The Handbook is out!
Appendix J has the OWP and the OOWP (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf).
Also there are 7 Pool C bids for 2007.
The "Access Ratio" determining the number of Pool B bids is 1:8.636. (190 members of Pool A conferences divided by 22 conferences.)
I take it the OWP and OOWP are taking the place of the old "Quality Wins Index," which was really quite worthless. I'm not sure how much better this is in a group the size of D-III, but I guess they need some objective method of comparing all the 9-1 teams.
As a side note...does it bother anybody else that the NCAA can't even add properly in Appendix J? Count the losses in the "Revised Record" column in Appendix J. 6+14+19+12+6 = 57, not 56.
Quote from: altor on October 10, 2007, 12:40:24 PM
As a side note...does it bother anybody else that the NCAA can't even add properly in Appendix J? Count the losses in the "Revised Record" column in Appendix J. 6+14+19+12+6 = 57, not 56.
Hey, at least you got that far. I made it about four lines in before a severe case of befuddlement set in. :o
Didn't know I'd need my graphing calcuator this season.
http://www.d3football.com/notables/2007/10/18/Strength+of+schedule
Strength of Schedule numbers are out.
Pat,
Do these OWP and OOWP numbers only include teams that each team has played to date? Or are you including everybody on the schedule through November?
As an example, is BW's record already built into MUC's OWP? Or will it be added when they are recalculated next week?
I could crunch the numbers for one team and find out myself, but I'm feeling lazy tonight.
Altor, I think that the numbers only include games to date. You never know when a game might canceled by a hurricane or lightning! :D
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2007, 11:33:15 PM
Altor, I think that the numbers only include games to date.
I also think that too, but I can't say for certain.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2007, 11:33:15 PM
Altor, I think that the numbers only include games to date.
Salisbury's OWP is .857. That is the winning percentage that Salisbury's opponents have (minus the loss to Salisbury).
Albright 5-0
CNU 3-1
Del Valley 4-1
This equals 12-2 (.857 winning percentage). :)
I think that's a safe bet. I guess looking at Salisbury makes it easy. (I didn't want to break out the calculator at midnight :P)
Albright 5-0
Christopher-Newport 3-1
Delaware Valley 3-1
(1.000 + .750 + .750) / 3 = .833 <- Matches the posted OWP
The other 3 regional games on their schedule include a 1-5 team, 5-1, and 1-1.
(1.000 + .833 + .750 + .750 + .500 + .167) /6 = .667
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2007, 11:58:11 PM
This equals 12-2 (.857 winning percentage). :)
Ralph,
If I read appendix J right, you don't total the wins and losses. You average the percentages.
Quote from: altor on October 19, 2007, 12:02:10 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2007, 11:58:11 PM
This equals 12-2 (.857 winning percentage). :)
Ralph,
If I read appendix J right, you don't total the wins and losses. You average the percentages.
+1 altor! Thanks!
I missed that. That way of calculating the OWP has the effect of bringing the totals down towards .500.
Imagine this scenario. I am doubling the games that Albright and CNU have played and achieved the same winning percentage. :-\
Albright 10-0 =1.000
CNU 6-2 = .750
Del Valley
3-1 =
.750Total 19-3 = .863
However 1.000 + .750 + .750 = .833 as you clearly demonstrated.
Otterbein 17, Capital 10! Capital plays MUC next weekend. Capital is now on the cusp of Pool C. If they run the table, including beating MUC next week, then they get the OAC Pool A.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2007, 04:54:09 PM
including beating MUC next week
Oh yeah, that's child's play! :D ;)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2007, 04:54:09 PM
Otterbein 17, Capital 10! Capital plays MUC next weekend. Capital is now on the cusp of Pool C. If they run the table, including beating MUC next week, then they get the OAC Pool A.
And if Oberlin would have beaten Wabash today they were in control of the NCAC race.
:D
Assuming for the moment that Cap does not beat MUC, how much danger do people think Cap is in of missing the tourney?
I think the relative non-strength of this loss they may be in trouble. Especially with a possible logjam of teams with 1 loss. I think just because they are in the same conference as MUC does not give them a right to be in the playoffs I guess we'll have to see how badly they lose to MUC.
Capital made the playoffs at 8-2, with losses to MUC and OTT in 2005. OTT was 7-3 that year.
But Otterbein isn't going to be 7-3 this season. Cap's playoff hopes are on life support.
No. Nor is Wittenberg going to be 5-5.
Cap needs help - like Salisbury beating Wesley and Case going undefeated so a "B" doesn't steal a "C".
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 20, 2007, 05:50:11 PM
Assuming for the moment that Cap does not beat MUC, how much danger do people think Cap is in of missing the tourney?
grave danger.
Bob,
Great Nicholson line!
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 21, 2007, 09:37:57 AM
Great Nicholson line!
And, the committee is preparing to deliver another one to the pretenders/bubble teams:
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! (spittle flying)
Bob,
I think the line should have been in all caps to show the proper context of the line (shouting) ;D
I was just wondering.Who are the top contenders for the Pool C bids
Quote from: rookie11 on October 21, 2007, 05:20:07 PM
I was just wondering.Who are the top contenders for the Pool C bids
Welcome rookie11,
I was going thru the games for the ASC Pick'ems contest and found these game involving conference leaders next Saturday.
Dickinson at Muhlenberg -- Centennial
Trinity at Millsaps -- SCAC
W&J at Waynesburg -- Pres AC
NCW and CNU -- USA South
Salisbury at Wesley -- Pool B "ACFC", but also contending for a C.
Cortland at TCNJ -- NJAC
Cal Lutheran at Oxy -- SCIAC...
and those were just the conference races that I saw that had games between the contenders.
We have not considered the conferences in which the front-runner might be upset this week with three more weeks or title games and rivalry games to go.
Ralph,
Would you say that Pool C, (and maybe Pool B) is pretty cloudy at this point. So many teams are still in the running to make any predictions.
:D :D :D
Yeah, Dutch, and I didn't even mention the rumble in Waverly on November 10th! ;)
Quote from: hscoach on October 20, 2007, 08:27:29 PM
But Otterbein isn't going to be 7-3 this season.
I wouldn't be so sure. They are now 4-3 with games against Muskingum, B-W, and John Carroll remaining.
I just ran my D3 computer rankings for the week. It now has Ott at #57, just behind #54 JCU and in front of #74 B-W. It would be an amazing run after starting 1-3, but it is not out the question.
Pat and anyone else who wants to chime in...from what the strength of schedule shows me St. John's should be ahead of UWW in the west region rankings IF and I stress IF you look at the number of regional wins, strength of schedule and the other factors?
Just wondering
I was just doing some thinking about some teams in the North region (or associated with them).
If (when) Capital loses to Mt. Union, they will have two losses. The rest of the OAC is beating up on each other, as usual.
The CCIW is emulating them, so they're only going to get one bid unless Illinois Wesleyan comes through and beats Wheaton. That's a big UNLESS.
With the excellent seasons by Case and Wash U., and with the HCAC finishing with two one-loss teams, then could we see the UAA and HCAC with two bids, while the OAC and CCIW with just one bid?
:o :o :o
Quote from: smedindy on October 22, 2007, 10:53:25 AM
I was just doing some thinking about some teams in the North region (or associated with them).
If (when) Capital loses to Mt. Union, they will have two losses. The rest of the OAC is beating up on each other, as usual.
The CCIW is emulating them, so they're only going to get one bid unless Illinois Wesleyan comes through and beats Wheaton. That's a big UNLESS.
With the excellent seasons by Case and Wash U., and with the HCAC finishing with two one-loss teams, then could we see the UAA and HCAC with two bids, while the OAC and CCIW with just one bid?
:o :o :o
That could happen but keep in mind if Case Beats WashU then washU is out w 2 losses (their other loss was 55-10 loss to Wheaton).
Yes, of course. If Case beats Wash U. then I bet that opens the door for a strong 2-loss team to get in there.
If I did everything correctly, there are 16 teams from Pool A conferences who could end the season with 1 loss and not win their AQ.
Here's the breakdown. Note that all of this is possible, not probable. Many of these teams will probably take their conference AQ leaving 2nd place with 2 or more losses. Also, this does not include the teams who could be left out of Pool B with only 1 loss. You can read the Pool B thread to figure that out.
I believe I have checked everyone for out of region losses.
East (5)
E8 - Possible 3-way tie. If Hartwick wins tie-breaker, leaves Alfred and SJF with 1 loss in Pool C.
LL - RPI loss to Union leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
MAC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
NEFC - Plymouth St could finish with 1 loss. If Curry loses Championship Game, also possible 1 loss team.
NJAC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
North (3)
CCIW - Wheaton loss to Illinois Wesleyan leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
HCAC - Mt St Joe could finish with 1 loss.
IBC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
MIAA - 2nd will have 2 losses.
NCAC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
OAC - MUC loss to Capital leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
South (3)
ASC - UMBH loss to East Texas Baptist leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
CC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
ODAC - If Hampden-Sydney and Bridgewater win out, Bridgewater will have 1 loss in Pool C.
PAC - Loser of Waynesburg/Wash&Jeff could finish with 1 loss.
SCAC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
USAC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
West (5)
IIAC - Central loss to Wartburg leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
MIAC - St. John's loss to Bethel leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
MWC - 2nd will have 2 losses.
SCIAC - Possible 3-way tie could leave Occidental and Redlands with 1 loss in Pool C.
WIAC - UW-Stevens Point could finish with 1 loss.
Edited because I missed the possible ODAC scenario until I listened to the podcast.
Quote from: VOJ on October 22, 2007, 10:01:24 AM
Pat and anyone else who wants to chime in...from what the strength of schedule shows me St. John's should be ahead of UWW in the west region rankings IF and I stress IF you look at the number of regional wins, strength of schedule and the other factors?
Just wondering
Well, that's possible, but after SJU played Hamline and UWW played UWSP, those numbers will shift a bit. We'll have new numbers tomorrow, I believe, from Presto.
altor, +1 for listening to the podcast (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/atnpodcast2007-8.mp3)! ;D
Quote from: smedindy on October 22, 2007, 11:32:39 AM
Yes, of course. If Case beats Wash U. then I bet that opens the door for a strong 2-loss team to get in there.
I wouldn't be too high on CWR if they lose a game. Their current OWP = 0.347. If they dropped into a group of 1 regional loss Pool C's I doubt they get in. They need to win out in my opinion. FWIW
Does D3 have a link or page where the keep the OWP/OOWP like they had the QWI last year?
The new numbers don't seem to have a permanent home yet ... here are last week's:
http://www.d3football.com/notables/2007/10/18/Strength+of+schedule
There may be another daily dose post later this week with updates.
Thanks Ron I had seen those numbers. They are now two weeks old. I was just wondering if someone was keeping current numbers someplace and the answer must be no. Thanks for the help
SOS numbers now have a home on the left rail of the front page (and other news pages).
Thanks Pat!!!+k for seeing to our needs.
Hey Pat...I thought the regional rankings were supposed to be out this week...no dice however I guess...have you seen them?
I believe Wednesday has traditionally been regional rankings day...stay tuned. :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2007, 04:20:07 PM
SOS numbers now have a home on the left rail of the front page (and other news pages).
Call me ignorant (or simply correct me if I'm wrong), but for teams that play a round-robin conference schedule, don't their OWP and OOWP automatically trend towards .500, being that any conference game that the team in question doesn't participate in automatically counts as 1 win and 1 loss in their OWP (and their OOWP, as well).
Hypothetical example: Mount Union goes 9-0 in a difficult OAC conference schedule. Their conference opponents--making up 90% of their schedule, which they really have no control over-- go 36-45 in all conference games, 36-36 in games that Mount Union doesn't participate in.
At the same time, St. Norbert goes 9-0 in the far inferior MWC. Again, the nine opponents that the conference schedule mandates they play go 36-45 in conference play, 36-36 in games without St. Norbert.
To further this mental exercise, Mount Union schedules Hardin-Simmons for their one non-conference game, thinking they are giving themselves a strenuous test from what they expect to be another top team. They blow out the Cowboys, who go on to have a disappointing 4-loss season despite their obvious talent.
While Mount Union is hypothetically challenging itself, St. Norbert schedules Northwestern (MN) for their only non-conference game. The Norbs win in a blowout, but Northwestern finishes the season 8-2 because they play mostly opponents from All-Female institutions.
In this scenario, Mount Union's OWP would be .457 compared to St. Norbert's OWP of .484, even though, subjectively, Mount Union played a much more difficult schedule. It's not difficult to see how the same problem could arise with OOWP if Mount Union's conference opponent also played teams from strong conferences while St. Norbert's opponents played teams from weak conferences.
To summerize, I guess my issue with OWP/OOWP is that most Pool C teams only have 1 or 2 games to influence that figure, and even then it can be highly misleading. I'd hate to see St. John's start scheduling UMAC teams rather than WIAC teams for a non-conference game with OWP and OOWP in mind.
Again, I'm sure there are some major issues that I'm missing, and I apologize if my thoughts aren't entirely clear.
Unless I'm missing something, that's mostly true ... which is why OWP/OOWP (or in the past, QoWi) was only one of a set of criteria.
It's also why it makes sense to have people on the committee who can interpret and (properly, we hope) apply the numbers they are looking at.
Again, I go back to the pre-'99 system, where the 16-team field was determined basically in the same manner as the regional rankings. 10-0 guaranteed you nothing.
Each team in Pool C is already on its second chance. In other words, it had its shot at access, which is what the new system guarantees, and where the improvement over the old system lies.
By playing your way into Pool C, you do open yourself up to the quirks of the criteria, but at least there are criteria.
Quote from: TC on October 24, 2007, 01:10:56 PM
Call me ignorant (or simply correct me if I'm wrong), but for teams that play a round-robin conference schedule, don't their OWP and OOWP automatically trend towards .500, being that any conference game that the team in question doesn't participate in automatically counts as 1 win and 1 loss in their OWP (and their OOWP, as well).
You're not ignorant, and congratulations for recognizing that SoS/OWP is first of all, nothing more than a (fairly simple) mathematical calculation, and second, it conveys very little information. SoS is just a number, and it doesn't mean what a lot of people want it to mean, i.e. "we played tougher (or weaker) opponents, so we deserve a boost." The wins v. ranked opponents, while a flawed statistic, does a better job of approximating that particular tweakage.
I've said it before, the Grand Poobah of any ranking and/or selection criteria is
Ws. Everything else is secondary.
Regional rankings are released (http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/polls/polls/diviii).
I think this is the final piece of the criteria puzzle...let the Pool C prognostication begin!
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2007, 04:16:07 PM
Regional rankings are released (http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/polls/polls/diviii).
I think this is the final piece of the criteria puzzle...let the Pool C prognostication begin!
Redlands looks pretty strong (#6 in the West). I'm not sure that I'd pick them to beat Linfield (#9) or Stevens Point (#10)...but I guess that's not the criteria. They might have to consider moving a 'West' team if SJU and/or Central lose their last game.
Quote from: d-train on October 24, 2007, 06:25:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2007, 04:16:07 PM
Regional rankings are released (http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/polls/polls/diviii).
I think this is the final piece of the criteria puzzle...let the Pool C prognostication begin!
Redlands looks pretty strong (#6 in the West). I'm not sure that I'd pick them to beat Linfield (#9) or Stevens Point (#10)...but I guess that's not the criteria. They might have to consider moving a 'West' team if SJU and/or Central lose their last game.
curious what would make them move a West team if one of those teams suffer a loss?
Redlands at Central would be an interesting matchup. Central beat Redlands 20-13 in the first round of the 1990 playoffs.
I have placed the highest ranked conference member in bold, and mentioned other key games. I really don't think that we get a Pool C from any place else.
West Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. UW-Whitewater 6-0 6-1 WIAC
2. St. John's 7-0 8-0 MIAC At Bethel Nov 10th
3. Central 7-0 8-0 IIAC
4. Occidental 6-0 6-0 SCIAC
5. St. Norbert 7-0 8-0 MWC
6. Redlands 4-1 5-1 SCIAC
7. Bethel 6-1 6-1 MIAC Hosts St Johns Nov 10th
8. Wartburg 7-1 7-1 IIAC Central at Wartburg, Nov 10
9. Linfield 3-1 4-2 POOL B NWC At Whitworth on Nov 3rd.
10. UW-Stevens Point 3-1 6-1 WIAC
East Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Alfred 7-0 7-0 E8 at Hobart, at Ithaca, at SJF
2. Curry 8-0 8-0 NEFC Has NEFC Bowl on Nov 10
3. RPI 6-0 6-0 LL At Union Nov 10th
4. St. John Fisher 7-1 7-1 E8 Host Alfred Nov 10th
5. New Jersey (TCNJ) 6-1 6-1 NJAC Hosts Cortland Oct 27th
6. Albright 6-1 6-1 MAC Hosts Del Valley Nov 10th
7. Cortland State 5-1 6-1 NJAC At TCNJ Oct 27th
8. Union 4-2 4-2 LL Hosts Hobart Nov 3rd, Hosts RPI Nov 10th.
9. Hobart 5-2 5-2 LL Hosts Alfred Oct 27, at Union Nov 3rd
10. Delaware Valley 4-2 4-3 MAC At Albright Nov 10th
North Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Mount Union 7-0 7-0 OAC At Capital Oct 27th
2. Wheaton (Ill.) 7-0 7-0 CCIW At IWU on Nov 10th
3. Wabash 7-0 7-0 NCAC
4. Case Western Reserve 5-0 7-0 UAA Pool B Hosts WashU StL Nov 3rd
5. Capital 6-1 6-1 OAC Hosts MUC Oct 27th
6. Franklin 6-1 6-1 HCAC Hosts Defiance Nov 3rd
7. Mount St. Joseph 6-1 6-1 HCAC
8. Wittenberg 5-2 5-2 NCAC
9. Ohio Northern 5-2 5-2 OAC
10. Illinois Wesleyan 5-2 5-2 CCIW Hosts Wheaton Nov 10*
(Not represented are the Pool A conferences, IBC and MIAA)
South Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-0 7-0 ASC at UW-W October 27th
2. Washington and Jefferson 5-0 7-0 Pres AC At Waynesburg Oct 27th
3. Salisbury 4-0 8-0 Pool B at Wesley Oct 27th
4. Wesley 5-1 7-1 Pool B Hosts Salisbury Oct 27th
5. Muhlenberg 7-0 7-0 CC
6. Waynesburg 6-0 7-0 Pres AC Hosts W&J Oct 27th
7. Millsaps 6-1 6-1 SCAC Hosts Trinity Oct 27th
8. Trinity (Texas) 5-1 6-1 SCAC At Millsaps Oct 27th
9. Washington U. 6-1 6-1 UAA Pool B At CWRU Nov 3rd
10. Bridgewater (Va.) 6-1 6-1 ODAC
(Not represented is the Pool A conference, USAC)
*Tip of the hat to Mr Ypsi.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 24, 2007, 06:33:42 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 24, 2007, 06:25:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2007, 04:16:07 PM
Regional rankings are released (http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/polls/polls/diviii).
I think this is the final piece of the criteria puzzle...let the Pool C prognostication begin!
Redlands looks pretty strong (#6 in the West). I'm not sure that I'd pick them to beat Linfield (#9) or Stevens Point (#10)...but I guess that's not the criteria. They might have to consider moving a 'West' team if SJU and/or Central lose their last game.
curious what would make them move a West team if one of those teams suffer a loss?
They don't neccassarily pick 8 per region. They take the Pool A's and select the best Pool B and Pool C teams nationally. If Wartburg and Bethel win (earning their conference's Pool A bids), Central and SJU will join Redlands and UW-SP as strong Pool C candidates (assuming no other losses). Also, the winner of Whitworth-Linfield will be a strong Pool B candidate (also assuming no other losses). That brings up the possibility of more then 8 'West region' teams getting bids. Perhaps sending a WIAC team or St. Norbert to the 'North' or Redlands somewhere.
I really think that the NWC, especially Whitworth, is on the deep bubble.
Look at how many one loss teams are rated higher across the division.
The NWC is looking at the 3rd Pool B bid, but probably more importantly, the 7th Pool C bid (10th at-large bid overall). I give a 30-70 chance, with 3 weeks left and some upsets occurring in those tight conference races remaining, that the NWC stays home this year.
Ralph, I'm shocked (shocked :o, I tell you!) that you didn't include Wheaton AT IWU among the key remaining games. ;D
Once we knock them off, there goes a pool C! ;)
[Though I confess, if I'm in the running on the pickems, I may have to hold my nose and pick Wheaton. :(]
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 06:47:47 PM
I really think that the NWC, especially Whitworth, is on the deep bubble.
Look at how many one loss teams are rated higher across the division.
The NWC is looking at the 3rd Pool B bid, but probably more importantly, the 7th Pool C bid (10th at-large bid overall). I give a 30-70 chance, with 3 weeks left and some upsets occurring in those tight conference races remaining, that the NWC stays home this year.
I guess we'll see. I just don't see the winner of Linfield-Whitworth sitting at home (assuming they win their other games as well). I think just enough 'at large' teams will get that dreaded second loss hung on 'em. But you're right, wins by teams like Bethel, Wartburg, Wesley, and Washington Univ. could hurt the NWC's chances quite a bit. It'd be interesting to know if Whitworth is the mythical #11 in the West.
What if Linfield won out and got seeded 8th in the West? They would have to be the scariest 8th seed that the playoffs have seen in a long time.
I wouldn't describe Linfield as scary yet...if they get the offense on track and the D keeps playing lights out...then...SCARY!
I will say the offense has been moving the ball fine lately, they just get mistake prone in the Red Zone. Clean that up and watch out!!
It looks like Bethel or Wartburg would have to lose for Linfield to slide into #7 or #8. As long as they BOTH don't pull of the big upsets on Nov. 10 and Linfield wins out...Linfield should be fine (Nov. 3 is no gimme').
Quote from: RFB on October 24, 2007, 07:50:34 PM
What if Linfield won out and got seeded 8th in the West? They would have to be the scariest 8th seed that the playoffs have seen in a long time.
Since the 8th seed has only existed for 2--right?--years, I'd imagine you are correct. But don't forget that in 1999 and 2000 the last seed in the West (7th at the time) made the Stagg Bowl, with Pacific Lutheran winning it all in '99 and St. John's falling a FG short against Mount Union in 2000.
That said, Linfield at #8 would really show the depth of the West.
Quote from: TC on October 24, 2007, 09:50:01 PM
Quote from: RFB on October 24, 2007, 07:50:34 PM
What if Linfield won out and got seeded 8th in the West? They would have to be the scariest 8th seed that the playoffs have seen in a long time.
Since the 8th seed has only existed for 2--right?--years, I'd imagine you are correct. But don't forget that in 1999 and 2000 the last seed in the West (7th at the time) made the Stagg Bowl, with Pacific Lutheran winning it all in '99 and St. John's falling a FG short against Mount Union in 2000.
That said, Linfield at #8 would really show the depth of the West.
A "2 vs. 7" is different from a "1 vs 8", and I think a very huge difference.
The Top 4 seeds have usually been very strong teams, and I think that the National Selection Committee has refined their tools even better thru the years as they have gotten used to the Pools.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 06:37:35 PM
East Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Alfred 7-0 7-0 E8 at Hobart, at Ithaca, at SJF
2. Curry 8-0 8-0 NEFC Has NEFC Bowl on Nov 10
3. RPI 6-0 6-0 LL At Union Nov 10th
4. St. John Fisher 7-1 7-1 E8 Host Alfred Nov 10th
5. New Jersey 6-1 6-1 NJAC Hosts Cortland Oct 27th
6. Albright 6-1 6-1 MAC Hosts Del Valley Nov 10th
7. Cortland State 5-1 6-1 NJAC At NJCU Oct 27th
8. Union 4-2 4-2 LL Hosts Hobart Nov 3rd, Hosts RPI Nov 10th.
9. Hobart 5-2 5-2 LL Hosts Alfred Oct 27, at Union Nov 3rd
10. Delaware Valley 4-2 4-3 MAC At Albright Nov 10th
Ralph, do you know something I don't know? Did NJCU start the football program back up in last couple of weeks? I think you meant Cortland v TCNJ on 10/27. :D
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 06:47:47 PM
I really think that the NWC, especially Whitworth, is on the deep bubble.
