Although the discussion will also be going on all week on our blog, The Daily Dose, the bracket this year was different enough that we know you'll all want to react in any way you can. We've got more Texas vs. Texas, but Redlands is going to St. John's, Ithaca to Mount Union and Widener to Case Western Reserve. Wow. How about Capital at Whitewater for a first-round game ... or the omission of Whitworth aka Pool B No. 4?
The bracket is here (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/07/bracket.htm). Pat and Gordon's Saturday night predictions are here (http://www.d3football.com/temporary.html/2007/11/11/final-playoff-projections-2). Let us know what you think.
Certainly surprised by the slight of Whitworth/NWC this year. They aren't that far removed from some very good Linfield/PLU teams. Perhaps the redshirt rule has really been a problem for them? I don't know.
A lot of respect shown to the WIAC and MIAC this year-- two MIAC teams hosting in the first round, and two WIAC teams playing, one of whom had two in-region D3 losses. Seems like the committee threw out the strength of schedule and looked at the secondary criteria in making the field!
We in the West are ecstatic about this bracket, as the West is wide open this year, with a date in Alliance for the winner.
Wheaton left out too after two losses in their final two. Would've been a great team to see if they'd stayed healthy.
Occidental lost 67-61 to ruin not only their own chances, but Cal Lutheran's on Saturday night. But Hartwick won 72-70 in 4 OTs to get themselves in, and help two of their conference mates (SJF and Ithaca).
North Central, Hampden-Sydney and Ithaca doing the opposite, losing twice early but rallying to get in. Widener and N.C Wesleyan lost early too, but clinched last week.
Lots of craziness, as always.
OK. The first thought I had as the brackets were shown was "Is the NCAA on crack?".
After studying the brackets, I'm sure they are. This is just crazy.
MUC is hosting the "East Region".
Whitewater is hosting the "North Region".
W&J bracket looks OK.
Central gets the gift of the day in having WWW elsewhere.
Interesting. Very interesting.
We've been taking about wanting to see some new teams come to Alliance in the playoffs, but we were thinking North Central, Franklin or Case. We got our wish, but with eastern team.
Interesting indeed.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 08, 2007, 10:17:56 PM
What would y'all think of Mules being seeded #1 in the East Bracket?
Already with a win over NCAA East #1 New Jersey, plus a win over LL co-leader Union....
As far as I could find, haven't seen an import seeded #1 in a region. Of course, also couldn't find a possible import with wins over a Region's #1, plus another conference leader...
Thoughts...
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2007, 10:21:30 AM
It isn't a stretch at all if they were in the East, but in eight years, with 32 No. 1 seeds, the NCAA has yet to do it. And there have been years that were screaming for it -- always with a team moving into the East, oddly enough. :)
I guess the 'AA CAN hear the screaming after all...
I had the right idea, just the wrong team...
And now, we have Imports as #1 teams in TWO regions...
All the arguments about D-I going to a playoff system can be thrown out of the window after this year's D-3 selection committee proved to us that a playoff system also does not work. How this group leaves the Northwest Conference Champion Whitworth Pirates out of this disgraceful playoff tree in incomprehensible. Many of this year's players were on the team that went unbeaten and to the second round of the playoffs last year. To be a top 25 team for much of this season, lose it's only D-III game to a top 25 team (in their first game of the year) which got a 5 seed, have the best take away defense in the country and to go 5-0 in a tough conference that has produced 2 National Champions since 2000 and not get in is a travesty. My guess is after beating #12 Linfield a couple of weeks ago and ending their season, their representative who is on this selection committee did not end up fighting for his own conference.
Keith, how do they explain UW-Eau Claire (2 D3 losses) over Whitworth (1 D3 loss), especially when the last regional rankings had Whitworth RANKED ABOVE UW-Eau Claire???
Quote from: Foss on November 11, 2007, 12:42:55 PM
Keith, how do they explain UW-Eau Claire (2 D3 losses) over Whitworth (1 D3 loss), especially when the last regional rankings had Whitworth RANKED ABOVE UW-Eau Claire???
Perhaps they'll use the Eau Claire OWP 108 ranking over Whitworth's #122...
How about how Eau Claire gets in over:
Wheaton OWP #24
Wartburg #30
St. Olaf #39
Wittenberg #55
Dickinson #78
Randolph-Macon #79
And so on....
Eau Claire???Huh?
RE:Whitworth
Bob, that is the only reason I can see. I posted a short time ago that Whitworth played over half their D3 regional games against teams with a winning percentage of 23% which pretty much killed their OWP (.501/.510). It appears the committee put a lot of emphasis on SOS this year. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about East Coast bias and losing to an NAIA school but I don't think those are the reason. To me it appears the committee stuck to their criteria just putting more emphasis on OWP than regional winning percentage. It is unfortunate that a little subjectivity didn't creep in like you would think might happen with reasonable intelligent people. After all, the Rats had to play the people on their schedule and they had no control over how those teams played. I guess the Rat management needs to start looking to schedule perennial winners so their SOS looks good for Pool C bids.
I am probably closer to the Rat football program than most and this has been a crushing day. But I will recover as will the team and we will be ready for next year.
pirat,
Doesn't the NWC go AQ status next year?
If so, they'll have total control of getting in.
I was certain that the NCAA would find a way to have 2 West Coast teams to give them an easy matchup.
Oops.
Wait - is St John's on the West Coast? Where's my damn globe ... ?
Congrats to Eau Claire. I'm not sure exactly why they got in versus a couple of others - but there are smiles here in Wisconsin.
Bob, yes the NWC does get the auto next year.
Yes Bob next year they will have AQ status. But, I am greedy and want to get 2 or maybe 3 (E8 this year?????? wow) of our teams in.
Obviously I don't know a great deal about North Central, but as a confessed "homer" for the Grizzlies, it is really gratifying to have them not only in as the HCAC champion, but hosting a first round game as well!! They certainly deserve it. Being left out of the field of 32 last year at 9-1, obviously their goal this season was to first win the conference and then let the selection process play itself out......clearly their patience and focus has been nicely rewarded. Nice that the conference also qualified their first at large team in Mt. St. Joe as well. Can't wait for Saturday.....it will be "nuts" at Faught Stadium on the Franklin campus!!!
I still can't believe that Case Western is a 2 seed in the Whitewater bracket. I understand that they went 10-0, their schedule wasn't the most challenging w/ a .495 OWP in region plus to out of region games vs. Gallaudet 2-6 & St. Vincent 0-10.
I'm also not sold on Capital this season, especially w/ their offensive struggles. Yes they went 8-2, but they did not dominate against their weaker opponents.
I do like the fact that Mount Union is in the east, but Whitewater is not an easy task as well. If you can control their run game & get some points on them early then you may have a shot.
If you haven't noticed, I brought up the UWEC issue a week ago, pointing out that St. Olaf should have been in front of them on the objective criteria when the last rankings came out. But they weren't.
UWEC had a win over a D-2 school on the road. That's all I can figure. They must have used that, plus the WIAC's reputation, in computing UWEC's entry. I don't know if I like that policy-- obviously, UWW wasn't hurt by losing to a D-2 school, and it seems to have helped UWEC by winning such a game, so doesn't that encourage D3 teams to schedule D-2 teams in the future? Is that the policy we want to encourage?
I think Whitworth is the real surprise here. With the strength of the NWC in the recent past, their omission is glaringly obvious. That will be remedied next year when they move to a pool A slot, but it doesn't help the sting of this year. Maybe the policy is "winning/losing to D2 is good; winning/losing to NAIA is bad." That could explain the Whitworth situation.
What is more is that the scholarship school Whitworth lost to, Azusa Pacific, was on the road and by 4 points. Azusa Pacific ended the year ranked #21 in NAIA. So basically, the Pirates lost to a top 25 scholarship school on the road by 4 points. They lost one game to a D3 team (who made the playoffs) and went undefeated in the NWC. Undefeated in a conference that has produced two different national champs in the last few years, has the second highest playoff winning percentage, and has three different teams who have won at least one playoff game in the last six years. Unbelievable.
And before anyone says "past accomplishments aren't part of the criteria", I'm aware of that. But a team from the NWC losing only one D3 game being snubbed and a number of Pool C bids being given to other teams with two D3 losses is simply ridiculous.
Quote from: Foss on November 11, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
What is more is that the scholarship school Whitworth lost to, Azusa Pacific, was on the road and by 4 points. Azusa Pacific ended the year ranked #21 in NAIA. So basically, the Pirates lost to a top 25 scholarship school on the road by 4 points. They lost one game to a D3 team (who made the playoffs) and went undefeated in the NWC. Undefeated in a conference that has produced two different national champs in the last few years, has the second highest playoff winning percentage, and has three different teams who have won at least one playoff game in the last six years. Unbelievable.
Foss,
Feel your pain but UWEC
beat the No. 20 NAIA school .... also on the road.
And UWEC was Whitworth's main opponent for the spot, I believe.
I hear ya repete, but games against non D3 competition isn't even supposed to be part of the main criteria. Whitworth had a better D3 in-region win % (one loss vs. UW-Eau Claire's two) and was ranked ahead of UW-Eau Claire in the regional rankings last week. Something must have happened this weekend for the committee to boost them ahead (OWP, etc.) I suppose.
Quote from: Foss on November 11, 2007, 04:59:48 PM
I hear ya repete, but games against non D3 competition isn't even supposed to be part of the main criteria. Whitworth had a better D3 in-region win % (one loss vs. UW-Eau Claire's two) and was ranked ahead of UW-Eau Claire in the regional rankings last week. Something must have happened this weekend for the committee to boost them ahead (OWP, etc.) I suppose.
