Pool C

[Ron Boerger]

The way I understand it, the ONLY rankings that matter are the ones after the final games (11/15) and we never get to see those.  Only the committee does.

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

Right?

In-region results versus regionally ranked teams are among the primary playoff selection criteria.

[Bob.Gregg]

but the only Region Ranking that applies to is the final one.

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

Right?

THAT was my point.

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....

[Ralph Turner]

As I understand it, the rankings are critically important in getting to even be considered.  I believe the national committee only considers four teams at a time, the highest ranked eligible team in each region.  Once a team is selected, their 'place at the table' is taken by the next highest team in that region.  So you will never even reach the discussion until eligible teams ranked ahead of you in your region have been selected.

Correct?

That is the way that I understand it.

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

Pat Coleman has always solid on the picks until the 28th or 32nd in football.

[Knightstalker]

As I understand it, the rankings are critically important in getting to even be considered.  I believe the national committee only considers four teams at a time, the highest ranked eligible team in each region.  Once a team is selected, their 'place at the table' is taken by the next highest team in that region.  So you will never even reach the discussion until eligible teams ranked ahead of you in your region have been selected.

Correct?

I know that is how they explained it for basketball, I would think they would use the same system for all the sports.

[Bill McCabe]

Ralph, what are the key games this weekend with Pool C implications?

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph, what are the key games this weekend with Pool C implications?

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

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

Rowan at Montclair State        (Winner probably gets a Pool C bid in the East Region.)
Hobart at RPI                          (Big Pool C game in the Liberty League)
Trine at Adrian                        (Pool C watchers want Trine to clinch the MIAA.)
Augustana at North Central   (A North Central win helps in Pool C.)
 
Carleton at Concordia-Moorhead  (MIAC race is lead by 4 teams with 2 losses, including St John's.)

The MIAC is probably not a Pool C game, but #1 West seed Willmaette beat Concordia-Moorhead in the first game of the season.  CMC's winning may affect the bracket match-ups -- South Region vs. whomever.

[ADL70]

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....

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

[Ralph Turner]

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....

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

The committee does one more Regional Ranking on the night of the 15th after all games have been played.  As Bob said, we do not see that one.

That will give us the Huntingdon-LaGrange answer, among others.

[redswarm81]

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....

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

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

Here's the rule that causes the anxiety:

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

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

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

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

Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.

[ADL70]

Even more anxiety/confusion/frustration with those in charge not being able to get regional records right!

[jam40jeff]

The criteria should read "record against opponents ranked in the FINAL regional rankings"....

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

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

Here's the rule that causes the anxiety:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, but, but...

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

That looks familiar *sigh*...

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

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

[Bill McCabe]

jam40jeff,  +1 karma just for the effort.

[ADL70]

Maybe I (we) am (are) confusing selection/seeding criteria with regional rankings.  Then too the committee seems free to prioritize the criteria as it chooses or at least we aren't being told the priority given to each criterion.  Does it all sound too much like making sausage?

Is the secrecy a good thing?  Do we want a BCS-style process that includes polls and computer rankings?

[Ron Boerger]

Do we want a BCS-style process that includes polls and computer rankings?

No.

No.

No.

The BCS is a joke, if you left the "C" out it would be more appropriate.  I wouldn't mind seeing more detail about the how the regional rankings are arrived at, but at the end of the day they usually do a pretty good job of getting it right (with all due respect to our friends from the NWC).   If I have to choose between the current scheme and some computerized/poll combination, I'l take the current scheme any time. 

[ADL70]

What I meant was "We don't want a BCS-style process do we?