Look at how many one loss teams are rated higher across the division.
The NWC is looking at the 3rd Pool B bid, but probably more importantly, the 7th Pool C bid (10th at-large bid overall). I give a 30-70 chance, with 3 weeks left and some upsets occurring in those tight conference races remaining, that the NWC stays home this year.
I would have to agree with Ralph and here is why:
1. If Wesley beats Salisbury this weekend they will both finish with 1 loss in region.
2. Case Western Reserve has no losses and Washington U. has one. They play head-to-head on Nov. 3rd. Lets say Case Western wins, no zero loss team regardless of OWP has been jumped by a one loss team in the past. Lets say Washington U. wins and finishes with one loss and a OWP similar to their current 0.609. Washington U may get the Pool B bid in a close decision.
3. Linfield's current OWP is 0.625. Two of their 3 remaining games are against a zero win team and a 1 win team, thus that OWP will drop in future weeks even if they win out.
4. Case Western is ranked 4th in the North and Washington U. is 9th in the South.
Total it up and Linfield or any NWC team is going to have to hope Case Western and Washington U. both slip up in the final 3 weeks. The Pool B teams are taking shape and if the NWC has to get in via Pool C it may get even tighter.
And Llama did not factor any upsets into his reasoning.
Thanks KS! Go Thick Nights! They are my favorites! ;)
If Linfield wins the NWC championship and doesn't get in it's going to be very unfortunate especially if Redlands gets in instead... :P
Go St. John's and Central!!!
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 06:47:47 PM
I really think that the NWC, especially Whitworth, is on the deep bubble.
I actually agree, especially as long as Case and Wash U. both remain in the Pool B hunt.
The Wesley-Salisbury game will determine a lot, but if Wesley wins, they're both likely to get in in Pool B. If the UAA takes the last Pool B, it's up to the NWC to have its champion stack up against a nation full of Pool C candidates, which could spell trouble.
The other thing is if in-region winning percentage is a criteria, then the NWC teams are going to fall behind the UAA teams on percentage (i.e. 8-1 in-region vs. 5-1 or whatever)
Am I wrong?
It might be kind of wrong for the NWC champ not to make the playoffs at all, but by beating each other up (and with Whitworth losing to Redlands), they might have made their own beds.
****
(Guilty of posting first, reading last ... I see some of the same points have been made above. -1?)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 10:03:48 PM
Quote from: TC on October 24, 2007, 09:50:01 PM
Quote from: RFB on October 24, 2007, 07:50:34 PM
What if Linfield won out and got seeded 8th in the West? They would have to be the scariest 8th seed that the playoffs have seen in a long time.
Since the 8th seed has only existed for 2--right?--years, I'd imagine you are correct. But don't forget that in 1999 and 2000 the last seed in the West (7th at the time) made the Stagg Bowl, with Pacific Lutheran winning it all in '99 and St. John's falling a FG short against Mount Union in 2000.
That said, Linfield at #8 would really show the depth of the West.
A "2 vs. 7" is different from a "1 vs 8", and I think a very huge difference.
The Top 4 seeds have usually been very strong teams, and I think that the National Selection Committee has refined their tools even better thru the years as they have gotten used to the Pools.
Also what you guys are forgetting is that no matter where Linfield is seeded, they are playing the SCIAC in the first round if they get in.
Could be a No. 8 Linfield at No. 4 Occidental or something.
Will keep a close eye on the Bethel/Wartburg developments. I think that's a good point.
Guarantee there will be some losses that throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing. This does not appear to be a season where everything will break cleanly (as if there ever were one)
Quote from: Llamaguy on October 25, 2007, 12:42:38 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 06:47:47 PM
I really think that the NWC, especially Whitworth, is on the deep bubble.
Look at how many one loss teams are rated higher across the division.
The NWC is looking at the 3rd Pool B bid, but probably more importantly, the 7th Pool C bid (10th at-large bid overall). I give a 30-70 chance, with 3 weeks left and some upsets occurring in those tight conference races remaining, that the NWC stays home this year.
I would have to agree with Ralph and here is why:
1. If Wesley beats Salisbury this weekend they will both finish with 1 loss in region.
2. Case Western Reserve has no losses and Washington U. has one. They play head-to-head on Nov. 3rd. Lets say Case Western wins, no zero loss team regardless of OWP has been jumped by a one loss team in the past. Lets say Washington U. wins and finishes with one loss and a OWP similar to their current 0.609. Washington U may get the Pool B bid in a close decision.
3. Linfield's current OWP is 0.625. Two of their 3 remaining games are against a zero win team and a 1 win team, thus that OWP will drop in future weeks even if they win out.
4. Case Western is ranked 4th in the North and Washington U. is 9th in the South.
Total it up and Linfield or any NWC team is going to have to hope Case Western and Washington U. both slip up in the final 3 weeks. The Pool B teams are taking shape and if the NWC has to get in via Pool C it may get even tighter.
Yeah, you make two points I meant to mention.
Linfield playing Menlo and Lewis and Clark, in addition to Whitworth, can't help the ol' SoS.
Also, the UAAs winning out is NOT guaranteed. Wash U. is on the road for three games. They might lose to Carnegie Mellon this week. Heckuva road trip.
Another thing to watch is that even teams who are eliminated from contention, having them do well and hang around the regional rankings, that gives the committee something else to consider under results against regionally ranked teams.
Upon further review, knocking Ithaca out of the regional rankings might be what did in Cortland State last year, if St. Olaf slid in at No. 10 in the West in the final week to save St. John's after the Bethel loss.
Can't remember exactly if that was the case or not, but a good example of why the regional rankings matter even when AQs are set.
Absolutely agree Kmack! Wash. U. is actually a 3 pt dog to CMU this weekend according to Born Power. And Case Western has yet to play anyone with a 0.357 OWP. That is only better than 3 other regionally ranked teams: RPI, Albright and the whopping 0.261 OWP that Occidental currently holds. Both UAA teams could easily stumble but we all said the same last year about Carnegie Mellon and we know how that turned out.
K-Mack, your "post first, read later" pontifications are valuable to us mere mortals. Your validating the things that we see gives them even greater significance.
It does appear that Oxy/SCIAC will get a chance to host 1-2 playoff games this season. There may be a West Coast sub-region again this year. :)
I understand all the points made about the NWC being on the bubble- my question is does anybody think that Geography could give either Linfield or Whitworth an increased chance. Assuming Oxy wins out they would likely host at least a first round game--the NWC teams would be the closest (and presumely cheapest) flights. I haven't looked in depth at distances for other schools but it seems that in the past there have been occassions where teams have been left home due to "financial considerations" related to travel. I guess the counterpoint would be it would be very cheap to put Redlands on a bus back to Eagle Rock (Home of Oxy) for a first round game.....I just think playing conference re-matches in the playoffs is kind of weak.....Thoughts?
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 25, 2007, 11:37:04 AM
I understand all the points made about the NWC being on the bubble- my question is does anybody think that Geography could give either Linfield or Whitworth an increased chance. Assuming Oxy wins out they would likely host at least a first round game--the NWC teams would be the closest (and presumably cheapest) flights. I haven't looked in depth at distances for other schools but it seems that in the past there have been occasions where teams have been left home due to "financial considerations" related to travel. I guess the counterpoint would be it would be very cheap to put Redlands on a bus back to Eagle Rock (Home of Oxy) for a first round game.....I just think playing conference re-matches in the playoffs is kind of weak.....Thoughts?
Actually I don't think that there is a difference between a plane flight and another plane flight. I am sure that the NCAA's corporate airline transportation account works at an economy of scale that we are not used to seeing.
It is our impression in the ASC that geography works against us. I don't see that the NWC would gain too much either.
There is one other thing that is happening to Linfield. The win over HSU does not look as good this season as it would have in the previous 15, and it might not improve.
As for first round rematches, I decry it every time that I see it. >:(
I think that the NWC should hope for no Cinderella's and no upsets!
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2007, 11:45:37 AM
I think that the NWC should hope for no Cinderella's and no upsets!
Well, mabye a Cal Lutheran upset of Redlands would be helpful.... :)
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 25, 2007, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2007, 11:45:37 AM
I think that the NWC should hope for no Cinderella's and no upsets!
Well, mabye a Cal Lutheran upset of Redlands would be helpful.... :)
Second losses to Pool B and C candidates help: Lacrosse over Stevens Point; Salisbury over Wesley; Redlands dropping one; Washington Univ. losing one (but beating Case Western maybe?). (What Ralph is saying is...) You don't want any currently undefeated teams losing their conference title and become strong Pool C candidates (SJU, Central, Alfred). Unless Salisbury wins, the NWC's path won't get much clearer until Nov. 10th.
Quote from: d-train on October 25, 2007, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 25, 2007, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2007, 11:45:37 AM
I think that the NWC should hope for no Cinderella's and no upsets!
Well, mabye a Cal Lutheran upset of Redlands would be helpful.... :)
Second losses to Pool B and C candidates help: Lacrosse over Stevens Point; Salisbury over Wesley; Redlands dropping one; Washington Univ. losing one (but beating Case Western maybe?). (What Ralph is saying is...) You don't want any currently undefeated teams losing their conference title and become strong Pool C candidates (SJU, Central, Alfred). Unless Salisbury wins, the NWC's path won't get much clearer until Nov. 10th.
Yeah, I got it.
Why Nov. 10? Linfield plays at Whitworth (again?) Nov. 3.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2007, 11:26:16 PM
Why Nov. 10? Linfield plays at Whitworth (again?) Nov. 3.
Still gotta beat Lewis and Clark :)
My bust. ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2007, 11:26:16 PM
Why Nov. 10? Linfield plays at Whitworth (again?) Nov. 3.
The NWC's best candidate will be determined on Nov. 3rd. But unless Salibury eliminates Wesley, I think there's still a huge question mark (on the NWC hopes) until we know if the likes of SJU, Central, and Alfred earn their Pool A or eat up a Pool C (they all have huge games on the 10th). That's what I meant. Oh, and no...Linfield and Whitworth haven't played since last year - and that one was played in McMinnville.
Quote from: d-train on October 26, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2007, 11:26:16 PM
Why Nov. 10? Linfield plays at Whitworth (again?) Nov. 3.
The NWC's best candidate will be determined on Nov. 3rd. But unless Salibury eliminates Wesley, I think there's still a huge question mark (on the NWC hopes) until we know if the likes of SJU, Central, and Alfred earn their Pool A or eat up a Pool C (they all have huge games on the 10th). That's what I meant. Oh, and no...Linfield and Whitworth haven't played since last year - and that one was played in McMinnville.
And don't forget Wheaton (IL), who also on the 10th travels to Bloomington to play co-CCIW leader IWU.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 26, 2007, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 26, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2007, 11:26:16 PM
Why Nov. 10? Linfield plays at Whitworth (again?) Nov. 3.
The NWC's best candidate will be determined on Nov. 3rd. But unless Salibury eliminates Wesley, I think there's still a huge question mark (on the NWC hopes) until we know if the likes of SJU, Central, and Alfred earn their Pool A or eat up a Pool C (they all have huge games on the 10th). That's what I meant. Oh, and no...Linfield and Whitworth haven't played since last year - and that one was played in McMinnville.
And don't forget Wheaton (IL), who also on the 10th travels to Bloomington to play co-CCIW leader IWU.
I'm told that one shouldn't be a problem :)
D-train ... fair enough.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2007, 02:15:00 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 26, 2007, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 26, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2007, 11:26:16 PM
Why Nov. 10? Linfield plays at Whitworth (again?) Nov. 3.
The NWC's best candidate will be determined on Nov. 3rd. But unless Salibury eliminates Wesley, I think there's still a huge question mark (on the NWC hopes) until we know if the likes of SJU, Central, and Alfred earn their Pool A or eat up a Pool C (they all have huge games on the 10th). That's what I meant. Oh, and no...Linfield and Whitworth haven't played since last year - and that one was played in McMinnville.
And don't forget Wheaton (IL), who also on the 10th travels to Bloomington to play co-CCIW leader IWU.
I'm told that one shouldn't be a problem :)
D-train ... fair enough.
Well, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Mike Swider you heard that from! Though many no doubt felt that way in 2005, when the Titans were downright awful but wrecked Wheaton's season. This year we can take 'their' AQ!
With Stevens Point losing today, I'm guessing that all but takes a second WIAC team out of the playoff mix, eh? "Perfect storm" mathematical possibilities exist but it's hard to see anybody but UWW.
Well the South Region just went for a ride on a roller coaster. 60% of the top ten lost today. That may close the door for some hopefulls. In the CC if Ursinus wins out could may give two teams from that conference a bid.. the next two weeks could be a whole lot of fun.
East (5) (4)
E8 - Possible 3-way tie, could leave SJF with 1 loss in Pool C. If Hartwick wins tie-breaker, leaves Alfred and SJF with 1 loss in Pool C.
LL - RPI loss to Union leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
NEFC - Plymouth St could finish with 1 loss. If Curry loses Championship Game, also possible 1 loss team.
North (3) (2)
CCIW - Wheaton loss to Illinois Wesleyan leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
HCAC - Mt St Joe could finish with 1 loss.
OAC - MUC loss to Capital leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C. 2nd will have 2 losses.
South (3) (2)
ASC - UMBH loss to East Texas Baptist leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C. Loser will have 2 losses.
CC - 2nd will have 2 losses. Muhlenberg loss to Usinus leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C. *
ODAC - If Hampden-Sydney and Bridgewater win out, Bridgewater will have 1 loss in Pool C. Loser will have 2 losses.
PAC - Loser of Waynesburg/Wash&Jeff Waynesburg could finish with 1 loss.
West (5) (4)
IIAC - Central loss to Wartburg leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
MIAC - St. John's loss to Bethel leaves them with 1 loss in Pool C.
SCIAC - Possible 3-way tie could leave Occidental and Redlands with 1 loss in Pool C. **
WIAC - UW-Stevens Point could finish with 1 loss. 2nd will have 2 losses.
Pool B (1) - These teams could finish with 1 loss or less. If so, one will not get a Pool B bid.
Case Western Reserve (8-0/6-0)
Wesley (8-1/6-1)
Salisbury (8-1/4-1)
Winner of Whitworth (5-2/5-1) and Linfield (5-2/4-1)
* I don't know how I goofed on a second conference last week, but I did, and a rather obvious scenario at that. Somebody better check me on the others.
** Occidental and Cal Lutheran playing now.
Wash U. loses today, so if they beat Case then Case will have a chance at a "C", but it may be an outside chance.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 27, 2007, 01:35:31 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2007, 02:15:00 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 26, 2007, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 26, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2007, 11:26:16 PM
Why Nov. 10? Linfield plays at Whitworth (again?) Nov. 3.
The NWC's best candidate will be determined on Nov. 3rd. But unless Salibury eliminates Wesley, I think there's still a huge question mark (on the NWC hopes) until we know if the likes of SJU, Central, and Alfred earn their Pool A or eat up a Pool C (they all have huge games on the 10th). That's what I meant. Oh, and no...Linfield and Whitworth haven't played since last year - and that one was played in McMinnville.
And don't forget Wheaton (IL), who also on the 10th travels to Bloomington to play co-CCIW leader IWU.
I'm told that one shouldn't be a problem :)
D-train ... fair enough.
Well, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Mike Swider you heard that from! Though many no doubt felt that way in 2005, when the Titans were downright awful but wrecked Wheaton's season. This year we can take 'their' AQ!
No, it wasn't Mike ... someone who's seen them play didn't think it would be a great game, but others did. I didn't mentioned them though, was trying to get your goat (or however the phrase goes)
The North Park result today is interesting, but regardless ... if the AQ is on the line, it's gonna be a great game.
I also think IWU and R-MC represent two of the biggest surprises of the year ... still.
Smed, I think Case is in good B shape even if they lose. They would have 1 D3 loss just like Salisbury, Wesley and the Linfield/Whitworth winner.
Yeah, you're right too though ... the fourth B team has a good C shot.
Altor,
Good stuff.
Four Liberty League teams are still in the mix, and they all play other top four teams in their final two games.
So let's work it out.
RPI 5-0, 7-0 vs. Rochester, at Union; earlier 35-31 at Hobart
Union 5-0, 5-2 vs. Hobart, vs. RPI; earlier 13-7 win at Rochester
Hobart 4-1, 6-2 at Union, at Rochester; earlier 35-31 loss to RPI
Rochester 4-1, 5-3 wins at RPI, vs. Hobart; earlier 13-7 loss vs. Union.
OK, so let's look at the possibilties.
RPI and Hobart win out; RPI wins.
Union and Rochester
(will finish later)
I was just trying to figure out all the possible teams that could have 1 regional loss and not win their AQ.
I guess I missed some scenarios there with the LL, but the end result is that only RPI fits this category.
Quote from: altor on October 28, 2007, 09:53:02 AM
I was just trying to figure out all the possible teams that could have 1 regional loss and not win their AQ.
I guess I missed some scenarios there with the LL, but the end result is that only RPI fits this category.
Yeah,
I began to realize that wasn't the place for what I was getting ready to figure out, and since there was plenty of other stuff to do last night, plus since the LL board has probably figured it out five ways to Sunday, I aborted mission.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 27, 2007, 10:42:27 PM
No, it wasn't Mike ... someone who's seen them play didn't think it would be a great game, but others did. I didn't mentioned them though, was trying to get your goat (or however the phrase goes)
K-Mack, in case you were still wondering, it's "goad" or "a verbalization that encourages you to attempt something; 'the ceaseless prodding got on his nerves'" from the noun which basically means "a cattle prod."
Get your goat is also a phrase.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/10/messages/1015.html
What do you guys think about Central getting a Pool C should they end up 9-1. With so many 2 loss teams in the West how can they be kept out?
You can't just look at the West -- Central would be in competition with all runners-up nationally.
For pool C, it is not a gimme that Wheaton is a pool C even if they lose to IWU. If there is a 3 way tie atop the CCIW it will be decided by point differential among the 3 tied teams. this can only happen with Wheaton, NCC, and IWU. For that to happen NCC has to beat IWU this weekend and IWU has to beat wheaton next weekend (assuming Wheaton wins vs carthage this saturday). Wheaton could still easily win the AQ in a 3 way tie. We will know what score will affect each outcome after this saturdays IWU/NCC clash.
It seems that the teams in Pool C with potentially one loss are:
Muhlenberg (if they lose to Ursinus and beat Moravian)
Mt. St. Joseph
Wheaton (if they lose to IWU and IWU wins out)
Central (if they lose to Wartburg)
St. John's (if they lose to Bethel)
Curry
Plymouth State
Waynesburg
Occidental
Redlands (Redlands beating Cal Lutheran would open up a big ol' can of SCIAC worms, and may move Oxy to A depending on what the SCIAC three way tiebreaker is!)
Also either Salisbury or Wesley or Case could have one loss and be a "C" contender if they go another way with "B" and Case loses to Wash U.
Honestly, I'd feel good about Central's playoff chances as a "C" with one loss. That's not a very deep one loss field.
Quote from: usee on October 30, 2007, 10:46:31 PM
For pool C, it is not a gimme that Wheaton is a pool C even if they lose to IWU. If there is a 3 way tie atop the CCIW it will be decided by point differential among the 3 tied teams. this can only happen with Wheaton, NCC, and IWU. For that to happen NCC has to beat IWU this weekend and IWU has to beat wheaton next weekend (assuming Wheaton wins vs carthage this saturday). Wheaton could still easily win the AQ in a 3 way tie. We will know what score will affect each outcome after this saturdays IWU/NCC clash.
Point taken, but I'll have to quibble with the 'easily win' part. If NCC beats IWU by 5+, Wheaton is out. If NCC beats IWU by less than 5, but IWU beats Wheaton by 5+ more than that margin, Wheaton is out. And, of course, if IWU beats NCC, ANY margin over Wheaton knocks them out of the AQ. While certainly possible, that's a pretty narrow window to be called 'easily'! ;)
Now if NCC beats IWU by 4 and IWU beats Wheaton by 4, I don't even know what comes next - coin flip?
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2007, 11:08:46 PM
It seems that the teams in Pool C with potentially one loss are:
Muhlenberg (if they lose to Ursinus and beat Moravian)
Mt. St. Joseph
Wheaton (if they lose to IWU and IWU wins out)
Central (if they lose to Wartburg)
St. John's (if they lose to Bethel)
Curry
Plymouth State
Waynesburg
Occidental
Redlands (Redlands beating Cal Lutheran would open up a big ol' can of SCIAC worms, and may move Oxy to A depending on what the SCIAC three way tiebreaker is!)
Also either Salisbury or Wesley or Case could have one loss and be a "C" contender if they go another way with "B" and Case loses to Wash U.
RPI could be a one-loss Pool C candidate if they and Union both win this week, and RPI loses to Union on Nov. 10.
Apparently the SCIAC three-way tiebreaker is the Rose Bowl Rule, which would favor Cal Lu.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2007, 11:10:03 PM
Quote from: usee on October 30, 2007, 10:46:31 PM
For pool C, it is not a gimme that Wheaton is a pool C even if they lose to IWU. If there is a 3 way tie atop the CCIW it will be decided by point differential among the 3 tied teams. this can only happen with Wheaton, NCC, and IWU. For that to happen NCC has to beat IWU this weekend and IWU has to beat wheaton next weekend (assuming Wheaton wins vs carthage this saturday). Wheaton could still easily win the AQ in a 3 way tie. We will know what score will affect each outcome after this saturdays IWU/NCC clash.
Point taken, but I'll have to quibble with the 'easily win' part. If NCC beats IWU by 5+, Wheaton is out. If NCC beats IWU by less than 5, but IWU beats Wheaton by 5+ more than that margin, Wheaton is out. And, of course, if IWU beats NCC, ANY margin over Wheaton knocks them out of the AQ. While certainly possible, that's a pretty narrow window to be called 'easily'! ;)
Now if NCC beats IWU by 4 and IWU beats Wheaton by 4, I don't even know what comes next - coin flip?
The mark is 8pts I believe chuck. right now wheaton is +4 and ncc is -4. for ncc to be sure to have a shot they need to get to +4 which requires beating IWU by 8pts. Then a 1pt IWU win over wheaton gives NCC the AQ.
IF NCC beats IWU by 8 then IWU will have to beat wheaton by 13 to win the AQ. Now if you think it will be easy for NCC to beat IWU by 8 and then IWU to beat wheaton by 13 then you have redefined "easily" for me. ;)
I posted this over on the CCIW board but will repost here in case its late night on Nov 10 and everyone is trying to figure out if Wheaton is pool A or pool C. (Of course us Thunder fans don't believe it will come to this but my mother always taught me to be prepared)
"Another little known playoff tidbit for those fans who care: we all know the 3rd tie breaker in a 3 way tie is point differential. Did you know the 4th tiebreaker is defensive yards given up vs the tied teams? It has never come down to that but that's some complicated stuff to have to figure out during a game.
The 5th tiebreaker you ask? random draw by the commish. "
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2007, 12:54:22 AM
Apparently the SCIAC three-way tiebreaker is the Rose Bowl Rule, which would favor Cal Lu.