Perhaps the NCAA's bracket brain trust now sees UWW as a Division 2.5 team ....
I was really surprised to see Whitworth out. The way the brackets fell, they'd be one of the teams with a chance to win the "Central." The big question, even though it's completely academic, is how many teams in the field are the Rats better than? My guess: probably at least 10 and maybe 15 ... (or none if 509 is posting)
You can watch Pat's preview by going to
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/espnu/index
The D3 Playoff preview is one of the videos listed on the right (sorry, no direct link). You do have to sit through a commercial first. :(
Wow. But still this is MUCH better than the clusterflop that is the current BCS system after the neutered the computers to take out SOS and MOV.
Eau Claire? I can see Wheaton not getting in, but certainly Wartburg would have been a good choice. And St. Olaf as well. I couldn't see three from the SCIAC but three from the MIAC isn't that out of bounds.
Quote from: Foss on November 11, 2007, 04:59:48 PM
I hear ya repete, but games against non D3 competition isn't even supposed to be part of the main criteria. Whitworth had a better D3 in-region win % (one loss vs. UW-Eau Claire's two) and was ranked ahead of UW-Eau Claire in the regional rankings last week. Something must have happened this weekend for the committee to boost them ahead (OWP, etc.) I suppose.
The answer is...nothing happened this week that warranted UWEC passing Whitworth in the regional rankings and that paired with the better in-region win% should have been enough. If they thought EC was better than Whitworth, they should have been ranked ahead of them last week. I think the NCAA simply wanted to avoid getting in the business of handing out Pool C's to Pool B's. Please stop with all the "they don't use any other criteria" or the "they don't ever get subjective" stuff...I don't care how many regional polls, win%'s or OWP%'s you throw out there, you can massage the numbers however you see fit and this is a perfect example of conference reputation and subjectivity at work, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing all the time. The BEST teams should get in the playoffs and I'm not sure that's the case with EC vs. Whitworth, EC didn't even win their conference! I can't believe I'm honking for the Rats, cuz I probably would have been rooting for them to get beat in the first round anyway unless they were playing Redlands. :D
That said I think it's cool that they spread the good teams across the brackets, I think that is great and hopefully they continue with that philosophy!
Well, Mt. Union going east makes that bracket rough for teams 2-8, and the North now has to deal with Whitewater and really, the North is pretty weak thanks to injuries. There's also a relatively unproven Case in the #2 seed.
The West and South ought to be interesting to forecast.
Curry a #3? Wow. I know the criteria, but...
Quote from: downtown48 on November 11, 2007, 05:20:45 PM
That said I think it's cool that they spread the good teams across the brackets, I think that is great and hopefully they continue with that philosophy!
Me too.
I actually think that Ithaca, the #8 seed in the MUC bracket might have been the 32nd. Have we heard otherwise? I find it hard to believe that Whitworth was not the 10th best at-large team in D3.
Are the Strength of Schedule calculations inherently disadvantageous to or discriminate against geographically isolated conferences such as the ASC, the NWC and the SCIAC?
Look at how the Empire 8 and the Liberty League were able to get 3 of the 7 Pool C bids. The E8 and the LL are small conferences (7 members) but more importantly, there are numerous conferences in the area against which to get non-conference games that will boost the SOS (OWP and OOWP). Those schools can get favorable in-region match-ups against the Centennial, the NJAC, the MAC and even the Pres AC and ACFC.
The other concentration of Pool C occurs in the WI, IA and MN. In this area, the teams in these conferences can build their OWP and OOWP against the CCIW, UAA, the IIAC, the MIAC, the WIAC, the MIAA and next year, the SLIAC and NAthCon (the former members of the IBC.) That being said, the SJU Pool C bid and Capital from the OAC are not that out of line from what we would expect. MSJ is similar in nature.
I hope that the NCAA will look at this discrepancy.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2007, 05:47:44 PM
Are the Strength of Schedule calculations inherently disadvantageous to or discriminate against geographically isolated conferences such as the ASC, the NWC and the SCIAC
I hope that the NCAA will look at this discrepancy.
I wonder if NCAA has considered a system such as that used by Ohio HS. You get points for who you beat and who you beat defeated. This seems a better measure of strength the the owp and oowp. That awards points based on who you played not who you beat.
Not sure it would solve the geographic isolation situation. But if I understand the current system, Otterbein gets the same value whether or not they lose to Capital.
I'm not suggesting using it the way Ohio does, but rather in the same way NCAA uses the currecnt SOS.
With a new system every year, it's clear the NCAA realizes they are still trying to get it right.
Quote from: cwru70 on November 11, 2007, 05:59:54 PM
With a new system every year, it's clear the NCAA realizes they are still trying to get it right.
When teams have to schedule several years in advance, it's hard for them to adjust to ever changing criteria.
cwru70, you basically have the same thing here.
In the OWP and OOWP you get a certain number of points between .000 and 1.000 in both categories.
Last year, the system had just 16 gradations, between 0-15 of points whom you beat and what their record had shown.
Can you give a specific example of the Ohio system?
As usual, right on the money, Ralph!! Does anyone outside New York State really believe 3 of the 7 best at large teams in the country are in the Empire 8 and the LL? Maybe so, but I seriously doubt it.
Yes, I am an ASC "homer" but I am not agitating for any other ASC team this year, but it just seems the criteria cannot be truly accurate and delivering the best at large teams to yield this result, especially since no east team (much less a 3rd place conference team) has been to the Stagg in a while. Obviously, this is the best plan now:
1. Be in a 7 team league.
2. Schedule lots of out of conference but in region games against "good" teams from not so great conferences to build up wins against teams with good records, regardless of any actual competitive equality.
3. As you said, the recipe in 1 and 2 above can actually only be followed in certain locales.
4.Finally, I freely admit I do not fully understand all the AA criteria for these regional rankings but when UMHB loses its only game on the road to the number 2 team in the country (as acknowledged by the AA's own bracket today) and ends up 4th in its region, it is still hard to follow. I know UMHB was whipped that day--I was there!!-- but UMHB is behind not only W & J and Wesley but also Muhlenberg whose conference has not won a playoff game in a good while I believe. For playoff seeding purposes I do not see how playing that UMHB/UWW matchup makes much sense! I know regional and overall record are critical in the process but then I would say schedule a top team from a not so top conference IF your goal is the best seed and home games! I also admit that may be the primary goal!
http://www.ohsaa.org/sports/ft/boys/rankcalc.htm
Quote from: Rick Akins on November 11, 2007, 06:26:32 PM
As usual, right on the money, Ralph!! Does anyone outside New York State really believe 3 of the 7 best at large teams in the country are in the Empire 8 and the LL? Maybe so, but I seriously doubt it.
Yes, I am an ASC "homer" but I am not agitating for any other ASC team this year, but it just seems the criteria cannot be truly accurate and delivering the best at large teams to yield this result, especially since no east team (much less a 3rd place conference team) has been to the Stagg in a while. Obviously, this is the best plan now:
1. Be in a 7 team league.
2. Schedule lots of out of conference but in region games against "good" teams from not so great conferences to build up wins against teams with good records, regardless of any actual competitive equality.
3. As you said, the recipe in 1 and 2 above can actually only be followed in certain locales.
4.Finally, I freely admit I do not fully understand all the AA criteria for these regional rankings but when UMHB loses its only game on the road to the number 2 team in the country (as acknowledged by the AA's own bracket today) and ends up 4th in its region, it is still hard to follow. I know UMHB was whipped that day--I was there!!-- but UMHB is behind not only W & J and Wesley but also Muhlenberg whose conference has not won a playoff game in a good while I believe. For playoff seeding purposes I do not see how playing that UMHB/UWW matchup makes much sense! I know regional and overall record are critical in the process but then I would say schedule a top team from a not so top conference IF your goal is the best seed and home games! I also admit that may be the primary goal!
The problem is getting those "good" teams from not so great conferences to play UMHB, HSU, UWW, Trinity etc. It does them harm to lose those games.
cwru70
In Pa. they have a similar ranking system for H.S. but the differential is that they get different points for playing up or down a level. There are 4 classes in Pa. which are determined by enrollment. And those are all just for district seeding so there is no where near as many teams and how would break ties or rate out of division games?
I don't think any system is without flaws especially when you have the dreaded
human input..
Quote from: cwru70 on November 11, 2007, 06:40:29 PM
http://www.ohsaa.org/sports/ft/boys/rankcalc.htm
Thanks for sharing that.
Unfortunately, I don't think that that works in D-3 in which all schools are in the same division.
(Makes me glad that we are in Texas for the finest high school playoff in the country. It may not be the best teams, and the winners may not be the highest ranked nationally, but it is the most egalitarian system in the country. There is no better value for your $20 ticket than to see 3 playoff games in 5A and 4A, the highest classifications with the best talent, on a Saturday in Texas Stadium.) :)
Quote from: Gray Fox on November 11, 2007, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 11, 2007, 05:59:54 PM
With a new system every year, it's clear the NCAA realizes they are still trying to get it right.
When teams have to schedule several years in advance, it's hard for them to adjust to ever changing criteria.
Playing good teams works under any system, I think. The other system was too easy to game, as it were, where you could play middling teams that had good records because they played bad teams.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2007, 07:03:29 PMThere is no better value for your $20 ticket than to see 3 playoff games in 5A and 4A, the highest classifications with the best talent, on a Saturday in Texas Stadium.) :)
As long as it's not the first week, when you might see a 2-8 team play thanks to Texas now allowing FOUR teams from every 5A district to make the playoffs.
