21 pm
I agree that she didn't really answer questions well.  A lot of non-answer answer stuff going on there.  It's probably not ok for the committee to talk about wildly different degrees of difficulty in each region.  The ice can get real thin real fast for somebody who is supposed to be more or less neutral.  I don't think it would have hurt anything to say something along the lines of "these teams are on geographic islands, the budget forces us to cluster them all together, and it's just a bad circumstance for the sake of bracket balance that UMHB, HSU, and Linfield are all really good at exactly the same time." 

I also agree that I don't think they got very creative with the pairings.  They built in a guarantee flight game by separating Berry/Huntingdon from anybody that Berry could drive to...and if that's the case they could have put basically any other pairing there and moved St. Thomas elsewhere.  There was flexibility here that they didn't really utilize. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 14, 2017, 05:24:11 pm
One interesting thing from her interview that caught my ear was the line, "when I first saw the bracket this morning." Wasn't she involved in MAKING the bracket?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 14, 2017, 05:31:19 pm
Hansen, I wondered the exact same thing. What the heck did she mean "when I saw the bracket this morning"?

This continues to go back to the issue of credibility. I'm not suggesting at all that anything underhanded is going on. I'm suggesting that fans, players and coaches are all left in the dark a bit as to how this whole thing really works.

I'm sorry to say it, but more and more I'm leaning to the idea that the national committee (and likely the regionals), simply don't put the proper amount of time and thought into this. The game is all about the kids that have committed so much time and effort to it. There is no value to the world in keeping private the realities of bracket making, including team selection. Wally, or someone, should be able to ask the question of the Berry/Huntingdon scenario he posed and expect to get an immediate, truthful answer.
This reminds me of being a child and hearing the answer "because I said so".
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 14, 2017, 05:31:25 pm
One interesting thing from her interview that caught my ear was the line, "when I first saw the bracket this morning." Wasn't she involved in MAKING the bracket?

I think she had to sit out of a good chunk of the deliberations because of her connection to UMHB.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: crufootball on November 14, 2017, 05:34:17 pm
One interesting thing from her interview that caught my ear was the line, "when I first saw the bracket this morning." Wasn't she involved in MAKING the bracket?

I think she had to sit out of a good chunk of the deliberations because of her connection to UMHB.

Which is ridiculous if true, we should either get people that aren't connected to a school or treat them like grown ups that have integrity and don't let their bias influence them. Even if they have a slight bias that is why it is a committee of people and not just a single person making the bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 14, 2017, 07:16:20 pm
One interesting thing from her interview that caught my ear was the line, "when I first saw the bracket this morning." Wasn't she involved in MAKING the bracket?

I think she had to sit out of a good chunk of the deliberations because of her connection to UMHB.

Which is ridiculous if true, we should either get people that aren't connected to a school or treat them like grown ups that have integrity and don't let their bias influence them. Even if they have a slight bias that is why it is a committee of people and not just a single person making the bracket.

I agree. I totally understand excluding someone with close ties to a school from the selection process, but to exclude the Committee Chair from the entire bracketing process because she works for one school in the tournament is craziness.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2017, 08:37:07 pm
One interesting thing from her interview that caught my ear was the line, "when I first saw the bracket this morning." Wasn't she involved in MAKING the bracket?

I think she had to sit out of a good chunk of the deliberations because of her connection to UMHB.

Which is ridiculous if true, we should either get people that aren't connected to a school or treat them like grown ups that have integrity and don't let their bias influence them. Even if they have a slight bias that is why it is a committee of people and not just a single person making the bracket.

I have made this argument before and shown an example of how it can work.

Women's basketball has been guilty of having anyone with a team in the tournament on the national committee sit out the bracketing. It doesn't work.

Men's basketball has everyone involved and those with teams in the tournament work on other sections of the bracket. That works well.

It clearly shows she wasn't involved because of her ties to UMHB. I am fine with her sitting out if UMHB is at the table or they are talking directly about their matchups and conversations about hosting... but there are other sections she can help with and the CHAIR should never sit out period.

Clearly, the smart things some committees do have got to be passed on to others.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2017, 09:09:25 pm
I think that works in basketball, Dave, and larger sports, but I don't think it would really work in football. The football bracket just isn't large enough to separate people that way. Basketball has a lot of work with pods and stuff that could be done and there are, of course, twice as many teams. But bracketing football isn't really the same.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: crufootball on November 14, 2017, 09:18:08 pm
One interesting thing from her interview that caught my ear was the line, "when I first saw the bracket this morning." Wasn't she involved in MAKING the bracket?

I think she had to sit out of a good chunk of the deliberations because of her connection to UMHB.

Which is ridiculous if true, we should either get people that aren't connected to a school or treat them like grown ups that have integrity and don't let their bias influence them. Even if they have a slight bias that is why it is a committee of people and not just a single person making the bracket.

I have made this argument before and shown an example of how it can work.

Women's basketball has been guilty of having anyone with a team in the tournament on the national committee sit out the bracketing. It doesn't work.

Men's basketball has everyone involved and those with teams in the tournament work on other sections of the bracket. That works well.

It clearly shows she wasn't involved because of her ties to UMHB. I am fine with her sitting out if UMHB is at the table or they are talking directly about their matchups and conversations about hosting... but there are other sections she can help with and the CHAIR should never sit out period.

Clearly, the smart things some committees do have got to be passed on to others.

I can see the fear of bias but if you are only going to have a committee of 8 it seems foolish for any member to be removed, especially the chair.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2017, 09:35:51 pm
I think that works in basketball, Dave, and larger sports, but I don't think it would really work in football. The football bracket just isn't large enough to separate people that way. Basketball has a lot of work with pods and stuff that could be done and there are, of course, twice as many teams. But bracketing football isn't really the same.

I think it could still work. She could still remain involved without having to be removed completely. There is also a lot of conversations to be had that don't directly apply to UMHB, hosting, or their matchups. There are a lot of logistics to figure out as well in the rest of the bracket. I think it is far more effective than removing her (and others) completely.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2017, 02:52:54 pm
One interesting thing from her interview that caught my ear was the line, "when I first saw the bracket this morning." Wasn't she involved in MAKING the bracket?

I did a double take on that also.  If somebody affiliated with a team in the field can't be part of the bracketing conversation, then maybe we can have the foresight to pick somebody other than an administrator from the defending national champion to chair the committee.  I know we don't like to presume anything about who is getting in and who isn't, but come on.  A representative from UMHB was probably not going to pass this apparently super strict conflict check when it comes to bracketing. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: cubs on November 19, 2017, 11:48:50 am
So going off of memory after looking at the scoreboard...  Pool C's go 2-3 yesterday? 

Wins by Case Western Reserve and Frostburg State and losses by St. John's, Illinois Wesleyan and Hardin-Simmons?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 19, 2017, 01:28:28 pm
So going off of memory after looking at the scoreboard...  Pool C's go 2-3 yesterday? 

Wins by Case Western Reserve and Frostburg State and losses by St. John's, Illinois Wesleyan and Hardin-Simmons?