The "Rose Bowl Rule" is "whoever's had the longest drought wins," right?
I wonder how that works when at least two of the three have never attended the playoffs, or never won the conference.
I'd be absolutely shocked if a 9-1 Wheaton didn't make the show as a Pool C. Also keep in mind the OAC doesn't have a 1 loss team so that's one less Pool C competitor the CCIW has to worry about.
Quote from: hscoach on October 31, 2007, 10:52:05 AM
I'd be absolutely shocked if a 9-1 Wheaton didn't make the show as a Pool C. Also keep in mind the OAC doesn't have a 1 loss team so that's one less Pool C competitor the CCIW has to worry about.
I would be surprised too. My point is that we may be figuring out if they are taking a bid or not (A vs C) on Nov 10.
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 31, 2007, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2007, 12:54:22 AM
Apparently the SCIAC three-way tiebreaker is the Rose Bowl Rule, which would favor Cal Lu.
The "Rose Bowl Rule" is "whoever's had the longest drought wins," right?
I wonder how that works when at least two of the three have never attended the playoffs, or never won the conference.
Then you would eliminate the team that has ever won the conference, take the two remaining teams that never have and go back up to the first tiebreaker, head-to-head result.
Quote from: usee on October 31, 2007, 11:49:37 AM
Quote from: hscoach on October 31, 2007, 10:52:05 AM
I'd be absolutely shocked if a 9-1 Wheaton didn't make the show as a Pool C. Also keep in mind the OAC doesn't have a 1 loss team so that's one less Pool C competitor the CCIW has to worry about.
I would be surprised too. My point is that we may be figuring out if they are taking a bid or not (A vs C) on Nov 10.
I'd be surprised too, but keep in mind that Wheaton could be behind Mt. St. Joseph in the North Region Pool C pecking order. Mt. St. Joseph has a win over IWU, and Wheaton would have a loss to IWU. Record vs. common opponents is a primary criterion. If only 8 teams from the North make the playoffs, there are 6 AQ's and a possible B for Case Western, leaving only one C from the North.
Quote from: Schwami on October 31, 2007, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: usee on October 31, 2007, 11:49:37 AM
Quote from: hscoach on October 31, 2007, 10:52:05 AM
I'd be absolutely shocked if a 9-1 Wheaton didn't make the show as a Pool C. Also keep in mind the OAC doesn't have a 1 loss team so that's one less Pool C competitor the CCIW has to worry about.
I would be surprised too. My point is that we may be figuring out if they are taking a bid or not (A vs C) on Nov 10.
I'd be surprised too, but keep in mind that Wheaton could be behind Mt. St. Joseph in the North Region Pool C pecking order. Mt. St. Joseph has a win over IWU, and Wheaton would have a loss to IWU. Record vs. common opponents is a primary criterion. If only 8 teams from the North make the playoffs, there are 6 AQ's and a possible B for Case Western, leaving only one C from the North.
Good point on common opponents but to clarify, my understanding is pool C's are chosen nationally, not by region. the committee will taket the 7 best pool c's and figure out how to place them geographically after selection. In addition, Wheaton's SOS/QOWI is much better than MSJ but that too will be weighed against all the other teams.
usee, I believe Pat can clarify this, but my understanding is that when the committee takes the first Pool C candidate, they compare the top ranked candidate from each of the four regions. Let's say the first team taken is from the West. The second team is then selected by comparing the top ranked teams from the other three regions and the team originally ranked second in the West. So while the Pool C selections are made by comparing teams nationally, it is still somewhat affected by the initial rankings within regions.
New SOS numbers:
http://www.d3football.com/strength-of-schedule/2007
Yes, Schwami, that's correct to our understanding.
Quote from: Schwami on October 31, 2007, 01:16:53 PM
usee, I believe Pat can clarify this, but my understanding is that when the committee takes the first Pool C candidate, they compare the top ranked candidate from each of the four regions. Let's say the first team taken is from the West. The second team is then selected by comparing the top ranked teams from the other three regions and the team originally ranked second in the West. So while the Pool C selections are made by comparing teams nationally, it is still somewhat affected by the initial rankings within regions.
I always think of it as a table with 4 chairs, one chair for each region. The top candidate from each region sits in one chair with the rest of the candidates from that region lined up behind them in the order they are ranked. The committee then looks at the four teams in the chairs and picks the best one. That team is in and the next team from that region sits in the chair. After seven picks, the shop is closed.
So the disadvantage to being the second or third candidate in your region, is that you don't get up to the table until the guy in front of you gets in. So even if you're better than the three other teams at the table, you can't even be considered until the chair in front of your region clears.
Quote from: Just Bill on October 31, 2007, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: Schwami on October 31, 2007, 01:16:53 PM
usee, I believe Pat can clarify this, but my understanding is that when the committee takes the first Pool C candidate, they compare the top ranked candidate from each of the four regions. Let's say the first team taken is from the West. The second team is then selected by comparing the top ranked teams from the other three regions and the team originally ranked second in the West. So while the Pool C selections are made by comparing teams nationally, it is still somewhat affected by the initial rankings within regions.
I always think of it as a table with 4 chairs, one chair for each region. The top candidate from each region sits in one chair with the rest of the candidates from that region lined up behind them in the order they are ranked. The committee then looks at the four teams in the chairs and picks the best one. That team is in and the next team from that region sits in the chair. After seven picks, the shop is closed.
So the disadvantage to being the second or third candidate in your region, is that you don't get up to the table until the guy in front of you gets in. So even if you're better than the three other teams at the table, you can't even be considered until the chair in front of your region clears.
this is all very helpful and some of it is new to me. If I am reading it right Schwami's point, however, is that the 6 AQ's in the north would limit the number of C's they may get which I don't hear anyone saying is correct. Either way, the question for a 1 loss wheaton team is "where do we rank relative to other C candidates in the North".
MSJ and Case being the other two possibles.
Quote from: usee on October 31, 2007, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on October 31, 2007, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: Schwami on October 31, 2007, 01:16:53 PM
usee, I believe Pat can clarify this, but my understanding is that when the committee takes the first Pool C candidate, they compare the top ranked candidate from each of the four regions. Let's say the first team taken is from the West. The second team is then selected by comparing the top ranked teams from the other three regions and the team originally ranked second in the West. So while the Pool C selections are made by comparing teams nationally, it is still somewhat affected by the initial rankings within regions.
I always think of it as a table with 4 chairs, one chair for each region. The top candidate from each region sits in one chair with the rest of the candidates from that region lined up behind them in the order they are ranked. The committee then looks at the four teams in the chairs and picks the best one. That team is in and the next team from that region sits in the chair. After seven picks, the shop is closed.
So the disadvantage to being the second or third candidate in your region, is that you don't get up to the table until the guy in front of you gets in. So even if you're better than the three other teams at the table, you can't even be considered until the chair in front of your region clears.
this is all very helpful and some of it is new to me. If I am reading it right Schwami's point, however, is that the 6 AQ's in the north would limit the number of C's they may get which I don't hear anyone saying is correct. Either way, the question for a 1 loss wheaton team is "where do we rank relative to other C candidates in the North".
MSJ and Case being the other two possibles.
Look at the regional rankings and that will give you an idea how they rank relative to the other Pool C candidates in the region.
Quote from: Knightstalker on October 31, 2007, 03:32:03 PM
Look at the regional rankings and that will give you an idea how they rank relative to the other Pool C candidates in the region.
Those are out later today (Wed.), right? Still some
very pivital games to be played these last two weeks.
Quote from: Knightstalker on October 31, 2007, 03:32:03 PM
Look at the regional rankings and that will give you an idea how they rank relative to the other Pool C candidates in the region.
Yes and no. currently wheaton is undefeated and the theory is their 1 loss may come via their last game on the 10th. so it is speculation as to how far they drop in the regional rankings if they have 1 loss. So if MSJ is currently #7 and IWU is #10...if wheaton loses to the #10 team in the region, how far do they fall from #2? past MSJ? that's the key. if they stay in the top 6 they are likely the North's best pool C team. What about Case who currently sits at #4 in the North? if they lose, they will drop but still be a pool C?
So many questions, so many variables. I can't wait for Pat's first playoff prediction page. When is that Pat?
Newest Regional Rankings Released:
No. Name In-Region Overall
East
1. Rensselaer 7-0 7-0
2. The College of New Jersey 7-1 7-1
3. Curry 9-0 9-0
4. St. John Fisher 8-1 8-1
5. Albright 7-1 7-1
6. Alfred 7-1 7-1
7. Hobart 6-2 6-2
8. Union (New York) 5-2 5-2
9. Cortland State 5-2 6-2
10. Widener 5-2 6-2
North
1. Mount Union 8-0 8-0
2. Wheaton (Illinois) 8-0 8-0
3. Wabash 8-0 8-0
4. Case Western Reserve 6-0 8-0
5. Franklin 7-1 7-1
6. Mount St. Joseph 7-1 7-1
7. Capital 6-2 6-2
8. Wittenberg 6-2 6-2
9. Illinois Wesleyan 6-2 6-2
10. North Central (Illinois) 6-2 6-2
South
1. Washington and Jefferson 5-0 8-0
2. Wesley 6-1 8-1
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-1 7-1
4. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0
5. Salisbury 4-1 8-1
6. Waynesburg 6-1 7-1
7. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1
8. Randolph Macon 7-1 7-1
9. Ursinus 6-1 7-1
10. Hampden-Sydney 5-2 6-2
West
1. Wisconsin-Whitewater 7-0 7-1
2. St. John's (Minnesota) 8-0 9-0
3. Central (Iowa) 8-0 9-0
4. St. Norbert 8-0 9-0
5. Bethel (Minnesota) 7-1 7-1
6. Wartburg 8-1 8-1
7. Linfield 4-1 5-2
8. Occidental 6-1 6-1
9. Redlands 6-1 7-1
10. Whitworth 6-1 6-2
Case is a pool B team, they will only have a bearing on the Pool C bids if they do not receive a Pool B bid. This season one of the Pool B teams may take away a C bid. You can look at Wheaton and the other unbeaten or one loss teams and measure their chances against each other using the selection criteria. Or you can be patient and wait to see how the season ends.
I believe they rank the regions, then remove the Pool A teams and move everyone up accordingly and then review the Pool C teams against each other nationally using regional criteria. As stated earlier, when a team gets selected another takes their place on the list and they are then discussed.
Quote from: Knightstalker on October 31, 2007, 04:11:33 PM.....Or you can be patient and wait to see how the season ends.
Where's the fun in that?
Quote from: hscoach on October 31, 2007, 04:32:20 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on October 31, 2007, 04:11:33 PM.....Or you can be patient and wait to see how the season ends.
Where's the fun in that?
I am just giving out options, I am not responsible anybodies fun except my own.
Let's start putting names and faces together. We shall assume that the highest ranked team in a conference will get the Pool A bid.
East Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. RPI 7-0 7-1 LL
2. New Jersey 7-1 7-1 NJAC
3. Curry 9-0 9-0 NEFC
4. St. John Fisher 8-1 8-1 E8
5. Albright 7-1 7-1 MAC
6. Alfred 7-1 7-1 Pool C E8 At Ithaca, at SJF
7. Hobart 6-2 6-2 Pool C LL At Union, at Rochester
8. Union 5-2 5-2 Pool C LL At Hobart, at RPI
9. Cortland State 5-2 6-2 Pool C NJAC Rowan, at Ithaca
10. Widener 5-2 6-2 Pool C MAC Albright, at Wilkes
(How many fans has Ithaca picked up from other Pool C teams this afternoon? ;) )
North Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Mount Union 8-0 8-0 OAC
2. Wheaton (Ill.) 8-0 8-0 CCIW
3. Wabash 8-0 8-0 NCAC
4. Case Western Reserve 6-0 8-0 UAA Pool B #2 Wash U, Ohio Wesleyan
5. Franklin 7-1 7-1 HCAC
6. Mount St. Joseph 7-1 7-1 Pool C HCAC At Bluffton, Thomas More
7. Capital 6-2 6-2 Pool C OAC At Muskingum, BWC
8. Wittenberg 6-2 6-2 Pool C NCAC At Allegheny, Hiram
9. Illinois Wesleyan 6-2 6-2 Pool C CCIW At NCC, Wheaton
10. North Central 6-2 6-2 Pool C CCIW IWU, at Carthage
NR Concordia WI IBC
NR Hope MIAA
South Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Washington and Jefferson 5-0 8-0 Pres AC
2. Wesley 6-1 8-1 Pool B #1 at Morrisville State
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-1 7-1 ASC
4. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0 CC
5. Salisbury 4-1 8-1 Pool B #3 Frostburg St at Annapolis
6. Waynesburg 6-1 7-1 Pool C Pres AC Geneva, at Westminster PA
7. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1 SCAC
8. Randolph-Macon 7-1 7-1 ODAC
9. Ursinus 6-1 7-1 Pool C CC Muhlenberg, at Dickinson
10. Hampden-Sydney 5-2 6-2 Pool C ODAC Huntingdon, at RMC
NR NCWC USAC
West Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. UW-Whitewater 7-0 7-1 WIAC
2. St. John's 8-0 9-0 MIAC
3. Central 8-0 9-0 IIAC
4. St. Norbert 8-0 9-0 MWC
5. Bethel 7-1 7-1 Pool C MIAC Augsburg at Metrodome, SJU
6. Wartburg 8-1 8-1 Pool C IIAC at Cornell, Central
7. Linfield 4-1 5-2 Pool B/C NWC at Whitworth, L&C
8. Occidental 6-1 6-1 Pool C SCIAC (CLU has tie-breaker) Chapman, at Whittier
9. Redlands 6-1 7-1 Pool C SCIAC Whittier, at CLU
10. Whitworth 6-1 6-2 Pool B/C Linfield, at Puget Sound
NR Cal Lutheran SCIAC at PP, Redlands
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 31, 2007, 07:22:37 PM
Let's start putting names and faces together. We shall assume that the highest ranked team in a conference will get the Pool A bid.
East Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. RPI 7-0 7-1 LL
2. New Jersey 7-1 7-1 NJAC
3. Curry 9-0 9-0 NEFC
4. St. John Fisher 8-1 8-1 E8
5. Albright 7-1 7-1 MAC
6. Alfred 7-1 7-1 Pool C E8
North Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Mount Union 8-0 8-0 OAC
2. Wheaton (Ill.) 8-0 8-0 CCIW
3. Wabash 8-0 8-0 NCAC
4. Case Western Reserve 6-0 8-0 UAA Pool B #2
5. Franklin 7-1 7-1 HCAC
6. Mount St. Joseph 7-1 7-1 Pool C HCAC
NR Concordia WI IBC
NR Hope MIAA
South Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Washington and Jefferson 5-0 8-0 Pres AC
2. Wesley 6-1 8-1 Pool B #1
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-1 7-1 ASC
4. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0 CC
5. Salisbury 4-1 8-1 Pool B #3
6. Waynesburg 6-1 7-1 Pool C Pres AC
7. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1 SCAC
8. Randolph-Macon 7-1 7-1 ODAC
9. Ursinus 6-1 7-1 Pool C CC
NR NCWC USAC
West Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. UW-Whitewater 7-0 7-1 WIAC
2. St. John's 8-0 9-0 MIAC
3. Central 8-0 9-0 IIAC
4. St. Norbert 8-0 9-0 MWC
5. Bethel 7-1 7-1 Pool C MIAC
6. Wartburg 8-1 8-1 Pool C IIAC
8. Occidental 6-1 6-1 Pool C SCIAC (CLU has tie-breaker)
9. Redlands 6-1 7-1 Pool C SCIAC
NR Cal Lutheran SCIAC
And then lets take out all 2-loss teams (for the sake of clarity)
There is your field as of today
As Tony K. would say "thats it that's the list"
I don't think you can do it that way. No way three SCIAC teams go, since two of them play each other and I think Linfield would get a bid before either Redlands or Oxy. Of course, this means Linfield will be a "B" migrating to a "C"
If Bethel becomes a "C" team they have two losses.
But no more than a team or two tweak from that. Everything else is pure wish upon a star.
Of course without that what the heck we going to talk about.
There is too much football left for us to make anything of this.
Unless a team has mathematically captured the AQ, I don't think that a team in the Regional Rankings can afford to lose a game, becuase you are likely to fall all of the way out of the playoffs.
that's the list up until this saturdays games are played. Then to the victors go the spoils, that is until the next week.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2007, 12:24:27 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 31, 2007, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2007, 12:54:22 AM
Apparently the SCIAC three-way tiebreaker is the Rose Bowl Rule, which would favor Cal Lu.
The "Rose Bowl Rule" is "whoever's had the longest drought wins," right?
I wonder how that works when at least two of the three have never attended the playoffs, or never won the conference.
Then you would eliminate the team that has ever won the conference, take the two remaining teams that never have and go back up to the first tiebreaker, head-to-head result.
I guess that's "yes" to my working definition of the "Rose Bowl Rule."
East Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. RPI 7-0 7-1 LL
2. New Jersey 7-1 7-1 NJAC
3. Curry 9-0 9-0 NEFC
4. St. John Fisher 8-1 8-1 E8
5. Albright 7-1 7-1 MAC
Alfred 7-1 7-1 Pool C E8 At Ithaca, at SJF
Hobart 6-2 6-2 Pool C LL At Union, at Rochester 2 L's already
Union 5-2 5-2 Pool C LL At Hobart, at RPI
Cortland State 5-2 6-2 Pool C NJAC Rowan, at Ithaca 2 L's already
Widener 5-2 6-2 Pool C MAC Albright, at Wilkes 2 L's already
(How many fans has Ithaca picked up from other Pool C teams this afternoon? Wink )
North Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Mount Union 8-0 8-0 OAC
2. Wheaton (Ill.) 8-0 8-0 CCIW
3. Wabash 8-0 8-0 NCAC
4. Case Western Reserve 6-0 8-0 UAA Pool B #2 Wash U, Ohio Wesleyan
5. Franklin 7-1 7-1 HCAC
6. Mount St. Joseph 7-1 7-1 Pool C HCAC At Bluffton, Thomas More
Capital 6-2 6-2 Pool C OAC At Muskingum, BWC 2 L's already
Wittenberg 6-2 6-2 Pool C NCAC At Allegheny, Hiram 2 L's already
Illinois Wesleyan 6-2 6-2 Pool C CCIW At NCC, Wheaton 2 L's already
NC 6-2 2 L's already
NR Concordia WI IBC
NR Hope MIAA
South Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. Washington and Jefferson 5-0 8-0 Pres AC
2. Wesley 6-1 8-1 Pool B #1 at Morrisville State
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-1 7-1 ASC
4. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0 CC
5. Salisbury 4-1 8-1 Pool B #3 Frostburg St at Annapolis
6. Waynesburg 6-1 7-1 Pool C Pres AC Geneva, at Westminster PA
7. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1 SCAC
8. Randolph-Macon 7-1 7-1 ODAC
Ursinus 6-1 7-1 Pool C CC Muhlenberg, at Dickinson
Hampden-Sydney 5-2 6-2 Pool C ODAC Huntingdon, at RMC
NR NCWC USAC
West Region
No. Name In-Region Overall
1. UW-Whitewater 7-0 7-1 WIAC
2. St. John's 8-0 9-0 MIAC
3. Central 8-0 9-0 IIAC
4. St. Norbert 8-0 9-0 MWC
Bethel 7-1 7-1 Pool C MIAC Augsburg at Metrodome, SJU
Wartburg 8-1 8-1 Pool C IIAC at Cornell, Central
5. Linfield 4-1 5-2 Pool B/C NWC at Whitworth, L&C
6. Occidental 6-1 6-1 Pool C SCIAC (CLU has tie-breaker) Chapman, at Whittier
7. Redlands 6-1 7-1 Pool C SCIAC Whittier, at CLU
8. Whitworth 6-1 6-2 Pool B/C Linfield, at Puget Sound
NR Cal Lutheran SCIAC at PP, Redlands
If all the higher ranked teams win someone will get in with 2 Loses. And If there are some upsets a few 2 loses teams might get in.
I do think that if Curry loses the NEFC title they won't get a "C" even with one loss.
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 31, 2007, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2007, 12:54:22 AM
Apparently the SCIAC three-way tiebreaker is the Rose Bowl Rule, which would favor Cal Lu.
The "Rose Bowl Rule" is "whoever's had the longest drought wins," right?
I wonder how that works when at least two of the three have never attended the playoffs, or never won the conference.
Don't know if this has been answered already, but they knock out the one team who has been, then take the h2h winner from the final two.
What would be interesting is if all three teams had never been. Don't know what conference that would apply to, certainly Oxy and Redlands have each been in the expanded system.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2007, 12:24:27 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 31, 2007, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2007, 12:54:22 AM
Apparently the SCIAC three-way tiebreaker is the Rose Bowl Rule, which would favor Cal Lu.
The "Rose Bowl Rule" is "whoever's had the longest drought wins," right?
I wonder how that works when at least two of the three have never attended the playoffs, or never won the conference.
Then you would eliminate the team that has ever won the conference, take the two remaining teams that never have and go back up to the first tiebreaker, head-to-head result.
I see we've handled this.
Don't allow me to get your goad, people. ;)
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2007, 07:42:02 PM
I don't think you can do it that way. No way three SCIAC teams go, since two of them play each other and I think Linfield would get a bid before either Redlands or Oxy. Of course, this means Linfield will be a "B" migrating to a "C"
While I really like the NWC champ's chance to make it as a B/C, I don't think you can simply assume Linfield will get in over Redlands. They will have a common opponent in Whitworth, and if Linfield struggles but wins, I'm not sure how that factors in, but common opponents is a criteria/-on. (I have no idea which is the singular/plural form of criteria :) )
Quote from: K-Mack on November 01, 2007, 01:38:03 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2007, 07:42:02 PM
I don't think you can do it that way. No way three SCIAC teams go, since two of them play each other and I think Linfield would get a bid before either Redlands or Oxy. Of course, this means Linfield will be a "B" migrating to a "C"
While I really like the NWC champ's chance to make it as a B/C, I don't think you can simply assume Linfield will get in over Redlands. They will have a common opponent in Whitworth, and if Linfield struggles but wins, I'm not sure how that factors in, but common opponents is a criteria/-on. (I have no idea which is the singular/plural form of criteria :) )
However, three teams from the SCIAC is a bit much, don't ya think? But in rethinking, perhaps Linfield / Occidental / Redlands will then be competing with the likes of Capital, Wittenberg, Hobart / Union, Bethel (if they lost to St. John's), Wartburg (if they lose to Central).
Ack, it's enough to make your head asplode.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmedindy.diaryland.com%2Fimages%2F200px-splode.jpg&hash=16eb9363d45032604acdbd4040f449a96906ba87)
Prety soon we'll have to have a playoff to determine who makes the Playoffs! ;)
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 01, 2007, 10:48:26 AM
Prety soon we'll have to have a playoff to determine who makes the Playoffs! ;)
In basketball, they call those "conference tournaments"
Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2007, 10:15:45 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 01, 2007, 01:38:03 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 31, 2007, 07:42:02 PM
I don't think you can do it that way. No way three SCIAC teams go, since two of them play each other and I think Linfield would get a bid before either Redlands or Oxy. Of course, this means Linfield will be a "B" migrating to a "C"
While I really like the NWC champ's chance to make it as a B/C, I don't think you can simply assume Linfield will get in over Redlands. They will have a common opponent in Whitworth, and if Linfield struggles but wins, I'm not sure how that factors in, but common opponents is a criteria/-on. (I have no idea which is the singular/plural form of criteria :) )
However, three teams from the SCIAC is a bit much, don't ya think? But in rethinking, perhaps Linfield / Occidental / Redlands will then be competing with the likes of Capital, Wittenberg, Hobart / Union, Bethel (if they lost to St. John's), Wartburg (if they lose to Central).