Ron
I just read that there is a 1-9 team that made one of the District playoffs in one of the smaller divisions here in Pa. They don't take into account that some of these schools in the Non-suburban areas have to play up one or even two divisions in there leagues. And the number of teams is a set # per division. And realistically you can not fill out the paper work to participate but who even thinks they would qualify. And if they don't play it goes to the 0-10 teams. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING ???
There may be faults in the system..some teams that feel they should have made the dance..some teams suprised they made the dance..in the end It is better then the BCS.
My favorite high school system has always been Arizona's. You get 50 points for a win and 5 points for each game your opponents win. Top 16 make the playoffs and the seeds are ordered according to points.
Not saying it would work for something as large as D-III, but I think it's a good, simple system.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2007, 07:15:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2007, 07:03:29 PMThere is no better value for your $20 ticket than to see 3 playoff games in 5A and 4A, the highest classifications with the best talent, on a Saturday in Texas Stadium.) :)
As long as it's not the first week, when you might see a 2-8 team play thanks to Texas now allowing FOUR teams from every 5A district to make the playoffs.
I agree about the fourth team, especially in the urban school districts. Usually the stadium rental is too high for the really bad teams from high schools that have no fan support.
However, the gate receipts do fund the entire athletic department in most districts statewide!
I have two questions for all the NCAA bracket experts--I am certainly not one!
1. Why is no one talking about Mount St. Joseph as the surprise last team rather than UWEC? I know MSJ had only one loss, but they are not from what anyone would call a "power conference" and their index was 152, by far the lowest of any Pool C team who got in. I know this is supposedly so "objective" now but the pool C berths seem to go to teams from power conferences (Capital, UWEC) or show respect from last year (SJF) or history (St. John's) and at least Hobart and Ithaca had good OWP and OOWP numbers and were rolling at the end. I can rationalize and understand those but why MSJ?
2. Why is it a given that there were 4 "obvious" #1 seeds as the committtee stated? I of course see MUC and I guess UWW but why are W & J and especially Central so clear? I understand those last two are undefeated but so are Muhlenberg, St. Norbert and others. I frankly have not seen that much recent playoff success from W & J or Central to justify all that respect. I know this is supposedly so "objective" now, and I don't want to come off as a "black helicopter" nut but I did note that the AD from Central is on the committee. Are they really that obviously that #1 seed? Somebody make the case to me, or otherwise enlighten me.
3. If the answer is "number of losses" that only partially answers both of my questions, IMHO.
MSJ had a high regional ranking (#6 in the North as of last week) and when it was time to consider schools for the playoffs there was probably no question about them when you compare teams X and Y from other regions. Same with W & J and Central. W & J was the top ranked team in the South and Central was the highest ranked team in the West once you move UWW and St. John's lost. It was pretty much a no-brain decision.
Remember, they pick Pool C by looking at the top ranked team in the pool from each region, then when a team is selected, the next team in that region moves up.
MSJ wasn't even the last team in the North to get in. Capital was behind them, as evidenced by the seedings.
Let's look at it this way - when it comes to Pool C, the top ranked contenders in each region (for assumptions sake based on Nov. 7 rankings and the results on Saturday):
East - St. John Fisher
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - St. John's
Taking SJF and St. John's with the first two picks (easy) leaves:
East - Hobart
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire (!) (I have to assume they jumped Whitworth, right??)
So, I bet Hobart's the pick. Leaving:
East - Ithaca
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
MSJ is the logical choice there.
Now the board is:
East - Ithaca
North - Capital
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
I'd choose Capital.
East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
I would assume Eau Claire is next. The final board:
East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Whitworth
Now here's the $64,000 question. These are all 8 or 9 in their regions, I assume. Why Ithaca instead of Whitworth or Witt or Millsaps?
Thanks for the insights. I understand if you look at the last regional rankings it all makes sense, but I am still not convinced how those regional rankings themselves exactly can be totally quantified even using all the designated criteria.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2007, 05:47:44 PM
I actually think that Ithaca, the #8 seed in the MUC bracket might have been the 32nd. Have we heard otherwise? I find it hard to believe that Whitworth was not the 10th best at-large team in D3.
Are the Strength of Schedule calculations inherently disadvantageous to or discriminate against geographically isolated conferences such as the ASC, the NWC and the SCIAC?
Look at how the Empire 8 and the Liberty League were able to get 3 of the 7 Pool C bids. The E8 and the LL are small conferences (7 members) but more importantly, there are numerous conferences in the area against which to get non-conference games that will boost the SOS (OWP and OOWP). Those schools can get favorable in-region match-ups against the Centennial, the NJAC, the MAC and even the Pres AC and ACFC.
I hope that the NCAA will look at this discrepancy.
Interesting point. I noticed that Dickinson (8-2) and who beat Hobart (albeit on a couple of flukely plays) in Week 1, ended up in an ECAC game and not a Pool C like Hobart did.
BTW - LL does have 8 teams, although you could argue that the bottom 1/3 of the league is pretty weak (making it kind of like a 7 team conference).
Quote from: Rick Akins on November 12, 2007, 03:31:11 PM
Thanks for the insights. I understand if you look at the last regional rankings it all makes sense, but I am still not convinced how those regional rankings themselves exactly can be totally quantified even using all the designated criteria.
Any system that has a Curry ranked up that high has flaws and holes in it, but it is what it is...
Quote from: The Great Pumpkin on November 12, 2007, 03:31:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2007, 05:47:44 PM
I actually think that Ithaca, the #8 seed in the MUC bracket might have been the 32nd. Have we heard otherwise? I find it hard to believe that Whitworth was not the 10th best at-large team in D3.
Are the Strength of Schedule calculations inherently disadvantageous to or discriminate against geographically isolated conferences such as the ASC, the NWC and the SCIAC?
Look at how the Empire 8 and the Liberty League were able to get 3 of the 7 Pool C bids. The E8 and the LL are small conferences (7 members) but more importantly, there are numerous conferences in the area against which to get non-conference games that will boost the SOS (OWP and OOWP). Those schools can get favorable in-region match-ups against the Centennial, the NJAC, the MAC and even the Pres AC and ACFC.
I hope that the NCAA will look at this discrepancy.
Interesting point. I noticed that Dickinson (8-2) and who beat Hobart (albeit on a couple of flukely plays) in Week 1, ended up in an ECAC game and not a Pool C like Hobart did.
Dickinson wasn't regionally ranked, though. The Johns Hopkins loss killed their chances of jumping Millsaps or Waynesburg.
I don't think the SOS calcs go against the ASC, NWC and the SCIAC because they can play the game to their own advantage, too. It really hurts LARGE conferences like the OAC more.
You picked your Pool Cs in almost the exact same order we did, smed, for what it's worth.
So excuse me for my cluelessness -- I've got d3fb.com sensory overload -- but does that mean UWEC wasn't the last C in? Did it not come down to Whitworth vs. UWEC for the last spot?
I know I've seen it somewhere, but can't recall if it was board speculation or the poohbah's truth ...
Thanks.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 03:28:52 PM
Let's look at it this way - when it comes to Pool C, the top ranked contenders in each region (for assumptions sake based on Nov. 7 rankings and the results on Saturday):
East - St. John Fisher
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - St. John's
Taking SJF and St. John's with the first two picks (easy) leaves:
East - Hobart
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire (!) (I have to assume they jumped Whitworth, right??)
So, I bet Hobart's the pick. Leaving:
East - Ithaca
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
MSJ is the logical choice there.
Now the board is:
East - Ithaca
North - Capital
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
I'd choose Capital.
East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
I would assume Eau Claire is next. The final board:
East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Whitworth
Now here's the $64,000 question. These are all 8 or 9 in their regions, I assume. Why Ithaca instead of Whitworth or Witt or Millsaps?
Smed, if UW-EC is given a "C", then I give Whitworth the 7th Pool C bid. Whitworth goes into the "West". Olivet goes back to the "North". Widener goes into the "East".
Ralph - Whitworth or Millsaps? See that's a tough call.
Repete - Yeah, based on how I sketched it out, UWEC wasn't the last one in the pool. I'd have to think Ithaca was.
It was certainly one or the other: Eau Claire or Ithaca. The NCAA doesn't usually tell us who the last one in is but I cited UWEC as the last one in the bracket on TV because they were the last one in the order in which we revealed them.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 03:38:22 PM
...
I don't think the SOS calcs go against the ASC, NWC and the SCIAC because they can play the game to their own advantage, too. It really hurts LARGE conferences like the OAC more.
The ASC is a 9-member conference.
McMurry traveled 628 miles to Huntingdon to play the
fifth closest D opponent in distance to the campus. (Only Austin College, Trinity, Millsaps and Rhodes are closer.) The SCAC will be a 9-team conference (when B-SC is a 3rd-year provisional in 2009). Trinity, Austin College and Millsaps cannot absorb all of the 18 non-conference games that the ASC needs to schedule.
--Trinity can schedule Texas Lutheran (40 miles away) and one other ASC next year. --Millsaps can schedule Miss Coll and Louisiana College (180 miles away).
-- Austin College can pick from any of the ASC teams. They also picked up a "patsy" in NAIA Southwestern Assemblies in 2007.
--Rhodes probably prefers to play Washington StL.
Those are your closest teams to the ASC.
Our OWP and OOWP settle in at mediocrity or slightly below.
The only way that HSU and UMHB have solved their problem is to commit $40K-$50K per year on one flight to another opponent. That single game expense exceeds the annual travel budgets for more than half of the teams in D3!