Yep.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: art76 on November 27, 2017, 12:33:09 pm
Wally, and others in the know, how deep has a "Pool C" team ever gone in the play-offs? Frostburg State has won two now and has to get by Mount Union. If they could do that, would they be in good company with other Pool C teams?
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 27, 2017, 12:43:18 pm
Wally, and others in the know, how deep has a "Pool C" team ever gone in the play-offs? Frostburg State has won two now and has to get by Mount Union. If they could do that, would they be in good company with other Pool C teams?

Oshkosh was a Pool C team last year.  I'd have to do a deeper dive to find some other examples of at-large teams going real deep.  It's definitely happened. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 27, 2017, 12:47:28 pm
Wally, and others in the know, how deep has a "Pool C" team ever gone in the play-offs? Frostburg State has won two now and has to get by Mount Union. If they could do that, would they be in good company with other Pool C teams?

Oshkosh was a Pool C team last year.  I'd have to do a deeper dive to find some other examples of at-large teams going real deep.  It's definitely happened.

UWW was Pool C in '08 when they lost in the Stagg Bowl, too.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 27, 2017, 12:53:50 pm
If someone else wants to take the time to see how far they all made it.

Year   Teams   
2016   UW-Oshkosh   UW-Platteville   St. John's   Wheaton Ill.   Mount Union   Hardin-Simmons      
2015   UW-Whitewater   Ohio Northern   Whitworth   Wesley   t. John's   UMHB      
2014   Centre   John Carroll   Wabash   St. Thomas   Delaware Valley   Muhlenberg      
2013   UW-Platteville   John Carroll   Pacific Lutheran   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan         
2012   Heidelberg   Pacific Lutheran   Bridgewater State   Rowan   Bethel   Elmhurst   Louisiana College   
2011   Redlands   Centre   Illinois College   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan   McMurry      
2010   Hampden-Sydney   Ohio Northern   Montclair State   Bethel   Coe   Wheaton      
2009   Washington and Jefferson   Wabash   St. Thomas   Albright   Coe   UMHB      
2008   UW-Whitewater   Washington and Jefferson   Otterbein   Plymouth State   Wheaton   Hardin-Simmons      
2007   UW-Eau Claire   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   Mount St. Joseph   St. John Fisher   Ithaca   
2006   UW-La Crosse   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   St. John Fisher   North Central   Hardin-Simmons   
2005   Washington and Jefferson   Capital   Cortland   Concordia-Moorhead   Wilkes   Hobart   Central   North Central
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: crufootball on November 27, 2017, 12:55:20 pm
Wally, and others in the know, how deep has a "Pool C" team ever gone in the play-offs? Frostburg State has won two now and has to get by Mount Union. If they could do that, would they be in good company with other Pool C teams?

Oshkosh was a Pool C team last year.  I'd have to do a deeper dive to find some other examples of at-large teams going real deep.  It's definitely happened.

Last year was a banner year for the non Pool A teams, UMHB was Pool B, Oshkosh and Mount Union were Pool C's, John Carroll was the only final 4 team to get the automatic bid. I am sure there are other but the first time UMHB went to the Stagg Bowl in 2004 they were a Pool C team as well.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 27, 2017, 01:05:52 pm
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: art76 on November 27, 2017, 01:12:03 pm
Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

+K
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 27, 2017, 02:05:19 pm
If someone else wants to take the time to see how far they all made it.

Year   Teams   
2016   UW-Oshkosh   UW-Platteville   St. John's   Wheaton Ill.   Mount Union   Hardin-Simmons      
2015   UW-Whitewater   Ohio Northern   Whitworth   Wesley   t. John's   UMHB      
2014   Centre   John Carroll   Wabash   St. Thomas   Delaware Valley   Muhlenberg      
2013   UW-Platteville   John Carroll   Pacific Lutheran   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan         
2012   Heidelberg   Pacific Lutheran   Bridgewater State   Rowan   Bethel   Elmhurst   Louisiana College   
2011   Redlands   Centre   Illinois College   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan   McMurry      
[/b]
2010   Hampden-Sydney   Ohio Northern   Montclair State   Bethel   Coe   Wheaton      
2009   Washington and Jefferson   Wabash   St. Thomas   Albright   Coe   UMHB      
2008   UW-Whitewater   Washington and Jefferson   Otterbein   Plymouth State   Wheaton   Hardin-Simmons      
2007   UW-Eau Claire   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   Mount St. Joseph   St. John Fisher   Ithaca   
2006   UW-La Crosse   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   St. John Fisher   North Central   Hardin-Simmons   
2005   Washington and Jefferson   Capital   Cortland   Concordia-Moorhead   Wilkes   Hobart   Central   North Central

I know I should probably know (since I was playing back then), but seriously, what the heck was going on in 2011? LOL
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HansenRatings on November 27, 2017, 02:52:03 pm
If someone else wants to take the time to see how far they all made it.

Year   Teams   
2016   UW-Oshkosh   UW-Platteville   St. John's   Wheaton Ill.   Mount Union   Hardin-Simmons      
2015   UW-Whitewater   Ohio Northern   Whitworth   Wesley   t. John's   UMHB      
2014   Centre   John Carroll   Wabash   St. Thomas   Delaware Valley   Muhlenberg      
2013   UW-Platteville   John Carroll   Pacific Lutheran   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan         
2012   Heidelberg   Pacific Lutheran   Bridgewater State   Rowan   Bethel   Elmhurst   Louisiana College   
2011   Redlands   Centre   Illinois College   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan   McMurry      
2010   Hampden-Sydney   Ohio Northern   Montclair State   Bethel   Coe   Wheaton      
2009   Washington and Jefferson   Wabash   St. Thomas   Albright   Coe   UMHB      
2008   UW-Whitewater   Washington and Jefferson   Otterbein   Plymouth State   Wheaton   Hardin-Simmons      
2007   UW-Eau Claire   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   Mount St. Joseph   St. John Fisher   Ithaca   
2006   UW-La Crosse   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   St. John Fisher   North Central   Hardin-Simmons   
2005   Washington and Jefferson   Capital   Cortland   Concordia-Moorhead   Wilkes   Hobart   Central   North Central

I know I should probably know (since I was playing back then), but seriously, what the heck was going on in 2011? LOL

No f'ing clue. That was my senior year, and we went 8-2 with two wins over 9-1 opponents. I knew we would be a long shot, but I still don't understand that Illinois College pick. Baffling.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 27, 2017, 03:51:42 pm
I know I should probably know (since I was playing back then), but seriously, what the heck was going on in 2011? LOL

No f'ing clue. That was my senior year, and we went 8-2 with two wins over 9-1 opponents. I knew we would be a long shot, but I still don't understand that Illinois College pick. Baffling.

2011 was a weird selection year.  The North RAC ranked CWRU ahead of Wheaton which effectively blocked them.  Looks like a similar thing was happening in the West with Wartburg and Illinois College.  What precipitated was a weird scenario where you had 9-1 CWRU, 9-1 IC, and 8-2 SJF all on the board at the same time (and a multi-loss South team that doesn't really factor in...I think it might have Louisiana  College).  CWRU and IC had similar SOSs (I think IC was slightly better), plus IC was 0-1 vs. RROs thanks to a stomping they got by Monmouth.  CWRU was undefeated in-region, but lost to Rochester which was a really bad loss.  There was some intrigue around whether or not that out-of-region loss wouldn't matter as much, but we know in hindsight that you can't really ignore in-division games.  The x-factor here was that CWRU's loss to Rochester happened to be a shared opponent with SJF, which was just rotten luck for the Spartans.  SJF also had them more than covered by the SOS metric...the common opponent result made it even easier to select SJF ahead of CWRU, even with the extra loss (and SJF may have had a favorable RRO result in there as well).  Really almost any other multi-loss East team probably doesn't go in ahead of CWRU, but that one- with that one shared opponent- did.  And then picking between CWRU and IC was kind of a coin flip.  Depends on how much you value a loss to a ranked team (even a bad one) vs. a loss to an unranked team.  The RRO loss won out. 

