I just listened to the ATN podcast and Pat and Keith do a nice job laying out the Pool C discussion as well as potential Regional Rankings (which will be released in version 1 this Wednesday). So it's time to get the discussion going.
According to Pat/Keith, the current possible Pool C teams in order (based on Strength of Schedule numbers) are:
Ohio Northern
Rowan
Wheaton (assume 9-1)
Coe
Redlands
St Johns Fisher
Bethel
Hardin Simmons
Pac Lutheran
Baldwin Wallace (in case they shock the world in week 10)
Central
Randolph Macon
What's distinctly possible this year (as opposed to years past) is that several 9-1 teams may not get into the playoffs. Heading that possible list would be North Central should they lose to Wheaton. NCC's SOS numbers are signifcantly below anyone on this list (which currently has more names than Pool C slots available). What's also worth mentioning is the fact that this list will likely both expand and contract each week as teams lose and drop off and other undefeateds join this group.
how many pool C bids are distributed?
Six.
If Norwich beats SUNY-Maritime on Saturday, both could end with 1 loss. Norwich would likely be the third Pool B selection (unless Salisbury beats Wesley or the committee takes a two-loss team over a one-loss). That would leave Maritime as a one-loss Pool C candidate, though I would think they would be the very bottom of the one-loss candidates.
There is a distinct possibility that the South Region could not get a Pool C bid this year.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2010, 09:50:56 PM
There is a distinct possibility that the South Region could not get a Pool C bid this year.
Unless HSU stumbles, you don't think they are a lock?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2010, 09:50:56 PM
There is a distinct possibility that the South Region could not get a Pool C bid this year.
What's the chances that Ursinus would get one if they lose to Muhlenburgh, the Mules get the Pool A and Ursinus ends up 9-1?
They are 8th on the list above for 6 slots. Isn't that "not a lock"??
Quote from: USee on October 25, 2010, 10:28:56 PM
They are 8th on the list above for 6 slots. Isn't that "not a lock"??
The seriously flawed SoS is only one criterion. My view is that the selection committee DOES sometimes employ common sense (not always, but sometimes). A 9-1 HSU would almost certainly be among the top 2-3 pool C candidates by common sense.
Recognizing that 'common sense' and 'NCAA' rarely fit well in the same sentence, I would still contend they are a lock unless they stumble. ;) [Especially since some above them undoubtedly WILL stumble.]
Assuming North Central beats Wheaton as expected and the rest finish the season 9-1, I think the first three Pool C selections would be:
1. Hardin Simmons
2. Ohio Northern
3. Wheaton
After that, it gets interesting.
The NCAA doesn't use common sense. They use criteria. And by the criteria HSU does not appear to be a lock. Sorry.
Ursinus would be slotted right after HSU in the list above so they would be in the conversation.
Quote from: HScoach on October 25, 2010, 10:51:01 PM
Assuming North Central beats Wheaton as expected and the rest finish the season 9-1, I think the first three Pool C selections would be:
1. Hardin Simmons
2. Ohio Northern
3. Wheaton
After that, it gets interesting.
I agree with that...i might also add Bethel to that if they will out. Their only loss would be a close one to St. Thomas. After that a team from the IIAC might take an pool C bid. Then the 6th and final bid is up for debate.
Won't NCC get a nice jump in SOS by playing Wheaton?
Quote from: sju56321 on October 26, 2010, 02:56:11 PM
Won't NCC get a nice jump in SOS by playing Wheaton?
Their SOS will definitely increase, that's for sure.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 26, 2010, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on October 26, 2010, 02:56:11 PM
Won't NCC get a nice jump in SOS by playing Wheaton?
Their SOS will definitely increase, that's for sure.
As will SJF's after playing Springfield team that will end up 8-2...
Rowan's will take a hit with their last three games vs teams with a combined 3 wins...
Quote from: USee on October 25, 2010, 10:51:18 PM
The NCAA doesn't use common sense. They use criteria.
This statement should be stuck to the top of any thread involving tournament selection.
NCC gets a bump in their SOS the next two weeks with Elmhurst at 5-2 and Wheaton at 7-0. However, they finish with North Park who is 2-5.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 26, 2010, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on October 26, 2010, 02:56:11 PM
Won't NCC get a nice jump in SOS by playing Wheaton?
Their SOS will definitely increase, that's for sure.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 25, 2010, 10:23:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2010, 09:50:56 PM
There is a distinct possibility that the South Region could not get a Pool C bid this year.
Unless HSU stumbles, you don't think they are a lock?
I hope that a 9-1 HSU is a lock for the reason that they have scheduled hard games.
When the Whitworth contract was signed after the 2008 season, the Pirates had two undefeated seasons in the NWC (2006 & 2007).
HSU had just finished a 4-year run with Linfield.
After the 2009 season, they sign a contract with Willamette, which lost by 3 to UWW in 2008.
They are not shirking opponents.
8-2 is a bit more iffy. If McMurry beats them, then they lose the head-to-head against another 2-loss South Region (McMurry) team.
Quote from: USee on October 25, 2010, 02:34:04 PM
What's distinctly possible this year (as opposed to years past) is that several 9-1 teams may not get into the playoffs.
I don't think this is very different from other years through Week 8. Maybe by a team or two, but it's very typical to have far more 1-loss teams at this juncture than there are Pool C spots. As you noted, some will drop out of this group, and some undefeated teams might drop into it.
But Weeks 9, 10 and 11 can be plenty of time to thin the herd.
I hate to give away my secrets, but the NCAA's stat package features a breakdown of schedule to date and schedule including remaining opponents.
In other words, although we can't tell how the remaining teams on any schedule will perform, we can get an idea of what a team's SOS bump will be like based on the current records of the teams it has yet to play.
I'll add the Pool C picture into this week's ATN, but you guys have a pretty good breakdown here, plus Thursday afternoon is about a day after regional rankings will have everyone chatting away.
Quote from: Upstate on October 26, 2010, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 26, 2010, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on October 26, 2010, 02:56:11 PM
Won't NCC get a nice jump in SOS by playing Wheaton?
Their SOS will definitely increase, that's for sure.
As will SJF's after playing Springfield team that will end up 8-2...
So you're picking the Pride to beat Fisher and finish at 8-2?
Quote from: UCKaz00 on October 27, 2010, 09:36:05 AM
Quote from: Upstate on October 26, 2010, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 26, 2010, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: sju56321 on October 26, 2010, 02:56:11 PM
Won't NCC get a nice jump in SOS by playing Wheaton?
Their SOS will definitely increase, that's for sure.
As will SJF's after playing Springfield team that will end up 8-2...
So you're picking the Pride to beat Fisher and finish at 8-2?
Check that, 7-3...
Forgot about the AU win earlier in the year...
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/10/27/first-2010-regional-rankings/
First regional rankings are out.
I wonder what's more useless the first week of NCAA regional rankings or the list of which pool C teams got left at the table on selection sunday? 8-) ??? ;D
Quote from: USee on October 27, 2010, 05:32:31 PM
I wonder what's more useless the first week of NCAA regional rankings or the list of which pool C teams got left at the table on selection sunday? 8-) ??? ;D
Good stuff! :D
Quote from: USee on October 27, 2010, 05:32:31 PM
I wonder what's more useless the first week of NCAA regional rankings or the list of which pool C teams got left at the table on selection sunday? 8-) ??? ;D
Oh, definitely the first regional rankings!
They'll be forgotten by next week (except for UWW being #4 the first rankings of last year, and
probably UMU being #3 this year! ;)), but selection 'snubs' can provide fuel for years to come! :o ;D
I have a quick question about regional games. Why does DIII put so much stock into what a team does "regionally"? to me a win is a win in DIII....it shouldn't matter if you traveled 400 miles to get the W, or 100 miles. But for whatever reason the win 100 miles away has more impact than the win that accured 400 miles away.