Three SCIAC teams is a lot on principle, but also:
Cal Lu (two losses already) is only going via the AQ.
For them to get the AQ, they'd have to give Redlands their second loss.
Oxy has one loss and the worst SOS of all time. 'Cept for RPI maybe :)
(that last one was a joke)
Correction: Cal Lu needs to win one of their remaining games and Oxy and Redlands have to win the rest of their conference games to force the 3 way tie that would give CalLu the AQ. In other words, CaLu does not need to beat Redlands to get the AQ.
The fate of the SCIAC teams could be very interesting. I can't really imagine three bids going to the SCIAC, however...
Redlands and Oxy could both end up with just one loss and in line for a Pool C bid (with Cal Lu getting the AQ). Oxy's schedule was very weak...but they beat Redlands in the head-to-head and have been ahead of them in the regional rankings so far (but would that change if Whitworth beats Linfield?). (Especially) If Bethel and/or Wartburg lose...there might be few enough one-loss Pool C teams that one or both SCIAC 'extras' get selected. Might we see a four-team SCIAC-NWC sub-bracket?
wheaton eliminates themselves from pool c (under most scenarios) with their loss today. Its the AQ or bust for the CCIW.
I believe these are the possible 1-loss teams in Pool C. I count 10 at the moment.
Central, St John's, and Curry clinch an AQ with a win next week.
St John Fisher and Redlands can move to Pool A with a win and some help.
E8 - St John Fisher (8-1) vs Alfred
HCAC - Mt St Joseph (8-1) vs Thomas More
IIAC - Central (9-0) at Wartburg
MIAC - St John's (9-0) at Bethel
NEFC - Curry (10-0) vs. Coast Guard
NEFC - Plymouth St (7-1) at Salve Regina (tomorrow)
PAC - Waynesburg (7-1) at Geneva (haven't seen a score yet) and vs Westminster
SCIAC - Occidental (7-1) at Whittier
SCIAC - Redlands (7-1) at Cal Lutheran
Pool B - possibly 1 of:
Case Western Reserve (9-0) vs Ohio Wesleyan
Salisbury (8-1) vs Frostburg St
Wesley (8-1) at Morrisville St
Whitworth (7-2) at Puget Sound (loss to Azusa Pacific is not in region)
Quote from: usee on November 03, 2007, 05:32:43 PM
wheaton eliminates themselves from pool c (under most scenarios) with their loss today. Its the AQ or bust for the CCIW.
I don't know - if Case loses and there is some normalcy in some quarters (MIAC, IIAC) then Wheaton's definitely in the mix.
Quote from: altor on November 03, 2007, 08:43:48 PM
PAC - Waynesburg (7-1) at Geneva (haven't seen a score yet) and vs Westminster
Waynesburg lost in overtime, but it's not a game that counts according to the Handbook.
Geneva is a first-year transition team.
If Bethel and Wartburg lose next week - and since the NCAA will have an even number of West Coast teams (will it be 2? or 4?) because of their travel considerations - I think we could see one or maybe even two teams with 2 losses in the West region. Unless they move somebody like Concordia.
There's no reason there has to be 2 or 4 west coast teams.
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2007, 09:22:40 PM
Quote from: usee on November 03, 2007, 05:32:43 PM
wheaton eliminates themselves from pool c (under most scenarios) with their loss today. Its the AQ or bust for the CCIW.
I don't know - if Case loses and there is some normalcy in some quarters (MIAC, IIAC) then Wheaton's definitely in the mix.
If Wheaton finishes 9-1 they will be the AQ, so we are talking a 2-loss Wheaton for pool C consideration. usee may have slightly overstated the case ('eliminates', though he did qualify it with 'under most scenarios'), but they certainly hurt themselves badly. Either NCC or Carthage will finish with only two losses (NCC takes the AQ if Wheaton also loses; Carthage cannot win the AQ) and should be noted as 'dark horse' C candidates.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2007, 11:06:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2007, 09:22:40 PM
Quote from: usee on November 03, 2007, 05:32:43 PM
wheaton eliminates themselves from pool c (under most scenarios) with their loss today. Its the AQ or bust for the CCIW.
I don't know - if Case loses and there is some normalcy in some quarters (MIAC, IIAC) then Wheaton's definitely in the mix.
If Wheaton finishes 9-1 they will be the AQ, so we are talking a 2-loss Wheaton for pool C consideration. usee may have slightly overstated the case ('eliminates', though he did qualify it with 'under most scenarios'), but they certainly hurt themselves badly. Either NCC or Carthage will finish with only two losses (NCC takes the AQ if Wheaton also loses; Carthage cannot win the AQ) and should be noted as 'dark horse' C candidates.
It looks to me like there MAY be 1 or at most 2 2loss teams that get a pool C. There still just as easily could be none. If wheaton loses next week I don' t see a scenario in the cards that gets them in as a 2 loss team. Capital, and carthage are better 2 loss candidates from the north that i can see. and there will be some 2 loss teams in the west that merit strong consideration. I still think there won't be any 2 loss teams in and if there is the only one may be capital.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 01, 2007, 10:48:26 AM
Prety soon we'll have to have a playoff to determine who makes the Playoffs! ;)
Missed this earlier. Be forewarned: fans of teams not selected for the "playoffs to determine who makes the playoffs" will quickly demand playoffs to determine who makes the playoffs to determine who makes the playoffs! ;D
And if
my team is not selected for
those playoffs ...! ::)
The Liberty League has some Pool C contenders...
4 teams are still alive for the Pool A bid heading into the final week
RPI 7-1 (5-1) beat Hobart, lost to Rochester
Hobart 7-2 (5-1) beat Union, lost to RPI
Rochester 6-2 (5-1) beat RPI, lost to Union
Union 5-3 (5-1) beat Rochester, lost to Hobart
RPI and Hobart have pool C potential if they win next week but don't get the AQ, which is still possible.
Next weeks games
RPI @ Union
Hobart @ Rochester
| Winners | AQ | Pool C? |
| RPI/Hobart | RPI | Hobart 8-2 |
| RPI/Rochester | Rochester | RPI 8-1 |
| Union/Hobart | Hobart | None |
| Union/Rochester | Union | None |
thx to superman57 and Frank Rossi for the scenarios
Also going against Wheaton making it as an 8-2 Pool C is that they're 2 losses would be their final 2 games. I know when you lose doesn't effect the SOS (or whatever it's called now) numbers, but unofficially it can't help the selection committee want to pick you over another 2 loss team that finished strong. I further doubt that Wheaton makes it as a Pool C because 8-2 Capital will get the bid before 8-2 Wheaton.
I have not heard whether performance in the last 25% of the season is used a criterion in football (altho' that wording is in language of almost all Handbooks this year.)
I think that the OAC gets a Pool C bid (out of the7 that are given), just because they are a solid conference without MUC.
I agree hscoach. Capital is looking like it sits comfortably in the Pool C, depending on favorable breaks in the E8 and SCIAC and no upsets in the MIAC or IIAC. It will also help for Thomas More to knock off MSJ in the Bridge Bowl game this weekend.
Yeah, RT, a lot of eyes will be on some very good West games this week and upsets there would make things very interesting. Schedules in MIAC, SCIAC and IIAC certainly amplify the drama this season ...
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 04, 2007, 12:40:49 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 01, 2007, 10:48:26 AM
Prety soon we'll have to have a playoff to determine who makes the Playoffs! ;)
Missed this earlier. Be forewarned: fans of teams not selected for the "playoffs to determine who makes the playoffs" will quickly demand playoffs to determine who makes the playoffs to determine who makes the playoffs! ;D
And if my team is not selected for those playoffs ...! ::)
We should just start the play-offs in late August----and skip the whole regular season :)
Ralph Turner. I am admittedly not all that familiar with the OAC, except for Mt Union, of course. I know that they have been considered a strong conference, but what, this year, validates that. I think that this year is one where much of the past is irrelevant. The MIAC for example, which I am familiar with, seems to have gained some strength, at least in the #2 through #5 teams. St John's is still St John's, but there has been a resurgence and consequently more parity in the teams behind them.
Educate me.
I might also add that IMHO, the WIAC, except for Whitewater, has also seemed to have fallen in quality this year in the teams behind UWW.
Ithaca vs. Cortland (the Cortaca Jug game) (http://www.d3football.com/school_info.php?year=2007&school=Ithaca) is a very big game for the Pool B and Pool C followers.
I think that fans root for Ithaca to beat the NJAC runner-up, and East Region #9, Cortland.
Oh, I do think an 8-2 Capital bests an 8-2 Wheaton. But Capital still has to face Baldwin Wallace, which ain't hay.
Retagent - the OAC, at times, has been home to the top TWO teams in the North, plus about four or five teams that could win or contend in the CCIW and NCAC.
They only play one non-conference game, and spend the rest of the time beating each other up.
Quote from: retagent on November 04, 2007, 11:31:40 AM
Ralph Turner. I am admittedly not all that familiar with the OAC, except for Mt Union, of course. I know that they have been considered a strong conference, but what, this year, validates that. I think that this year is one where much of the past is irrelevant. The MIAC for example, which I am familiar with, seems to have gained some strength, at least in the #2 through #5 teams. St John's is still St John's, but there has been a resurgence and consequently more parity in the teams behind them.
Educate me.
retagent,
I looked at the OAC's non-conference games.
Capital beat NCAC runner-up Wittenberg. (Runner-up is not that impressive in the NCAC).
BWC beat Augustana, a mid-level CCIW.
ONU beat Millikin, next to last in the CCIW.
Otterbein lost to Defiance, which is only mid-level in the HCAC.
I think that you have convinced me that the West Region is loaded with Pool C bids, especially if Bethel and Wartburg win. Otterbein's win over their cross-town rival probably knocked Capital out of the playoffs.
The WIAC does seem to have knocked itself back to "mediocre excellence"...lots of good teams that are probably in the Top 50, but not close to the 7th Pool C bid.
See also Smed's comments.
Thanks much to both. It was because of the necessarily limited non-conference schedule that I had the question in the first place.
Quote from: retagent on November 04, 2007, 11:31:40 AM
Ralph Turner. I am admittedly not all that familiar with the OAC, except for Mt Union, of course. I know that they have been considered a strong conference, but what, this year, validates that. I think that this year is one where much of the past is irrelevant. The MIAC for example, which I am familiar with, seems to have gained some strength, at least in the #2 through #5 teams. St John's is still St John's, but there has been a resurgence and consequently more parity in the teams behind them.
Educate me.
I would say there has been more parity in college football as a whole this year. A few d3 examples include (and I'm a West Coast guy so pardon my bias) the SCIAC which has 3 teams fighting for the play-offs (with the most likely being the team with the worst overall record). In the NWC, Whitworth proved to be the best but had to fight tooth and nail to overcome several conference opponents including Willamette, Linfield, and PLU who came back strong in the second half to make it a game. Obviously, this parity makes for great football and helps improve the level of play!
There seems to be a lot of 2 loss team fan's that think that the east is going to get a few C spots.. There are no guarantee that the east gets 8 bids. With so many 1 loss teams that are not going to win their conference isn't there a team or 2 from the north and south that will deserve a bid?
I suppose that the owp,oowp with detemine all that??
I don't think the East is going to get 8 spots. They can always spin someone somewhere that's on the cusp of the mileage. I think a logical scenario is to move a Concordia to the West and shuffle teams along the south / east / north edge around.
Ralph - Whats your opinion on Central barring a loss on the 10th. Strong Pool C bid?
Quote from: DutchHawk on November 04, 2007, 02:33:56 PM
Ralph - Whats your opinion on Central barring a loss on the 10th. Strong Pool C bid?
DutchHawk, I need to see the Regional Rankings this week.
The morass of 2-loss teams is going to cause a huge debate about who gets the 7th Pool C bid.
Almost all of us will acknowledge that missing the playoffs with 2 losses is not as bad as undefeated teams not making the 16-team field.
The Dutch probably have a Pool C bid locked up, if they go 9-1. I think that you are counting on Bethel knocking off the Johnnies for you to get the #2 seed, if you defeat Wartburg.
Wartburg has the pressure on them. They have to assume that it is, "Win or go home"...Pool A or nothing.
The reason I come up with, is the NCAA controlling their costs. I beleive we seen an example or two of this in the past.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I think we'll end up with an even number in the West. It'll just happen that way without explanation ...
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 03, 2007, 10:22:26 PM
There's no reason there has to be 2 or 4 west coast teams.
Quote from: DutchHawk on November 04, 2007, 02:33:56 PM
Ralph - Whats your opinion on Central barring a loss on the 10th. Strong Pool C bid?
???
Barring a loss, Central wins the AQ and doesn't have to worry about Pool C. It's only if they lose that you have to worry about what the selection committee thinks. And I would think that loss is a real problem. They would be 0-1 against regionally ranked opponents as well as their poor OWP.
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 04, 2007, 03:02:24 PM
The reason I come up with, is the NCAA controlling their costs. I beleive we seen an example or two of this in the past.
Controlling costs has been a reason why they do things like match up #2 against #3 in a region in the first round. I don't believe it has ever been used as a reason to select one school over another.
Quote from: altor on November 04, 2007, 03:16:15 PM
Quote from: DutchHawk on November 04, 2007, 02:33:56 PM
Ralph - Whats your opinion on Central barring a loss on the 10th. Strong Pool C bid?
???
Barring a loss, Central wins the AQ and doesn't have to worry about Pool C. It's only if they lose that you have to worry about what the selection committee thinks. And I would think that loss is a real problem. They would be 0-1 against regionally ranked opponents as well as their poor OWP.
Sorry that I didn't make myself clear. I still think that a one-loss team gets a Pool C bid, (maybe not Curry.)
"Almost all of us will acknowledge that missing the playoffs with 2 losses is not as bad as undefeated teams not making the 16-team field. " Ralph Turner
Teams used to roll up scores on lesser teams to get the attention for the regional rankings. 4 teams from each region only . I remember a year in the south when there was 6 undefeated teams .
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2007, 03:20:20 PM
Sorry that I didn't make myself clear. I still think that a one-loss team gets a Pool C bid, (maybe not Curry.)
This is probably true, but certainly is not established. Last night, I detailed 10 teams that could finish with 1-loss in Pool C. And, I realized after reading somebody's post later, that I missed a scenario where RPI has 1-loss and doesn't get the AQ. That makes 11.
Plymouth St is on the list for the sake of completeness, but I don't believe they are really in the hunt for Pool C (they weren't on the regional rankings last week). Curry probably moves up to #2 in the East since RPI lost. Does a loss in the conference championship drop them from #2 to out of the playoffs? A lot of people would like to think so. I think even more are hoping they just win and remove all doubt.
But, if Central loses, which is not out of the question (remember St John's last year), and everybody else on the list wins, we could very easily be looking at as many as eight legitimate 1-loss teams trying for seven Pool C bids (add a 9th if St John's loses too). If this happens, Waynesburg, Occidental, RPI, and Central would be on my bubble list, if only because of their OWP.
Quote from: altor on November 03, 2007, 08:43:48 PM
I believe these are the possible 1-loss teams in Pool C. I count 10 at the moment.
Central, St John's, and Curry clinch an AQ with a win next week.
St John Fisher and Redlands can move to Pool A with a win and some help.
E8 - St John Fisher (8-1/8-1/4-1) vs Alfred
If SJF loses to Alfred (7-2/7-2/4-1), then Alfred gets the Pool A bid, by virtue of the head-to-head to Hartwick. SJF will have 2 losses.
If SJF beats Alfred, Alfred has 2 (in-region) losses,and Hartwick gets the Pool A bid.
HCAC - Mt St Joseph (8-1) vs Thomas More
This is the Bridge Bowl rivalry game. Franklin has the Pool A bid, by virtue of the head-to-head win over MSJ.
IIAC - Central (9-0/8-0/7-0) at Wartburg
Losing to Wartburg gives Wartburg (8-1/8-1/7-0) the Pool A bid. Wartburg has an ugly loss to Augsburg.
MIAC - St John's (9-0) at Bethel
Bethel (8-1/8-1/7-0) has an ugly loss to Buena Vista, so they need to win.
NEFC - Curry (10-0) vs. Coast Guard in the Championship game
NEFC - Plymouth St (7-1) at Salve Regina (tomorrow)
The NEFC rarely plays strong teams outside its conference.
PAC - Waynesburg
(7-2/6-1/4-1) at Geneva. (Provisional Geneva won in OT, . ) Waynesburg hosts Westminster 5-4/4-3/2-3).
SCIAC - Occidental (7-1) at Whittier
Oxy is (7-1/7-1/5-1) and needs Cal Lutheran (5-3/5-3/5-0) to lose to Redlands. Cal Lu can clinch the Pool A by beating Redlands.
SCIAC - Redlands (7-1) at Cal Lutheran.
Redlands is (7-1/6-1/4-1) and needs to defeat Cal Lu for any chance. I am not sure of the tie-breakers in the SCIAC. (Rose Bowl Rule?)
Pool B - possibly 1 of:
Case Western Reserve (9-0) vs Ohio Wesleyan
Probably must defeat OWU to lock in the Pool B.
Salisbury (8-1) vs Frostburg St
Salisbury is (8-1/4-1/2-1) Rivalry game. Playing Frostburg St at Annapolis.
Wesley (8-1/6-1/4-0) at Morrisville St (non-region game)
Whitworth (7-2/7-1/5-0) at Puget Sound (loss to Azusa Pacific is not in region)
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 04, 2007, 03:02:24 PM
The reason I come up with, is the NCAA controlling their costs. I beleive we seen an example or two of this in the past.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I think we'll end up with an even number in the West. It'll just happen that way without explanation ...
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 03, 2007, 10:22:26 PM
There's no reason there has to be 2 or 4 west coast teams.
The costs only come into play after the teams are selected, when the matchups are being created.
Okay, but don't you beleive they factor that in (one way or another) when they select the at large teams from the West?
No. They have a set criteria they follow. They examine each team in comparison to the other teams and decide on the merits of each team.
Quoting Sabretooth Tiger off the SCIAC board on his 1000th post, to help us make sense of the SCIAC. A big +1! :)
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on November 04, 2007, 01:12:10 PM
So we've got the most down to the wire SCIAC finish in years and this board goes silent? OB and RFB have to debate running up the score on the NWC board? Where's your local pride boys?
Think about this weekend:
Cal Lu wins, Oxy loses - Cal Lu is champ and Pool A
Cal Lu wins, Oxy wins - Cal Lu is champ and Pool A . . . Oxy has a shot at a Pool C
Cal Lu loses, Oxy loses - Redlands is co-champ and Pool A based on H2H
Cal Lu loses, Oxy wins - 3 way conf champion tie, Cal Lu still gets Pool A based on Rose Bowl rule - and Oxy and Redland both wait to see how NCAA ranking sort out to see whether either gets a pool C.
discuss, cheer, prognosticate, speculate and rant away.
Maybe if the ACFC ever gets a conference recognised by the ncaa and there are no independents left the guidelines will change and force more regional games or only count 8(just a number) regional games so that teams that have to go out of DIII to complete schedules ???
Quote from: OxyBob on November 04, 2007, 11:23:34 PM
One of the primary criteria for a Pool C selection is "In-region results versus regionally ranked teams." One of the secondary criteria is "Results versus all Division III ranked teams."
Questions: What ranking is used? Is it the the AFCA poll? Which week's poll is used? Is it the last week of the season poll?
If this has been asked and answered before, then I apologize for asking again.
OxyBob
Bob, I understand that it is against other NCAA Regionally Ranked Teams.
2005 Projection (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/05/projection.htm)
OxyBob, I found this in the archives. It is a good of an example what may happen behind the committee doors for selecting the at-large bids that I have found.
The QOWI is replaced by the OWP and OOWP this year.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2007, 11:24:52 PM
Quote from: OxyBob on November 04, 2007, 11:23:34 PM
One of the primary criteria for a Pool C selection is "In-region results versus regionally ranked teams." One of the secondary criteria is "Results versus all Division III ranked teams."
Questions: What ranking is used? Is it the the AFCA poll? Which week's poll is used? Is it the last week of the season poll?
If this has been asked and answered before, then I apologize for asking again.
OxyBob
Bob, I understand that it is against other NCAA Regionally Ranked Teams.
Technically, non-regional games against teams that are regionally ranked. If Occidental were to play Trinity, that would be a regional game against a regionally ranked team and should be considered in the primary criteria. If Occidental were to play St. John Fisher, that would be a non-regional game against a regionally ranked team and considered in the secondary criteria, if at all.
Quote from: retagent on November 04, 2007, 11:31:40 AM
Ralph Turner. I am admittedly not all that familiar with the OAC, except for Mt Union, of course. I know that they have been considered a strong conference, but what, this year, validates that. I think that this year is one where much of the past is irrelevant. The MIAC for example, which I am familiar with, seems to have gained some strength, at least in the #2 through #5 teams. St John's is still St John's, but there has been a resurgence and consequently more parity in the teams behind them.
Educate me.
Quote from: retagent on November 04, 2007, 11:35:04 AM
I might also add that IMHO, the WIAC, except for Whitewater, has also seemed to have fallen in quality this year in the teams behind UWW.
Wait.
Just because there's no dominant No. 2 doesn't mean those conferences are weak ... if you have several teams knocking each other off AND performing well out-of-conference, that's a sign of a very strong conference, not a weak one.
I agree with the general assessment on the bottom half of Page 10 about Pool C. Also think the subjective value of a 2-loss team losing their last two would have to be something the committee notices, even though it is not official criteria and therefore can't officially be part of the decision.
Depending on this week's results, two-loss teams are not dead.
Problem is, I made a list of about 20 of them.
If this is still interesting (read: not dissected already here) by Thursday, I will include it in the column.
Quote from: altor on November 04, 2007, 03:18:35 PM
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 04, 2007, 03:02:24 PM
The reason I come up with, is the NCAA controlling their costs. I beleive we seen an example or two of this in the past.
Controlling costs has been a reason why they do things like match up #2 against #3 in a region in the first round. I don't believe it has ever been used as a reason to select one school over another.
Absolutely.
The NCAA picks 32 teams on merit (aka criteria) and THEN is permitted to mix and match as they see fit to conserve costs.
They are never permitted to let travel costs or polls or anything not on the list affect any teams fair access to the playoffs ... fair access for all being a stated goal of Division III as a whole.
I know we repeat ourselves a lot when it comes to this, but as long as people are still misunderstanding, we'll still have to keep doing to make sure the misinformation doesn't spread.
I apologize if my conspiracy-theory mind may have caused confusion in the ranks.
I guess I've been watching too much Hollywood anti-government / anti-establishment stuff. (Don't tell Oliver Stone about D-III, please).
;D ;D
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 05, 2007, 09:36:39 AM
I apologize if my conspiracy-theory mind may have caused confusion in the ranks.
I guess I've been watching too much Hollywood anti-government / anti-establishment stuff. (Don't tell Oliver Stone about D-III, please).
;D ;D
:D :D :D
+1!
Questions for all you:
I understand the best 32 are chosen with the AQ, etc. For sake of argument, if the NWC and the SCIAC each get only one team in the playoffs, and if the top teams win out in the other West region games this weekend, you will have 6 spots taken, with a bunch of two loss teams left. What teams from the North would fit geographically to play the West teams, with UWW and St. Norberts being the farthest East? The IBC Champ? It seems like a lot of East teams and maybe South teams could fill out the 32 teams.