All the while, Wheaton and Wartburg, who were probably better teams than CWRU or IC, never got a sniff because of the way the rankings fell. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 27, 2017, 03:56:04 pm
I know I should probably know (since I was playing back then), but seriously, what the heck was going on in 2011? LOL

No f'ing clue. That was my senior year, and we went 8-2 with two wins over 9-1 opponents. I knew we would be a long shot, but I still don't understand that Illinois College pick. Baffling.

2011 was a weird selection year.  The North RAC ranked CWRU ahead of Wheaton which effectively blocked them.  Looks like a similar thing was happening in the West with Wartburg and Illinois College.  What precipitated was a weird scenario where you had 9-1 CWRU, 9-1 IC, and 8-2 SJF all on the board at the same time (and a multi-loss South team that doesn't really factor in...I think it might have Louisiana  College).  CWRU and IC had similar SOSs (I think IC was slightly better), plus IC was 0-1 vs. RROs thanks to a stomping they got by Monmouth.  CWRU was undefeated in-region, but lost to Rochester which was a really bad loss.  There was some intrigue around whether or not that out-of-region loss wouldn't matter as much, but we know in hindsight that you can't really ignore in-division games.  The x-factor here was that CWRU's loss to Rochester happened to be a shared opponent with SJF, which was just rotten luck for the Spartans.  SJF also had them more than covered by the SOS metric...the common opponent result made it even easier to select SJF ahead of CWRU, even with the extra loss (and SJF may have had a favorable RRO result in there as well).  Really almost any other multi-loss East team probably doesn't go in ahead of CWRU, but that one- with that one shared opponent- did.  And then picking between CWRU and IC was kind of a coin flip.  Depends on how much you value a loss to a ranked team (even a bad one) vs. a loss to an unranked team.  The RRO loss won out. 

All the while, Wheaton and Wartburg, who were probably better teams than CWRU or IC, never got a sniff because of the way the rankings fell.

ah-ha! That makes a lot of sense! Thanks for clearing it up! :)
Just not used to seeing the MWC as a pool C!
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on November 27, 2017, 04:32:18 pm
I think everyone was shocked at Illinois College.

If I recall, I went round and round with Wally on the merits of CWRU being 9-0 in region, and he was right and I was wrong about what the committee would do.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 27, 2017, 08:46:59 pm
Wally, and others in the know, how deep has a "Pool C" team ever gone in the play-offs? Frostburg State has won two now and has to get by Mount Union. If they could do that, would they be in good company with other Pool C teams?

Oshkosh was a Pool C team last year.  I'd have to do a deeper dive to find some other examples of at-large teams going real deep.  It's definitely happened.

UWW was Pool C in '08 when they lost in the Stagg Bowl, too.
UMHB was a Pool C in 2004 when they lost in the Stagg to Pool B Linfield.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 27, 2017, 08:56:52 pm
If someone else wants to take the time to see how far they all made it.

Year   Teams   
2016   UW-Oshkosh   UW-Platteville   St. John's   Wheaton Ill.   Mount Union   Hardin-Simmons      
2015   UW-Whitewater   Ohio Northern   Whitworth   Wesley   t. John's   UMHB      
2014   Centre   John Carroll   Wabash   St. Thomas   Delaware Valley   Muhlenberg      
2013   UW-Platteville   John Carroll   Pacific Lutheran   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan         
2012   Heidelberg   Pacific Lutheran   Bridgewater State   Rowan   Bethel   Elmhurst   Louisiana College   
2011   Redlands   Centre   Illinois College   St. John Fisher   Illinois Wesleyan   McMurry      
2010   Hampden-Sydney   Ohio Northern   Montclair State   Bethel   Coe   Wheaton      
2009   Washington and Jefferson   Wabash   St. Thomas   Albright   Coe   UMHB      
2008   UW-Whitewater   Washington and Jefferson   Otterbein   Plymouth State   Wheaton   Hardin-Simmons      
2007   UW-Eau Claire   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   Mount St. Joseph   St. John Fisher   Ithaca   
2006   UW-La Crosse   Capital   St. John's   Hobart   St. John Fisher   North Central   Hardin-Simmons   
2005   Washington and Jefferson   Capital   Cortland   Concordia-Moorhead   Wilkes   Hobart   Central   North Central

I know I should probably know (since I was playing back then), but seriously, what the heck was going on in 2011? LOL

No f'ing clue. That was my senior year, and we went 8-2 with two wins over 9-1 opponents. I knew we would be a long shot, but I still don't understand that Illinois College pick. Baffling.
In Round #1 of the 2011 playoffs, Pool C McMurry won at Pool A Trinity with its regular season QB injured. The backup played the whole game. McMurry lost to UMHB in Round 2.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 27, 2017, 08:58:39 pm
With respect to the 2011 Pool C discussion, Pat has saved that message board.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=7502.0
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on November 27, 2017, 11:36:50 pm
Wow, that was a good one. This year was cake compared to that, and also the silly Centre / TLU spat that wound up moot in 2014.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 28, 2017, 09:50:57 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

Though I am not a stats guy I don't think this is an equitable analysis of the Pool C group. If the question is "who can compete for a national title" then we should only have a 4 team pool like the BCS does. How did the Pool C teams fare as compared to random groups of 5-6 other teams in the tournament? That may yield a better comparison than focusing on 17% of the field. Or possibly take out the UWW and UMU and analyze the rest of the field and how "far" they go in the tournament.

A quick glance says that since 2005 twelve teams not named UWW or UMU have been to the Semi's or better. Four of those were Pool C teams and exactly 2 of those teams (Linfield and Wesley) came from conferences outside of D3.Com's top 5 (WIAC, ASW,MIAC, OAC, CCIW) and more specifically every team that made the semis or Stagg from Pool C came from one of those top 5 conferences.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 09:57:32 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

Funny, my view on the data is totally opposite. I'm not arguing against the AQ system, but I certainly support the idea that 
"the right" Pool C teams can improve the tournament.
Not only does the table show Pool C teams have made it to the Stagg, they've also made it to the semis and the quarters. In addition, and probably more important, is how many quality Pool C teams ended up getting beat in the playoffs by a Stagg Bowl participant- in games that were much more competitive than many AQ games.
I'd argue the table proves that if the goal were to create the most competitive tournament while maintaining the AQ, the Pool C selection process should change.   
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 28, 2017, 10:01:08 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 28, 2017, 10:48:46 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.
Not only that, what makes the lower levels of NCAA football so fun (DIII through FCS) is that, by virtue of the AQ system, every team has a path to the championship. That's not to say all teams have the same chance of of winning (UMHB has a better chance than someone like Earlham), but even lowly Earlham breaks camp with a shot to win it all if they can win enough games. Taking that away to put more teams in, who, as Wally said, strictly speaking are better, but still don't have a really great chance of winning either, would debase what makes a large playoff system so fun and rewarding for both fans and players.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 28, 2017, 11:31:38 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

The underlying point I was making is that the Pool C teams seem to make the field stronger. Your point is none of them have been champ so it doesn't dilute the opportunity for the champion. My point focuses on the 32 team field. Your's would be true if we had a 4 team playoff ala BCS as it seems to ignore all the noise outside of the favorites. The data suggests Pool C teams have come much closer to being champ than any of the non top 4 favorites.