I'm by no mean critizing the selection process for Pool C bids, I was just curious why that was.
That is a question I have been asking for at least two years and no one has provided a reasonable justification. It's also true that a win 400 miles away can have more impact than one 205 miles away.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2010, 04:55:50 PM
I have a quick question about regional games. Why does DIII put so much stock into what a team does "regionally"? to me a win is a win in DIII....it shouldn't matter if you traveled 400 miles to get the W, or 100 miles. But for whatever reason the win 100 miles away has more impact than the win that accured 400 miles away.
I'm by no mean criticizing the selection process for Pool C bids, I was just curious why that was.
Part of the core values of D-III is to remain locally focused. Missed class time is an anathema to intercollegiate athletics in D-III.
This works well in the north and east, basically in Ohio and north and east. D-III doesn't want athletic programs over-emphasizing travel. A trip from Massachusetts to California is just that. It does not give an advantage over the schools that do not have the travel budget when determining the post season.
For those of us in the western half of the country, and where a minority of D-III is located, the distance restrictions make less sense. The compromise that was passed to assist us in the less densely populated areas of D-III was when the NCAA accepted NCAA Administrative Regions as one criterion for "in-region". That lets WIAC, NWC and ASC schools to get in-region games.
The FAQ has the four administrative regions where the NCAA is basically divided evenly in quarters.
FAQ (http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#8)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2010, 08:37:42 PM
D-III doesn't want athletic programs over-emphasizing travel.
And when Ralph says that, it's not somebody in an office telling D-III what to do and what not to do. It's the member instiutions who set that agenda, and tell the selection committees what rules to follow.
Missed class time is mentioned; also small institutions on tight budgets have reason to want to de-emphasize travel. They put their money where their mouth is, so t speak, by attempting to reward teams for staying close to home when given a choice.
That just happens to make more sense in sports besides football, where there are more opponents (420+ sted 230+) and more flexibility in scheduling.
That's all well and good IF you can get teams within your region or 200 miles to play you!! I know Wesley isn't the only team that this effects and I know what happens to the teams in Texas every year at playoff time. I don't see either situation getting better any time soon.
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on October 28, 2010, 09:25:47 PM
That's all well and good IF you can get teams within your region or 200 miles to play you!! I know Wesley isn't the only team that this effects and I know what happens to the teams in Texas every year at playoff time. I don't see either situation getting better any time soon.
Well again, the rules are made by a group that contains very few schools who can relate to Wesley, and with other sports in mind as well.
Football is its own special animal sometimes, with its more limited group of participants and 10-game seasons, and not all the catch-all rules apply best to our seasons.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2010, 04:55:50 PM
I have a quick question about regional games. Why does DIII put so much stock into what a team does "regionally"? to me a win is a win in DIII....it shouldn't matter if you traveled 400 miles to get the W, or 100 miles. But for whatever reason the win 100 miles away has more impact than the win that accured 400 miles away.
I'm by no mean critizing the selection process for Pool C bids, I was just curious why that was.
Honestly I would put more value if you get a win further away. It's just harder to go that far away and expect to perform at full speed. Especially if you're flying to the game....it's just not something most d3 athletes are used to...
But, to your point, a win is a win, whether you're d3, d1, high school, or pop warner....no coach (or player) is ever going to not be satisfied with a win....
Quote from: K-Mack on October 28, 2010, 09:03:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2010, 08:37:42 PM
D-III doesn't want athletic programs over-emphasizing travel.
And when Ralph says that, it's not somebody in an office telling D-III what to do and what not to do. It's the member institutions who set that agenda, and tell the selection committees what rules to follow.
Missed class time is mentioned; also small institutions on tight budgets have reason to want to de-emphasize travel. They put their money where their mouth is, so t speak, by attempting to reward teams for staying close to home when given a choice.
That just happens to make more sense in sports besides football, where there are more opponents (420+ sted 230+) and more flexibility in scheduling.
Perfect explanation...without the sarcasm, i like it. I can see where DIII institutions are coming from by creating these rules. teams (or conferences) with little to no travel restrictions can benefit more by playing whoever they want around the country, compared to conferences with tight travel restrictions (who have no flexibility).
Unfortunately the WIAC is tightening its screws on traveling starting next season. each team is going to play a conference opponent and count it as a non-conference game. I suppose that'll benefit whitewater b/c it'll count as a regional game, and it should increase its SOS. compared to now, where no team will hardly schedule whitewater.
Playing twice is not ideal in football ... but yes, it beats playing a non-D3 from Tennessee or Missouri like some WIACs have to do. That's travel costs and no benefit in the playoff chase, just the benefit of not having an off week.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 28, 2010, 11:06:18 PM
Playing twice is not ideal in football ... but yes, it beats playing a non-D3 from Tennessee or Missouri like some WIACs have to do. That's travel costs and no benefit in the playoff chase, just the benefit of not having an off week.
Why not convince UW-Parkside to re-classify from D-II and add football? Have Superior add football.
There are 2 more games.
Football at Superior failed spectacularly, to the point of dropping the sport in midseason because of low numbers.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2010, 11:11:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 28, 2010, 11:06:18 PM
Playing twice is not ideal in football ... but yes, it beats playing a non-D3 from Tennessee or Missouri like some WIACs have to do. That's travel costs and no benefit in the playoff chase, just the benefit of not having an off week.
Why not convince UW-Parkside to re-classify from D-II and add football? Have Superior add football.
There are 2 more games.
You offering to help pay for the start-up of these programs? ;)
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2010, 04:55:50 PM
I have a quick question about regional games. Why does DIII put so much stock into what a team does "regionally"? to me a win is a win in DIII....it shouldn't matter if you traveled 400 miles to get the W, or 100 miles. But for whatever reason the win 100 miles away has more impact than the win that accured 400 miles away.
I'm by no mean critizing the selection process for Pool C bids, I was just curious why that was.
To me, the bigger question is why all the emphasis on regional games for the regional rankings and comparison for Pool C spots for brackets which are no longer explicitly regional in nature?
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 28, 2010, 10:27:55 PM
Unfortunately the WIAC is tightening its screws on traveling starting next season. each team is going to play a conference opponent and count it as a non-conference game. I suppose that'll benefit whitewater b/c it'll count as a regional game, and it should increase its SOS. compared to now, where no team will hardly schedule whitewater.
Not so sure it will help SOS next year. After all, UW-W plays La Crosse twice!! ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on October 28, 2010, 09:03:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2010, 08:37:42 PM
D-III doesn't want athletic programs over-emphasizing travel.
And when Ralph says that, it's not somebody in an office telling D-III what to do and what not to do. It's the member instiutions who set that agenda, and tell the selection committees what rules to follow.
Missed class time is mentioned; also small institutions on tight budgets have reason to want to de-emphasize travel. They put their money where their mouth is, so t speak, by attempting to reward teams for staying close to home when given a choice.
That just happens to make more sense in sports besides football, where there are more opponents (420+ sted 230+) and more flexibility in scheduling.
I understand the class time value. However, in most cases we would be talking about Friday only. It seems like there could be some arrangements on that. I don't understand the "reward teams for staying close to home" argument. If each school is responsible for their own budgets, why would a small school care if a larger budget school flies all over the country if it chooses to? I'm trying to understand why that kind of thinking would creep into playoff criteria. It's not like it's the larger budget schools flying out of region instead of playing the smaller budget schools in most cases. In the case of UW-W, the smaller schools in the region are the ones not exactly eager to schedule a home and home.
Quote from: bleedpurple on October 29, 2010, 07:06:20 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 28, 2010, 09:03:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2010, 08:37:42 PM
D-III doesn't want athletic programs over-emphasizing travel.
And when Ralph says that, it's not somebody in an office telling D-III what to do and what not to do. It's the member instiutions who set that agenda, and tell the selection committees what rules to follow.