I don't see how we can ever get the advantages of multiple above-average teams in multiple above-average conferences to really boost the OWP and OOWP that are available in other parts of the country.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 04:05:17 PM
Ralph - Whitworth or Millsaps? See that's a tough call.
I could make that call because Whitworth went undefeated thru a good conference and lost to the #5 team in the first week. In-region 7-1 is as aggressive a schedule at they could reasonably have in the NWC. They schedule the home-and-home with UW-Stout for '06 and '07.
These are inflammatory words, but I think that Ithaca got the old "eastern bias". Three from the E8, and none from the NWC! >:(
I don't post on football much, but someone mentioned the Ohio playoff system, which I find well pretty mediocre.
I'm from the downstate of Ohio, and it's become pretty obvious to me that the way to beat the system is to play teams with good records against weak competition. This can be further qualified to mean "schools from West Virginia." One school went 10-0, playing half their schedule against WV schools, and then got beat something like 80-0 in the first round of the playoffs playing a real team. Granted this school only has like 80 boys, but still.
This phenomena exists in D-III selections (across many sports) as well, but the Ohio system wouldn't eliminate it by any means and might make the system easier to game.
That said, if betting were legal I'd have money on whoever is playing Case.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2007, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 04:05:17 PM
Ralph - Whitworth or Millsaps? See that's a tough call.
These are inflammatory words, but I think that Ithaca got the old "eastern bias". Three from the E8, and none from the NWC! >:(
I don't want to argue that point. I personally would have chosen Whitworth or Millsaps or Witt ahead of Ithaca. But what do I know? I'm just an ex-pat Hoosier...
Playoff weather looks pretty good for Saturday.
Mount Union Bracket
8. Ithaca at 1. Mount Union - Cloudy – 30% chance of rain showers. Highs in the lower 40s.
6. New Jersey at 4. RPI - Partly cloudy. Highs in the lower 40s.
7. Hartwick at 3. Curry - Mostly sunny. 30% chance of showers in the pm. Highs in the mid 40s.
5. Hobart at 2. St. John Fisher -Partly sunny - 40% chance of rain or snow. Highs in the upper 30s.
Central Bracket
8. Olivet at 1. Central - Partly cloudy. Highs upper 40s.
5. Redlands at 4. St. John's - Mostly clear. Highs around 35.
6. UW-Eau Claire at 3. St. Norbert (10-0) - Partly sunny. Highs lower 40s.
7. Concordia, Wis. at 2. Bethel - Partly cloudy - Highs around 40.
Washington and Jefferson Bracket
8. N.C. Wesleyan at 1. Wash. & Jeff. - Mostly cloudy -50% chance of rain or snow showers. Highs low 40's
6. Trinity, Texas at 4. Mary Hardin-Baylor - Partly sunny - 20% chance of showers. Highs mid 70s.
5. Salisbury at 3. Muhlenberg - Partly sunny. Highs in the lower 40s.
7. Hampden-Sydney at 2. Wesley - Partly sunny. Highs in the upper 40s.
UW-Whitewater Bracket
7. Capital at 1 UW-Whitewater - Partly sunny. Highs in the lower 40s.
5. North Central at 4. Franklin - Partly cloudy. Highs in the upper 40s.
6. Mt. St. Joseph at 3. Wabash - Partly cloudy. Highs in the upper 40s.
8. Widener at 2. Case Western Reserve - Cloudy – 40% chance of rain showers. Highs mid 40s.
Spence--It's clear you don't post (or read) on football much.
FYI last year's UAA champ CMU beat the SCAC champ in the playoffs and CWRU (a 5-5 team) beat the ODAC champ in the regular season.
The UAA isn't as weak as some folks think. But if Whalen can't play I wouldn't bet on them either.
Case's reputation, I think, precedes them. But this is not the Case of old!
Anybody ready to take a flier on the NEFC winning its first playoff game this weekend? Given Hartwick's extreme inconsistency, including a loss to WNEC, I have to believe a Curry victory is a very real possibility Saturday.
Taking a look at the independent computer ratings services:
* Massey has Curry ranked 15 spots higher than Hartwick
* Laz Index rates Hartwick as a 7 point favorite on a neutral field
* My computer power ratings put Curry as a 5 point favorite on a neutral field
Quote from: cwru70 on November 12, 2007, 06:38:09 PM
Spence--It's clear you don't post (or read) on football much.
FYI last year's UAA champ CMU beat the SCAC champ in the playoffs and CWRU (a 5-5 team) beat the ODAC champ in the regular season.
The UAA isn't as weak as some folks think. But if Whalen can't play I wouldn't bet on them either.
So basically I'm an idiot who doesn't have a clue. But then you pretty much agree with me and say you wouldn't bet on them either?
Beating the ODAC champ doesn't gain many points in my mind. I used to live in Virginia. In order to avoid angering folks, I won't give my opinion of the play down there.
Bottom line, Case got lucky that Cap got sent out to Whitewater. All four teams in that half of the Whitewater draw are pretty much coin flips by Massey's Margin of Victory rating, which is IMO the best small school rating out there. Cap is rated 2nd in the bracket. Ohio Northern's rated ahead of Case, and B-W is only two spots behind.
Not sure that half the OAC couldn't win the UAA.
"If Whalen can't play." Read before posting.
Then you agree that the bottom half of the bracket is about even.
I agree that CWRU would probably finish fifth in the OAC, but there are several playoff teams that would be second division OAC teams.
My quarrell: "'I'd take whoever plays Case."
Quote from: cwru70 on November 13, 2007, 08:11:36 AM
"If Whalen can't play." Read before posting.
Then you agree that the bottom half of the bracket is about even.
I agree that CWRU would probably finish fifth in the OAC, but there are several playoff teams that would be second division OAC teams.
My quarrell: "'I'd take whoever plays Case."
Well, perhaps that was a bit of an exaggeration. But I hate the fact that teams like them and Curry get high seeds, and it happens regardless of sport in D-III it seems.
Case got a very favorable draw, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see them lose to Widener, even though Widener is no great shakes either.
People on the baseball board know well that I believe the best teams should be in the field regardless of what conference they're from or if they happened to win theirs. Case isn't one of the 32 best teams in D-III, they're just not.
Quote from: hscoach on November 11, 2007, 12:35:19 PM
OK. The first thought I had as the brackets were shown was "Is the NCAA on crack?".
After studying the brackets, I'm sure they are. This is just crazy.
MUC is hosting the "East Region".
Whitewater is hosting the "North Region".
W&J bracket looks OK.
Central gets the gift of the day in having WWW elsewhere.
Interesting. Very interesting.
We've been taking about wanting to see some new teams come to Alliance in the playoffs, but we were thinking North Central, Franklin or Case. We got our wish, but with eastern team.
Interesting indeed.
I think the NCAA finally listened to all the griping that has been going on about the powers of the West having to see each other before a regional final or national semi-final...two years ago Linfield was a number 1 seed, UWW a 2 and SJU a 3 when in fact those three teams and Mount should or could have been number one seeds in various regions...Mount in the East UWW in the North, Linfield in the South(someone has to fly there anyway) and SJU in the West...
I think its a great bracket with one execption...Central should have been the 3rd of the 4 number ones with W&J the 4th...everyone seems to bag on the East for being weak, but truth be told its the south...MHB had two shots at UWW one where Beaver was out of the lineup and on their homefield and could not win, then they came north and got spanked, kind of like Wesley did, just my two cents, but I think its the way it should have been...I bet had SJU not lost, they would have been the number 3 number one with the south being number 4
Quote from: thenwcfan on November 11, 2007, 12:38:41 PM
All the arguments about D-I going to a playoff system can be thrown out of the window after this year's D-3 selection committee proved to us that a playoff system also does not work. How this group leaves the Northwest Conference Champion Whitworth Pirates out of this disgraceful playoff tree in incomprehensible. Many of this year's players were on the team that went unbeaten and to the second round of the playoffs last year. To be a top 25 team for much of this season, lose it's only D-III game to a top 25 team (in their first game of the year) which got a 5 seed, have the best take away defense in the country and to go 5-0 in a tough conference that has produced 2 National Champions since 2000 and not get in is a travesty. My guess is after beating #12 Linfield a couple of weeks ago and ending their season, their representative who is on this selection committee did not end up fighting for his own conference.
Whitworth is the 33rd best team...no doubt, but here is the the thing, you had a chance at a pool B berth and didn't measure up, your conference gets an A spot next year, yes those kids miss out on an opportunity, but having seen your team last year, I am not sure they are better than UWEC, the last team in who took your bid, sorry
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2007, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on November 11, 2007, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 11, 2007, 05:59:54 PM
With a new system every year, it's clear the NCAA realizes they are still trying to get it right.
When teams have to schedule several years in advance, it's hard for them to adjust to ever changing criteria.
Playing good teams works under any system, I think. The other system was too easy to game, as it were, where you could play middling teams that had good records because they played bad teams.
Pat, that didn't work a couple of years ago for an 8-2 UWEC team that had a win against the J's and was left out of the playoffs...that is part of the reason UWEC and SJU don't play anymore
Quote from: VOJ on November 13, 2007, 09:16:35 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2007, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on November 11, 2007, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 11, 2007, 05:59:54 PM
With a new system every year, it's clear the NCAA realizes they are still trying to get it right.
When teams have to schedule several years in advance, it's hard for them to adjust to ever changing criteria.
Playing good teams works under any system, I think. The other system was too easy to game, as it were, where you could play middling teams that had good records because they played bad teams.