So your premise is still true but doesn't get to the heart of the why the folks at the bottom of the "crow-fest" are crowing.

And I am all for the AQ system and the inclusiveness it provides. I think it's great some teams have the opportunity to win their league and make the playoffs despite no real chance at winning the title. I dont' want to lose that and I want the Pool C process to make it a stronger field. Seems to me we can do both.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: MANDGSU on November 28, 2017, 11:37:34 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.
Not only that, what makes the lower levels of NCAA football so fun (DIII through FCS) is that, by virtue of the AQ system, every team has a path to the championship. That's not to say all teams have the same chance of of winning (UMHB has a better chance than someone like Earlham), but even lowly Earlham breaks camp with a shot to win it all if they can win enough games. Taking that away to put more teams in, who, as Wally said, strictly speaking are better, but still don't have a really great chance of winning either, would debase what makes a large playoff system so fun and rewarding for both fans and players.

Also, who is to say that Earlham could have one great Senior class that worked hard and won all their games, but not be allowed based on subjective data and objective data (schedule) that they do not control.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 28, 2017, 11:39:58 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

The underlying point I was making is that the Pool C teams seem to make the field stronger. Your point is none of them have been champ so it doesn't dilute the opportunity for the champion. My point focuses on the 32 team field. Your's would be true if we had a 4 team playoff ala BCS as it seems to ignore all the noise outside of the favorites. The data suggests Pool C teams have come much closer to being champ than any of the non top 4 favorites.

So your premise is still true but doesn't get to the heart of the why the folks at the bottom of the "crow-fest" are crowing.

And I am all for the AQ system and the inclusiveness it provides. I think it's great some teams have the opportunity to win their league and make the playoffs despite no real chance at winning the title. I dont' want to lose that and I want the Pool C process to make it a stronger field. Seems to me we can do both.

Do you think this year's Pool C selections were wrong?  I think they got the right teams in there. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 28, 2017, 11:47:05 am
I agree with the Pool C teams this year.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bombers798891 on November 28, 2017, 11:48:05 am
  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament...the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders

National title contenders are not the only thing that improve tournaments. Depth impacts quality.

Look no further than the d3football rankings of the Empire 8, which hasn't produced a national title contender since Fisher in 2004 (and maybe this Brockport team), but still ranks as one of the division's best conferences year in and year out
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 28, 2017, 11:51:14 am
My comments weren't meant to be a referendum on this year's teams. I didn't pay enough attention to know if they got it right or not, aside from my non-biased disdain for the committee's omission of Wheaton.

I merely responded to your observation which seemed to categorize the "crow-fest" participants into a bucket under an umbrella that doesn't focus on the underlying reason.

I think the NCAA Committee picked the teams that fit this year's interpretation of this year's data.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 28, 2017, 11:56:46 am
I think the NCAA Committee picked the teams that fit this year's interpretation of this year's data.

LOL
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 28, 2017, 11:59:49 am
  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament...the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders

National title contenders are not the only thing that improve tournaments. Depth impacts quality.

Look no further than the d3football rankings of the Empire 8, which hasn't produced a national title contender since Fisher in 2004 (and maybe this Brockport team), but still ranks as one of the division's best conferences year in and year out
The change that we will see in the East Region over the next few year is how 8 Pool A conferences, plus the (500-mile) proximity of the Presidents AC and the Centennial, will provide brackets that keep the best team in the East Region away from Mount Union and the stronger teams in the North Region until the semifinals. (They rarely pair the East Region with the South Region in the semis.)

I do like the strength and balance of the E8. They are very competitive top to bottom. It makes for an exciting season.  I believe that the East Region has 2 strong conferences now, the E8 and the NJAC.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 28, 2017, 12:21:43 pm
  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament...the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders

National title contenders are not the only thing that improve tournaments. Depth impacts quality.

Look no further than the d3football rankings of the Empire 8, which hasn't produced a national title contender since Fisher in 2004 (and maybe this Brockport team), but still ranks as one of the division's best conferences year in and year out

I think the tournament has been quite good this year.  2nd round duds happened, but sexy games on paper went sideways real fast.  We had a lot of good teams playing other good teams and it just didn't work out for a fun Saturday.  I thought Round 1 was great. 

My stance here is that I don't think there's a crisis until the UMAC champ is legitimately pushing out a team that can win five games in this tournament.  Until then, I don't see a need to tinker with things like earned access or whatever other machinations we can cook up to put more WIAC teams in and less NE teams in.  I'd be happy if this were strictly a tournament of conference champions, tbh. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 28, 2017, 01:08:20 pm
I think you do need 1 or 2 Pool C bids. Last year was a good indicator of that. But I think the discussion about needing more than 5 to make the tournament better is a little silly. Everyone needs to think about who were the last teams on the table this year and then stack them up against the Round 1 opponents for some of the weakest AQs. Is Centre or F&M getting past UMU in round 1? Wheaton getting past UWO in Round 1? Does anyone see this happening?

If the argument is Wheaton might have won a game against a middling opponent, well I won't argue that. But as the last Pool C, do you really deserve to play one of the weakest Pool A teams? No. So it's mostly a dead issue.

If your goal is simply to have fewer blowouts in Round 1 it might make some sense. But that hardly affects the quality of the tournament. I don't think there has ever been a team left out that was a legitimate national title contender. And until that happens, there isn't really anything to complain about. And I just don't see that happening until there are fewer than 3 Pool Cs left.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 28, 2017, 01:23:43 pm
I don't think there has ever been a team left out that was a legitimate national title contender. And until that happens, there isn't really anything to complain about. And I just don't see that happening until there are fewer than 3 Pool Cs left.

Of course by definition you can't  know this though,right?  We have had 1, two loss teams make it to the semi's in the last 10 years. Both of those were the "last team in". Wheaton in 2008 was a 7 or 8 seed in their bracket. North Central was the undefeated 1 seed if I remember. UMU was the East #1, Wheaton played Wabash, Trine and Franklin all on the road before losing to UMU in the semi's. In 2010 Bethel was a 9-1 Pool C and seeded #6. They went on the road and beat #3 Wartburg, #2 Wheaton and #1 St Thomas before losing @ UMU. I think it's a matter of time until we see a Pool C National Champion. It seems more likely to happen than not.

Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 28, 2017, 01:37:08 pm
I don't think there has ever been a team left out that was a legitimate national title contender. And until that happens, there isn't really anything to complain about. And I just don't see that happening until there are fewer than 3 Pool Cs left.