Missed class time is mentioned; also small institutions on tight budgets have reason to want to de-emphasize travel. They put their money where their mouth is, so t speak, by attempting to reward teams for staying close to home when given a choice.
That just happens to make more sense in sports besides football, where there are more opponents (420+ sted 230+) and more flexibility in scheduling.
I understand the class time value. However, in most cases we would be talking about Friday only. It seems like there could be some arrangements on that. I don't understand the "reward teams for staying close to home" argument. If each school is responsible for their own budgets, why would a small school care if a larger budget school flies all over the country if it chooses to? I'm trying to understand why that kind of thinking would creep into playoff criteria. It's not like it's the larger budget schools flying out of region instead of playing the smaller budget schools in most cases. In the case of UW-W, the smaller schools in the region are the ones not exactly eager to schedule a home and home.
You can fly all over the country. We ASC schools love it when we can get a home-and-home with WIAC schools. In fact, that is an in-region game for both schools. The Administrative Region rule was put in place to address the needs of some island schools/conferences in the west and the south.
D-III just doesn't want to place a team at a disadvantage when considering the core values of D-III. The division doesn't want to encourage the escalation in the "miliary-industrial-megabudget complex" that D-I has become
Regional competition is important.
Fair and equitable access to the post-season is important. You win the conference, you defeat your peer institutions, and you get to the playoffs as the Pool A bid. Every player knows how to make the playoffs when the season starts. The Pool C bids are for do-overs and second chances.
Classtime and minimal expense are key to D-III programs.
Just for arguments sake. In the overall scheme of things , doesn't football actually take away the least time of all sports ? Every other sport plays games during the week as well as the weekends. And baseball teams play two to four times a week.
Yes, but Division III isn't going to make a set of rules for one sport and not for all sports.
Football already stands out with the five-weekend postseason, where none of the others is more than three.
We're very lucky that the NCAA funds the tournament as we have it now. After years and years of only 16 teams getting selected with no AQ in place, I'm not going to complain about a slight travel issue.
Quote from: HScoach on October 31, 2010, 09:49:05 AM
We're very lucky that the NCAA funds the tournament as we have it now. After years and years of only 16 teams getting selected with no AQ in place, I'm not going to complain about a slight travel issue.
"After years and years of only 16 teams getting selected with no AQ in place"and still not getting the best 16 teams in the country, at that!*
+1!
It is 15 games from pre-season to the Stagg Championship.
Every player in the country knows that winning all 15 games earns the Stagg Trophy.
Check out 1998, when there were five undefeated teams in the South Region, plus Hardin-Simmons which only had a 34-23 loss to D-II Midwestern State (TX) in the Lone Star Conference.
This season is another example of the limitations of the SOS formula used by the NCAA to select playoff teams. In the CCIW 7 of the 8 teams are in the top 20 in the current SOS formula. This is because their OWP and OOWP is strong bolstered by a 22-2 non conference record. The problem I have with it is that record came against the likes of Olivet, MacMurray, Luther, Loras, Adrian, Greenville, etc. What's even more absurd is Benedictine is poised to get a Pool A bid as the AQ for the NATHC. The same Benedictine who lost by 10 pts to 2-6 North Park in the CCIW! Does ayone really think Millikin, Elmhurst, and Wheaton play a tougher schedule than UWW does in the WIAC? I am not taking about strength of conference, I am talking about 33% of your games against teams that are not competitive. I don't know the answer to fix this but there is NO incentive for teams to schedule anyone tough on their schedule. Certainly not in the CCIW.
^ That's exactly why I think the SoS numbers are junk. Take a conference like the 10 team OAC where they only get 1 non-conference game to up/down their SoS numbers and you get that conference champ being almost guaranteed to have a SoS at or very near .500
With so little cross-region games, I don't know how to rank teams between conferences that isn't pure opinion, but using the SoS numbers is pretty worthless in my opinion.
who exactly selects Pool C and B bids? I assume the same committee decides what teams get the #1 bid in each region?
Is it a panel of NCAA officials? coaches? SIDs?
Yes, the same 'national committee' that does the rest. Two reps from each regional committee are on the national committee, for a total of eight. This year: Norwich coach, Rowan AD, Manchester coach, OAC commissioner, ODAC commissioner, Grove City coach, Knox coach/AD, Concordia-Moorhead coach
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2010, 04:45:03 PM
Yes, the same 'national committee' that does the rest. Two reps from each regional committee are on the national committee, for a total of eight. This year: Norwich coach, Rowan AD, Manchester coach, OAC commissioner, ODAC commissioner, Grove City coach, Knox coach/AD, Concordia-Moorhead coach
gottcha...so it's safe to say ALL members of the national committee are also on the regional committee? I guess that explains why the final regional rankings are "close" to the playoff brancket...with the expection of moving UMU to the East.
Right, the two people from each region co-chair their region's committee, which is made up of the two co-chairs and a representative from each league, plus Pool B teams if there are any in the region.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2010, 04:52:56 PM
Right, the two people from each region co-chair their region's committee, which is made up of the two co-chairs and a representative from each league, plus Pool B teams if there are any in the region.
what do you mean by each league? you mean conference?
Yes, league and conference are fairly interchangeable words, no?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2010, 04:45:03 PM
Yes, the same 'national committee' that does the rest. Two reps from each regional committee are on the national committee, for a total of eight. This year: Norwich coach, Rowan AD, Manchester coach, OAC commissioner, ODAC commissioner, Grove City coach, Knox coach/AD, Concordia-Moorhead coach
Oh Lord. We're all screwed.
Latest regional rankings posted:
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/03/ncaas-second-regional-rankings/
Quote from: HScoach on October 31, 2010, 09:49:05 AM
We're very lucky that the NCAA funds the tournament as we have it now. After years and years of only 16 teams getting selected with no AQ in place, I'm not going to complain about a slight travel issue.
Verbatim.
(also played for 8-2 conference co-champ/non-playoff participant in 16-team era)
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 02, 2010, 04:39:43 PM
who exactly selects Pool C and B bids? I assume the same committee decides what teams get the #1 bid in each region?
Is it a panel of NCAA officials? coaches? SIDs?
Addressed in depth in this week's ATN:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2010/picking-the-top-seeds
Ralph,
Going into this weeks games, how do you see the Pool C bids?
I'll hazard a guess. I think there are at least 10 very strong 1 loss teams right now hoping for a Pool C. Feedback is welcomed:
loser of Wheaton/North Central game
Ohio Northern
Coe*
St. John Fisher
Bethel
Rowan*
Hardin-Simmons
Pacific Lutheran
Redlands
Cortland St.*
Montclair St.*
Central*
* I'm unclear about the three-way tie scenario in the NJAC...or what would happen if Central causes one in the IIAC.
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 05, 2010, 12:46:08 PM
Ralph,
Going into this weeks games, how do you see the Pool C bids?
I have been on the road. When I settle down, I will check out K-Mack's ATN!
I think that we get only 1 Pool C bid in the South if HSU goes 9-1.
Quote from: d-train on November 05, 2010, 03:05:15 PM
I'll hazard a guess. I think there are at least 10 very strong 1 loss teams right now hoping for a Pool C. Feedback is welcomed:
Wheaton
Ohio Northern
Coe
St. John Fisher
Bethel
Rowan*
Hardin-Simmons
Pacific Lutheran
Redlands
Cortland St.*
Montclair St.*
Central*
Hampden-Sydney ???
* I'm unclear about the three-way tie scenario in the NJAC
Updated...but there are some crazy games going on out West right now that could really shake this whole thing up.
Today's results... Losses are in bold. Partial.