Pat, that didn't work a couple of years ago for an 8-2 UWEC team that had a win against the J's and was left out of the playoffs...that is part of the reason UWEC and SJU don't play anymore
In the old system, true, only
beating good teams worked. But you don't beat good teams if you don't play them. :)
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. In my opinion in the East MUC should be playing either Curry or Hartwick in the first round. SJF should be playing the one that MUC is not playing. RPI should be facing Ithaca and TCNJ should be playing Hobart. Although I feel that RPI, Ithaca, Hobart, TCNJ and SJF are all just about even, but still better than Hartwick or Curry.
Hartwick did beat SJF and Ithaca but I don't think it happens again if they play.
Quote from: Spence on November 13, 2007, 08:32:49 AM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 13, 2007, 08:11:36 AM
"If Case isn't one of the 32 best teams in D-III, they're just not.
I never said they were. But neither is Widener. The d3.com poll sems to think they're 25th best though.
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.
I suspect it is a bit of a fluke that it worked out that way this year. If there were a 10-0 team from the E8, LL, NJAC or MAC, they would have been the #1 seed and Mt. Union would not have been moved to the East. Heck, as smedindy suggested, a 9-1 SJF would probably have been the #1 seed if they were in as a Pool A team instead of a Pool C.
Quote from: VOJ on November 13, 2007, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: thenwcfan on November 11, 2007, 12:38:41 PM
All the arguments about D-I going to a playoff system can be thrown out of the window after this year's D-3 selection committee proved to us that a playoff system also does not work. How this group leaves the Northwest Conference Champion Whitworth Pirates out of this disgraceful playoff tree in incomprehensible. Many of this year's players were on the team that went unbeaten and to the second round of the playoffs last year. To be a top 25 team for much of this season, lose it's only D-III game to a top 25 team (in their first game of the year) which got a 5 seed, have the best take away defense in the country and to go 5-0 in a tough conference that has produced 2 National Champions since 2000 and not get in is a travesty. My guess is after beating #12 Linfield a couple of weeks ago and ending their season, their representative who is on this selection committee did not end up fighting for his own conference.
Whitworth is the 33rd best team...no doubt, but here is the the thing, you had a chance at a pool B berth and didn't measure up, your conference gets an A spot next year, yes those kids miss out on an opportunity, but having seen your team last year, I am not sure they are better than UWEC, the last team in who took your bid, sorry
I don't know, VOJ. the field would probably have been stronger if they'd booted Ithaca and included Whitworth.
I know the poll has nothing to do with playoff selection but if the Pool B's and C's are used to try to flush out the bracket with quality, it might point to flaws in the system when only 7 West teams advanced. The most reliable ranking out there has eight West teams in the top 19. The West, clearly a better region, had one 2-loss team selected. The East, which apparently chooses not to participate in the Stagg these days, had four teams advance with 2 losses.
What's Ithaca's best win? Cortland State? Whitworth had Linfield, Pacific Lutheran and a WIAC win. (Yeah and it lost to Azusa, which meanwhile might have been the most inconsistent small college football team I've ever seen. Lost on last-second FG to a decent d-1aa scholarship team, Nicholls State.)
Three teams from the Empire 8 and none from the NWC? Sure, folks can cite and spin numbers but on a gut level it sure doesn't feel right.
Whitworth is NOT the 33rd best team, not by a long stretch.
Whitworth IS the best team NOT selected. There's a big difference.
Quote from: Spence on November 13, 2007, 08:32:49 AM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 13, 2007, 08:11:36 AM
"If Whalen can't play." Read before posting.
Then you agree that the bottom half of the bracket is about even.
I agree that CWRU would probably finish fifth in the OAC, but there are several playoff teams that would be second division OAC teams.
My quarrell: "'I'd take whoever plays Case."
Well, perhaps that was a bit of an exaggeration. But I hate the fact that teams like them and Curry get high seeds, and it happens regardless of sport in D-III it seems.
Case got a very favorable draw, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see them lose to Widener, even though Widener is no great shakes either.
People on the baseball board know well that I believe the best teams should be in the field regardless of what conference they're from or if they happened to win theirs. Case isn't one of the 32 best teams in D-III, they're just not.
Well, most of the WIAC would be playoff teams if they took the best 32 teams period. But that's not fair or right or just or true. You have conferences - and the conference champs should be included. Otherwise, why have a tournament AND conferences? The Pool B thing is a wrinkle but it's also fair to include all teams that would be passed over. Face it, you take care of business and you're in. Even in the OAC, you take care of everyone but Mt. Union, you're in. Yes, Baldwin Wallace and John Carroll are better than several teams, but you know what? They had a chance to win a playoff bid, and they didn't take care of business. So be it.
Quote from: Cortland_Football on November 13, 2007, 03:58:46 AM
Anybody ready to take a flier on the NEFC winning its first playoff game this weekend? Given Hartwick's extreme inconsistency, including a loss to WNEC, I have to believe a Curry victory is a very real possibility Saturday.
Taking a look at the independent computer ratings services:
* Massey has Curry ranked 15 spots higher than Hartwick
* Laz Index rates Hartwick as a 7 point favorite on a neutral field
* My computer power ratings put Curry as a 5 point favorite on a neutral field
In the REAL Massey ratings (using MOV) Curry is 87, Hartwick is 84. Curry's SOS is 199. I just don't think they've played the teams needed to prepare for the playoffs.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2007, 09:39:07 PM
Well, most of the WIAC would be playoff teams if they took the best 32 teams period. But that's not fair or right or just or true. You have conferences - and the conference champs should be included. Otherwise, why have a tournament AND conferences? The Pool B thing is a wrinkle but it's also fair to include all teams that would be passed over. Face it, you take care of business and you're in. Even in the OAC, you take care of everyone but Mt. Union, you're in. Yes, Baldwin Wallace and John Carroll are better than several teams, but you know what? They had a chance to win a playoff bid, and they didn't take care of business. So be it.
Amen.
Quote from: Schwami on November 13, 2007, 06:41:30 PM
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.
I suspect it is a bit of a fluke that it worked out that way this year. If there were a 10-0 team from the E8, LL, NJAC or MAC, they would have been the #1 seed and Mt. Union would not have been moved to the East. Heck, as smedindy suggested, a 9-1 SJF would probably have been the #1 seed if they were in as a Pool A team instead of a Pool C.
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: smedindy on November 13, 2007, 09:39:07 PM
Quote from: Spence on November 13, 2007, 08:32:49 AM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 13, 2007, 08:11:36 AM
"If Whalen can't play." Read before posting.
Then you agree that the bottom half of the bracket is about even.
I agree that CWRU would probably finish fifth in the OAC, but there are several playoff teams that would be second division OAC teams.
My quarrell: "'I'd take whoever plays Case."
Well, perhaps that was a bit of an exaggeration. But I hate the fact that teams like them and Curry get high seeds, and it happens regardless of sport in D-III it seems.
Case got a very favorable draw, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see them lose to Widener, even though Widener is no great shakes either.
People on the baseball board know well that I believe the best teams should be in the field regardless of what conference they're from or if they happened to win theirs. Case isn't one of the 32 best teams in D-III, they're just not.
Well, most of the WIAC would be playoff teams if they took the best 32 teams period. But that's not fair or right or just or true. You have conferences - and the conference champs should be included. Otherwise, why have a tournament AND conferences? The Pool B thing is a wrinkle but it's also fair to include all teams that would be passed over. Face it, you take care of business and you're in. Even in the OAC, you take care of everyone but Mt. Union, you're in. Yes, Baldwin Wallace and John Carroll are better than several teams, but you know what? They had a chance to win a playoff bid, and they didn't take care of business. So be it.
If most of the WIAC is in the 32 best teams, I have no problem with them being in the playoffs. If half of it ends up being WIAC and OAC, then so be it.
America's not about handouts to the undeserving...oh wait, LBJ. Yeah, forgot. Well when America was at its best it wasn't.
If "taking care of business" is the standard, then we should just include only undefeated teams.
It's just ridiculous to include some team that wins a horrible conference and exclude a legitimate contender to win a bracket.
Yeah, no way that Curry, winner of (according to Kickoff) THE WORST conference in d3, deserved to get a bid.
Oh, wait ... they won big today. Nevermind.
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
Quote from: downtown48 on November 17, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
The E8 at-large bids went 1-1 with a 24-7 win over Hobart and scoring more TDs on Mt. Union than the OAC did all season. Now, the E8 champ didn't do the conference any favors by getting monkey stomped by Curry, but the at-larges did rather well.
Quote from: downtown48 on November 17, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
My thoughts exactly!
I am sorry that Whitworth was not selected as a Pool C! :(
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2007, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: downtown48 on November 17, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
My thoughts exactly!
I am sorry that Whitworth was not selected as a Pool C! :(
Your kidding right? If anything you should be complaining about the E8 champ that got knocked around not their 2 at large bids that went 1-1 (Losing to MUC by 24 isnt that bad of a showing)....
Quote from: Upstate on November 17, 2007, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2007, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: downtown48 on November 17, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
My thoughts exactly!
I am sorry that Whitworth was not selected as a Pool C! :(
Your kidding right? If anything you should be complaining about the E8 champ that got knocked around not their 2 at large bids that went 1-1 (Losing to MUC by 24 isnt that bad of a showing)....
Fact is, Whitworth was still more worthy than a few at large teams, and one result isn't going to change that perception.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2007, 05:40:37 PM
Yeah, no way that Curry, winner of (according to Kickoff) THE WORST conference in d3, deserved to get a bid.
Oh, wait ... they won big today. Nevermind.
Let's see what happens when they play someone a little better than a #7 seed. That's the beauty of the playoffs.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 17, 2007, 09:23:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2007, 05:40:37 PM
Yeah, no way that Curry, winner of (according to Kickoff) THE WORST conference in d3, deserved to get a bid.