Bob, you are all over it. :D
You know, when I was Dallas years ago I did go past the shooting site - but I didn't see anyone suspicious looking there. 8)
I'm just your garden variety cheesehead, but I am one of those CPA's that went through the the UWW business school. I couldn't afford Wharton.
Quote from: OxyBob on November 05, 2007, 10:09:27 AM
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 05, 2007, 09:36:39 AM
I apologize if my conspiracy-theory mind may have caused confusion in the ranks. I guess I've been watching too much Hollywood anti-government / anti-establishment stuff.
While you claim to be a fan of UW-Whitewater, perhaps you are really from here (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=&city=grassy+knoll&state=ca&zipcode=). So which is it?
OxyBob
Quote from: sju56321 on November 05, 2007, 01:18:32 PM
Questions for all you:
I understand the best 32 are chosen with the AQ, etc. For sake of argument, if the NWC and the SCIAC each get only one team in the playoffs, and if the top teams win out in the other West region games this weekend, you will have 6 spots taken, with a bunch of two loss teams left. What teams from the North would fit geographically to play the West teams, with UWW and St. Norberts being the farthest East? The IBC Champ? It seems like a lot of East teams and maybe South teams could fill out the 32 teams.
SJU, I think that you need to go to the FAQ on the front page and click on the playoffs.
The playoff bids are distributed to give access to all 230 teams in D-3.
The conference champs get an AQ, or Pool A bid, which is 22 this year. "Win your conference. Get the Playoff Bid."
The independents and the members of conferences that do not have an AQ are "pooled" into Pool B. The number of Pool Bbids is determined by the access ratio, which is the quotient from the number of teams that belong to Pool A conferences divided by the number of Pool A conferences. This year, it is 3 Pool B bids.
The remaining 7 bids are awarded to the 7 best teams that remain, regardless of region or conference. The brackets are then determined with geographic proximity considered.
So, a South may be sent to the East. A North may be sent to the East. A West may be sent to the North.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2007, 12:10:25 AM
2005 Projection (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/05/projection.htm)
OxyBob, I found this in the archives. It is a good of an example what may happen behind the committee doors for selecting the at-large bids that I have found.
The QOWI is replaced by the OWP and OOWP this year.
SJU, click on the link above to read how Pat Coleman projected it in 2005. :)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2007, 01:46:56 PM
So, a South may be sent to the East. A North may be sent to the East. A West may be sent to the North.
So I may get a chance to see Redlands or Oxy play UMHB?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2007, 01:46:56 PM
[
The remaining 7 bids are awarded to the 7 best teams that remain, regardless of region or conference. The brackets are then determined with geographic proximity considered.
7 best teams that remain based upon the NCAA's criteria and regional rankings, which of course, does not equal the seven best teams.
Man, the playoff discussion is dead.
Quote from: hscoach on November 06, 2007, 06:23:13 PM
Man, the playoff discussion is dead.
Yeah, all of the one-loss teams know that they have to win on Saturday, and the two-loss teams are scared to say anything. :-\
In the meantime, we have not seen the Regional Rankings to see how close everyone else is.
With the AQ to be set by this weekend, the one loss teams look better the the two loss teams. I know that strenght of schedule rules kick in, but still a loss by a conference AQ could toss any hopes of a two loss team out the door.
Ok, here's some new analysis.
I see on the SOS page 10 teams with undefeated records, and 20 teams with 1 loss. 30 teams. Now, there are 2 teams already with an AQ in their pocket that have 2+ losses - Concordia (Wi) and Widener. Add another AQ to the MIAA team that comes out of thir pack - and there could be another if Cal Luth gets the SCIAC AQ with 3 or potentially even 4 losses.
That suggests there are 28 or 29 slots availabe to those 30 zero or one loss teams. There are 3 games between 2 teams on that list - St John's/Bethel, Central/Wartburg, and Curry/Coast Guard. If the undefeated team wins each of those games (the und team is listed first), then the other team falls into a big pot of 2 loss teams. I'm not even gonna try and calculate the 2 loss team potentials - I'm just trying to get an understanding of what may be available to 2-loss teams.
Those three games could reduce the zero or one loss team total to 27. Of that 27, 10 have AQ's (as I mentioned above - 2 AQ's are held by teams with 2+ losses). So that leaves 17 teams "on the list".
Of those 17, there will be either 8 or 9 AQ's handed out (depending on the SCIAC/Cal Luth situation) to teams either on the list or to a team that will replace a team on that list - i.e., if Wheaton, St John Fisher, RPI, Trinity Tx, or Rand-Macon lose on Saturday (or win, but lose out on a tiebreaker), a 2 loss team will get the AQ so that doesn't add another available bracket spot.
Now - Pool B. There are 4 teams "on the list" Case WR is undefeated, Wesley, Whitworth, & Salisbury. 3 slots are guaranteed to Pool B'ers. Case would seem to be in like Flynn win or lose, but if one or more of the other 3 get beat on Saturday, one bracket spot (but no more than that, even if they all lose) would open up.
Which (not counting the SCIAC teams) leaves Plymouth State, Mt St Joseph, and Waynesburg. If they win on Sat, they stay "on the list" - but lose and they fall off. Well, Plymouth State doesn't play, so never mind them. So that's a possible 2 more spots that could become available to 2-loss teams.
Now, the SCIAC - If Oxy loses on Sat, the Redlands/Cal Luth winner goes in, and the other will be in the 2+ loss pile, and "off the list". But we could also have a three way tie if Oxy and Redlands win, and all would be "on the list" or AQ because of the tiebreaker. So we could see either 1, 2, or 3 from the SCIAC get into the bracket.
So according to my tally, we could have anywhere from 1 one-loss team excluded (not counting the AQ teams) to including up to 6 two-loss teams (with 1 SCIAC team), thanks to Pool C.
Did I miss anything?
Let me do a boiled down version of my previous post.
If your team has the 6th best SOS and an 8-2 record (regional) at the end of the day Saturday, you need all of this to happen:
St John's beats Bethel
Central beats Wartburg
Curry beats Coast Guard
Oxy loses
Mt St Joe loses
Waynesburg loses
And at least one of Wesley, Whitworth or Salisbury loses
Any other losses only changes AQ's and doesn't affect Pool C.
I believe the North region would look like this w/ their SOS & regional record:
1. Wabash (66) 9-0
2. Mount Union (147) 9-0
3. Case Western (170) 7-0
4. Franklin (29) 8-1
5. Wheaton (47) 8-1
6. Mount St. Joseph (144) 8-1
7. North Central (42) 7-2
8. Capital (73) 7-2
9. Carthage (95) 7-2
10. Hope (32) 5-2
Concordia would get in w/ AQ bid for the playoffs, but heard maybe they could be moved out of the North region. As would a MIAA school get in w/ a AQ into the north, whom ever that may be (Hope, Alma, or Olivet)
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 06, 2007, 10:06:50 PM
Let me do a boiled down version of my previous post.
If your team has the 6th best SOS and an 8-2 record (regional) at the end of the day Saturday, you need all of this to happen:
St John's beats Bethel
Central beats Wartburg
Curry beats Coast Guard
Oxy loses
Mt St Joe loses
Waynesburg loses
And at least one of Wesley, Whitworth or Salisbury loses
Any other losses only changes AQ's and doesn't affect Pool C.
Is it your opinion that the C Pool will include 1 one loss team and 6 two loss teams or 6 one loss teams and 1 two loss team?
If I understand correctly how the NCAA applies the Strength of Schedule concept (no guarantees) ...
And all of those games turn out as I indicated ...
That would mean Pool C would be one 1-loss and six 2-loss.
For every one of those items that does NOT occur, the number of 2-loss teams would decrease by one. All the way to none, and if all seven of those go the other way one 1-loss team would be excluded.
KitchenSink, a couple thoughts....
Plymouth St was not on the East Region Rankings last week. Somehow, I don't think they will be on it this week either. They are not "on the list."
CWRU is not "in like Flynn win or lose." Their OWP is so bad that many believe a loss drops them below 2-loss Capital in the North Region Rankings. That puts them as the 3rd Pool C in that region alone (assuming they are the 4th Pool B...which I think is likely).
Finally, the results of St John Fisher and RPI are important to Pool C. If these teams win, yet don't win the AQ, they stay "on the list." I guess Pool C teams are rooting against Hartwick and Rochester. If those teams lose, it doesn't matter what SJF and RPI do.
These are the selection (and seeding) criteria for 2007:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
My read on all of that is first they look at they way the teams are listed on the SOS page - wins/losses, then at the percentages. Will there be exceptions to this process? Maybe - I guess we'll find out Sunday. Could they take a 2-loss team over a 1-loss team (which would inherently have the better W-L %) because the OWP is higher? Is Case at some risk with a loss? Maybe then Central would be, too. Heck, Mount Union's OWP is near the bottom of all of the undefeated teams. THEY BETTER NOT LOSE ON SATURDAY! ::)
I was scratching my head a little at Plymouth State. But I don't see here why they would get the cold shoulder.
I don't claim to be the master of the domain of the strength of schedule Pool C process. I'm only trying to offer my interpretation of what the NCAA has seemed to try and turn into a mathematical exercise. (Not that I would 100% agree with doing it that way ever .... )
Thanks for the comments, fellas. Just trying to nudge the discussion ...
Wow. The debacle that is Averett's season may hurt Mt. Union? Is there a chance they will be the #2 seed??
Oh, wait...wishful thinking! ;)
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2007, 09:40:09 AM
Wow. The debacle that is Averett's season may hurt Mt. Union? Is there a chance they will be the #2 seed??
Oh, wait...wishful thinking! ;)
Actually, per the objective criteria, there is actually a case to be made (same regional record, same record vs. regionally ranked teams, SOS favoring Wabash), but you have to keep in mind this little nugget tacked on to the end of the selection and seeding criteria:
"
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division III football committee."
So there is a little subjectivity built into the process which is probably good (as long as they let the objective criteria do 99% of the thinking) because the SOS numbers definitely need some context (there's no way that I could sit here and argue that Wabash has played a tougher schedule than MUC).
There will always be subjectivity as long as human beings are involved in the evaluation and selection.
That's why I have said that "officially" the Waynesburg loss to Geneva doesn't count (Geneva a 1st-year transition school), it is a loss. And whether it's written in front of the selection folks or not, somebody is going to know about it. 8-2 is not as solid as 9-1.
Does it get talked about? Probably not. Is it in there, somewhere, in ranking/voting? Probably yes.
If the OAC is such a strong conference, as we have been led to believe, how can Mt Union's SOS be so low?
Quote from: retagent on November 07, 2007, 10:49:36 AM
If the OAC is such a strong conference, as we have been led to believe, how can Mt Union's SOS be so low?
Because the OAC plays a full round robin, everybody's OWP in the OAC is going to trend toward .500. The difference will be in that one non-conference game that they get to play. This year MUC played Averett who is 0-9.
I would LOVE to see MUC as the #2 seed in the North Region. Nothing like kicking the bear to get his attention!
And not only was Mt. Union hurt by Averett, but the rest of the OAC didn't help them much. Otterbein's lost to Defiance also hurts. Down years by Augustana (B-W's opponent), Wooster (John Carroll's opponent) and Millikin (Ohio Northern's opponent) hurt the OOWP. Marietta's trip to St. John's doesn't count, and that could have helped the OOWP.
But some of the OAC is helping them in OOWP - Wilmington lost to Mt. St. Joseph and Muskingum lost to Waynesburg.
I wonder if this new paradigm will change some scheduling policies - such as playing out of region games as their only non conference game, or perhaps not playing a full round robin.
Points to ponder as we go towards Sunday!
You missed a key phrase in your research
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 07, 2007, 09:13:27 AM
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
Generally, win-loss % is the first criteria. But, that is where OWP/OOWP and the other criteria come into play. They can take all of the criteria into consideration.
Look at the last week's South rankings. Muhlenberg (8-0) is 4th in the South, behind two 1-loss teams. The committee believes that Wesley and UMHB are better. Even though Muhlenberg's OWP is actually pretty strong. Wesley and UMHB's OWP are outstanding.
Since most conferences play a round robin, and most have around 8 - 9 teams, wouldn't that argue that all teams SOS be around .500? The SOS must be mostly dependant on non-conference games to determine the relative strengths of the teams you play the round robin with within your conference. Therefore, my question still is not answered to my satisfaction.
In addition, it would seem that the Conference strength article that appeared previously (Around The Nation?) didn't seem all that dependant on non-conference record. Just how is it determined.
Can someone give me an idea on North Central's chances for a pool C bid if they should beat Carthage on Saturday and assuming Wheaton beats IWU and grabs the Pool B bid for the CCIW? What else has to happen around the region to help their cause?
I did see that, of course.
As I mentioned before, I'm just trying to do the mathematical angle based upon one perspective - Win/Loss, then OWP.
Since this a new approach this year, no one can really know whether the NCAA will use the same kind of approach I did or use some sort of secondary math that melds two or three or four percentage numbers together to get some kind of "qualifying score". Or something else ...
Add on top of that the seeding process, and it's easy to see why it has to be a tough job, no matter what criteria get published. Sunday will see some interesting debate - and I'm curious to see how the final bracket matches up to the SOS numbers. And to see if we can get a bead on how they sifted through everything.
Quote from: altor on November 07, 2007, 12:42:20 PM
You missed a key phrase in your research
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 07, 2007, 09:13:27 AM
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
Generally, win-loss % is the first criteria. But, that is where OWP/OOWP and the other criteria come into play. They can take all of the criteria into consideration.
Look at the last week's South rankings. Muhlenberg (8-0) is 4th in the South, behind two 1-loss teams. The committee believes that Wesley and UMHB are better. Even though Muhlenberg's OWP is actually pretty strong. Wesley and UMHB's OWP are outstanding.
Quote from: CardinalAlum on November 07, 2007, 01:40:28 PM
Can someone give me an idea on North Central's chances for a pool C bid if they should beat Carthage on Saturday and assuming Wheaton beats IWU and grabs the Pool B bid for the CCIW? What else has to happen around the region to help their cause?
cardalum,
if you read the top of page 14 the first two posts give you all the info you need. the actual regional rankings should be out this afternoon and we will know where NCC sits now. the key is where the committee sees them vs capital and then it becomes an issue of how many of the situations need to transpire to create spots for 2 loss teams.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 07, 2007, 10:46:55 AM
There will always be subjectivity as long as human beings are involved in the evaluation and selection.
I do believe that the subjectivity involved in this process is pretty minimal. With a known and published set of objective criteria and rules that the committee is supposed to use to select and seed, you can remove most bias so long as the committee members are adhering to the rules. And if they're not, there are a whole lot of bright people watching this closely who are ready to call the committee out for blatant oversights of said criteria. Year in and year out D3football.com accurately predicts the field within one team and on their off years two teams which pretty much validates that the NCAA is following the rules and the criteria without too much subjectivity.
Quote from: usee on November 07, 2007, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: CardinalAlum on November 07, 2007, 01:40:28 PM
Can someone give me an idea on North Central's chances for a pool C bid if they should beat Carthage on Saturday and assuming Wheaton beats IWU and grabs the Pool B bid for the CCIW? What else has to happen around the region to help their cause?
cardalum,
if you read the top of page 14 the first two posts give you all the info you need. the actual regional rankings should be out this afternoon and we will know where NCC sits now. the key is where the committee sees them vs capital and then it becomes an issue of how many of the situations need to transpire to create spots for 2 loss teams.
Thanks Usee!
New regional rankings:
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2007/11/07/third-regional-rankings/
Does anyone agree with my opinion that the regions will be seeded as such?
1. NORTH - Mount Union
2. WEST - Whitewater
3. SOUTH - Washington & Jefferson
4. EAST - College of New Jersey
Here it is --- enjoy!!!
East
1. The College of New Jersey 8-1 8-1
2. Curry 10-0 10-0
3. St. John Fisher 8-1 8-1
4. Rensselaer 7-1 7-1
5. Hobart 7-2 7-2
6. Cortland State 6-2 7-2
7. Widener 6-2 7-2
8. Hartwick 7-2 7-2
9. Ithaca 7-2 7-2
10. Alfred 7-2 7-2
North
1. Mount Union 9-0 9-0
2. Wabash 9-0 9-0
3. Case Western Reserve 7-0 9-0
4. Wheaton (Illinois) 8-1 8-1
5. Franklin 8-1 8-1
6. Mount St. Joseph 8-1 8-1
7. Capital 7-2 7-2
8. Wittenberg 7-2 7-2
9. North Central (Illinois) 7-2 7-2
10. Carthage 7-2 7-2
South
1. Washington and Jefferson 6-0 9-0
2. Wesley 6-1 8-1
3. Muhlenberg 9-0 9-0
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor 8-1 8-1
5. Salisbury 4-1 8-1
6. Trinity (Texas) 7-1 8-1
7. Randolph-Macon 8-1 8-1
8. Millsaps 7-2 7-2
9. Hampden-Sydney 6-2 7-2
10. Waynesburg 6-1 7-2
West
1. Wisconsin-Whitewater 8-0 8-1
2. St. John's (Minnesota) 8-0 9-0
3. Central (Iowa) 8-0 9-0
4. St. Norbert 9-0 10-0
5. Bethel (Minnesota) 8-1 8-1
6. Wartburg 8-1 8-1
7. Occidental 7-1 7-1
8. Redlands 6-1 7-1
9. Whitworth 7-1 7-2
10. Wisconsin-Eau Claire 4-2 7-2
The NCAA Division III Football Committee has released this week's regional polls. The top 10 teams by region, with in-region and overall records through Saturday, October 27, are listed above:
Does SJF have a shot at the #1 seed if they end up 9-1?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2007, 02:12:18 PM...so long as the committee members are adhering to the rules. And if they're not, there are a whole lot of bright people watching this closely who are ready to call the committee out for blatant oversights of said criteria.
And the calling out did what for MapQuestGate of the recent past?
Tell me the following is not a real possibility:
You and I are on the committee (okay, that's not possible) with 8 other people.
Team A is 8-1 on the board. Team B is 8-1 on the board. The other criteria are fairly even. But YOU & I know that Team A is really 8-2 (loss to Geneva). While that game doesn't REALLY count, with all other things being equal, I know Team A has another loss. So, I vote for Team B.
The two teams, on established criteria are a virtual draw. Team B got selected on a subjective, human factor based on a non-official piece of information. Bias.
Quote from: Upstate on November 07, 2007, 06:53:17 PM
Does SJF have a shot at the #1 seed if they end up 9-1?
I think it depends on whether or not Wesley gets moved into the East Region bracket. If Wesley comes over, then the best case scenario for SJF is probably a #2. I do think, however that TCNJ will be seeded higher than SJF since their only loss was to Muhlenberg while SJF had the loss to Wick.
It's an annual tradition for me. I put together my 2007 Pool C Breakdown --
http://bigredlance.blogspot.com/2007/11/2007-d3-football-pool-c-playoff.html
I'm sure I've left someone important off the list, but this is pretty good considering I don't understand all the intricate ins-and-outs of every conference's tie-breaker system.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 07, 2007, 07:03:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2007, 02:12:18 PM...so long as the committee members are adhering to the rules. And if they're not, there are a whole lot of bright people watching this closely who are ready to call the committee out for blatant oversights of said criteria.
And the calling out did what for MapQuestGate of the recent past?
Tell me the following is not a real possibility:
You and I are on the committee (okay, that's not possible) with 8 other people.
Team A is 8-1 on the board. Team B is 8-1 on the board. The other criteria are fairly even. But YOU & I know that Team A is really 8-2 (loss to Geneva). While that game doesn't REALLY count, with all other things being equal, I know Team A has another loss. So, I vote for Team B.
The two teams, on established criteria are a virtual draw. Team B got selected on a subjective, human factor based on a non-official piece of information. Bias.
I disagree. Non-regional games are part of the secondary criteria. It's an official piece of information.
Quote from: Carl Menist on November 07, 2007, 05:45:12 PM
Here it is --- enjoy!!!
East
1. The College of New Jersey 8-1 8-1 Pool A NJAC
2. Curry 10-0 10-0 Playoff versus Coast Guard--NEFC
3. St. John Fisher 8-1 8-1 E8 versus Alfred
4. Rensselaer 7-1 7-1 LL at Union
5. Hobart 7-2 7-2 LL at Rochester
6. Cortland State 6-2 7-2 NJAC at Ithaca
7. Widener 6-2 7-2 Pool A MAC
8. Hartwick 7-2 7-2 E8 at Utica
9. Ithaca 7-2 7-2 LL versus Cortland
10. Alfred 7-2 7-2 E8 at SJF
North
1. Mount Union 9-0 9-0 Pool A OAC
2. Wabash 9-0 9-0 Pool A NCAC at DePauw
3. Case Western Reserve 7-0 9-0 Pool B versus Ohio Wesleyan
4. Wheaton (Illinois) 8-1 8-1 CCIW at IWU
5. Franklin 8-1 8-1 Pool A HCAC
6. Mount St. Joseph 8-1 8-1 Pool C versus Thomas More
7. Capital 7-2 7-2 Pool C versus Baldwin-Wallace
8. Wittenberg 7-2 7-2 Pool C versus Hiram
9. North Central (Illinois) 7-2 7-2 CCIW at Carthage
10. Carthage 7-2 7-2 CCIW versus North Central
IBC -- Concordia WI
South
1. Washington and Jefferson 6-0 9-0 Pool A Pres AC
2. Wesley 6-1 8-1 Pool B versus Morrisville St
3. Muhlenberg 9-0 9-0 Pool A CC
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor 8-1 8-1 Pool A ASC
5. Salisbury 4-1 8-1 Pool B versus Frostburg St
6. Trinity (Texas) 7-1 8-1 SCAC at Austin College
7. Randolph-Macon 8-1 8-1 ODAC at HSC
8. Millsaps 7-2 7-2 SCAC versus Provisional BSC
9. Hampden-Sydney 6-2 7-2 ODAC versus RMC
10. Waynesburg 6-1 7-2 Pool C versus Westminster
USAC -- NCWC
West
1. Wisconsin-Whitewater 8-0 8-1 Pool A WIAC
2. St. John's (Minnesota) 8-0 9-0 MIAC at Bethel
3. Central (Iowa) 8-0 9-0 IIAC at Wartburg
4. St. Norbert 9-0 10-0 Pool A MWC
5. Bethel (Minnesota) 8-1 8-1 MIAC hosts SJU
6. Wartburg 8-1 8-1 IIAC hosts SJU
7. Occidental 7-1 7-1 SCIAC at Whittier
8. Redlands 6-1 7-1 SCIAC at Cal Lutheran
9. Whitworth 7-1 7-2 Pool B/C at Puget Sound
10. Wisconsin-Eau Claire 4-2 7-2 Pool C versus UW-Stout
The NCAA Division III Football Committee has released this week's regional polls. The top 10 teams by region, with in-region and overall records through Saturday, October 27, are listed above:
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2007, 07:57:44 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 07, 2007, 07:03:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2007, 02:12:18 PM...so long as the committee members are adhering to the rules. And if they're not, there are a whole lot of bright people watching this closely who are ready to call the committee out for blatant oversights of said criteria.
And the calling out did what for MapQuestGate of the recent past?
Tell me the following is not a real possibility:
You and I are on the committee (okay, that's not possible) with 8 other people.
Team A is 8-1 on the board. Team B is 8-1 on the board. The other criteria are fairly even. But YOU & I know that Team A is really 8-2 (loss to Geneva). While that game doesn't REALLY count, with all other things being equal, I know Team A has another loss. So, I vote for Team B.
The two teams, on established criteria are a virtual draw. Team B got selected on a subjective, human factor based on a non-official piece of information. Bias.
I disagree. Non-regional games are part of the secondary criteria. It's an official piece of information.