East Region
1. Delaware Valley 7-1 7-1
2. Rowan 7-1 7-1
3. St. John Fisher 7-1 8-1 7-2 8-2
4. Cortland State 7-1 7-1
5. Montclair State 7-1 7-1
6. SUNY-Maritime 9-0 9-0
7. Maine Maritime 7-1 7-1
8. Ithaca 6-2 6-2
9. Alfred 5-2 6-2
10. Endicott 7-2 7-2
North Region
1. Wheaton (Ill.) 8-0 8-0 8-1 8-1 n]Lost to NCC
2. North Central (Ill.) 8-0 8-0
3. Mount Union 7-0 8-0
4. Ohio Northern 6-1 7-1 Pool C bid
5. Trine 7-0 8-0 MIAA
6. Baldwin-Wallace 7-1 7-1 8-1 8-1
7. Franklin 6-1 7-1
8. Case Western Reserve 6-1 7-1 Pool B Lost to Wash U.
9. Wittenberg 6-0 8-0
10. Wabash 7-0 7-1
South Region
1. Wesley 5-0 8-0 Pool B (open date)
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-0 8-0 8-0 / 9-0 Clinched Pool A today
3. Hampden-Sydney 8-0 8-0 8-1/8-1 Pool C after today's loss to W&L
4. DePauw 8-0 8-0 9-0 /9-0 SCAC Pool A
5. Thomas More 8-0 8-0 9-0 /9-0 Clinched Pres AC Pool A
6. Hardin-Simmons 8-1 8-1 (open date)
7. Ursinus 7-1 7-1 7-2/ 7-2 Lost to Muhlenberg which got the CC Pool A Bid
8. Salisbury 4-2 6-2 (open date)
9. Randolph-Macon 7-1 7-1 7-2 /7-2 Lost to Bridgewater
10. Washington and Lee 6-2 6-2 7-2 /7-2 ODAC Pool A with the win over H-SC
West Region
1. St. Thomas 9-0 9-0
2. UW-Whitewater 5-0 8-0
3. Wartburg 8-0 8-0
4. Coe 5-1 7-1
5. Cal Lutheran 6-1 6-1
6. Bethel 7-1 7-1
7. Linfield 5-1 6-1
8. Pacific Lutheran 5-1 6-1
9. Redlands 6-1 6-1
10. Central 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-2
Right now, I think that the East and the South get one bid. The West and the North get two.
Assuming Pacific Lutheran and Redlands wins (and records are included that would represent such wins), here are the teams competing for Pool C with 0- or 1-loss(es) (* - Team could win its conference's Pool A Automatic Bid still):
Hardin-Simmons (8-1) -- at Louisiana College (6-3)
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1) -- at Millikin (4-5)
Montclair St. (8-1) -- at Wm. Paterson (4-5)
* Rowan (8-1) -- at New Jersey (5-4)
* Cortland (8-1) -- vs. Ithaca (6-3)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1) -- vs. Willamette (7-2)
Ohio Northern (8-1) -- vs. Heidelberg (5-4)
Hampden-Sydney (8-1) -- vs. Randolph-Macon (7-2)
Coe (8-1) -- at Cornell (0-9)
Redlands (7-1) -- vs. Chapman (4-4)
Bethel (8-1) -- vs. Augsburg (4-5)
* Wittenberg (9-0) -- at Wooster (5-4)
I will go back and add SoS figures once all games go final since these numbers would be affected -- and if Pacific Lutheran and/or Redlands lose, I will delete accordingly.
Hardin-Simmons (8-1) -- at Louisiana College (6-3)
* Cortland (8-1) -- vs. Ithaca (6-3)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1) -- vs. Willamette (7-2)
Hampden-Sydney (8-1) -- vs. Randolph-Macon (7-2)
Judging strictly based on the records of their remaining foes, these look like the four most likely to still shake-up the playoff picture. Interesting that 3 of the 4 Pool C candidates with significant challenges remaining are the home teams.
South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524 -- 0.523/0.527) -- vs. Randolph-Macon (7-2, 0.446)
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502 -- 0.492/0.523) -- at Louisiana College (6-3, 0.456)
North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604 -- 0.614/0.583) -- at Millikin (4-5, 0.581)
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Region), 0.512 -- 0.508/0.521) -- vs. Heidelberg (5-4, 0.456)
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416 -- 0.365/0.517) -- at Wooster (5-4, 0.441)
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Region), 0.525 -- 0.552/0.472) -- vs. DePauw (9-0, 0.522)
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Region), 0.442 -- 0.412/0.503) -- at Chicago (7-2, 0.530)
East
------
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500 -- 0.493/0.515) -- at Wm. Paterson (4-5, 0.394)
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497 -- 0.486/0.518) -- at New Jersey (5-4, 0.408)
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491 -- 0.486/0.501) -- vs. Ithaca (6-3, 0.588)
West
-------
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Region), 0.543 -- 0.571/0.488) -- at Cornell (0-9, 0.535)
Bethel (8-1, 0.513 -- 0.493/0.552) -- vs. Augsburg (4-5, 0.479)
Redlands (7-1, 0.503 -- 0.481/0.547) -- vs. Chapman (4-4, 0.462)
Pacific Lutheran (7-1 (6-1 Region), 0.463 -- 0.438/0.514) -- vs. Willamette (7-2, 0.511)
* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Region Record Includes Just One Loss
After Win/Loss Records are NCAA SoS -- OWP/OOWP -- Final Opponent (W/L, OWP of Final Opponent)
Frank,
Who do you see getting the Pool C bids today?
Looks to me like the teams off the board will be:
Wheaton
Coe
Hampden Sydney
Bethel
ONU
And the last spot is a battle between montclair and HSU??
Quote from: USee on November 07, 2010, 03:09:03 PM
Looks to me like the teams off the board will be:
Wheaton
Coe
Hampden Sydney
Bethel
ONU
And the last spot is a battle between montclair and HSU??
Not that there aren't lots of deserving teams out there, but it would just feel wrong for Hardin-Simmons not to get to dance with the rest of the big boys on Nov. 20.
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 07, 2010, 12:44:37 PM
Frank,
Who do you see getting the Pool C bids today?
I can't really say until we see Wednesday's final released Regional Rankings and then factor in probable SoS numbers for the following weekend. I'll hedge until later in the week on this one, since quality wins/losses will tell us a lot in the scheme of things.
How about Trine in the MIAA? If they lose to Albion next week, it appears that Albion will win the league and Trine will be a 9-1 team in the Pool C mix.
Quote from: franelia on November 07, 2010, 07:46:35 PM
How about Trine in the MIAA? If they lose to Albion next week, it appears that Albion will win the league and Trine will be a 9-1 team in the Pool C mix.
Trine would be 9-1, but as MIAA runner up, they would not deserve or get a pool c bid in my opinion.
Quote from: Ryan Tipps on November 07, 2010, 03:38:56 PM
Quote from: USee on November 07, 2010, 03:09:03 PM
Looks to me like the teams off the board will be:
Wheaton
Coe
Hampden Sydney
Bethel
ONU
And the last spot is a battle between montclair and HSU??
Not that there aren't lots of deserving teams out there, but it would just feel wrong for Hardin-Simmons not to get to dance with the rest of the big boys on Nov. 20.