Of course by definition you can't  know this though,right?  We have had 1, two loss teams make it to the semi's in the last 10 years. Both of those were the "last team in". Wheaton in 2008 was a 7 or 8 seed in their bracket. North Central was the undefeated 1 seed if I remember. UMU was the East #1, Wheaton played Wabash, Trine and Franklin all on the road before losing to UMU in the semi's. In 2010 Bethel was a 9-1 Pool C and seeded #6. They went on the road and beat #3 Wartburg, #2 Wheaton and #1 St Thomas before losing @ UMU. I think it's a matter of time until we see a Pool C National Champion. It seems more likely to happen than not.

Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

Wheaton in 2008 was beaten by 21 points in the end and were down 31-10 at the half. They did have a charmed run, but it came to a close a bit flat. Same with Bethel's 20 point 2010 loss where they were down 34-7 at the end of the third. I have no problem with a Pool C champion. I just don't think we've ever excluded a team that could really win it. Go on a run? Sure. A couple teams have. SJF was the last team in the field in either 2011 or 2013 and did a nice run. Before losing by 20+ both times also to UMHB.

But you saying "we don't know" is the same criteria I'd use about limiting Pool As. We don't know, but the As earned it. Now as for a beef about the criteria, I just don't care that much. Regardless of what criteria you use, someone will always have a beef. Again, that last Pool C or the first one left out? Just not really a threat. A better threat than some teams that are in, for sure, but not a threat to win it all. There are only 5 or 6 teams, at most, in DIII that can win it all in any given season. Every one of them has made the field. Now there might be 15 teams that could get to the semis on a good run, and one of those maybe gets left out, but that just doesn't interest me all that much.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 28, 2017, 01:48:56 pm
Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific.  I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: AO on November 28, 2017, 01:50:46 pm
I think Wheaton could have won it all this year.  I also don't have a problem with a 2 loss team getting left out.   I love a regular season where you have to sweat a single loss.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 01:52:03 pm
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: AO on November 28, 2017, 01:53:37 pm
Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific.  I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have.
I'm guessing if we threw Hansen ratings into the criteria that Wheaton would have gotten picked.  Any criteria that doesn't use margin of victory will always be based upon who you happened to schedule (or how good the rest of your conference is) rather than how you actually performed in those games.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 28, 2017, 02:14:43 pm
Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific. I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have.
I really like the benefit and the latitude that "once-ranked-always-ranked" gives the Committees.
We aren't ranking teams until after the 9th week. The large number of conference games in so many conferences limits the possibilities for Regionally ranked opponents to play.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 02:24:09 pm
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.     
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: AO on November 28, 2017, 02:37:58 pm
Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific. I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have.
I really like the benefit and the latitude that "once-ranked-always-ranked" gives the Committees.
We aren't ranking teams until after the 9th week. The large number of conference games in so many conferences limits the possibilities for Regionally ranked opponents to play.
It's pretty silly to give extra credit for beating a team that dropped to 12th in the region after losing a tough game and not giving credit for beating a team that lost to a tough opponent earlier in the season and rose to 12th by the end of the season.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 28, 2017, 02:57:08 pm
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on November 28, 2017, 02:58:41 pm
The fact of the matter is that Wheaton lost twice, and finished third in their conference. DPU and Wabash lost twice and finished tied for second. No one is screaming for those two to get into the playoffs. Lake Forest finished 8-2. No one is screaming for them.

I'd say that Concordia - Moorhead may be a better team than Wheaton. So this Wheaton focus puzzles me. CM beat UWW for cripes sake. I know Wheaton rolled North Central, but that was just a weird game, as we know.

Lose twice, you're at the mercy of other teams also falling on their sword.

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 28, 2017, 03:36:31 pm
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bombers798891 on November 28, 2017, 03:38:08 pm

My stance here is that I don't think there's a crisis until the UMAC champ is legitimately pushing out a team that can win five games in this tournament. 

Right, but again, that's your definition of watering down the tournament.

But even taking your interpretation, the problem is, you're still costing that team their shot at a championship. Saying after the fact "Hey, thanks for being the canary in the coal mine" is going to be a small consolation
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HScoach on November 28, 2017, 04:18:06 pm
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in.

Going into the playoffs I would have put more credit in Wheaton's basket simply because of the reputation of the CCIW.  However after IWU getting dominated in Round 1, by Case no less, I have trouble thinking Wheaton was anything more than a  good team.   Not a great team that unfortunately dropped a couple games to stellar competition.   It might not be fair, but the weather delay of the NCC game puts an asterisk beside that W in my opinion.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 04:59:26 pm
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.

One problem with your question is that it assumes the best non AQ teams have always been invited to the playoffs- they haven't. UWO in 2014 is a perfect example. They didn't even get on the ol' board, yet their only D3 loss was to defending champion UWW. They went 8-2 in 2013, losing to UWW and UWP by a combined total of 4 points- didn't make the playoffs. That's a team that reached the semis in 2012, the quarters in 2015 and the Stagg in 2016. Really, we don't think that team had a shot at knocking off a top 5 team in 2013 and 2014?
 

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 05:05:24 pm
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in.

Of course every team is capable of playing an excellent half of football, but every team has a ceiling on how excellent that can look.
The two most dominant halves of football I've seen this year, and probably in many years, was UWO vs. NCC last Saturday and Wheaton vs. NCC a few weeks back. People can call it the weather game and whatever else, it doesn't change the level of execution Wheaton demonstrated. Only a highly skilled team can execute at the level it did in that second half. Wheaton's losses came during a very trying time as we all know, by a total of 8 points, including a debatable game winning TD catch. Imo they had what it took to compete with the best.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 28, 2017, 05:35:45 pm
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.

One problem with your question is that it assumes the best non AQ teams have always been invited to the playoffs- they haven't. UWO in 2014 is a perfect example. They didn't even get on the ol' board, yet their only D3 loss was to defending champion UWW. They went 8-2 in 2013, losing to UWW and UWP by a combined total of 4 points- didn't make the playoffs. That's a team that reached the semis in 2012, the quarters in 2015 and the Stagg in 2016. Really, we don't think that team had a shot at knocking off a top 5 team in 2013 and 2014?
 

Well in 2014 they lost by 17 at home to UWW, so I'm not real concerned there. Especially since they were down 24-0 at the end of the 3rd. Doesn't seem real competitive. Could they have won a few tournament games? Absolutely. The National Title? Doesn't seem likely.

As for 2013, you've got something of a case there. They were leading late in both games. But then Platteville kind of hurts doesn't it? Especially since UWP basically got hammered to pieces in round 2 in what wasn't even a competitive game. So no. UWO lost both those games at home. Going on the road to a Top 5 team? I don't think they win games on the road they couldn't win at home.

So yeah, thinking the answer still just doesn't hold water. Teams that win the Stagg don't lose twice at home.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 05:45:58 pm
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in.

Going into the playoffs I would have put more credit in Wheaton's basket simply because of the reputation of the CCIW.  However after IWU getting dominated in Round 1, by Case no less, I have trouble thinking Wheaton was anything more than a  good team.   Not a great team that unfortunately dropped a couple games to stellar competition.   It might not be fair, but the weather delay of the NCC game puts an asterisk beside that W in my opinion.

I have no explanation for IWU.
I commented on the weather delay game, but repeat, a team can't do what it's not capable of doing. Wheaton was dominant over NCC.
2016 quarterfinal game at UMHB. With 2:27 left in 3rd quarter, UMHB 24- Wheaton 16. 334 yards for UMHB, 306 for Wheaton. I believe Wheaton returned most of that team.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 06:13:59 pm
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.