Oh, wait ... they won big today. Nevermind.
Let's see what happens when they play someone a little better than a #7 seed. That's the beauty of the playoffs.
I'm a CCIW (IWU) fan; I was just taking exception to Spence trashing the whole concept of AQs. I'm certainly not saying Curry is a threat to MUC (or even necessarily one of the top 32 teams in the country), but a conference champ deserves a shot, and they took advantage of theirs, even if their conference is as bad as it gets. They may not (OK, will not) make it to Salem, but the NEFC is no longer 0 for forever.
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2007, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Upstate on November 17, 2007, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2007, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: downtown48 on November 17, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
My thoughts exactly!
I am sorry that Whitworth was not selected as a Pool C! :(
Your kidding right? If anything you should be complaining about the E8 champ that got knocked around not their 2 at large bids that went 1-1 (Losing to MUC by 24 isnt that bad of a showing)....
Fact is, Whitworth was still more worthy than a few at large teams, and one result isn't going to change that perception.
So Capital shouldnt have been in then right?
Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 17, 2007, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2007, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Upstate on November 17, 2007, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2007, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: downtown48 on November 17, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
My thoughts exactly!
I am sorry that Whitworth was not selected as a Pool C! :(
Your kidding right? If anything you should be complaining about the E8 champ that got knocked around not their 2 at large bids that went 1-1 (Losing to MUC by 24 isnt that bad of a showing)....
Fact is, Whitworth was still more worthy than a few at large teams, and one result isn't going to change that perception.
So Capital shouldnt have been in then right?
That depends. Got any evidence that Whitworth would have lost to UWW by less than 20? :-\
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2007, 10:51:35 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 17, 2007, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2007, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Upstate on November 17, 2007, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2007, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: downtown48 on November 17, 2007, 06:14:32 PM
Good thing those two Empire 8 at-large's got in!! ::)
My thoughts exactly!
I am sorry that Whitworth was not selected as a Pool C! :(
Your kidding right? If anything you should be complaining about the E8 champ that got knocked around not their 2 at large bids that went 1-1 (Losing to MUC by 24 isnt that bad of a showing)....
Fact is, Whitworth was still more worthy than a few at large teams, and one result isn't going to change that perception.
So Capital shouldnt have been in then right?
That depends. Got any evidence that Whitworth would have lost to UWW by less than 20? :-\
No. But we have evidence that Capital wasnt 3 touchdowns away from MUC.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2007, 09:48:40 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 17, 2007, 09:23:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2007, 05:40:37 PM
Yeah, no way that Curry, winner of (according to Kickoff) THE WORST conference in d3, deserved to get a bid.
Oh, wait ... they won big today. Nevermind.
Let's see what happens when they play someone a little better than a #7 seed. That's the beauty of the playoffs.
I'm a CCIW (IWU) fan; I was just taking exception to Spence trashing the whole concept of AQs. I'm certainly not saying Curry is a threat to MUC (or even necessarily one of the top 32 teams in the country), but a conference champ deserves a shot, and they took advantage of theirs, even if their conference is as bad as it gets. They may not (OK, will not) make it to Salem, but the NEFC is no longer 0 for forever.
I agree about the conference champs, in any conference.
The MIAA is weak in football, but they deserve their Pool A bid.
No one doubts the quality of MIAA hoops, both men and women.
D3 is about access. D-1 is "semi-pro"!
I really love this chatter in here , everybody is diss in Curry . Then in the next sentence they want to know about them . Curry is a complete team this year making the NEFC proud !!! GO CURRY !!!
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2007, 09:48:40 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 17, 2007, 09:23:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2007, 05:40:37 PM
Yeah, no way that Curry, winner of (according to Kickoff) THE WORST conference in d3, deserved to get a bid.
Oh, wait ... they won big today. Nevermind.
Let's see what happens when they play someone a little better than a #7 seed. That's the beauty of the playoffs.
I'm a CCIW (IWU) fan; I was just taking exception to Spence trashing the whole concept of AQs. I'm certainly not saying Curry is a threat to MUC (or even necessarily one of the top 32 teams in the country), but a conference champ deserves a shot, and they took advantage of theirs, even if their conference is as bad as it gets. They may not (OK, will not) make it to Salem, but the NEFC is no longer 0 for forever.
And I'm taking exception to the idea that if you lose to Capital and Mount Union you had no chance of going to the playoffs from day 1. Ridiculous. Then they feed Capital to UWW rather than giving them a reasonable draw, and make Case look legitimate by giving them a cake draw. It's like they wanted to make sure they didn't look ridiculous.
Shrug all it does is thin the herd and make it easier for the true powers to go deep into the playoffs. It's worse in football than in a sport like baseball because the better team wins more often in football than most sports.
I'll put 10000 dollars on Curry not making the Stagg Bowl. Who wants to go against me? Heck I'd put 100 bucks on them not winning their next game.
Love all the consternation about putting Eau Claire in and then they go and beat St. Norbert. Little different when you've actually been tested on a weekly basis. They've got a shot to win that bracket. 6 of the 8 names in the quarters will be very familiar names. The other two will be new only because there were no very familiar names in their quarter of the draw.
Auto bids lead to less competitive tournaments.
If you are going to hold a tournament in any sport, and you have conferences, you MUST have auto bids. Auto bids make it so everyone in a conference has a fair and just chance to make the post season, which is a reward for a hard fought season.
Without an auto bid, NC Wesleyan wouldn't have been in the tourney, nor Curry, and they won. Without auto bids, one wonders if we would have had the great Case / Widener finish, or the Franklin / North Central game. The UWEC / St. Norbert game was a close game. Without auto bids, I doubt if that would have happened.
The beauty of the NCAA D-1 basketball tourney is that a team from the SWAC or MEAC could pull an upset and beat a team from a power conference, or a team from the Colonial could make the Final 4. There's no chance of that without auto bids, and without that you lose mystery, drama, intrigue.
Jonny Utah - Capital wasn't within 3 TDs of MUC on that day. They play another week, it may be closer.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 18, 2007, 12:08:38 AM
The MIAA is weak in football, but they deserve their Pool A bid.
And the tide turns in any sport, as it wasn't THAT long ago Albion was a national power and the winner of the Walnut and Bronze.
I don't know Smed, that was back in the day when bounce passes were legal (at least in the semis) and I had hair.
The AQ's are absolutely necessary to keep participation in the tournament fair. In 1982, and despite having been to the Stagg Bowl in 1977, an undefeated Wabash team was denied admission to the tournament by a vengeful opposing coach saying "they didn't beat someone bad enough." In the old selection system, it was purely subjective and based soleyl on who was friends with whom. The old system was absoultely corrupt and unfair. Whereas with AQ's you can win and you are in. If a conference is weak one year, well so be it. This is the price for a fair and transparent system. Never go back to the old system which was absolutely horrible and totally unfair. The true competition is on the field not in the smoke filled rooms.
Quote from: firstdown on November 19, 2007, 08:49:26 AM
The AQ's are absolutely necessary to keep participation in the tournament fair. In 1982, and despite having been to the Stagg Bowl in 1977, an undefeated Wabash team was denied admission to the tournament by a vengeful opposing coach saying "they didn't beat someone bad enough." In the old selection system, it was purely subjective and based soleyl on who was friends with whom. The old system was absoultely corrupt and unfair. Whereas with AQ's you can win and you are in. If a conference is weak one year, well so be it. This is the price for a fair and transparent system. Never go back to the old system which was absolutely horrible and totally unfair. The true competition is on the field not in the smoke filled rooms.
IMO, not an issue anymore. The tournament field is much larger now than it was then. Your definition of fairness is interesting. I don't find it very fair that a superior team is left at home in favor of an inferior one because they happen to be the best of a bad lot. But by the liberal definition of fairness, your take fits perfectly. Punish people who compete at a higher level so as to make other people feel better about themselves.
Spencer
Having stood out in the cold for 25 years (from 1977 to 2002) and never been invited to the party, I can tell you something about fairness. No questions that the current system leaves out some good teams - ask the folks from Whitworth. I would hate to see the system return to the dark old days. Whether the current system is the best, I can't tell you. But the old system wasn't work a darn. Thank heavens for the AQ's. There is nothing like the certainty of win and you're in.
Quote from: Spence on November 19, 2007, 02:15:56 PM
IMO, not an issue anymore. The tournament field is much larger now than it was then. Your definition of fairness is interesting. I don't find it very fair that a superior team is left at home in favor of an inferior one because they happen to be the best of a bad lot. But by the liberal definition of fairness, your take fits perfectly. Punish people who compete at a higher level so as to make other people feel better about themselves.
Yes, the tournament field is much larger but everyone should have a chance to have a bite at the apple. Why should a bleah 6-4 team from the WIAC or OAC go over a team that won its conference? Winning a conference title is hard work no matter what conference you are in.
For spit and giggles, I looked at the Top 32 non-NESCAC teams using the Massey MOV rating.