They'll get there. UMHB needs a playing partner for round 1. :)
Frank- Washington U. is in the South Region
Thanks for catching the errors guys. Here are the revisions, including regional records, when different, in the opponents' stats:
South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524 -- 0.523/0.527) -- vs. Randolph-Macon (7-2, 0.446)
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502 -- 0.492/0.523) -- at Louisiana Col. (6-3 (6-2 Reg.), 0.456)
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Reg.), 0.442 -- 0.412/0.503) -- at Chicago (7-2, 0.530)
North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604 -- 0.614/0.583) -- at Millikin (4-5, 0.581)
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Reg.), 0.512 -- 0.508/0.521) -- vs. Heidelberg (5-4, 0.456)
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416 -- 0.365/0.517) -- at Wooster (5-4 (5-3 Reg.), 0.441)
* Trine (9-0 (8-0 Reg.), 0.379 -- 0.311/0.515) -- vs. Albion (5-4 (5-2 Reg.), 0.446)
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Reg.), 0.525 -- 0.552/0.472) -- vs. DePauw (9-0, 0.522)
East
------
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500 -- 0.493/0.515) -- at Wm. Paterson (4-5, 0.394)
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497 -- 0.486/0.518) -- at New Jersey (5-4, 0.408)
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491 -- 0.486/0.501) -- vs. Ithaca (6-3, 0.588)
West
-------
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.543 -- 0.571/0.488) -- at Cornell (0-9, 0.535)
Bethel (8-1, 0.513 -- 0.493/0.552) -- vs. Augsburg (4-5, 0.479)
Redlands (7-1, 0.503 -- 0.481/0.547) -- vs. Chapman (4-4 (4-2 Reg.), 0.462)
Pac. Luth. (7-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.463 -- 0.438/0.514) -- vs. Willamette (7-2 (5-2 Reg.), 0.511)
* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Reg. Record Includes Just One Loss
After Win/Loss Records are NCAA SoS -- OWP/OOWP -- Final Opponent (W/L, OWP of Final Opponent). If Regional Record differs, a second W/L record is in inner parentheses, indicated with "Reg."
As I see it, there are only 3 logical possibilities (since we all 'know' that Mount and UWW will ultimately get #1s ;))
a. Wesley 'east', UMHB 'south', UMU ''north', :UWW 'west'.
b. UMU 'east, Wesley 'south', NCC, 'north', UWW 'west'
c. UMU 'east', Wesley 'south', UWW 'north', St. Thomas 'west'
Based on past years (they could have 'always' moved Wesley 'east') and the SoS of UMHB (and geography), I'll regard option A as the most unlikely.
That seems to leave it as a head-to-head battle - who is more worthy of the 4th #1 - NCC or the Tommies?
As a CCIW partisan, I (of course) will take NCC. ;D
Comments?
.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2010, 07:02:14 PM
Comments?
I'd vote for option C...which is really the only connection I 'see' to Pool C?
I've been trying to sort out St. Thomas and NCC by the criteria, but it is tough!
St. Thomas has already finished their season (though opponents still have a week to go); NCC finishes the season against 2-7 North Park, so SoS will take a hit. Right now, NCC leads in SoS by .561 to .538 - they should retain a very slight lead, but nothing crucial.
Against regionally-ranked opponents, they are each 1-0 (NCC downed Wheaton; the Tommies downed Bethel). It might be huge if either St. John's (doubtful) or IWU (better chance) slipped into the regional rankings.
They have no common opponents, though UWEC is a 'second-hand' common opponent. While NCC beat UWEC 20-6, UWEC beat SJU by 3, while STU only beat SJU by 1. That's a definite stretch of the criteria, but, hey, I'm not finding much here to go on! ;)
Overall, from what I can find, NCC is probably the slight favorite, but only slight.
Possibly the bigger factor would be NOT moving UWW retains more of the 'regional' emphasis! ;)
Quote from: d-train on November 08, 2010, 07:06:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2010, 07:02:14 PM
Comments?
I'd vote for option C...which is really the only connection I 'see' to Pool C?
Good point. Since it seems unlikely we will soon see a #1 seed who is not undefeated, this was NOT a pool C topic. But we don't yet have a thread for playoffs in general (or #1 seeds in particular), and I dislike opening new threads with so many already going, so I thought this might be the place to catch interested posters.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2010, 12:02:43 AM
Good point. Since it seems unlikely we will soon see a #1 seed who is not undefeated, this was NOT a pool C topic. But we don't yet have a thread for playoffs in general (or #1 seeds in particular), and I dislike opening new threads with so many already going, so I thought this might be the place to catch interested posters.
Just giving you a hard time. ;)
I'd say your instincts are correct. It'll be option B or C above. Moving Mt. East makes a lot of sense. But moving UWW doesn't add much (if any) benefit - considering the near toss-up between NCC and St. T. I think there are exactly eight traditional 'West' teams in the field this year, with little reason to get 'creative'.
How does the committee handle a real Top 6 for four regions?
A strong NCC may keep UWW out of the north.
The other question will be where the Pool C bids are given. If there are 2 Pool C bids given to the West and to the North, then there may be the need to move MUC to the East to help with the bracketing. DPU and Thomas More also are geographically proximate to the North Region. They probably need to the "kept" in the South Region.
I really have no idea how the brackets will shape up.
I just won't bet against 2 Top 10 teams from Texas being paired in the first round.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2010, 12:33:48 AM
How does the committee handle a real Top 6 for four regions?
A strong NCC may keep UWW out of the north.
The two times that UWW was transplanted to the 'north', they won the Stagg! We thought losing Mt. Union was a 'gift' - some gift! :P (In 2008, UMU went 'east', but UWW did not come 'north'; Wheaton won the 'north', UMU won the Stagg.)
So Mt. Union might be hoping UWW stays in the 'west' also - they've never won the Stagg from there! ;D
[Not that any of the 32 teams have thrown in the towel just yet. ::)]
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2010, 10:14:39 PM
St. Thomas has already finished their season (though opponents still have a week to go); NCC finishes the season against 2-7 North Park, so SoS will take a hit. Right now, NCC leads in SoS by .561 to .538 - they should retain a very slight lead, but nothing crucial.
By my quick math, the SoS will take an extreme hit because of the playing of a .222 team. It drops the OWP by at least .031 -- take 2/3 of that drop for about .021. The OOWP currently drops, too by about .002 points. 1/3 of that is about .001. So, other opponents' play Saturday could easily wipe out ANY SoS advantage.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2010, 12:53:16 AM
So Mt. Union might be hoping UWW stays in the 'west' also - they've never won the Stagg from there! ;D
Maybe...but Linfield, Pacific Lutheran, and St. John's have. ;D
Quote from: d-train on November 09, 2010, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2010, 12:53:16 AM
So Mt. Union might be hoping UWW stays in the 'west' also - they've never won the Stagg from there! ;D
Maybe...but Linfield, Pacific Lutheran, and St. John's have. ;D
I'm kind of hoping UWW lands in the West. I want UWW to avoid NCC as long as possible. I wouldn't mind forcing Linfield to travel all the way to Wisconsin again.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 09, 2010, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 09, 2010, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2010, 12:53:16 AM
So Mt. Union might be hoping UWW stays in the 'west' also - they've never won the Stagg from there! ;D
Maybe...but Linfield, Pacific Lutheran, and St. John's have. ;D
I'm kind of hoping UWW lands in the West. I want UWW to avoid NCC as long as possible. I wouldn't mind forcing Linfield to travel all the way to Wisconsin again.
Seems like Linfeld and UWW make it interesting whether it's in Oregon or Wisconsin...though the outcome never seems right to me :)
This could be the year Linfield does a number on UWW. We know it's possible....most teams can only hope it's possible.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2010, 09:39:12 PM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on November 05, 2010, 12:46:08 PM
Ralph,
Going into this weeks games, how do you see the Pool C bids?
I have been on the road. When I settle down, I will check out K-Mack's ATN!
I think that we get only 1 Pool C bid in the South if HSU goes 9-1.
Sorry. I had to cut it off last week before I could finish the Pool C stuff, and I thought the discussion was lively enough that you didn't need me anyway.
This week I'll (almost) definitely do it because I think it is necessary to have that road map going into Saturday.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2010, 12:02:43 AM
Quote from: d-train on November 08, 2010, 07:06:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2010, 07:02:14 PM
Comments?
I'd vote for option C...which is really the only connection I 'see' to Pool C?
Good point. Since it seems unlikely we will soon see a #1 seed who is not undefeated, this was NOT a pool C topic. But we don't yet have a thread for playoffs in general (or #1 seeds in particular), and I dislike opening new threads with so many already going, so I thought this might be the place to catch interested posters.
You got me.
And your point about Wesley is right on; that has been on the table before (but not always; remember the year Wesley got a 7 seed and was sent to Muhl in Round 1?) and has not happened.