One problem with your question is that it assumes the best non AQ teams have always been invited to the playoffs- they haven't. UWO in 2014 is a perfect example. They didn't even get on the ol' board, yet their only D3 loss was to defending champion UWW. They went 8-2 in 2013, losing to UWW and UWP by a combined total of 4 points- didn't make the playoffs. That's a team that reached the semis in 2012, the quarters in 2015 and the Stagg in 2016. Really, we don't think that team had a shot at knocking off a top 5 team in 2013 and 2014?
 

Well in 2014 they lost by 17 at home to UWW, so I'm not real concerned there. Especially since they were down 24-0 at the end of the 3rd. Doesn't seem real competitive. Could they have won a few tournament games? Absolutely. The National Title? Doesn't seem likely.

As for 2013, you've got something of a case there. They were leading late in both games. But then Platteville kind of hurts doesn't it? Especially since UWP basically got hammered to pieces in round 2 in what wasn't even a competitive game. So no. UWO lost both those games at home. Going on the road to a Top 5 team? I don't think they win games on the road they couldn't win at home.

So yeah, thinking the answer still just doesn't hold water. Teams that win the Stagg don't lose twice at home.

You come up with some unique rules. I'll counter your rule with my rule, it doesn't matter where a team loses its two games, it's about one question: Did they provide proof they can compete with the best?
UWW-UWO: 263 yards for UWO, 297 for UWW. UWW jumped out w/ 2 quick scores, creating the optical illusion of comfort. I was there, nothing comfortable about it.
UWW scored 24 on UWO, while scoring 43 (and 552 yards) on Mt in the Stagg. A good/great defense keeps a team in the game.
At the end of the day, that's what I'd like the Pool C selection to focus on, selecting teams that have the best chance of keeping the game close enough to be in position to win in the end. 
UWP lost to NCC, which was basically a Stagg Bowl team in 2013.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: HScoach on November 28, 2017, 06:26:36 pm
^  at the D3 level I don't think home field means anything more than you get to play in the geographical local (i.e. WEATHER) that you're used to playing in.   Maybe some travel disadvantage due to time lost sitting on your butt in a bus.   During the post season I can see a big advantage for a northern team hosting someone that isn't used to single digit temps, or MHB being used to the Texas winds whereas their opponent is a passing team.   But during the regular season I think it's highly overrated.  D1 and NFL is a different beast because of crowd noise.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 28, 2017, 06:50:49 pm
You come up with some unique rules. I'll counter your rule with my rule, it doesn't matter where a team loses its two games, it's about one question: Did they provide proof they can compete with the best?
UWW-UWO: 263 yards for UWO, 297 for UWW. UWW jumped out w/ 2 quick scores, creating the optical illusion of comfort. I was there, nothing comfortable about it.
UWW scored 24 on UWO, while scoring 43 (and 552 yards) on Mt in the Stagg. A good/great defense keeps a team in the game.
At the end of the day, that's what I'd like the Pool C selection to focus on, selecting teams that have the best chance of keeping the game close enough to be in position to win in the end. 
UWP lost to NCC, which was basically a Stagg Bowl team in 2013.

Heading into the 4th quarter W&L trailed UMU 14-0 after two quick scores in the first quarter but the Generals had outgained them and had a massive TOP advantage. But that game wasn't in doubt. As for NCC/UWP... well sure, NCC just lost to UMU who lost in the Stagg. But UWP wasn't on the same field that day. They were buried, monkey stomped, dismantled. It wasn't competitive. So by your rules, they really shouldn't have been in the tournament, right? Couldn't actually compete with the best. And if they shouldn't have been in, then how could a team they beat be in? Your rule creates bad logic all the way around.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 28, 2017, 06:56:03 pm
^  at the D3 level I don't think home field means anything more than you get to play in the geographical local (i.e. WEATHER) that you're used to playing in.   Maybe some travel disadvantage due to time lost sitting on your butt in a bus.   During the post season I can see a big advantage for a northern team hosting someone that isn't used to single digit temps, or MHB being used to the Texas winds whereas their opponent is a passing team.   But during the regular season I think it's highly overrated.  D1 and NFL is a different beast because of crowd noise.

Oh the advantage isn't the crowd or really the field, it's the travel. Getting up at 6 a.m. for a 4 hour bus ride and a noon start game does no one any favors when they go to compete. Leaving the day before for an even longer bus ride, fast food on the road, and a hotel bed, disrupting the Friday practice schedule does no favors either. DIII teams don't travel like D1 teams. While a short hop conference may not be so bad, an hour or two on the bus isn't a big deal, you start touting 3 and 4 hour pre-game rides or 5 -10 hours the day before, and yes 500 miles on a bus is every bit of 10 hours or more, and it does have an effect.

There is nothing like waking up at your usual time, eating a nice breakfast, wandering leisurely over to the field house and prepping for the game. And that doesn't even factor in places like Huntingdon in Montgomery AL, where the visiting locker room has no AC and is too small for the whole team to dress at once. Halftime is usually done on buses so you can at least get some AC, one bus for offense, one for defense. Try getting dressed in 90 degrees and 70% humidity. You are getting dehydrated before your cleats are on...
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on November 28, 2017, 10:11:11 pm
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

Wally,

I respect your viewpoint and I am actually a big fan of the AQ system.  But your last point seems a bit off looking at last years results.  UMHB's last three opponents were all Pool C teams, granted UMU and UWO are not your typical Pool C teams.  But looking back those were much closer games than their first two rounds against AQ teams.

Plus, using your logic, someone could argue that we shouldn't include at least a third of the AQs as well, because they haven't changed the end game either.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: emma17 on November 28, 2017, 11:24:44 pm
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.



Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 29, 2017, 12:52:29 am
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: USee on November 29, 2017, 01:28:02 am
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in.

Going into the playoffs I would have put more credit in Wheaton's basket simply because of the reputation of the CCIW.  However after IWU getting dominated in Round 1, by Case no less, I have trouble thinking Wheaton was anything more than a  good team.   Not a great team that unfortunately dropped a couple games to stellar competition.   It might not be fair, but the weather delay of the NCC game puts an asterisk beside that W in my opinion.

I have no explanation for IWU.
I commented on the weather delay game, but repeat, a team can't do what it's not capable of doing. Wheaton was dominant over NCC.
2016 quarterfinal game at UMHB. With 2:27 left in 3rd quarter, UMHB 24- Wheaton 16. 334 yards for UMHB, 306 for Wheaton. I believe Wheaton returned most of that team.

IWU had a dominant defense that was fast and physical and an average offense that had a gunslinging QB who had no fear of anyone. The weather in that game was a blinding snowstorm with ice on the field in the second half. Those conditions took away IWU's greatest strength as their defensive speed was neutralized and their QB couldn't throw it or run it in that weather. Worst case scenario for IWU. That said, I was impressed with Case Western and think many, including me, under rated them this year.

As for Wheaton, I don't think they should have made the playoffs because of their two losses. I do think it says a lot about the program that they went through some tough times, lost 2 very close and controversial games and then had the first half delay against NCC. They responded to all of that with what was a dominant second half against a legit top 10 team. Many teams would have folded after the dark loss @Millikin. One sign of a great team is how they respond to adversity. This team responded well.