Pat, does that include non-d3 non-regional games? Are provisional d3s treated differently than NAIAs, d2s, etc.?
Again, referring to the link already posted:
First- and second-year provisionals are not treated any differently, as far as we can tell. These games would be considered here, in the secondary criteria.
• Results versus common non-Division III opponents.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2007, 09:02:47 PM
Again, referring to the link already posted:
First- and second-year provisionals are not treated any differently, as far as we can tell. These games would be considered here, in the secondary criteria.
• Results versus common non-Division III opponents.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
They ARE treated differently by the NCAA, and the Regional committees, in that they are not included in the In-Region records.
And. in my example, if Team B didn't also play Geneva, there is no common non-D-III opponent.
So, I guess if they (games vs. provisionals) aren't OFFICIALLY treated differently, it would only be on the overall win-loss percentage, even though that's not really a D-III game. But that distinction isn't indicated any where.
Okay, if that's what it is, that's what it is. I just wish I could read that somewhere.
Bob, re-read for a second:
You said: "Are provisional d3s treated differently than NAIAs, d2s, etc.?"
I said: "First- and second-year provisionals are not treated any differently, as far as we can tell."
Pat, I did re-read, and it was Mr. Ypsi asking the quoted question.
However, I maintain, with NCAA Rankings as my first piece of evidence, that they ARE treated differently. I trust that your "as far as we can tell" takes effect AFTER that different treatment.
The Waynesburg/Geneva game can be accounted for in two separate parts of the secondary criteria even if Geneva is treated like an NAIA school.
The guru weighs in:
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2007/11/07/projecting-the-playoffs-3/
I am a little intrigued by PC's Bethel selection-- not because I don't think they aren't worthy (if they beat SJU on Saturday, they will prove it and take the Pool A bid), but the thought that they will lose on Saturday and still get in.
I guess I am not convinced that the Committee would see it the same way. I have to think St. Olaf's losses to an undefeated SJU and a bubbling BU bests BU's losses to an undefeated SJU and a mediocre at best BVU. Their schedules otherwise are pretty much the same, though should BU's win over a very mediocre Simpson team give them a head over STO's win over Valley City State (NAIA) simply because of regional/non-regional/non d-3 wins? In fairness, BU has the head-to-head over the two...but you have to see them both as pretty similar as 2-loss teams.
Since STO doesn't show up on the regional rankings, I have to think the committee is looking at UWEC pretty strongly here if they win out-- keep in mind that UWEC has only played 6 regional and 7 NCAA games to date, yet their two losses are still ranked above STO's, whose 8 regional and 9 NCAA games to date produced an identical record. It seems to me that thus the Committee is not penalizing teams in the West for not playing D3 competition (I use penalize because UWW doesn't lose the one seed despite their Non-D3 loss). And if that is the case, all else equal, a WIAC-in conference loss would prove to be more valuable than a MIAC loss to a poor IIAC team. Throw in a win over a D-2 scholarship team, and I still think UWEC is strongly in the fold.
In a head to head comparison, assuming a BU loss this weekend and a UWEC win, I have to think UWEC looks better than Bethel, so given my reasoning above, it should drop BU behind UWEC. Of course, PC may have been thinking that Stout takes down the Blugolds in the rivalry game...
I think the main thing St. Olaf's has working against them is the fact that they'll finish 3rd in the MIAC, Johnnie. SOS at 16 or not, a third place team won't get in, IMO.
I think the main thing St. Olaf has working against it is the fact that it lost to Bethel!
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2007, 03:12:55 PM
I think the main thing St. Olaf has working against it is the fact that it lost to Bethel!
I get the St. Olaf thing...
But UWEC? If UWEC's D-2 victories hurt it because they are not a D3 victory, shouldn't UWW's D-2 loss hurt it as well?
Don't get me wrong-- I still think UWW should be a number one seed, but I do see a double standard here when it comes to UWEC/Bethel. St. Olaf is a measuring stick-- if UWEC is over St. Olaf in the regional rankings, and St. Olaf and Bethel are similar assuming a loss to SJU, does a H2H over St. Olaf give BU a jump way over UWEC in the regional rankings? Should it? If not, is the criteria solely based upon D3 games versus non-D3 games?
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 08, 2007, 03:37:06 PM
But UWEC? If UWEC's D-2 victories hurt it because they are not a D3 victory, shouldn't UWW's D-2 loss hurt it as well?
I don't think this is true. Take the regional winning percentage at face value and if 667 is compared to 778 the difference is kind of striking. But I don't think it works that way. Like I said, here or somewhere anyway, we'll re-run the numbers through Saturday's games and we may get a different perspective.
Johnnie esq,
If you use your logic about Bethel and ST Olaf, This would move Wartburg ahead of Bethel as well. The conference rankings have the MIAC a much higher conference than the IIAC. So if a team from the IIAC suffers a loss to a middle of the road MIAC team and a MIAC team suffers a loss to a middle of the road IIAC team does it not follow the MIAC suffers the worse loss? I have no idea what will happen but if SJU and Central do not win it becomes a moot point.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2007, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 08, 2007, 03:37:06 PM
But UWEC? If UWEC's D-2 victories hurt it because they are not a D3 victory, shouldn't UWW's D-2 loss hurt it as well?
I don't think this is true. Take the regional winning percentage at face value and if 667 is compared to 778 the difference is kind of striking.
I don't know if I follow, but I think I found the trap.
St. Olaf's regional winning percentage is .750. St. Olaf will likely finish with a regional record of 7-2 (and currently sits at 6-2). St. Olaf's SOS is 16th in the country. Neither St. Olaf nor UWEC have any wins over regionally ranked opponents. So then why, if UWEC has only a 4-2 in region record for a winning percentage of .667, with a lesser SOS than St. Olaf, and no head to head competition or common regional opponents, is UWEC ahead of St. Olaf in the third regional rankings?
Sounds to me that the Committee is using the secondary criteria here, at least in relation to the West region. That makes sense given the difficulties of travel and nonconference game-finding faced by WIAC/NWC/SCIAC teams. Should Bethel be rewarded for playing the IIAC schools, who share a smaller student body? Should UWEC be punished because a MIAC team won't play them? When you examine the secondary criteria, and add back in UWEC's wins over D-2 SW MN St and include their win over potential pool A Alma, seems to me that, head to head, UWEC looks a bit stronger than Bethel.
But that's where I am coming from-- then you consider that UWW's loss at D-2 St. Cloud has not apparently affected them in the regional rankings. So is the standard that D-2 wins will help, and D-2 losses won't hurt? That seems to make intuitive sense, but is that a policy we really want to advocate in D3?
Seems to me you just don't want Bethel in the playoffs. :)
I don't really know what to make of the rest of it at this point, though.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2007, 04:22:01 PM
Seems to me you just don't want Bethel in the playoffs. :)
I don't really know what to make of the rest of it at this point, though.
C'mon, another MIAC representative vs. advocating for the WIAC?
I'm just concerned because it seems the committee is lessening the impact of the objective standards and incorporating some subjectivity into the mix in some fashion through the skipping into the secondary criteria. I don't necessarily mind that, but I would like it to be consistent across all lines. Of course, I do recognize that would help out the MIAC immensely....
Isn't great to be discussing which team gets the 32nd bid to the playoffs instead of the 2nd bid like D1-A?
Yeah for D1-AA, D2 and D3! ;D
Quote from: hscoach on November 08, 2007, 05:15:18 PM
Isn't great to be discussing which team gets the 32nd bid to the playoffs instead of the 2nd bid like D1-A Football Bowl Subdivision?
Yeah for D1-AA Football Championship Subdivision, D2 and D3! ;D
Corrected in order to avoid NCAA sanctions.
Quote from: Just Bill on November 08, 2007, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: hscoach on November 08, 2007, 05:15:18 PM
Isn't great to be discussing which team gets the 32nd bid to the playoffs instead of the 2nd bid like D1-A Football Bowl Subdivision?
Yeah for D1-AA Football Championship Subdivision, D2 and D3! ;D
Corrected in order to avoid NCAA sanctions.
"F. B. S." is good enough for me! ;D
Quote from: Carl Menist on November 07, 2007, 05:45:12 PM
North
9. North Central (Illinois) 7-2 7-2
10. Carthage 7-2 7-2
For some reason these two really intrigue me since they play each other. The loser certainly goes off the regional ranking list, but who goes on in place?
I suppose it is IWU if they beat Wheaton. If they don't, then who does go up? Certainly not another HCAC or NCAC school. The MIAA is right out and I doubt CUW is the team.
The OAC seems like the best place to find it...making it ONU or B-W. B-W plays Capital. So, a B-W win probably puts them on the list, but does that remove Capital? If so, you're back to finding another team.
It's unlikely that whatever team it is gets a Pool C bid, but it might make a difference in the "records vs regionally ranked opponents" criteria.
Yeah, it's kinda ironic (or perhaps cruel) - the winner of the NCC-Carthage game will be a pool C bubble team, but will have hurt themselves by knocking the loser out of their ranking (so no W over a ranked team). I'd advocate a modification of the criterion to ranked at the end OR ranked at the time you played them.
If you were to use that modification, then theoretically a team that gets a regional ranking, in the first week of rankings, could lose out the rest of their season and each team that beats them would have an argument for a pool C if they all win out.
I think it would add to a mathematical nightmare.
We all get upset when "OUR TEAM" does not make the playoff's. IF the team could have won that game, they lost, then all discussion would be a mute point
Quote from: old ends on November 08, 2007, 09:49:05 PM
If you were to use that modification, then theoretically a team that gets a regional ranking, in the first week of rankings, could lose out the rest of their season and each team that beats them would have an argument for a pool C if they all win out.
I think it would add to a mathematical nightmare.
We all get upset when "OUR TEAM" does not make the playoff's. IF the team could have won that game, they lost, then all discussion would be a mute point
My modification was ranked AT THE TIME you beat them - if they lose out after being ranked the first week of rankings, and are STILL ranked by the time someone beats them in the final game, they must have been Mount Union! ;) Besides, record vs. regionally-ranked teams is only ONE criterion out of 5 (plus several more 'secondary' criteria). But it just seems cruel that you can actually hurt your chances by winning (though not as much as by losing, of course)!
BTW, neither NCC or Carthage is my team. IWU still could win the AQ (with help from Carthage), but with 3 losses has NO chance of a C.
Quote from: OxyBob on November 07, 2007, 02:49:53 AM
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 06, 2007, 08:13:42 PM
Now, the SCIAC - If Oxy loses on Sat, the Redlands/Cal Luth winner goes in, and the other will be in the 2+ loss pile, and "off the list". But we could also have a three way tie if Oxy and Redlands win, and all would be "on the list" or AQ because of the tiebreaker. So we could see either 1, 2, or 3 from the SCIAC get into the bracket.
I only see one SCIAC team in the playoffs. If Redlands beats Cal Lutheran and Oxy beats Whittier, then there'll be a 3-way tie in the SCIAC. Under the conference tiebreaker, Cal Lutheran will get the AQ with a 5-4 record. That will leave Oxy and Redlands both at 8-1, and I believe both out of the playoffs. If Redlands beats CLU and Whittier beats Oxy, then Redlands gets the AQ.
OxyBob
I'm catching up on this thread still, but from what I can tell this wasn't all the way dealt with.
Here's what you won't see: Three SCIAC teams in the playoffs. Not gonna happen.
Since Cal Lu holds the tiebreaker in a 3-way deal, even with a loss, I'd pencil them in as the A. That stinks for Redlands because they have the best non-conference win of the three (vs. NWC champ Whitworth) but they lost h2h to Oxy.
Oxy would have a chance in C with a win and a Redlands loss. But with their very weak schedule, they could also be left home with 1 loss without too much argument from the peanut gallery.
If CLU is the A even if they lose, Redlands might have a chance over Occidental despite the h2h loss because of wins over common opponents (CLU) and regionally ranked opponents (Whitworth and CLU), but very rarely are the stats so lopsided an h2h is ignored.
Redlands or Oxy might get screwed no matter what happens on Sat., aside from a Cal Lu win and outright SCIAC championship.
Sorry, MT Union is not my team either.. I live about an hour from 3 Centennial Conference teams after moving there from New England. So I just picked up this year watching those games. But I only made a statement on yours. I am just a fan of DIII football with no real home team to cheer for( at this time).
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2007, 12:25:02 PM
And not only was Mt. Union hurt by Averett, but the rest of the OAC didn't help them much. Otterbein's lost to Defiance also hurts. Down years by Augustana (B-W's opponent), Wooster (John Carroll's opponent) and Millikin (Ohio Northern's opponent) hurt the OOWP. Marietta's trip to St. John's doesn't count, and that could have helped the OOWP.
But some of the OAC is helping them in OOWP - Wilmington lost to Mt. St. Joseph and Muskingum lost to Waynesburg.
I wonder if this new paradigm will change some scheduling policies - such as playing out of region games as their only non conference game, or perhaps not playing a full round robin.
Points to ponder as we go towards Sunday!
I don't think coaches think it through that much, especially with all the other stuff they have to go through just to fill schedules.
Those could be unintended consequences, but generally if you're in you're in, and if you're on the bubble, it's your own fault.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2007, 03:12:55 PM
I think the main thing St. Olaf has working against it is the fact that it lost to Bethel!
I agree with this.
I also agree that Geneva's win over Waynesburg will be officially considered by the committee in the ways Pat points out.
They Yellow Jackets have played their way out of the discussion, IMHO.
K-Mack -- take a look at the South Region--Centennial Conference Post. Possible Muhlenberg to the East as a number 1
Thoughts??
Quote from: old ends on November 08, 2007, 10:44:53 PM
Sorry, MT Union is not my team either.. I live about an hour from 3 Centennial Conference teams after moving there from New England. So I just picked up this year watching those games. But I only made a statement on yours. I am just a fan of DIII football with no real home team to cheer for( at this time).
Actually, I didn't think you were a Mount fan - it was just a joke that they're probably the only team that could lose 3 in a row and STILL be in the rankings (and
perhaps deservedly so). ;)
The added complexity would be minimal, but it only seems fair that if YOU knocked 'em out of the rankings, you oughta get some credit.
Quote from: old ends on November 08, 2007, 11:00:21 PM
K-Mack -- take a look at the South Region--Centennial Conference Post. Possible Muhlenberg to the East as a number 1
Thoughts??
I could definitely see Muhlenberg being moved to the East if necessary, and since Pat projected TCNJ as the No. 1 there and the Mules beat them 15-0, I could see it.
The Texas matchup wouldn't be as tidy, with 5 going to 3 or 4 going to 3, depending on where Salisbury fits, but ... why not? As far as teams to move go Muhlenberg is a good fit in the East. They have been moved there before, hosting UMass-Dartmouth in 2002, the same year John Carroll was also in that bracket (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/02/bracket.htm), and in '04 they went to St. John Fisher (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/04/bracket.htm).
Both times they were a six seed though. The committees have seemed more likely to move lower-seeded teams out of their home regions, however, remember, nowhere does it say these must be East/South/North/West brackets ... teams can be grouped for geographic proximity no matter their home region.
Quote from: retagent on November 07, 2007, 01:35:48 PM
In addition, it would seem that the Conference strength article that appeared previously (Around The Nation?) didn't seem all that dependant on non-conference record. Just how is it determined.
I don't know where you got that impression, non-conference performance is a major factor, perhaps the most significant.
Not to mention I listed non-conference records right on the page (http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2007-09-26/How+we+ranked+the+conferences), twice in each capsule.
Being that I can be subjective, I do factor in history and playoff results and look past the raw numbers to see who that non-conference record is built against, but I can't think of anything that would be more important to ranking the conferences with respect to each other.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2007, 02:12:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 07, 2007, 10:46:55 AM
There will always be subjectivity as long as human beings are involved in the evaluation and selection.
I do believe that the subjectivity involved in this process is pretty minimal. With a known and published set of objective criteria and rules that the committee is supposed to use to select and seed, you can remove most bias so long as the committee members are adhering to the rules. And if they're not, there are a whole lot of bright people watching this closely who are ready to call the committee out for blatant oversights of said criteria. Year in and year out D3football.com accurately predicts the field within one team and on their off years two teams which pretty much validates that the NCAA is following the rules and the criteria without too much subjectivity.
They haven't missed two teams in years. They've missed zero, one, zero, one, one and three in 2001.
Pretty sure Pat (and maybe Gordon on the help-out) hit 32 of 32 last season, correctly predicting Franklin and Cortland State left at home (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2006/11/12/final-playoff-projections/).
Previously:
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 30, 2005, 02:48:44 AM
We did touch on it in the Around the Nation that ran the week of the playoff openers.
http://www.d3football.com/atn.php?id=84
The sorry for the false hopes award
When D3football.com tells you it's hit on 27 of 28 teams just about every year, and hit on 31 of 32 this year, that means one team out there read our projections and got their hopes up. Here's this year's 'one we missed' and past winners:
2005: We projected Alfred; the committee preferred Wilkes.
2004: We got them all.
2003: We projected UMHB; the committee took Simpson, who promptly gave the MWC its only NCAA playoff win since expansion.
2002: We projected Hartwick; the committee took W&J, which squeaked past second-year CNU and got routed at Trinity.
2001: We picked Menlo and Linfield in Pool B, the committee took Whitworth (0-1) and Ithaca (advanced to regional final). In Pool C, we chose UW-Eau Claire, the NCAA took Montclair State (0-1).
Quote from: The Great Pumpkin on November 07, 2007, 07:12:51 PM
Quote from: Upstate on November 07, 2007, 06:53:17 PM
Does SJF have a shot at the #1 seed if they end up 9-1?
I think it depends on whether or not Wesley gets moved into the East Region bracket. If Wesley comes over, then the best case scenario for SJF is probably a #2. I do think, however that TCNJ will be seeded higher than SJF since their only loss was to Muhlenberg while SJF had the loss to Wick.
Or if Curry and TCNJ both lose.
Quote from: Lance Harbor on November 07, 2007, 07:54:43 PM
It's an annual tradition for me. I put together my 2007 Pool C Breakdown --
http://bigredlance.blogspot.com/2007/11/2007-d3-football-pool-c-playoff.html
I'm sure I've left someone important off the list, but this is pretty good considering I don't understand all the intricate ins-and-outs of every conference's tie-breaker system.
I left you a comment.
K Mack. I made that comment because some conferences ranked highly don't have sterling non conference records - some even losing records, while others, MIAC, for example, seem to have a darn good non conference record, but are ranked lower. My point was, that SHOULD be the primary criteria, but are my lying eyes deceiving me?
The one thing you should keep in mind is those rankings are entering the 2007 season. Surely the MAC will not keep its ranking entering 2008, for example.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2007, 11:51:16 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2007, 02:12:18 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 07, 2007, 10:46:55 AM
There will always be subjectivity as long as human beings are involved in the evaluation and selection.
I do believe that the subjectivity involved in this process is pretty minimal. With a known and published set of objective criteria and rules that the committee is supposed to use to select and seed, you can remove most bias so long as the committee members are adhering to the rules. And if they're not, there are a whole lot of bright people watching this closely who are ready to call the committee out for blatant oversights of said criteria. Year in and year out D3football.com accurately predicts the field within one team and on their off years two teams which pretty much validates that the NCAA is following the rules and the criteria without too much subjectivity.
They haven't missed two teams in years. They've missed zero, one, zero, one, one and three in 2001.
Pretty sure Pat (and maybe Gordon on the help-out) hit 32 of 32 last season, correctly predicting Franklin and Cortland State left at home (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2006/11/12/final-playoff-projections/).
Previously:
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 30, 2005, 02:48:44 AM
We did touch on it in the Around the Nation that ran the week of the playoff openers.
http://www.d3football.com/atn.php?id=84
The sorry for the false hopes award
When D3football.com tells you it's hit on 27 of 28 teams just about every year, and hit on 31 of 32 this year, that means one team out there read our projections and got their hopes up. Here's this year's 'one we missed' and past winners:
2005: We projected Alfred; the committee preferred Wilkes.
2004: We got them all.
2003: We projected UMHB; the committee took Simpson, who promptly gave the MWC its only NCAA playoff win since expansion.
2002: We projected Hartwick; the committee took W&J, which squeaked past second-year CNU and got routed at Trinity.
2001: We picked Menlo and Linfield in Pool B, the committee took Whitworth (0-1) and Ithaca (advanced to regional final). In Pool C, we chose UW-Eau Claire, the NCAA took Montclair State (0-1).
Do the above comparisons of actual to projected reflect comparisons to Pat's mid - week / initial projections or the final revised projections after the last games on Saturday. If the comparison reflects the later, what has the experience been to the initial mid-week projections?
I am sure they are both close, just wondering what changes we may see from what we are all working off now.
I think the change to the SOS / OWP basis as one of the selection criteria puts a bit of a twist on this year.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2007, 09:03:58 PM
Yeah, it's kinda ironic (or perhaps cruel) - the winner of the NCC-Carthage game will be a pool C bubble team, but will have hurt themselves by knocking the loser out of their ranking (so no W over a ranked team). I'd advocate a modification of the criterion to ranked at the end OR ranked at the time you played them.
Since The winner of the North Central/ Carthage game will be a bubble team, how does their strength of schedule hurt/Help the winner???
We haven't done the math on the mid-week projections, no. Kind of busy working on playoff previews at that point.
The change in the criteria definitely makes things more interesting this year, no doubt. I am hopeful we can live up to our usual all-but-one standards.
Quote from: redman04 on November 09, 2007, 10:53:25 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2007, 09:03:58 PM
Yeah, it's kinda ironic (or perhaps cruel) - the winner of the NCC-Carthage game will be a pool C bubble team, but will have hurt themselves by knocking the loser out of their ranking (so no W over a ranked team). I'd advocate a modification of the criterion to ranked at the end OR ranked at the time you played them.
Since The winner of the North Central/ Carthage game will be a bubble team, how does their strength of schedule hurt/Help the winner???
I wasn't talking about SOS. Another primary criterion is record vs. regionally-ranked teams. It (to me) is unfortunate that beating a team that was ranked going into the game won't get you any benefit on this criterion because YOU knocked them out of the rankings!
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2007, 10:54:04 AM
We haven't done the math on the mid-week projections, no. Kind of busy working on playoff previews at that point.
The change in the criteria definitely makes things more interesting this year, no doubt. I am hopeful we can live up to our usual all-but-one standards.
Just thinking about it a little more, the above comparisons have to relate to your final projections. I have to believe that your initial projections for 2006 included Trinity in there as the AQ from the SCAC.
I would like to see your final projections Saturday evening be 32 for 32. I just hope that your fine tuning of your mid-week work includes adding Millsaps in there someplace.
Thanks for your work!
2006 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:
Projected Trinity sted Milsaps
Projected Wartburg sted Bethel
2005 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:
Projected RPI as a "C"
Projected St. John Fisher as a "C"
Didn't project Cortland State, #5 East
Didn't project Wilkes, #6 East
Projected Whitewater in North, went #2 West
Didn't project Capital at all, #5 North
Projected Hardin-Simmons (A), Mary Hardin-Baylor (C). UMHB won the A, HSU didn't make it at all.
Projected W&J on the "B" bubble, went #6 South
Projected Willamette as a "B", didn't make it.
All in all, with many of these determinations made on the field, the GURU has projected very, very well.
Not 32 for 32, but pretty darn well.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 09, 2007, 12:51:12 PM
2006 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:
Projected Trinity sted Millsaps -- Millsaps beats Trinity. Trinity stays home.
Projected Wartburg sted Bethel-- Bethel beats SJU and gets the Pool A bid. Wartburg upset in OT by Dubuque.