I thought St. Lawrence would be a distance anchor, but it appears they are just less than 500 miles from both Mount Union and Wesley. And I guess even if Maine Maritime is in, they just go to NJAC champ. Especially if it's Cortland?
I'm just rambling off top.
Pool C is so strong this year that two teams who are undefeated right now (Wittenberg and Trine) still need to win to preserve their playoff hopes.
Without a major wave of losses, neither has a shot in Pool C as currently constituted.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2010, 10:00:04 PM
I thought St. Lawrence would be a distance anchor, but it appears they are just less than 500 miles from both Mount Union and Wesley. And I guess even if Maine Maritime is in, they just go to NJAC champ. Especially if it's Cortland?
I thought Cortland was within 500 miles of Castine, but it's not. The only possible partners for MME would be St. Lawrence, SUNY-Maritime or Montclair.
3rd Regional Rankings:
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/category/regional-rankings/
Darn, I just don't think it's in the cards for my Lutes (Pacific Lutheran). Seems like they are roughly 8th or 9th in line for the 6 Pool C bids. They face a very tough test against Willamette this week (and a loss surely drops them). Not a whole lot of changes projected ahead of them...and not likely enough bump with a win.
I've got to question these latest rankings. Last week in the north, it was 1. Wheaton 2. NCC 3. UMU. Saturday, NCC decisively beat Wheaton. And NOW they jump UMU to #1??!! (I've got no problem with UMU being #1, but NOW?! :o)
Meanwhile, St. Thomas remained #1 in the west over UWW. I have a sinking feeling that the committee is positioning things to pick the Tommies as the 4th #1, instead of NCC (which would almost certainly mean for the north "Hello UWW").
I wonder about them too. Personally, I think they moved North Central behind Mount to allow Whitewater to be separated from St Thomas by the Warhawks being the #1 in the North and Mount the #1 in the East.
Interesting how #2 NCC can beat the North's #1 ranked team (Wheaton), #3 Mount can beat the North's 6th ranked team (Baldwin Wallace) and Mount jumps North Central.
If the plan is to move Mount east, I'm not sure what makes St Thomas a better option in the West than NCC is in the North? But is sure looks like they flipped Mount & North Central around to justify that very thing.
Weird.
Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,
Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point? One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 03:27:22 PM
Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,
Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point? One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?
Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.
Adding to the "Why NOW?" question: NCC just picked up TWO wins over regionally-ranked opponents, as IWU enters the north rankings at #8!
Unless the 'fix' is in, that does also give another boost to NCC vs. St. Thomas - St. John's did NOT enter the west rankings, so the Tommies still have only ONE win over a regionally-ranked opponent.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2010, 03:31:13 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 03:27:22 PM
Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,
Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point? One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?
Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.
Okay - fair point - 'separate' might not be the right term. Still, it seems a bit odd to me that they would be thinking nationally and working across regions in cahoots already.
I posted this on the South Region Playoff thread as well:
I am curious how the criteria of wins over regionally ranked teams and SOS are applied? It seems that there will be teams chosen over teams based on geography or saving dollars, instead of a strict application of the selection criteria. Especially when it comes to Pool C. That is not a complaint. It is just an observation. Every team had that same chance to win the automatic qualifier. I am just wondering how some decisions are made? Maybe some of the more experienced posters could shed some light.
Quote from: HSC85 on November 10, 2010, 03:46:43 PM
I posted this on the South Region Playoff thread as well:
I am curious how the criteria of wins over regionally ranked teams and SOS are applied? It seems that there will be teams chosen over teams based on geography or saving dollars, instead of a strict application of the selection criteria. Especially when it comes to Pool C. That is not a complaint. It is just an observation. Every team had that same chance to win the automatic qualifier. I am just wondering how some decisions are made? Maybe some of the more experienced posters could shed some light.
I don't believe that the committee selects teams based on geography. That would undercut the idea that this is a national tournament. Certainly, first round matchups and "seeds" are flexible in order save cash, but the actual selection of teams isn't geographically influenced. At least it certainly shouldn't be.
As for how the committees apply the criteria? Complete mystery. I'm a very analytical mind and when I apply the published criteria in an analytical fashion, there are some pretty serious inconsistencies with the RRs.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2010, 03:57:07 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 10, 2010, 03:46:43 PM
I posted this on the South Region Playoff thread as well:
I am curious how the criteria of wins over regionally ranked teams and SOS are applied? It seems that there will be teams chosen over teams based on geography or saving dollars, instead of a strict application of the selection criteria. Especially when it comes to Pool C. That is not a complaint. It is just an observation. Every team had that same chance to win the automatic qualifier. I am just wondering how some decisions are made? Maybe some of the more experienced posters could shed some light.
I don't believe that the committee selects teams based on geography. That would undercut the idea that this is a national tournament. Certainly, first round matchups and "seeds" are flexible in order save cash, but the actual selection of teams isn't geographically influenced. At least it certainly shouldn't be.
As for how the committees apply the criteria? Complete mystery. I'm a very analytical mind and when I apply the published criteria in an analytical fashion, there are some pretty serious inconsistencies with the RRs.
+1. Maybe I'm a little naive, but I think the 'penny pinching' affects pairing and seeds...not the actual at-large selections.
Thanks Wally. I now realize that I am not the only one who is having a hard time understanding the process.
Updated with Quality Wins & Quality Losses:
South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524 -- 0.523/0.527) -- vs. Randolph-Macon (7-2, 0.446) -- QW: 8S, QL: 6S
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502 -- 0.492/0.523) -- at Louisiana Col. (6-3 (6-2 Reg.), 0.456) -- QL: 2S
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Reg.), 0.442 -- 0.412/0.503) -- at Chicago (7-2, 0.530) -- QW: 10N, QL: 5N
North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604 -- 0.614/0.583) -- at Millikin (4-5, 0.581) -- QW: 8N, QL: 2N
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Reg.), 0.512 -- 0.508/0.521) -- vs. Heidelberg (5-4, 0.456) -- QW: 9N, QL: 1N
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416 -- 0.365/0.517) -- at Wooster (5-4 (5-3 Reg.), 0.441) -- QW: 10N
* Trine (9-0 (8-0 Reg.), 0.379 -- 0.311/0.515) -- vs. Albion (5-4 (5-2 Reg.), 0.446) -- No QW/QL
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Reg.), 0.525 -- 0.552/0.472) -- vs. DePauw (9-0, 0.522) -- QL: 5N
East
------
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500 -- 0.493/0.515) -- at Wm. Paterson (4-5, 0.394) -- QW: 2E, QL: 4E
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497 -- 0.486/0.518) -- at New Jersey (5-4, 0.408) -- QW: 4E, QL: 3E
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491 -- 0.486/0.501) -- vs. Ithaca (6-3, 0.588) -- QW: 3E, QL: 2E
West
-------
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.543 -- 0.571/0.488) -- at Cornell (0-9, 0.535) -- QW: 10W, QL: 3W
Bethel (8-1, 0.513 -- 0.493/0.552) -- vs. Augsburg (4-5, 0.479) -- QL: 1W
Redlands (7-1, 0.503 -- 0.481/0.547) -- vs. Chapman (4-4 (4-2 Reg.), 0.462) -- QL: 4W
Pac. Luth. (7-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.463 -- 0.438/0.514) -- vs. Willamette (7-2 (5-2 Reg.), 0.511) -- QW: 4W, QL 7W
* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Reg. Record Includes Just One Loss
After Win/Loss Records are NCAA SoS -- OWP/OOWP -- Final Opponent (W/L, OWP of Final Opponent) -- Quality Wins (QW) (with ranking and region of the team), Quality Losses (QL). If Regional Record for team or opponent differs, a second W/L record is in inner parentheses, indicated with "Reg."
Go Randolph-Macon,
Go Louisiana College,
Go Millikin,
Go Heidelberg,
Go Ithaca,
Go Wm. Paterson,
Go New Jersey,
Go Cornell,
Go Augsburg,
Go Chapman,
Go PLU,
Attaway!