From my perspective, though the criteria say they shouldn't get in and I am fine with that, I will say it was the deepest, fastest and most talented Wheaton team I have seen in 30+ years. If they had made it in, I would not have bet against them.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: wally_wabash on November 29, 2017, 08:40:23 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

Wally,

I respect your viewpoint and I am actually a big fan of the AQ system.  But your last point seems a bit off looking at last years results.  UMHB's last three opponents were all Pool C teams, granted UMU and UWO are not your typical Pool C teams.  But looking back those were much closer games than their first two rounds against AQ teams.

Plus, using your logic, someone could argue that we shouldn't include at least a third of the AQs as well, because they haven't changed the end game either.

Appreciate the perspective, although I think you've misread- or at least misinterpreted- my post.  I'm certainly not advocating for less automatic qualifiers and more 2nd/3rd place teams in the tournament.  I think adding more at-large teams at the expense of auto qualifiers is a bad idea.  I think there's useful debate to be had about how to better select the at-large teams even though I'm not sure they selection committees are routinely getting that wrong even with with limited criteria and data that they have to work with. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 29, 2017, 09:58:32 am
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.
You will have the right circumstances for a 2-loss Auburn to be in the field.

The losses include these:  a 14-6 opening week loss at current #1 Clemson, holding Clemson to the lowest point total of the season. The next lowest score by Clemson was a 27-24 loss at Syracuse (a truly ugly Clemson loss); a 27-23 loss to third place SEC West LSU, when LSU scored 13 points in the 4th quarter.

Imagine this scenario for Auburn to win the national championship.

They will have beaten arch-rival Georgia (think Ohio State Michigan or Oklahoma Texas rival) twice, #5 Alabama, and will have won then 2 more games. Who knows! If Wisconsin stumbles, is 11-1 Alabama better than 11-2 Ohio State?  Auburn might have to beat Clemson again, if Clemson beats Miami this weekend. For that matter, Auburn might have to beat Alabama in the championship series again.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: pumkinattack on November 29, 2017, 10:04:27 am
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 29, 2017, 10:06:50 am
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.
You will have the right circumstances for a 2-loss Auburn to be in the field.

The losses include these:  a 14-6 opening week loss at current #1 Clemson, holding Clemson to the lowest point total of the season. The next lowest score by Clemson was a 27-24 loss at Syracuse (a truly ugly Clemson loss); a 27-23 loss to third place SEC West LSU, when LSU scored 13 points in the 4th quarter.

Imagine this scenario for Auburn to win the national championship.

They will have beaten arch-rival Georgia (think Ohio State Michigan or Oklahoma Texas rival) twice, #5 Alabama, and will have won then 2 more games. Who knows! If Wisconsin stumbles, is 11-1 Alabama better than 11-2 Ohio State?  Auburn might have to beat Clemson again, if Clemson beats Miami this weekend. For that matter, Auburn might have to beat Alabama in the championship series again.

And the CFP works a lot differently from DIII. There are 4 spots spread among 5 conferences and the special child Notre Dame. The Group of 5 are never getting one of those spots. In DIII, there are roughly 5 spots for 25 conference runner ups. The numbers are just immensely different and it's a terrible comparison.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 29, 2017, 10:12:12 am
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.

Auburn - GA is a well known rivalry game. It's the "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry". They have played with only 3 exceptions every year since 1898. Auburn and Alabama took decades off from each other and it took a legislative requirement to get them to play again. UGA-Gtech is definitely an in-state rivalry, but from Georgia's point of view it is nowhere near as significant as Auburn.

While I agree the Iron Bowl is probably bigger these days, Auburn and Georgia are an officially designated rivalry games by the SEC and Malzahn having gone 0-6 prior to this year against Georgia and Alabama was often cited as the reason he would be fired coming into the season. He's pretty safe now of course, but either way, Auburn-Georgia is a huge rivalry.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: GillCJ1 on November 29, 2017, 10:49:48 am
Ah.  Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.  Former Georgia Tech student (undergrad) checking in.  UGA is definitely their biggest rivalry game, but most dawg fans I know pretend like it's not a big deal.  Their sights are set on SECSECSEC rivals like Florida and, yes, Auburn.  It always throws them for a loop when Tech pulls out a W.  Those are fun years.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 29, 2017, 10:57:33 am
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.
Yes, the "War Eagle" tradition is said to have begun with the 1892 Auburn Georgia game.

http://www.auburn.edu/main/welcome/traditions.html

and is the oldest rivalry in the South (as jknezek notes above).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South%27s_Oldest_Rivalry

The series going into the SEC Championship game is UGA 57 wins, Auburn 56 wins, with 8 ties.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: smedindy on November 29, 2017, 01:29:51 pm
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.

For many years it was a 'mythical' championship anyway. And the BCS doesn't exist anymore. It's now the College Football Playoff - which, well, there are many problems with that name.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: jknezek on November 29, 2017, 01:43:37 pm
Should be called the PFP -- The Power Five Playoffs. Or maybe the FBS Invitational Tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: tf37 on December 02, 2017, 10:22:56 am
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

Wally,

I respect your viewpoint and I am actually a big fan of the AQ system.  But your last point seems a bit off looking at last years results.  UMHB's last three opponents were all Pool C teams, granted UMU and UWO are not your typical Pool C teams.  But looking back those were much closer games than their first two rounds against AQ teams.

Plus, using your logic, someone could argue that we shouldn't include at least a third of the AQs as well, because they haven't changed the end game either.

Appreciate the perspective, although I think you've misread- or at least misinterpreted- my post.  I'm certainly not advocating for less automatic qualifiers and more 2nd/3rd place teams in the tournament.  I think adding more at-large teams at the expense of auto qualifiers is a bad idea.  I think there's useful debate to be had about how to better select the at-large teams even though I'm not sure they selection committees are routinely getting that wrong even with with limited criteria and data that they have to work with.

Wally, 

I was not saying that was your point of view, was just saying that your logic could be used to argue to remove more AQs.  And even though I feel certain teams that didn't make the playoffs would have done "better" then teams that were in, I personally can't think of a way to improve the criteria used to determine  the field.

And at the end of the day, whichever team wins their next three games deserves to be crowned the champ, regardless of if another team looks better on paper or had an easier road to the finals.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: pumkinattack on December 05, 2017, 04:21:46 pm
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.

Auburn - GA is a well known rivalry game. It's the "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry". They have played with only 3 exceptions every year since 1898. Auburn and Alabama took decades off from each other and it took a legislative requirement to get them to play again. UGA-Gtech is definitely an in-state rivalry, but from Georgia's point of view it is nowhere near as significant as Auburn.

While I agree the Iron Bowl is probably bigger these days, Auburn and Georgia are an officially designated rivalry games by the SEC and Malzahn having gone 0-6 prior to this year against Georgia and Alabama was often cited as the reason he would be fired coming into the season. He's pretty safe now of course, but either way, Auburn-Georgia is a huge rivalry.