2005 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:
Projected RPI as a "C"
Projected St. John Fisher as a "C"
Didn't project Cortland State, #5 East
Didn't project Wilkes, #6 East
Projected Whitewater in North, went #2 West
Didn't project Capital at all, #5 North
Projected Hardin-Simmons (A), Mary Hardin-Baylor (C). UMHB won the A, HSU didn't make it at all (losing the last game with their 3rd string QB to TLU) That changed the Regional Rankings allowing W&J to "creep" up.
Projected W&J on the "B" bubble, went #6 South
Projected Willamette as a "B", didn't make it.
All in all, with many of these determinations made on the field, the GURU has projected very, very well.
Not 32 for 32, but pretty darn well.
I can speak to those last week upsets, and how they changed the playoffs.
Question, why does an 8-2 CCIW team get in the Playoffs over an 8-2 Wittenburg team? Witt's SOS is 13th in the Nation. They have 2 wins over the MIAA Tri-Champs, and both losses were to National and Regional Ranked teams. Pus the NCAC has a better playoff winning % then the CCIW.
Agreed, over the years Pat and company have done a great job with their projections and hoping they are "in the zone" with their projections for this year.
And Bob.Gregg, I would like to give a shout out to you. Over the past 3-4 years(not sure how long you have been posting) come playoff time, I never skip over a Bob.Gregg post.
And Ralph, what can I say but Thanks for what you continue to bring to the site.
Quote from: short on November 09, 2007, 01:41:17 PM
Question, why does an 8-2 CCIW team get in the Playoffs over an 8-2 Wittenburg team? Witt's SOS is 13th in the Nation. They have 2 wins over the MIAA Tri-Champs, and both losses were to National and Regional Ranked teams. Pus the NCAC has a better playoff winning % then the CCIW.
1. The projections currently do not have an 8-2 CCIW team getting in.
2. Witt's
week 9 OWP (NOT SOS, which also includes OOWP) is 13th. It will be FAR lower after meeting 0-9 Hiram on Saturday! After week 10, the total SOS of any of the CCIW 8-2 teams will likely be higher than Witt's.
3. The NCAC winning % in the playoffs IS higher than the CCIW, but you are ignoring that the CCIW has played 22 games to the NCAC's 19. It could be argued either way as to which is superior. The only h-to-h meeting of the NCAC and CCIW in the 'modern' playoffs was in 2004: Carthage 14, Wooster 7. But past conference playoff history is (officially, at least) irrelevant to selection ayway.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2007, 01:35:37 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 09, 2007, 12:51:12 PM
2006 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:
Projected Trinity sted Millsaps -- Millsaps beats Trinity. Trinity stays home.
Projected Wartburg sted Bethel-- Bethel beats SJU and gets the Pool A bid. Wartburg upset in OT by Dubuque.
2005 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:
Projected RPI as a "C"
Projected St. John Fisher as a "C"
Didn't project Cortland State, #5 East
Didn't project Wilkes, #6 East
Projected Whitewater in North, went #2 West
Didn't project Capital at all, #5 North
Projected Hardin-Simmons (A), Mary Hardin-Baylor (C). UMHB won the A, HSU didn't make it at all (losing the last game with their 3rd string QB to TLU) That changed the Regional Rankings allowing W&J to "creep" up.
Projected W&J on the "B" bubble, went #6 South
Projected Willamette as a "B", didn't make it.
All in all, with many of these determinations made on the field, the GURU has projected very, very well.
Not 32 for 32, but pretty darn well.
I can speak to those last week upsets, and how they changed the playoffs.
Thanks to both Bob and ralph as well as Pat ofcourse.
Question and comments regarding last week matchups and upsets / impact of new system ---
- How does week 10 of 2007 compare to 2006? It looks like there was only one upset last year with Bethel coming in.
- Do the slate of games for tomorrow look to provide a more volatile / up in the air situation compared to last year or are they about the same?
- How do you think the fact that the new SOS basis is inplace for the first time and there is no specific track record of the NCAA for Pat to completely base his picks on?
Having a national playoff is the only way to go. Could you imagine the intrigue and interest if D1 had a 32 team playoff???
Quote from: pirat on November 09, 2007, 01:50:29 PM
And Bob.Gregg, I would like to give a shout out to you. Over the past 3-4 years(not sure how long you have been posting) come playoff time, I never skip over a Bob.Gregg post.
With your permission, I'll use that information in the Property Distribution phase of my upcoming proceedings. The loss of my notebook computer will have far-reaching consequences....
Thanks, pirat, for the shout-out, but be careful...
I've been smitten at least once today already. Must have peed in somebody's cornflakes...
Maybe the New Jersians didn't like my idea of moving Mules East...or maybe somebody else didn't...
Carl-I will just speak for the West and more middle west, Bethel is in the same position as last year, win and in and SJU would still probable make the playoffs, so one pool C bid gone.
Wartburg plays Central, Wartburg win and they are win and probably Central, so another pool C bid gone. Plus, having read about the rest of regions, seems like more possibilities this year than last.
Waynesburg is the only "C" possible in the South, far as I can see.
At least, barring an '03 style collapse tomorrow.
I personally would put in Wheaton ahead of Wittenberg. Both would be behind 8-2 Bethel.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 09, 2007, 03:23:01 PM
Waynesburg is the only "C" possible in the South, far as I can see.
At least, barring an '03 style collapse tomorrow.
I don't get it all, seems if Waynesburg is in the hunt if a South Region team gets a Pool C shot, that Millsaps would be in front of them based on the fact that Millsaps is ranked 8th in this weeks poll and Waynesburg is 10th.
Can't see allot changing with Millsaps OWP / SOS numbers since B'ham Southern is a provisional team this year. Think the Panther's will play hard and can't be taken lightly. We have them in the friendly confines of Davis Stadium and should be ready for a good game especially with the unanticipated ray of hope for a playoff spot, small as it may be. Comparatively Millsaps has 2 region losses, Waynesburg 1. Both are 7-2 overall. Following gare the SOS and OWPs --- Millsaps - SOS / 62 ; OWP / 54.1 - Waynesburg - SOS / 187 ; OWP / 42.4.
A record setting game like last week on the road against a Colorado College team that has played several good teams tough and isn't bad , (68 to 6), isn't out of the question and could get the committees attention on a subjective basis.
How do you figure Wayneburg ahead of a team now ranked ahead of them by two spots?
Personally I would like to see all the South teams get in.
if the committee weighs the numbers more heavily than less, I think we have a shot at a Pool C bid.
It will be interesting.
As an aside, I know the committee looks at the season as a whole, but even if I was a 1 loss team going into tomorrow, I would not want to lose the last game of the season.
That can't be a good thing.
There are allot of teams in the 40 teams ranked regionally playing each other. will be interesting to see how losses to those teams effects the final brackets.
I appreciate your points of view and insight. There are so many good teams to choose from it will be hard to make a bad choice.
Having a son out there on the field gives fair cause for me to biased and hopeful.
Bout time to tee it up!!!
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2007, 05:33:43 PM
I personally would put in Wheaton ahead of Wittenberg. Both would be behind 8-2 Bethel.
An 8-2 Carthage might beat out an 8-2 Wheaton due to h-to-h (SOS would be similar, probably slight advantage to Wheaton); if it was an 8-2 NCC, SOS would again be similar, but Wheaton would have the h-to-h.
I'm not sure why Bethel is viewed as above the 8-2 CCIW teams. Their current OWP is a very weak .486 (though, of course, playing 9-0 St John's on Saturday will raise that); their OOWP is currently a very good .598, but since St. John's OWP is currently only .482, that may actually fall a bit on Saturday. St. John's will be their ONLY regionally-ranked opponent, so they would be 0-1. What am I missing on the certainty people have about Bethel - geography?
A wild card if Wheaton loses to IWU would be whether or not IWU re-enters the regional rankings (and, alas, we will never know!) - if so, that would be a plus for NCC, a minus for Carthage and Wheaton.
Quote from: Carl Menist on November 09, 2007, 06:10:06 PM
I don't get it all, seems if Waynesburg is in the hunt if a South Region team gets a Pool C shot, that Millsaps would be in front of them based on the fact that Millsaps is ranked 8th in this weeks poll and Waynesburg is 10th.
It's simple. I had a significant brain cramp when I wrote that, twice....
Sorry...
I've put all the conference races, key games, head-to-head tiebreakers, AQ berths, Pool B & C eligibles all in one place:
http://www.wjpa.com/All-in-One-Races.htm
Hope someone else finds this useful today...
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:51:23 AM
I've put all the conference races, key games, head-to-head tiebreakers, AQ berths, Pool B & C eligibles all in one place:
http://www.wjpa.com/All-in-One-Races.htm
Hope someone else finds this useful today...
That's VERY good Bob! Color me impressed.
Ithaca 26, Cortland St 7; 2Q 5:30
Well, Hobart won but didn't get help from Union, so it looks like we have to hope that our #5 Final East Region ranking, plus the 7 game win streak, SoS, etc add up to our 4th consecutive invitation to the dance.
Hampden-Sydney 34-13. ODAC AQ winner at 8-2/8-2/5-1
RMC to Pool C with 8-2/8-2/5-1 and co-champs.
Per algernon, the ODAC does not award Co-Championships.
Case wins to finish 10-0 and clinch a B (and B#4 may take a C).
Wabash loses - doesn't affect pool C (they had already clinched the NCAC AQ), but shakes up the North seedings.
SJU loses by being out-coached in the second half-so there goes one pool C to SJU and AQ to Bethel.
St. John's losing can't help Whitworth or Redlands...
or Capital. >:(
Central 17, Wartburg 14.
Final from Bloomington: IWU 18, Wheaton 14. NCC takes the CCIW AQ; Wheaton is probably knocked completely out, though they may still be a bubble-C.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2007, 05:22:58 PM
Final from Bloomington: IWU 18, Wheaton 14. NCC takes the CCIW AQ; Wheaton is probably knocked completely out, though they may still be a bubble-C.
Not when your 2 losses are the last 2 games of the year.
Quote from: Mugsy on November 10, 2007, 05:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2007, 05:22:58 PM
Final from Bloomington: IWU 18, Wheaton 14. NCC takes the CCIW AQ; Wheaton is probably knocked completely out, though they may still be a bubble-C.
Not when your 2 losses are the last 2 games of the year.
Officially, at least, when the losses occur is not a selection criterion.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2007, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on November 10, 2007, 05:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2007, 05:22:58 PM
Final from Bloomington: IWU 18, Wheaton 14. NCC takes the CCIW AQ; Wheaton is probably knocked completely out, though they may still be a bubble-C.
Not when your 2 losses are the last 2 games of the year.
Officially, at least, when the losses occur is not a selection criterion.
I've heard that one before...
With the SCIAC still going, I count 4 Pool C teams with one loss:
SJF (9-1 East Region -- Empire 8 )
Mt St Joseph (9-1 North Region --HCAC)
SJU (9-1 West Region -- MIAC)
Waynesburg (8-2 overall/ 7-1 South Region -- Pres AC)
Pool B bids probably go to CWRU at 10-0, Wesley and Salisbury.
Three Pool C bids remain.
Whitworth (7-1 West Region) is leading Puget Sound at the half and may get a Pool C bid.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2007, 03:52:52 PM
Hampden-Sydney 34-13. ODAC AQ winner at 8-2/8-2/5-1
RMC to Pool C with 8-2/8-2/5-1 and co-champs.
Ralph .... Actually, as an HSC fan, I have to point out that RMC -- as good a season as they had -- is NOT the ODAC co-champion.
THE GAME, today, was for bragging rights, the AQ, and sole possession of the ODAC Championship trophy. The Tigers bring it home!
:)
Quote from: algernon on November 10, 2007, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2007, 03:52:52 PM
Hampden-Sydney 34-13. ODAC AQ winner at 8-2/8-2/5-1
RMC to Pool C with 8-2/8-2/5-1 and co-champs.
Ralph .... Actually, as an HSC fan, I have to point out that RMC -- as good a season as they had -- is NOT the ODAC co-champion.
THE GAME, today, was for bragging rights, the AQ, and sole possession of the ODAC Championship trophy. The Tigers bring it home!
:)
My bad! So the ODAC doesn't award co-championships?
I think the north might look like this:
MUC
Case
Wabash
Franklin
MSJ
NCC
CUW
Olivet
Bash has too good a SOS and owns the HTH over franklin. Capital, if they get in, go east/south as pat predicts.
If you see Concordia of Wisc. in the North, then UW-EC would seem to be the 8th team in the west, if Cal Lut loses.
Don't think they'd match up Franklin and MSJ in the first round. Could send NCC to Franklin and MSJ to Wabash. Or, maybe they move MSJ East/South instead of Capital, in which case NCC goes to Wabash and Capital goes to Franklin.
Quote from: Schwami on November 10, 2007, 06:54:31 PM
Don't think they'd match up Franklin and MSJ in the first round. Could send NCC to Franklin and MSJ to Wabash. Or, maybe they move MSJ East/South instead of Capital, in which case NCC goes to Wabash and Capital goes to Franklin.
forgot about that. could also simply swap msj and NCC as opponents.
Redlands beats Cal Lutheran 38-17. Oxy should beat Whittier which I understand gives Cal Luth the AQ and leaves both Redlands and OXY 9-1. And Whitworth has won. Does that make 7 9-1 Pool C teams? Does an 8-2 have a chance?
If all those made the playoffs, one would have to go to the South region, then Cal Lut would play UWW and Oxy plays Withworth with Central hosting Bethel and Norberts hosting SJU. It doesn't seem to fit that all the west coast teams would be in the West region.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2007, 06:12:54 PM
Quote from: algernon on November 10, 2007, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2007, 03:52:52 PM
Hampden-Sydney 34-13. ODAC AQ winner at 8-2/8-2/5-1
RMC to Pool C with 8-2/8-2/5-1 and co-champs.
Ralph .... Actually, as an HSC fan, I have to point out that RMC -- as good a season as they had -- is NOT the ODAC co-champion.
THE GAME, today, was for bragging rights, the AQ, and sole possession of the ODAC Championship trophy. The Tigers bring it home!
:)
My bad! So the ODAC doesn't award co-championships?
The ODAC awards co-championships only when a tie isn't broken by the head-to-head tie-breaker. Since there is only 1 game against each conference opponent, any two-way tie will be broken by the head-to-head outcome between the two teams. On the other hand, a three-way tie can involve Team A beating Team B, Team B beating Team C, and Team C beating Team A. In such a case, all 3 teams are co-champs.
All-in-One-Races is updated.
I've put all the conference races, key games, head-to-head tiebreakers, AQ berths, Pool B & C eligibles all in one place:
http://www.wjpa.com/All-in-One-Races.htm
Hope someone else finds this useful today...
Quote from: cwru70 on November 10, 2007, 07:11:42 PM
Redlands beats Cal Lutheran 38-17. Oxy should beat Whittier which I understand gives Cal Luth the AQ and leaves both Redlands and OXY 9-1. And Whitworth has won. Does that make 7 9-1 Pool C teams? Does an 8-2 have a chance?
SCIAC teams only play nine games, so Redlands and Oxy would be 8-1.
Still doubt three SCIAC teams make it.
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2007, 08:17:40 PM
Still doubt three SCIAC teams make it.
I would say the chances are right around...0%
At this moment, my Pool C picks:
Whitworth
St. John Fisher
St. John's
Mt. St. Joseph
Hobart
The SCIAC "Rose Bowl Rule" could throw two teams (Occidental & Redlands) into the "C" discussion, though strength of schedule may hold one or both out. Redlands is #62 on the charts (.540 & .475). Occidental is #210 (ouch) (.395 & .507).
RIght now, my last two C's are Wheaton & Wartburg, with Capital & Millsaps right on their heels.
I checked the SOS and see that it has been updated for teams whose results are already known - will it be updated throughout the night for late scores?
I thought Wheaton was probably a goner, but they have the highest SOS of any 8-2 pool-C candidate.
But could the fact they lost twice in a row hurt the Thunder?
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2007, 09:53:50 PM
But could the fact they lost twice in a row hurt the Thunder?
Performance at the last quarter of the season is not usually a criterion in football.
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2007, 09:53:50 PM
But could the fact they lost twice in a row hurt the Thunder?
Officially, WHEN losses occur is not a criterion. Unofficially, who knows?
Actually, guys, it CAN be considered....
"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:59:44 PM
Actually, guys, it CAN be considered....
"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."
I know, but I have not seen it used, or mentioned by Pat or an authoritative source, anytime recently.
Bob-
Keep in mind one of Whitworth's losses was to NAIA Azusa Pacific. Since the Committee doesn't seem to mind UWW's non-D3 loss, perhaps they will look over it here as well?
In any event, Whitworth should be considered 8-1 in region and 8-2 overall.
If that is the case, there are 7 one D3 loss teams (Isn't Mississippi College a 2-loss in-region team? Did I miss this discussion? Both HSU and MHB are in their conference...), and 7 Pool C births. That could make life very easy for the committee.
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 10, 2007, 10:32:59 PM
Bob-
Keep in mind one of Whitworth's losses was to NAIA Azusa Pacific. Since the Committee doesn't seem to mind UWW's non-D3 loss, perhaps they will look over them here as well?
In any event, Whitworth should be considered 8-1 in region and 8-2 overall.
If that is the case, there are 7 one D3 loss teams (Isn't Mississippi College a 2-loss in-region team? Did I miss this discussion? Both HSU and MHB are in their conference...), and 7 Pool C births. That could make life very easy for the committee.
MC is a two loss team.
I am, of course, assuming Oxy wins tonight. If they lose, Redlands takes an AQ and Oxy drops out of that category.
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 10, 2007, 10:32:59 PM
In any event, Whitworth should be considered 8-1 in region and 8-2 overall.
I have Whitworth at 8-1 in-region, and getting a Pool C bid off that record.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:38:49 PM
Redlands is #62 on the charts (.540 & .475). Occidental is #210 (ouch) (.395 & .507).
Yet Oxy is higher than Redlands in Regional Rankings due to head-to-head.
Waynesburg's loss to Geneva isn't an in region loss either is it? Geneva is still provisional. So aren't they also a one regional loss team?
Quote from: cwru70 on November 10, 2007, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:38:49 PM
Redlands is #62 on the charts (.540 & .475). Occidental is #210 (ouch) (.395 & .507).
Yet Oxy is higher than Redlands in Regional Rankings due to head-to-head.
Waynesburg's loss to Geneva isn't an in region loss either is it? Geneva is still provisional. So aren't they also a one regional loss team?
But they are a D-3 team, even if just provisional. Azusa Pacific, though they tend to play quite a few D-3 teams, are NAIA.
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 10, 2007, 10:32:59 PM
...Whitworth should be considered 8-1 in region and 8-2 overall.
If that is the case, there are 7 one D3 loss teams and 7 Pool C births. That could make life very easy for the committee.
IF Oxy wins, here's what I have for one-loss In-Region teams battling for 7 Pool C bids:
Team In-Region OWP ranking (updated)
Redlands 7-1 (# 62)
Occidental 8-1 (#210)
Whitworth 8-1 (#122)
St. John Fisher 9-1 (#115)
St. John's 8-1 (#87)
Mt. St. Joseph 9-1 (#152)
Plymouth State 8-1 (#101)
Waynesburg 7-1 (#186)
That's eight teams for seven spots, even IF you can just use the region record alone.
Here's what's just below those one-loss teams:
Wheaton 8-2 (# 24)
Hobart 8-2 (# 25)
Wartburg 8-2 (# 30)
Millsaps 7-2 (# 38)
St. Olaf 8-2 (# 39)
Capital 8-2 (# 46)
DePauw 7-2 (# 54)
Wittenberg 8-2 (# 55)
That's eight teams with on more In-Region loss, all with better OWP rankings than the eight teams in the first list.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 10:51:53 PM
IF Oxy wins...
Struggling with Whittier, 27-14 at the moment...
Oxy driving right back and scores on a 3- or 4-play drive. 27-21 now.
Since a Whittier win opens up possibly two Pool C spots, I think every 2-loss team (and some 1-loss teams) in the country has become Poets fans.
In the West, based upon the regional rankings, the Committee seemed to pretty much minimize the emphasis on the Strength of Schedule, as illustrated by the selection of UWEC as #10 over St. Olaf. If they are consistent on that approach, they could make life very easy for themselves and throw out those two in-region loss teams and just deal with those with one loss.
Then, it should come down between Whitworth and Waynesburg for that last spot.
Edit: I meant Waynesburg, not Mississippi College.
Oxy up 28-27 with about a minute to play in the first half.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:59:44 PM
Actually, guys, it CAN be considered....
"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."
I asked this week and was told it was not being considered.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2007, 09:45:35 PM
I checked the SOS and see that it has been updated for teams whose results are already known - will it be updated throughout the night for late scores?
I thought Wheaton was probably a goner, but they have the highest SOS of any 8-2 pool-C candidate.
Yeah, that page is automatically updated.
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 10, 2007, 11:20:35 PM
In the West, based upon the regional rankings, the Committee seemed to pretty much minimize the emphasis on the Strength of Schedule, as illustrated by the selection of UWEC as #10 over St. Olaf. If they are consistent on that approach, they could make life very easy for themselves and throw out those two in-region loss teams and just deal with those with one loss.
Then, it should come down between Whitworth and Mississippi College for that last spot.
Mississippi College has two in-region losses...Hardin-Simmons & Mary Hardin-Baylor...
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 11:29:04 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 10, 2007, 11:20:35 PM
In the West, based upon the regional rankings, the Committee seemed to pretty much minimize the emphasis on the Strength of Schedule, as illustrated by the selection of UWEC as #10 over St. Olaf. If they are consistent on that approach, they could make life very easy for themselves and throw out those two in-region loss teams and just deal with those with one loss.
Then, it should come down between Whitworth and Mississippi College for that last spot.
Mississippi College has two in-region losses...Hardin-Simmons & Mary Hardin-Baylor...
Not to nit-pick, but your current update shows them with one.
Not nit-picking at all. Thanks for the heads up.
Too many pieces of paper, and transfers from paper to keyboard...
Thanks
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 11:37:06 PM
Not nit-picking at all. Thanks for the heads up.
Too many pieces of paper, and transfers from paper to keyboard...
Thanks
You've done a great job! Thanks for doing it!
Pool C Fans are jumping up & down across the land.
Late in third: Whittier 47, Occidental 28
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2007, 12:29:00 AM
Pool C Fans are jumping up & down across the land.
Late in third: Whittier 47, Occidental 28
Go Poets!!
And I don't even have a team in the race, but I'd like to see our 'victim' (Wheaton) make it (that would raise IWU's record against playoff teams to 2-2).
Is it just me, or is this the longest D-III game ever? Over 2.5 hours right now and just finished the 3rd quarter. You'd think they had a bunch of TV timeouts.
Bring back the 2006 timing rules! I have to get up for church in the morning. :P
It's not just you.
There's no D in this game. I swear they only get ballcarriers out of bounds to end plays.
53-35 Whittier, 13:12 left. Another one play drive by the poets, 67-yard inside handoff where the back was untouched.
Poets should start going for two, their backup PK is now 1-5.
They're 1 for 3 going for two (so far).
Here comes another chance - Pick 6.
My god, it was 2nd and 51.
And they ran a draw play that picked up 54.
Just another college football game. :o
Now 61-35, so I guess they got the two!
re: Scoreboard, it is now 67-42 with 3 minutes left. Does either team have a defense? :D
Our final playoff projections are posted here (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2007/11/11/final-playoff-projections-2).
Have a good night, everyone.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2007, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:59:44 PM
Actually, guys, it CAN be considered....
"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."
I asked this week and was told it was not being considered.