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2010, 03:31:13 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 03:27:22 PM
Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,
Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point? One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?
Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.
And national committee always has the right to overrule the regional committee at any time, this week or on Saturday night.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2010, 05:29:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2010, 03:31:13 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 03:27:22 PM
Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,
Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point? One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?
Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.
And national committee always has the right to overrule the regional committee at any time, this week or on Saturday night.
Are you saying that even the individual regional rankings can be altered by the future national committee?
If so, I guess I'll abandon the hope I got from NCC picking up a second win over a ranked opponent (by IWU entering the rankings) and 'read the tea leaves' that St. Thomas will be the final #1.
Though I suppose I could hold out a glimmer of hope that #2 NCC (already in the north) has a better claim than #2 UWW (being imported to the north). Yeah, right. :P
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2010, 03:57:07 PM
Quote from: HSC85 on November 10, 2010, 03:46:43 PM
I posted this on the South Region Playoff thread as well:
I am curious how the criteria of wins over regionally ranked teams and SOS are applied? It seems that there will be teams chosen over teams based on geography or saving dollars, instead of a strict application of the selection criteria. Especially when it comes to Pool C. That is not a complaint. It is just an observation. Every team had that same chance to win the automatic qualifier. I am just wondering how some decisions are made? Maybe some of the more experienced posters could shed some light.
I don't believe that the committee selects teams based on geography. That would undercut the idea that this is a national tournament. Certainly, first round matchups and "seeds" are flexible in order save cash, but the actual selection of teams isn't geographically influenced. At least it certainly shouldn't be.
As for how the committees apply the criteria? Complete mystery. I'm a very analytical mind and when I apply the published criteria in an analytical fashion, there are some pretty serious inconsistencies with the RRs.
+1. Maybe I'm a little naive, but I think the 'penny pinching' affects pairing and seeds...not the actual at-large selections.
They select the 32, then start with the geography and the penny-pinching. And this comes from on- and off-the-record conversations with people on the committee.
The other thing that rarely gets mentioned is sometimes they submit a bracket with the extra flight, like in the Aurora-Willamette-Oxy-Monmouth swap a few years ago, and it gets sent back to them by whoever approves the financial outlay.
In other words, I don't think geography affects team selection at all. If you believe it does, you're basically questioning the integrity of people on the committee, all of whom have an interest (in the future, if not in '10) that the process remains as fair as possible. Everyone on the committee works for a football-playing D-III school.
I do think HSC85, your very first sentence is on to something though. The criteria is listed, but there's no way to know what's applied when or weighted more than what, which I believe leaves enough wiggle room for the committee to do what they "believe is right," which is bound to not be what everyone thinks is right.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2010, 06:09:19 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2010, 05:29:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2010, 03:31:13 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 03:27:22 PM
Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,
Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point? One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?
Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.
And national committee always has the right to overrule the regional committee at any time, this week or on Saturday night.
Are you saying that even the individual regional rankings can be altered by the future national committee?
If so, I guess I'll abandon the hope I got from NCC picking up a second win over a ranked opponent (by IWU entering the rankings) and 'read the tea leaves' that St. Thomas will be the final #1.
Though I suppose I could hold out a glimmer of hope that #2 NCC (already in the north) has a better claim than #2 UWW (being imported to the north). Yeah, right. :P
I think the proper interpretation is that regional rankings are submitted to the national committee -- and I didn't really clearly recall this until I talked to Joy a few weeks ago -- the regional committees hold the call after Week 11's games and do their rankings, then the national committee assembles with those rankings in hand and deliberates the 3 Pool Bs and 6 Pool Cs, then once it has 32, picks the 1s and assembles the matchups.
So to interpret what Pat said, it's the national committee that does the choosing, and even though you might get one idea from the regional rankings (which is the purpose of releasing them), the national committee might get another idea when all of next week's info is broken down.
And since the final regional rankings are not released, it's hard for us to do anything more than guess what changed.
I noticed what you noticed re: IWU and B-W being in the North Rankings though, but with UST above UWW, I think you're reading it right.
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 02:58:05 PM
3rd Regional Rankings:
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/category/regional-rankings/
Darn, I just don't think it's in the cards for my Lutes (Pacific Lutheran). Seems like they are roughly 8th or 9th in line for the 6 Pool C bids. They face a very tough test against Willamette this week (and a loss surely drops them). Not a whole lot of changes projected ahead of them...and not likely enough bump with a win.
Yes, your alma mater I think needs the Wheaton 2008 massive wave of Week 11 losses. And to beat Willamette.
Quote from: d-train on November 10, 2010, 04:59:55 PM
Go Randolph-Macon,
Go Louisiana College,
Go Millikin,
Go Heidelberg,
Go Ithaca,
Go Wm. Paterson,
Go New Jersey,
Go Cornell,
Go Augsburg,
Go Chapman,
Go PLU,
Attaway!
Now
that's funny.
Predicted SoS, Quality Wins & Quality Losses for Pool C candidates (these are the criteria that matter in the NCAA's decisions for ordering of Pool C candidates and selection of one of the four teams on the board, one from each region):
South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524) -- Predicted SoS: 0.539 (0.549/0.519) -- QW: 8S, QL: 6S
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502) -- Predicted SoS: 0.517 (0.518/0.516) -- QL: 2S
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Reg.), 0.442) -- Predicted SoS: 0.484 (0.473/0.507) -- QW: 10N, QL: 5N
North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604) -- Predicted SoS: 0.592 (0.597/0.583) -- QW: 8N, QL: 2N
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Reg.), 0.512) -- Predicted SoS: 0.513 (0.513/0.513) -- QW: 9N, QL: 1N
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416) -- Predicted SoS: 0.430 (0.391/0.509) -- QW: 10N
* Trine (9-0 (8-0 Reg.), 0.379) -- Predicted SoS: 0.406 (0.356/0.507) -- No QW/QL
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Reg.), 0.525) -- Predicted SoS: 0.561 (0.602/0.478) -- QL: 5N
East
------
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491) -- Predicted SoS: 0.506 (0.504/0.510) -- QW: 3E, QL: 2E
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.493/0.507) -- QW: 4E, QL: 3E
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500) -- Predicted SoS: 0.493 (0.488/0.503) -- QW: 2E, QL: 4E
West
-------
Redlands (7-1, 0.503) -- Predicted SoS: 0.514 (0.502/0.538) -- QL: 4W
Bethel (8-1, 0.513) -- Predicted SoS: 0.507 (0.488/0.545) -- QL: 1W
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.543) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.500/0.494) -- QW: 10W, QL: 3W
Pac. Luth. (7-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.463) -- Predicted SoS: 0.487 (0.473/0.514) -- QW: 4W, QL 7W
* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Reg. Record Includes Just One Loss (Note that other two-loss teams may be ahead of these teams in the Regional Rankings)
After Win/Loss Records are NCAA SoS -- Predicted SoS (Predicted OWP/Predicted OOWP) -- Quality Wins (QW) (with ranking and region of the team), Quality Losses (QL). If Regional Record for team differs, a second W/L record is in inner parentheses, indicated with "Reg."
NOTE: These numbers should be used carefully, as wins and losses by opponents already played will cause SoS figures to change, sometimes by as much as 0.040 this late in the season. These numbers are merely estimates and take into account only games played to this date and the remaining opponents' W/L % and OWP figures.
Using this, here is how I would line up the board for each region:
South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)
North: 1) Wheaton; 2) Ohio Northern; 3) Illinois Wesleyan (or Wittenberg/Trine if a loss occurs)
East: 1) Rowan; 2) Montclair; 3) Springfield (I know the first two are troublesome, but the Committee may use the "last quarter of the season" principle to justify this ordering over the head-to-head in Week 2)
West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)
And when they go to picking:
1) Wheaton
2) Hampden-Sydney
3) Ohio Northern
4) Hardin-Simmons
5) Bethel
6) Rowan
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2010, 11:38:19 PM
South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)
West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)
Interesting differences between your suggested line-up and the latest Regional Rankings for these two regions. Especially in the West, where the current rankings suggest Coe might be first up 'at the table' and PLU ahead of Redlands.