Maybe itís anecdotal, but I think this is anachronistic relic like talking about Army as a national contender as while I noted the commercial during the game Iíve lived in the city of Atlanta for nearly a decade now and rarely heard anyone care about Auburn more than any other random SEC game.  The talk has always been about UF and AL.  Must have met 500 or more rabid UGA alums including guys who are high on the donor list and I just literally donít see it around the state of GA.  Maybe over towards the Columbus/Lagrange area but not where the vast majority of the populous is (Atl, savannah, Macon).  Ironically someone on a north board liked to pout. Out W&J and wittenburgs history citing national title games.  This stuff has a shelf life, seems like book learning vs street knowledge to me.  Itís like me running around talking about Hobarts great lacrosse history.  Nobody under the boomer generation shares the same opinion of the program. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Bob.Gregg on December 06, 2017, 06:52:35 pm
Not sure why W&J got brought into this but, for the record, SINCE W&J's last Stagg Bowl appearance, the Presidents are 12-16 in the D-III playoffs, including 3 of their last 5 wins on the road, including AT Milsaps and AT Wittenberg.  Certainly not "beating the chest" material, but not anything to "tuck tail and run" about either.

Don't get me wrong, W&J is NOT a national championship caliber team/program right now.  And they have just four playoff wins in the last decade, but that doesn't mean they don't belong or shouldn't recall/tout what they have done in their history, a history that includes two Stagg Bowls, four straight national semifinals, and two national quarterfinal appearances in the last 13 years.  That ain't chump change.  It also ain't UMU, UMHB or UWW, I get that.

All-time, in the D-3 playoffs, W&J is 24-25 over 34 years.
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 06, 2017, 09:24:38 pm
Not sure why W&J got brought into this but, for the record, SINCE W&J's last Stagg Bowl appearance, the Presidents are 12-16 (.429) in the D-III playoffs, including 3 of their last 5 wins on the road, including AT Milsaps and AT Wittenberg.  Certainly not "beating the chest" material, but not anything to "tuck tail and run" about either.

Don't get me wrong, W&J is NOT a national championship caliber team/program right now.  And they have just four playoff wins in the last decade, but that doesn't mean they don't belong or shouldn't recall/tout what they have done in their history, a history that includes two Stagg Bowls, four straight national semifinals, and two national quarterfinal appearances in the last 13 years.  That ain't chump change.  It also ain't UMU, UMHB or UWW, I get that.
The single elimination feature of D-3 post-season skews won-loss percentages.

Let's say from 2007 to 2016 that your team made the playoffs 8 times and missed it twice.  You would keep that program in mind when you were casting your own Top 25 ballot.

Let's say that the team won four of the eight 1st round games.  That alone gives a team a 4-8 record (.333), even if they lost every 2nd round game.

If your team won 2 of the four 2nd round games, you are  6-6 (.500) at that point.
 
If you won 1 of the two 3rd round games, you are  7-7 (.500). If you lose both, you are 6-8 (.429)

If you win the 4th round game, you can do no worse than 8-8 and a Stagg Bowl Loss.

That is why .333 as a winning percentage is break-even for me.  You are winning half of your first round games.

W&J's .429 is enviable.

Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: art76 on December 06, 2017, 09:44:45 pm
Ralph,

You got me thinking about my alma mater Bethel University has done since 1999. They're 6 and 8 overall in the play-offs, or .429 as well. (If I did my math correctly.)
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 06, 2017, 10:32:02 pm
Ralph,

You got me thinking about my alma mater Bethel University has done since 1999. They're 6 and 8 overall in the play-offs, or .429 as well. (If I did my math correctly.)
Thank you, Art.

We have had 19 season of the Pools. In the "contiguous" part of D3, #1 and #2 seeds play the #6, #7, and #8 seeds. From my part of the country, when I see a MIAC team making the playoffs, I know that they are least in the 3rd tier of four tiers.  They are going to be tough.  Going head to head against UST, SJU or even the Cobbers makes it tough to get out of conference. Eight playoff appearances in the last 19 years is very good.  Look at where .429 gets you relative to the rest of D3.


http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: pumkinattack on December 07, 2017, 01:24:14 am
Not sure why W&J got brought into this but, for the record, SINCE W&J's last Stagg Bowl appearance, the Presidents are 12-16 (.429) in the D-III playoffs, including 3 of their last 5 wins on the road, including AT Milsaps and AT Wittenberg.  Certainly not "beating the chest" material, but not anything to "tuck tail and run" about either.

Don't get me wrong, W&J is NOT a national championship caliber team/program right now.  And they have just four playoff wins in the last decade, but that doesn't mean they don't belong or shouldn't recall/tout what they have done in their history, a history that includes two Stagg Bowls, four straight national semifinals, and two national quarterfinal appearances in the last 13 years.  That ain't chump change.  It also ain't UMU, UMHB or UWW, I get that.
The single elimination feature of D-3 post-season skews won-loss percentages.

Let's say from 2007 to 2016 that your team made the playoffs 8 times and missed it twice.  You would keep that program in mind when you were casting your own Top 25 ballot.

Let's say that the team won four of the eight 1st round games.  That alone gives a team a 4-8 record (.333), even if they lost every 2nd round game.

If your team won 2 of the four 2nd round games, you are  6-6 (.500) at that point.
 
If you won 1 of the two 3rd round games, you are  7-7 (.500). If you lose both, you are 6-8 (.429)

If you win the 4th round game, you can do no worse than 8-8 and a Stagg Bowl Loss.

That is why .333 as a winning percentage is break-even for me.  You are winning half of your first round games.

W&J's .429 is enviable.

I only brought those two up because someone else in another place defended their seeding/placement (and even unofficially rankings such as the D3.com) based on history.  So that was leading back to my point that history is for the books if it's more than a few years old (arguably if it's yesterday) and so it's like claiming Ga Tech was once a SEC school or Army is relevant in football (or Duke who went to an Orange Bowl in 1960). 

But given the defense about W&J, here's Hobart since 2007:  missed four times, twice beating their own pool A champ, 6-7 record losing to St Thomas, Mt Union (2x), Wesley (2x - one a garbage bad seed in 2011, probably Wesley's best team, and a tight one) for a little more color.  (Other two losses were to St John Fisher, a decent national program).  That stacks up pretty well to W&Js record and the LL is in the same neighborhood as the PAC (some years better some years worse, this was a very down year for the LL).  Do folks outside (or even within) the East treat Hobart with the same level of deference as W&J?  Sure doesn't seem like it from my vantage. 

This is no defense of Hobart other than comparing records as a counter to the W&J defense.  And we thrashed Wittenberg a couple of years ago in a second round game. 
Title: Re: Pool C - 2017
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2017, 09:59:05 am
Pumkin, I look at Hobart as one of the better teams in the country, especially when filling out my bracket in the D3Challenge.

Just winning the first round game half the time is exceptional.  When I am filling out my Challenge bracket, I look at how that year's team is doing relative to the conference's history and who's the opponent.

I will go with Hobart thru the first round and sometimes in the second round.  With W&J, I will go with W&J usually thru the first round and sometimes, the second round.

By the third round, you are running into the UMU, UMHB, WIAC du jour, MIAC du jour, Linfield or previously Wesley.

I am happy that the Empire 8 and the NJAC have reconfigured. The addition of the ACFC schools (FSU, Salisbury & Wesley) to the NJAC will strengthen that conference, and it looks Brockport and Cortland have bolstered the Empire 8. That lifts the LL as well.