The playoff teams in the top 32 were:
Mt. Union
UW - Whitewater
St. John's
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Central
Bethel
Muhlenberg
St. John Fisher
Wesley
Wisc - Eau Claire
Salisbury
Ithaca
Capital
North Central
Redlands
NC Wesleyan
Washington & Jefferson
Wabash
New Jersey
Franklin
Non Playoff Top 32 Teams
St. Olaf
Wartburg
Concordia - Moorhead
Linfield
Wisc - Oshkosh
Whitworth
Pacific Lutheran
Coe
Wisc - LaCrosse
Dubuque
Montclair State
Millsaps
Dickinson
Other playoff team rankings:
Case (34)
Hobart (36)
Trinity, TX (38)
Widener (39)
Hampden - Sydney (42)
Mt. St. Joseph (54)
Curry (59)
St. Norbert (63)
RPI (65)
Hartwick (81)
Olivet (101)
Concordia (WI) (145)
Sure there were a few questionable calls in Pool C, but how much better would the tourney really be if Olivet and Concordia were replaced by St. Olaf and Wartburg? Because of the inherent regionality of the playoffs, I don't think the results would have varied much. There were some great games this weekend and some of the bottom feeders played better than expected.
Besides, St. Olaf and Wartburg had their chances to make the field, and didn't.
One thing about the football playoffs, The playoffs start in Week #1 for football. This is not just about the best 32 football teams. Teams work every week for their spot in the field of 32. Yes there are teams that can beat the teams that are in the 32 and were left out. Whitworth I am sure was better than some of the loser's last Saturday but they had their chance with Redlands. Is this a completely fair way to do it no cause if it was then all the d3 teams would be in and we would be playing football till the ground freezes and then some. Every team that has an AQ has the opportunity to get into the dance. Then the teams in conferences without AQ's also have a chance then they even have a pool C chance. There are also the Pool C's while we can argue about who is in who is out all those Pool B & C teams had their chance if they would have won all of their games they would be there. If you didn't make it in it was no one's fault but their own. I didn't see any 8-0, 9-0, or 10-0 teams left out. Win and you're in is the bottom line.
Well said Dutch
Dutch
I agree. With the Independents having to play whoever they can to fill out a schedule they don't have the mulligan on a non conference loss like an AQ team does. I to think Whitworth deserved a bid.. But I am also a huge Syracuse Basketball fan an know full well that deserving teams get hosed year after year by the human element involved in the team choices
Every time there is a playoff issue of the who dids and the who did nots, remember that of 283 Div III football teams only 22 get AQ. That leaves 261 teams trying to get in or 3.83% for 10 remaining spots. Sure the sub 500 % could cut the 261 in half to 131 teams or 7.63%.
So when the selection group sits down and runs the field and the D3 guys only miss 1 team from that selection. I think the Selection people did a bang up job. Some hearts were broken but they will mend.
Just and old mans thoughts.
I think the heartburn comes due to the the misconception that the selection people follow the criteria 100% of the time and do not waiver...the sooner that people realize that the numbers are open to interpretation and it's possible for a team or two to get screwed, the better everybody will be. The key remains, don't put yourself in a position to be that 31st or 32nd team because you might just end up being the 33rd team before you know it!
This is pretty much the first time we can't easily point to something that's written in black and white. So yeah, not 100% of the time, maybe.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2007, 01:12:50 AM
This is pretty much the first time we can't easily point to something that's written in black and white. So yeah, not 100% of the time, maybe.
Therefore, find yourself a conference that has the Pool A bid! ;)
We can look at the Pool B teams in 2011, and possibly count them on our fingers.
Quote from: old ends on November 19, 2007, 09:00:58 PM
Every time there is a playoff issue of the who dids and the who did nots, remember that of 283 Div III football teams only 22 get AQ. That leaves 261 teams trying to get in or 3.83% for 10 remaining spots. Sure the sub 500 % could cut the 261 in half to 131 teams or 7.63%.
So when the selection group sits down and runs the field and the D3 guys only miss 1 team from that selection. I think the Selection people did a bang up job. Some hearts were broken but they will mend.
Just and old mans thoughts.
Only 22 teams get a pool A bid but a LOT more have a chance to get the pool A bid. Thats the difference.
Simple solution, realign D-III into 32 conferences of 8 or 9 teams. (the math actually works out to 8.8 teams per conference) and then only the conference winners get to go to the playoffs. Tell the teams that don't want to do it, tough, play our way or go home. ;D
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 20, 2007, 12:03:10 PM
Tell the teams that don't want to do it, tough, play our way or go home. ;D
Is that not what is basically happening now???
Quote from: thenwcfan on November 11, 2007, 12:38:41 PM
All the arguments about D-I going to a playoff system can be thrown out of the window after this year's D-3 selection committee proved to us that a playoff system also does not work.
Um, no they can't.
Quote from: downtown48 on November 20, 2007, 01:07:07 AMI think the heartburn comes due to the the misconception that the selection people follow the criteria 100% of the time and do not waiver...the sooner that people realize that the numbers are open to interpretation and it's possible for a team or two to get screwed, the better everybody will be. The key remains, don't put yourself in a position to be that 31st or 32nd team because you might just end up being the 33rd team before you know it!
I agree with this for the most part. Definitely don't put yourself on the bubble and you won't have to worry. 10-0 Whitworth isn't on the bubble. 9-1 Whitworth probably isn't either. 8-2 everyone is on the bubble.
While I think the Pirates should have been in, when compared with UW-Eau Claire, neither team dominates the criteria overwhelmingly. In that case, numbers aren't open to interpretation, they
must be interpreted somehow to come to a decision, and the team that the decision doesn't favor will feel "screwed."
Given that 99% of the heavy lifting re: decision-making is still done by the criteria, and given that we have readers who think the D3football.com poll influences the playoffs, I think harping on the points about criteria does more more clear up misconceptions than cause them.
Sorry I am going back to Page 1, but very valid post, esp the part in bold. +1.
Quote from: pirat on November 11, 2007, 01:25:11 PM
RE:Whitworth
Bob, that is the only reason I can see. I posted a short time ago that Whitworth played over half their D3 regional games against teams with a winning percentage of 23% which pretty much killed their OWP (.501/.510). It appears the committee put a lot of emphasis on SOS this year. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about East Coast bias and losing to an NAIA school but I don't think those are the reason. To me it appears the committee stuck to their criteria just putting more emphasis on OWP than regional winning percentage. It is unfortunate that a little subjectivity didn't creep in like you would think might happen with reasonable intelligent people. After all, the Rats had to play the people on their schedule and they had no control over how those teams played. I guess the Rat management needs to start looking to schedule perennial winners so their SOS looks good for Pool C bids.
I am probably closer to the Rat football program than most and this has been a crushing day. But I will recover as will the team and we will be ready for next year.
Seemed you guys acknowledged most of the key points and, collectively, showed a clear undersatnding of the situation back on Page 2.
So it's one of the rare times I actually didn't chime in.
I feel empty. Useless even.
Aw, Keith, it's OK. Go have a sandwich, a drink, and put your feet up. You deserve it!
I still think that Whitworth (West Region record of 8-1) deserved to be in.
Record against regionally ranked teams was 0-1 (Redlands loss).
Laverne win did not help.
I think that Azusa was a game wasted. Being 9-1 versus the West Region would have been even stronger.
Ithaca acquitted itself nicely as did SJF. The AQ in the E8 going to Hartwick was mud-face ugly! Ithaca (East Region record of 8-2) was the third team from the E8. I just do not judge (subjective comment) the 3rd team from the E8 out of the weak East Region to be better than the first team out of the NWC from the West Region.
Earn the AQ or join a conference that has one!
Quote from: mhb8904 on November 11, 2007, 06:57:55 PM
Quote from: Rick Akins on November 11, 2007, 06:26:32 PM
As usual, right on the money, Ralph!! Does anyone outside New York State really believe 3 of the 7 best at large teams in the country are in the Empire 8 and the LL? Maybe so, but I seriously doubt it.
Yes, I am an ASC "homer" but I am not agitating for any other ASC team this year, but it just seems the criteria cannot be truly accurate and delivering the best at large teams to yield this result, especially since no east team (much less a 3rd place conference team) has been to the Stagg in a while. Obviously, this is the best plan now:
1. Be in a 7 team league.
2. Schedule lots of out of conference but in region games against "good" teams from not so great conferences to build up wins against teams with good records, regardless of any actual competitive equality.
3. As you said, the recipe in 1 and 2 above can actually only be followed in certain locales.
4.Finally, I freely admit I do not fully understand all the AA criteria for these regional rankings but when UMHB loses its only game on the road to the number 2 team in the country (as acknowledged by the AA's own bracket today) and ends up 4th in its region, it is still hard to follow. I know UMHB was whipped that day--I was there!!-- but UMHB is behind not only W & J and Wesley but also Muhlenberg whose conference has not won a playoff game in a good while I believe. For playoff seeding purposes I do not see how playing that UMHB/UWW matchup makes much sense! I know regional and overall record are critical in the process but then I would say schedule a top team from a not so top conference IF your goal is the best seed and home games! I also admit that may be the primary goal!
The problem is getting those "good" teams from not so great conferences to play UMHB, HSU, UWW, Trinity etc. It does them harm to lose those games.
After reading this set of messages, it occurred to me why the NCAA might have been so hard on low SOSes.
We want to encourage aggressive scheduling like Hardin-Simmons, who opened with UW-LaCrosse at home and a road trip to Linfield. Had they won those two games, their two-loss slate with the positive SOS gets them in.
You're always in danger of losing too many games if you schedule strong, but we don't want a situation where Hardin-Simmons can schedule two patsies instead of UWL and Linfield, beat them, having a weak OWP/OOWP and get in, seeing as that's clearly preferable to scheduling games you're in danger of losing.
But for the good of everyone, that's what we want to see.
The good teams in island leagues are at a disadvantage, but the in-region rules were relaxed to help there, no?
I definitely agree that there is no perfect system, so some level of human interpretation is a good thing. But if you go back to the 16-team system, too much human interpretation meant certain conferences had little to no change to get in no matter what they do.