It should be. Or maybe its not needed? :)
Quote from: gordonmann on November 11, 2007, 02:16:34 AM
Our final playoff projections are posted here (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2007/11/11/final-playoff-projections-2).
Have a good night, everyone.
Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind not including Waynesburg? They have only one in-region loss...is it because their SOS is lower?
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 11, 2007, 08:27:01 AM
Quote from: gordonmann on November 11, 2007, 02:16:34 AM
Our final playoff projections are posted here (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2007/11/11/final-playoff-projections-2).
Have a good night, everyone.
Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind not including Waynesburg? They have only one in-region loss...is it because their SOS is lower?
these questions will likely be better answered on the daily dose page where the playoff projections are.
Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 11, 2007, 05:49:42 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2007, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:59:44 PM
Actually, guys, it CAN be considered....
"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."
I asked this week and was told it was not being considered.
It should be. Or maybe its not needed? :)
Interestingly enough, Johnny, after telling us that the committee isn't going to consider those tidbits of information, Pat used them to select Ithaca because they're playing better down the stretch...
Quote from: johnnie_esq on November 11, 2007, 08:27:01 AM
Quote from: gordonmann on November 11, 2007, 02:16:34 AM
Our final playoff projections are posted here (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2007/11/11/final-playoff-projections-2).
Have a good night, everyone.
Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind not including Waynesburg? They have only one in-region loss...is it because their SOS is lower?
Waynesburg has been bubble at best since losing to W&J. Then, the Jackets dropped a game to first-year transitional Geneva. If Waynesburg's primary criteria doesn't put them in, the secondary criteria loss won't put them in either.
The 7-1 in-region record alone isn't going to be enough, I don't think. And the OWP ranking of 186 doesn't help the cause. But, this is the first year with this revised criteria. We'll find out this morning just how much weight is put on what criteria.
Here's what we're going to find out in the next 45 minutes:
1) The six teams with one in-region loss ALL have lower OWP rankings than 12 two-loss teams. Which teams will records count more than lower OWP rankings?
St. Johns--87
Plym.State--101
St.JohnFisher--115
Whitworth--122
Mt.St.Joseph--152
Waynesburg--186
Wheaton--24
Hobart--25
Wartburg--30
Millsaps--38
St.Olaf--39
Capital--46
DePauw--54
Wittenberg--55
Ithaca--64
CoastGuard--65
Dickinson--78
Rand-Macon--79
MontState--84
EauClaire--108 (I meant to write that, but it disappeared the first time I posted it...)
2) Is an In-Region Loss an In-Region Loss? Or, as has been stated elsewhere on this site, is a loss to Mt. Union not really a loss, because, they are, after all, Mt. Union?
We shall see soon...
WOW :o :o :o
Didn't see that one coming. This will take some time to digest.
Eau Claire is in, Whitworth is out.
The real surprise is the way the brackets are split up. Maybe the NCAA is making a real attempt to create greater balance among the various regions.
In the 2007 Playoffs the seven Pool C bids (*) come from 6 conferences. I have also included the ACFC Pool B bids in this list. Here are the rounds in which the intra-conference playoff match might occur.
WIAC
UW-W
UW-EC* -- Stagg Bowl
OAC
MUC
Capital* -- Stagg Bowl
MIAC
Bethel
SJU* -- Central IA Regional Finals
Liberty League
RPI
Hobart* -- MUC Regional Finals
Empire 8
Hartwick
Ithaca* -- MUC Regional Finals
Empire 8
SJF*
Ithaca* -- MUC Regional Finals
Empire 8
SJF*
Hartwick -- 2nd Round MUC Regionals
HCAC
MSJ*
Franklin -- UW-W Regional Finals
ACFC (Pool B)
Wesley
Salisbury -- 2nd Round W&J Regionals
I apologize for the brain burp! Thanks to altor. +1
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2007, 09:41:10 AM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 11, 2007, 05:49:42 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2007, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 10, 2007, 09:59:44 PM
Actually, guys, it CAN be considered....
"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."
I asked this week and was told it was not being considered.
It should be. Or maybe its not needed? :)
Interestingly enough, Johnny, after telling us that the committee isn't going to consider those tidbits of information, Pat used them to select Ithaca because they're playing better down the stretch...
It worked. We got it right.
What didn't work is this: You stated that the committee wasn't going to consider the "last 25% of the season" criteria, then they did, and so did you, by your own statement.
What worked is this: The committee's geographic needs and the human element of the selection process that has been oft referenced hit the Criteria Override button at least twice.
The objective criteria did not put Ithaca in the dance. There are six teams with identical or better in-region records with better, some much better, OWP. Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents. But, when it all came down to it, the committee needed another team in the East, and Ithaca had the best criteria IN THE EAST.
The objective criteria did not put Eau Claire in the dance. There are twelve teams with identical or better in-region records with better, several with MUCH better, OWP. Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents. But, when it all came do to it, the committee needed another team in the West that did not need an airplane to get where they're going. Wheaton (North), Wartburg (West) and St. Olaf (West) would have filled that bill, and done so with justifiable, actual criteria backup.
Student aid in Division III is based on need. It has long been joked that the amount of aid provided is determined by whose need is being filled--the student's or the school's.
Aid was awarded, in this process, based on the Committee's needs. There is not an objective evaluation of the criteria that would have selected Ithaca and Eau Claire to the field of 32. It took the Division III grant-in-aid to do it.
That's one man's opinion.
What position does this "grant" guy play?
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2007, 09:00:25 PM
What didn't work is this: You stated that the committee wasn't going to consider the "last 25% of the season" criteria, then they did, and so did you, by your own statement.
What worked is this: The committee's geographic needs and the human element of the selection process that has been oft referenced hit the Criteria Override button at least twice.
The objective criteria did not put Ithaca in the dance. There are six teams with identical or better in-region records with better, some much better, OWP. Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents. But, when it all came down to it, the committee needed another team in the East, and Ithaca had the best criteria IN THE EAST.
The objective criteria did not put Eau Claire in the dance. There are twelve teams with identical or better in-region records with better, several with MUCH better, OWP. Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents. But, when it all came do to it, the committee needed another team in the West that did not need an airplane to get where they're going. Wheaton (North), Wartburg (West) and St. Olaf (West) would have filled that bill, and done so with justifiable, actual criteria backup.
Student aid in Division III is based on need. It has long been joked that the amount of aid provided is determined by whose need is being filled--the student's or the school's.
Aid was awarded, in this process, based on the Committee's needs. There is not an objective evaluation of the criteria that would have selected Ithaca and Eau Claire to the field of 32. It took the Division III grant-in-aid to do it.
That's one man's opinion.
Bob,
That is a great post. I have no idea if you are right but you have convinced me.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2007, 09:00:25 PM
What didn't work is this: You stated that the committee wasn't going to consider the "last 25% of the season" criteria, then they did, and so did you, by your own statement.
They may have changed their mind. Doesn't matter to me.
You seem to have a lot to complain about this season. Why is that?
Re: UWEC. While I (subjectively) think they are definitely worthy of the playoffs, it does seem strange that they made it over several other teams if the criteria were followed verbatim. Pat responded to my query about Capital over Wheaton by saying that the committee seems to discount losses to MUC (in other words, they weren't 'really' a 2-loss team in their eyes). I wonder if UWW has also reached that status now, and EC was not 'really' a 2-loss team?
Just a conjecture, but I can't come up with any other explanation when their in-region winning% and SOS were so far below some teams omitted (well, other than the quality of the WIAC or the win over a d2, but neither of those supposedly is relevant either!). Thoughts?
Those things are relevant in the secondary criteria, under overall winning percentage. Perhaps they decided to go to the secondary criteria down the stretch in Pool C.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2007, 01:29:09 AM
Those things are relevant in the secondary criteria, under overall winning percentage. Perhaps they decided to go to the secondary criteria down the stretch in Pool C.
Just trying to understand the process, not meaning to argue the point (and I repeat that subjectively I believe that EC should be in). But doesn't 'secondary' criteria supposedly mean that they come into play
only if the primary criteria result in essentially a tie? That simply doesn't seem to be the case here - several teams seem to be considerably ahead of EC on the primary criteria.
I don't disagree with the committee's result, but I'm wondering if their process didn't violate the 'openness' of their criteria.
Unfortunately the new rating systems obviously didn't make things any clearer because the HUMAN factor is never related to the public...
Pat
How often does the committee change personal?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2007, 10:39:57 AM
Quote from: retagent on November 09, 2007, 10:25:24 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2007, 11:41:16 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 07, 2007, 01:35:48 PM
In addition, it would seem that the Conference strength article that appeared previously (Around The Nation?) didn't seem all that dependant on non-conference record. Just how is it determined.
I don't know where you got that impression, non-conference performance is a major factor, perhaps the most significant.
Not to mention I listed non-conference records right on the page (http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2007-09-26/How+we+ranked+the+conferences), twice in each capsule.
Being that I can be subjective, I do factor in history and playoff results and look past the raw numbers to see who that non-conference record is built against, but I can't think of anything that would be more important to ranking the conferences with respect to each other.
K Mack. I made that comment because some conferences ranked highly don't have sterling non conference records - some even losing records, while others, MIAC, for example, seem to have a darn good non conference record, but are ranked lower. My point was, that SHOULD be the primary criteria, but are my lying eyes deceiving me?
The one thing you should keep in mind is those rankings are entering the 2007 season. Surely the MAC will not keep its ranking entering 2008, for example.
OK, retagent, fine.
If you are still not sure why each conference is ranked where it is, I suggest you read the article itself as closely as possible, and put that together with the information above.
Every conference's ranking is based on
something, or -things, it's not done on a whim, and it's done with Pat and myself going back and forth about all the details. We do factor in the particular year we are talking about, but we also know the history of all these leagues insomuchas one really good non-conference record from the IBFC would not suddenly vault it ahead of the WIAC. In that sense, we have to go on more than just non-conference records.
Perhaps we (I) have more clearly explained the criteria in previous years/conference rank articles. The '04 one is the most thorough:
Updated the '07 Kickoff rankings with early-season non-conference action:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2007-09-26/How+we+ranked+the+conferences
Started doing them with Kickoff and sharing afterward:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2006-08-30/ATN%27s+2006+conference+rankings
Most through. Also took like 20 hours.
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2004-11-04/Ranking+the+conferences
First time we tried it, in 2002:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2002-11-07/Ranking+the+conferences%2C+top+to+bottom
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 11, 2007, 12:58:42 AM
My god, it was 2nd and 51.
And they ran a draw play that picked up 54.
Just another college football game. :o
Did this really happen?
I admit it was my birthday weekend and I was trying to not be too much of a D3 geek by only checking the score occasionally while doing other things instead of listening live.
That's Year-in-review material though. I mean the game already is, but that play ... wow.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 02:34:34 AM
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 11, 2007, 12:58:42 AM
My god, it was 2nd and 51.
And they ran a draw play that picked up 54.
Just another college football game. :o
Did this really happen?
I admit it was my birthday weekend and I was trying to not be too much of a D3 geek by only checking the score occasionally while doing other things instead of listening live.
That's Year-in-review material though. I mean the game already is, but that play ... wow.
It was mine and Mrs Stalkers birthday weekend too. Still trying to recover and seeing Van Halen tonight. Woo Hoo!
happy birthday K-Mack
The announcer called it as 2nd and 51, but in reviewing the game stats, it was 2nd and ONLY 41 when the draw play went for 54. And a 1st down.
Yeah, geez. BIG difference between 2nd and 41 and 2nd and 51. :P
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 11, 2007, 09:00:25 PM
What worked is this: The committee's geographic needs and the human element of the selection process that has been oft referenced hit the Criteria Override button at least twice.
The objective criteria did not put Ithaca in the dance. There are six teams with identical or better in-region records with better, some much better, OWP. Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents. But, when it all came down to it, the committee needed another team in the East, and Ithaca had the best criteria IN THE EAST.
The objective criteria did not put Eau Claire in the dance. There are twelve teams with identical or better in-region records with better, several with MUCH better, OWP. Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents. But, when it all came do to it, the committee needed another team in the West that did not need an airplane to get where they're going. Wheaton (North), Wartburg (West) and St. Olaf (West) would have filled that bill, and done so with justifiable, actual criteria backup.
Student aid in Division III is based on need. It has long been joked that the amount of aid provided is determined by whose need is being filled--the student's or the school's.
Aid was awarded, in this process, based on the Committee's needs. There is not an objective evaluation of the criteria that would have selected Ithaca and Eau Claire to the field of 32. It took the Division III grant-in-aid to do it.
That's one man's opinion.
Bob, that is a truly outstanding post.
Not necessarily based in reality, but yes, it fits your conspiracy theory, Foss. :)
The committee has left the East short of eight teams before. Why change now?
If geography was an issue, they simply could've left Widener in the East, which can travel to Mount Union as easily as it could to Case. They could've left Concordia (Wis.) in the North. And they could've included Whitworth in the West.
In fact, Bob, doesn't selecting Whitworth keep more people in their natural brackets? I don't get your assumptions.
Pat, yes it does parallel my view, I don't deny that. :)
But, I honestly believe there were some decisions made this year based on economics, not on which team(s) was most deserving. I'm not saying it happens every year, but this year I do believe that.
Pat, do you in your heart of hearts believe that none of the selections were financially driven this year? Do you really think THREE teams from the E8 (particularly a two loss Ithaca team with a 21 point home loss) and zero teams from the NWC, including it's one regional loss champ appears legit based on the primary selection criteria?
No, honestly, I really don't. The same number of first-round flights if Whitworth is in or out -- and fewer flights than last year regardless. The only budget based on first-round flight avoidance since that's the only matchup they can control in the bracket.
Motivated by getting multiple teams in from power conferences? (And yes, the E8 qualifies.) Guess so.
Fair enough, if that's what you believe. I guess we just disagree on this.
Well, I've actually talked to the people involved in making more than one sport's bracket over the course of many years and that's what their mandate is. So my belief comes from years of unbiased observation.
I know that, Pat. Your background gives great credence to your belief.
With your years of unbiased observation, have you been satisfied with the extent of the committee's explanation as to why a 5-2 in-region UWEC suddenly jumped a 8-1 in region Whitworth it had been trailing in the regional rankings? I know you've posted what the committee's rationale was on this site, although their reasoning seemed a bit vague. Your focus now obviously needs to be on the games, not further "investigating" this particular decision. But listening to the ATN podcast, both you and Keith still seem a bit perplexed and you say you haven't really been able to figure out why the decision was made. Are you at all surprised the committee has not given more specifics on the sudden change?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2007, 01:45:39 AM
Well, I've actually talked to the people involved in making more than one sport's bracket over the course of many years and that's what their mandate is. So my belief comes from years of unbiased observation.
For accuracy's sake, I hope that's not the same people who told you the "last 25% of the season" criteria wasn't going to be considered this year.
Bottom line is the the NCAA says the criteria will be "reviewed". Untill you see the NCAA put out some sort of BCS type formula to rank d3 teams, no one should ever be surpised when d3 playoff selections come out.
It appears to me that the NCAA has made a concerted effort to get the best teams in and this season did a very good job. I think most of the brackets are fair and as well balanced as they can be. I also think some posters will never be happy with the results, but as we used to say in the Navy, "the only happy sailor is a bitching sailor." I think this fits for post patterns and posting up.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2007, 12:35:47 AM
Not necessarily based in reality, but yes, it fits your conspiracy theory, Foss. :)
The committee has left the East short of eight teams before. Why change now?
Not necessarily NOT based in reality either.
The committee has left the East short of eight teams before. In a 32-team field, they've never left the East short of SEVEN teams, and THAT'S the dilemma they faced.
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 11:49:27 AM
It appears to me that the NCAA has made a concerted effort to get the best teams in and this season did a very good job. I think most of the brackets are fair and as well balanced as they can be. I also think some posters will never be happy with the results, but as we used to say in the Navy, "the only happy sailor is a bitching sailor." I think this fits for post patterns and posting up.
Hmmm, interesting you would say this and then 11 minutes later state "Ithaca should not have to travel to MUC in the first round." And not long before that state the NCAA should have seeded the regions "using some common sense."
Appears you yourself have some complaints about who plays who in the 1st round and how the NCAA seeded the regions. Might you at times also be one of the sailors you describe, and I'm not referring to the happy sailor? :)
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 12:00:58 PM
I disagree, I feel that MUC would have been put in the East anyway, the committee took advantage of being able to seed what are arguably the four best teams as number ones.
You also did not seem to get the point of my post. Ithaca is definitely a better team than Curry (personally I think William Paterson and Kean are probably better teams than Curry but that is beside the point). I am 99% sure that Ithaca is a much better team than Hartwick. Although I wouldn't want to play Hartwick at Hartwick, they are very good at home. Ithaca should not have to travel to MUC in the first round, it should be Hartwick or Curry. Outside of MUC, Hartwick and Curry the other five teams are a push in the East.
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 13, 2007, 11:16:45 AM
I like the fact the NCAA put what they considered the four best teams as the number one seeds but they should have gone one step further and seeded the regions using some common sense.
Quote from: Foss on November 14, 2007, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 11:49:27 AM
It appears to me that the NCAA has made a concerted effort to get the best teams in and this season did a very good job. I think most of the brackets are fair and as well balanced as they can be. I also think some posters will never be happy with the results, but as we used to say in the Navy, "the only happy sailor is a bitching sailor." I think this fits for post patterns and posting up.
Hmmm, interesting you would say this and then 11 minutes later state "Ithaca should not have to travel to MUC in the first round." And not long before that state the NCAA should have seeded the regions "using some common sense."
Appears you yourself have some complaints about who plays who in the 1st round and how the NCAA seeded the regions. Might you at times also be one of the sailors you describe, and I'm not referring to the happy sailor? :)
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 12:00:58 PM
I disagree, I feel that MUC would have been put in the East anyway, the committee took advantage of being able to seed what are arguably the four best teams as number ones.
You also did not seem to get the point of my post. Ithaca is definitely a better team than Curry (personally I think William Paterson and Kean are probably better teams than Curry but that is beside the point). I am 99% sure that Ithaca is a much better team than Hartwick. Although I wouldn't want to play Hartwick at Hartwick, they are very good at home. Ithaca should not have to travel to MUC in the first round, it should be Hartwick or Curry. Outside of MUC, Hartwick and Curry the other five teams are a push in the East.
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 13, 2007, 11:16:45 AM
I like the fact the NCAA put what they considered the four best teams as the number one seeds but they should have gone one step further and seeded the regions using some common sense.
Yes Foss, I am completely aware of what I posted. I actually stated that Ithaca should not have to face Mount yesterday but whoever quoted me did not include the rest so I wrote it again. I am sure the NCAA may have done the same thing in other regions but as I am not so familiar with them I just spoke of the East.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 14, 2007, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2007, 12:35:47 AM
Not necessarily based in reality, but yes, it fits your conspiracy theory, Foss. :)
The committee has left the East short of eight teams before. Why change now?
Not necessarily NOT based in reality either.
The committee has left the East short of eight teams before. In a 32-team field, they've never left the East short of SEVEN teams, and THAT'S the dilemma they faced.
Bob,
They selected these six teams:
6. New Jersey (8-2)
at 4. RPI (8-1)
at 3. Curry (11-0)
7. Hartwick (8-2)
5. Hobart (8-2)
at 2. St. John Fisher (9-1)
They also selected Widener, which is an East team. That makes seven before they selected Ithaca.
Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 14, 2007, 09:15:08 AM
Bottom line is the the NCAA says the criteria will be "reviewed". Untill you see the NCAA put out some sort of BCS type formula to rank d3 teams, no one should ever be surpised when d3 playoff selections come out.
The only problem with your idea of the BCS type ranking is that the BCS is BS...If they had it their way only 6 or 7 teams each year would participate to ensure that they get the biggest bucks for the games..... All I have to say is Appalachian State
There will never be a way to judge East against West against South against North. We all know the WIAC is good but my opinion is they are more on a level with the DII teams in the east than DIII. So if you use them and Mount Union as a
measuring stick then the other teams would play year in and year out for nothing because they can't measure up???
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2007, 04:39:33 PM
That makes seven before they selected Ithaca.
Pat, my apologies. You are correct.
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 13, 2007, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 02:34:34 AM
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 11, 2007, 12:58:42 AM
My god, it was 2nd and 51.
And they ran a draw play that picked up 54.
Just another college football game. :o
Did this really happen?
I admit it was my birthday weekend and I was trying to not be too much of a D3 geek by only checking the score occasionally while doing other things instead of listening live.
That's Year-in-review material though. I mean the game already is, but that play ... wow.
It was mine and Mrs Stalkers birthday weekend too. Still trying to recover and seeing Van Halen tonight. Woo Hoo!
happy birthday K-Mack
By the way, thanks. Scorpios in the house!
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 11:49:27 AM
It appears to me that the NCAA has made a concerted effort to get the best teams in and this season did a very good job. I think most of the brackets are fair and as well balanced as they can be. I also think some posters will never be happy with the results, but as we used to say in the Navy, "the only happy sailor is a bitching sailor." I think this fits for post patterns and posting up.
I like that. I think that applies for employees.
Some people just gotta be complaining about something. They just started closing the cafeteria at 4 here instead of 8:30 ... so a) we get to leave the building to eat now and b) don't you remember working at some crappy little sweatshop newspaper that barely had a vending machine much less a cafeteria?
Sorry, tangent there. :)
They close the cafeteria at 4? Christ!
Then again, you and I both knew that had to be coming.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 29, 2007, 04:02:26 PM
They close the cafeteria at 4? Christ!
Then again, you and I both knew that had to be coming.
I'm so glad I was able to retire from there. :-*
Happy Holidays, AQ'ers!
Happy Holidays!
In the 2007 Playoffs the seven Pool C bids (*) come from 6 conferences. Here are the rounds in which the intra-conference playoff match might occur. (No "re-match" occurred this year.)
WIAC 8-member conference (7 conference games)
UW-W
UW-EC* -- Stagg Bowl (#6 seed. UW-EC 1-1. Lost to Bethel 12-21 in the second round.)
OAC 10-member conference (9 conference games)
MUC
Capital* -- Stagg Bowl (#7 seed. Capital 0-1. Lost to UW-W 14-34 in the first round.)
MIAC 9-member conference (8 conference games)
Bethel
SJU* -- Central IA Regional Finals (#4 seed. SJU 1-1. Lost to Central 7-37 in the second round)
Liberty League 8-member conference (7 conference games)
RPI
Hobart* -- MUC Regional Finals (#5 seed. Hobart 0-1. Lost to SJF 7-24 in the first round.)
Empire 8 7-member conference (6 conference games)
Hartwick
Ithaca* -- MUC Regional Finals (#8 seed. Ithaca 0-1. Lost to MUC 18-42 in the first round.)
Empire 8 7-member conference (6 conference games)
SJF* (#2 seed. SJF 2-1. Lost to MUC 10-52 in the Quarterfinals)
Ithaca* -- MUC Regional Finals
Empire 8 7-member conference (6 conference games)
SJF*
Hartwick -- 2nd Round MUC Regionals
HCAC 8-member conference (7 conference games)
MSJ* (#6 seed. MSJ 0-1. Lost to Wabash 21-31 in the first round.)
Franklin -- UW-W Regional Finals
Does the smaller conference give the team a better chance to earn a Pool C bid by increasing the chances of cherry-picking non-conference (in-region) opponents that give a better OWP and OOWP than another 1-8 or 2-7 (obligatory) conference opponent in a 10-team conference?
Depends on the situation within the smaller conference; the location of the smaller conference and luck. Playing in a smaller conference certainly didn't help Whitworth cherry-pick their way into the playoffs.