The entire system is built to support the AQ system. That way everyone's path to the playoffs is clearly defined, and you can open up your non-con schedule without completely blowing your playoff chances. For the 4th Pool B team, it's not clearly defined ... although I don't think there was any reason not to put a B in as a C, as someone suggested. Doesn't seem to be any advantage to exclude Bs per se.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2007, 11:24:48 PM
I still think that Whitworth (West Region record of 8-1) deserved to be in.
Record against regionally ranked teams was 0-1 (Redlands loss).
Laverne win did not help.
I think that Azusa was a game wasted. Being 9-1 versus the West Region would have been even stronger.
Ithaca acquitted itself nicely as did SJF. The AQ in the E8 going to Hartwick was mud-face ugly! Ithaca (East Region record of 8-2) was the third team from the E8. I just do not judge (subjective comment) the 3rd team from the E8 out of the weak East Region to be better than the first team out of the NWC from the West Region.
Earn the AQ or join a conference that has one!
Imagine the outrage if Cal Lutheran had also earned the AQ ... if Oxy didn't blow it vs. Whittier.
The weird thing is all these 8-2 teams that got in or missed aren't even in the discussion last year, when two 9-1s got left home.
So everything really is relative, and all you can do his handle your own business and then hope everything shakes out. I think any team, once it loses its second game (apparently even out of division) is in at-large trouble.
Quote from: Rick Akins on November 12, 2007, 02:39:23 PM
I have two questions for all the NCAA bracket experts--I am certainly not one!
1. Why is no one talking about Mount St. Joseph as the surprise last team rather than UWEC? I know MSJ had only one loss, but they are not from what anyone would call a "power conference" and their index was 152, by far the lowest of any Pool C team who got in. I know this is supposedly so "objective" now but the pool C berths seem to go to teams from power conferences (Capital, UWEC) or show respect from last year (SJF) or history (St. John's) and at least Hobart and Ithaca had good OWP and OOWP numbers and were rolling at the end. I can rationalize and understand those but why MSJ?
Well, SmedIndy's 'who was on the Pool C board' post on p. 3 covered it, but also I think it's true that having only 1 loss this season made teams Pool C no-brainers.
SJU, SJF and MSJ were all 1-loss teams with no knock on their credentials given they all lost by one score to the Pool A conference champ.
Quote2. Why is it a given that there were 4 "obvious" #1 seeds as the committtee stated? I of course see MUC and I guess UWW but why are W & J and especially Central so clear? I understand those last two are undefeated but so are Muhlenberg, St. Norbert and others. I frankly have not seen that much recent playoff success from W & J or Central to justify all that respect. I know this is supposedly so "objective" now, and I don't want to come off as a "black helicopter" nut but I did note that the AD from Central is on the committee. Are they really that obviously that #1 seed? Somebody make the case to me, or otherwise enlighten me.
Who said the four No. 1s were obvious? Central at 10-0 I thought was obvious, but W&J and Muhlenberg both would have worked for me.
In the case of Al Dorenkamp, he is not the first to be on the committee when his team is in the mix. Jim Collins (Capital), Dan McNeill (Cortland) and Bob Berezowitz (UWW) are or have been on the committee, for instance. I think they recuse themselves from the selection process, or at least the parts which directly affect their teams, but I don't know for sure. They will be at the Stagg Bowl and I can ask.
I am certain I have asked before and there is some sort of procedure in place.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 03:34:44 PM
Quote from: Rick Akins on November 12, 2007, 03:31:11 PM
Thanks for the insights. I understand if you look at the last regional rankings it all makes sense, but I am still not convinced how those regional rankings themselves exactly can be totally quantified even using all the designated criteria.
Any system that has a Curry ranked up that high has flaws and holes in it, but it is what it is...
If you don't go by pre-established criteria though, then what are you going by?
I'm telling you guys (and some of you played way back and remember), the old system left far more room for interpretation, in my opinion, although they surely had criteria too, we just didn't know about it b/c there was no D3football.com
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2007, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 04:05:17 PM
Ralph - Whitworth or Millsaps? See that's a tough call.
I could make that call because Whitworth went undefeated thru a good conference and lost to the #5 team in the first week. In-region 7-1 is as aggressive a schedule at they could reasonably have in the NWC. They schedule the home-and-home with UW-Stout for '06 and '07.
These are inflammatory words, but I think that Ithaca got the old "eastern bias". Three from the E8, and none from the NWC! >:(
Well whether we refer to it as "bias" or "human input" or "subjectiveness," ruling the other way on the tight calls doesn't necessarily mean there was any less of those things, it just means the sujectiveness was used to come up with a different outcome.
That's not a knock on you Ralph, that's probably more for the Whitworth folks who are lamenting the use of human input. If human input had gone the Pirates' way, I doubt there would be an outcry. Or rather, there would be, it would just be coming from a different fan base.
FWIW.
I definitely think three E8 and zero NWC is odd, and feels wrong .. but if you look at it how smedindy broke it down, which closely approximates the selection process, you can at least see who the teams on the board with Whitworth were.
Maybe all that comparing vs. UW-EC was for naught. Although they still would have had to pass them to get on the board first.
This is totally old news too, I should be concerning myself with Muhlenberg and TCNJ and NC Wesleyan ... but I also wanted to get caught up here.
HSU's OWP was .500 and OOWP was .490.
I wish I could throw HSU wins over Linfield and UW-Lacrosse into the computer, but I do not think that it would raise HSU's OWP/OOWP's appreciably.
Those values at 8-2 would have made HSU's OWP/OOWP lowest of all non-ASC teams in D-3.
Miss Coll might have gotten some help on their OWP/OOWP at .459 and .501.
Furthermore, I think that the ASC teams go far in substantiating the claim (by Rick, with which I agree) that the large and isolated ASC will always have trouble getting a good OWP/OOWP.
(UMHB's OWP/OOWP were .557 (2nd best of 6 schools at 9-1 in-region and boosted by UWW and CNU) and .491 (6th of 6 of schools at 9-1 and pulled down by the 9-team conference ASC with virtually no in-region opponents within 500 miles).
Thanks for the chance for us to "air" this out. I am sure that these discussions will be reviewed by the Competition Committee.
Re-focusing on this post by smedindy...
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 03:28:52 PM
Let's look at it this way - when it comes to Pool C, the top ranked contenders in each region (for assumptions sake based on Nov. 7 rankings and the results on Saturday):
East - St. John Fisher
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - St. John's
Taking SJF and St. John's with the first two picks (easy) leaves:
East - Hobart
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire (!) (I have to assume they jumped Whitworth, right??)
So, I bet Hobart's the pick. Leaving:
East - Ithaca
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
MSJ is the logical choice there.
Now the board is:
East - Ithaca
North - Capital
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
I'd choose Capital.
East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire
I would assume Eau Claire is next. The final board:
East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Whitworth
Now here's the $64,000 question. These are all 8 or 9 in their regions, I assume. Why Ithaca instead of Whitworth or Witt or Millsaps?
Millsaps! What a bridesmaid! :o
Ralph, if HSU had beaten Linfield and LaX it would have lowered their OWP (afterall, their opponents would have two more losses). If all their opponents played 10-game schedules, their OWP would have fallen from .500 to .480.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 21, 2007, 01:54:15 AM
Ralph, if HSU had beaten Linfield and LaX it would have lowered their OWP (afterall, their opponents would have two more losses). If all their opponents played 10-game schedules, their OWP would have fallen from .500 to .480.
Thanks!
Thus, the disadvantage of an isolated 9-team conference when the OWP and OOWP are considered! >:(
But that is the 'disadvantage' for any team, isolated or not - you keep beating opponents and your OWP automatically takes a hit! ;D
(Though beating 'em is probably better than the alternative! ;))
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 21, 2007, 02:01:00 AM
But that is the 'disadvantage' for any team, isolated or not - you keep beating opponents and your OWP automatically takes a hit! ;D
(Though beating 'em is probably better than the alternative! ;))
:D
Actually,
Appendix J in the Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf) shows that the game against "that" opponent is taken out of the calculation of OWP. Therefore the impact on OWP is seen by other teams, not the team that we are considering directly.
When UMHB beat CNU, NCWC felt the impact of the change in OWP.
I think we are saying the same thing. (I just referenced the Handbook one more time.)
Not sure where would be the best place to post this, but the playoff thread seems a logical fit.
Scott Fowler, a McClatchy Newspapers columnist, gives a very intelligent look at why playoffs are important and at how lame the big schools are for clinging to the BCS system. The story focuses on this year's Div-1A happenings, but I think Fowler articulates what many of us feel about having playoffs.
Read it here (http://www.charlotte.com/308/story/390120.html)
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on December 04, 2007, 05:30:12 PM
Not sure where would be the best place to post this, but the playoff thread seems a logical fit.
Scott Fowler, a McClatchy Newspapers columnist, gives a very intelligent look at why playoffs are important and at how lame the big schools are for clinging to the BCS system. The story focuses on this year's Div-1A happenings, but I think Fowler articulates what many of us feel about having playoffs.
Read it here (http://www.charlotte.com/308/story/390120.html)
I like the one comment from a reader who said he doesn't watch bowl games bt loves college football. I'm the same way with regards to 1-A football. I stopped watching about 2 weeks ago. I don't watch bowl games, either....they're a joke. Who wants to wacth 2 team play for a national championship and they haven't played a game in 40 or 50 days....the quality sucks.....
and I'd buy tostitos even if they didn't sponsor a bowl game!
Quote from: CNU85 on December 05, 2007, 09:10:35 PM
and I'd buy tostitos even if they didn't sponsor a bowl game!
Haha! I love it. :D