Quote from: d-train on November 11, 2010, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2010, 11:38:19 PM
South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)
West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)
Interesting differences between your suggested line-up and the latest Regional Rankings for these two regions. Especially in the West, where the current rankings suggest Coe might be first up 'at the table' and PLU ahead of Redlands.
Coe's SoS PLUNGES from 0.543 to 0.498 (Pat actually predicts slightly lower -- but you get the picture). That's only better than Pacific Lutheran at the end of the weekend. So they go from best in the West to 3rd best in SoS numbers (playing an 0-9 team can have that effect).
Regarding the South ordering, the gymnastics the Regional Subcommittee did are a little much. They wanted to obviously keep W&L ahead of Hampden-Sydney because of the head-to-head matchup. However, they wanted to keep W&L behind other one-loss teams (i.e., Hardin-Simmons). Once W&L comes off the board, Hampden-Sydney's 0.022 lead in SoS and Quality Win should place the team above Hardin-Simmons in the ordering.
So why do you think PLU is ahead of Redlands right now if SOS is the key stat? Common opponent (CLU)? Win over regional ranked team for PLU (CLU game again)? Any chance those secondary factors are those enough to have them second or third in the West after Saturday? (assuming they beat Willamette - of course - which is FAR from a given.)
Another way to ask it: right now something(s) has PLU ahead of Redlands despite an SOS figure that is .04 lower. Couldn't those same factors make up the projected difference of .027 after Saturday's games?
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2010, 11:27:20 PM
Predicted SoS, Quality Wins & Quality Losses for Pool C candidates (these are the criteria that matter in the NCAA's decisions for ordering of Pool C candidates and selection of one of the four teams on the board, one from each region):
South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524) -- Predicted SoS: 0.539 (0.549/0.519) -- QW: 8S, QL: 6S
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502) -- Predicted SoS: 0.517 (0.518/0.516) -- QL: 2S
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Reg.), 0.442) -- Predicted SoS: 0.484 (0.473/0.507) -- QW: 10N, QL: 5N
North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604) -- Predicted SoS: 0.592 (0.597/0.583) -- QW: 8N, QL: 2N
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Reg.), 0.512) -- Predicted SoS: 0.513 (0.513/0.513) -- QW: 9N, QL: 1N
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416) -- Predicted SoS: 0.430 (0.391/0.509) -- QW: 10N
* Trine (9-0 (8-0 Reg.), 0.379) -- Predicted SoS: 0.406 (0.356/0.507) -- No QW/QL
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Reg.), 0.525) -- Predicted SoS: 0.561 (0.602/0.478) -- QL: 5N
East
------
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491) -- Predicted SoS: 0.506 (0.504/0.510) -- QW: 3E, QL: 2E
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.493/0.507) -- QW: 4E, QL: 3E
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500) -- Predicted SoS: 0.493 (0.488/0.503) -- QW: 2E, QL: 4E
West
-------
Redlands (7-1, 0.503) -- Predicted SoS: 0.514 (0.502/0.538) -- QL: 4W
Bethel (8-1, 0.513) -- Predicted SoS: 0.507 (0.488/0.545) -- QL: 1W
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.543) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.500/0.494) -- QW: 10W, QL: 3W
Pac. Luth. (7-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.463) -- Predicted SoS: 0.487 (0.473/0.514) -- QW: 4W, QL 7W
* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Reg. Record Includes Just One Loss (Note that other two-loss teams may be ahead of these teams in the Regional Rankings)
After Win/Loss Records are NCAA SoS -- Predicted SoS (Predicted OWP/Predicted OOWP) -- Quality Wins (QW) (with ranking and region of the team), Quality Losses (QL). If Regional Record for team differs, a second W/L record is in inner parentheses, indicated with "Reg."
NOTE: These numbers should be used carefully, as wins and losses by opponents already played will cause SoS figures to change, sometimes by as much as 0.040 this late in the season. These numbers are merely estimates and take into account only games played to this date and the remaining opponents' W/L % and OWP figures.
HSU has a win over Willamette which plays PLU this weekend. If Willamette wins that game, then HSU might have another in-region win over a regionally ranked opponent in the final (never to be seen) Regional Ranking.
Also, the OWP/OOWP is completely invalid because of the isolation of the 9-team ASC. There are not enough non-conference teams for in-region foes which gives an advantage to HSC from the 7-member ODAC.
In some ways, I don't think the ordering matters, since I think we're going to see two from the North and two from the South come off the board immediately. They should seem head and shoulders above the rest right now.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2010, 01:20:44 AM
in the final (never to be seen) Regional Ranking.
Pat, didn't they release these a year or two ago? Any chance that set a new 'transparency' precedent (wishful thinking, I know)?
Quote from: d-train on November 11, 2010, 01:36:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2010, 01:20:44 AM
in the final (never to be seen) Regional Ranking.
Pat, didn't they release these a year or two ago? Any chance that set a new 'transparency' precedent (wishful thinking, I know)?
They've gotten less transparent, not even releasing seedings anymore and not telling us the four final teams on the board. So, no, don't expect this.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2010, 11:38:19 PM
Using this, here is how I would line up the board for each region:
South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)
North: 1) Wheaton; 2) Ohio Northern; 3) Illinois Wesleyan (or Wittenberg/Trine if a loss occurs)
East: 1) Rowan; 2) Montclair; 3) Springfield (I know the first two are troublesome, but the Committee may use the "last quarter of the season" principle to justify this ordering over the head-to-head in Week 2)
West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)
And when they go to picking:
1) Wheaton
2) Hampden-Sydney
3) Ohio Northern
4) Hardin-Simmons
5) Bethel
6) Rowan
Why would you put Rowan ahead of Montclair? Just curious. Thanks.
Quote from: rams1102 on November 11, 2010, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2010, 11:38:19 PM
Using this, here is how I would line up the board for each region:
South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)
North: 1) Wheaton; 2) Ohio Northern; 3) Illinois Wesleyan (or Wittenberg/Trine if a loss occurs)
East: 1) Rowan; 2) Montclair; 3) Springfield (I know the first two are troublesome, but the Committee may use the "last quarter of the season" principle to justify this ordering over the head-to-head in Week 2)
West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)
And when they go to picking:
1) Wheaton
2) Hampden-Sydney
3) Ohio Northern
4) Hardin-Simmons
5) Bethel
6) Rowan
Why would you put Rowan ahead of Montclair? Just curious. Thanks.
Would I personally? No. However, the Committee seems to be doing some gymnastics right now to place Rowan at the top of the triangle (#2E). There are a few ways to justify the move. First, Rowan beat a team already in the playoffs at that point (Cortland). Montclair lost to that team. Rowan will have a slightly better SoS. Finally, the Handbook allows the Committee to focus on the final 25% of the season when in a bind. When the 3rd-to-last game is included (rounding out), Rowan is 3-0, while Montclair is 2-1.
PERSONALLY, I feel the head-to-head, even though it was in Week 2, should dominate here. Yet, I'm really not getting the feeling that the Committee is going to pay full honor to it right now. Call it a hunch -- but it's not so much a stretch that it's a wacky call.
9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO. H2H has to matter.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:33:48 PM
9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO. H2H has to matter.
Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me. It doesn't follow the present SoS order.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2010, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:33:48 PM
9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO. H2H has to matter.
Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me. It doesn't follow the present SoS order.
Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2010, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:33:48 PM
9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO. H2H has to matter.
Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me. It doesn't follow the present SoS order.
Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise.
Again, I'd love to agree with you -- but I'm feeling queasy about this situation. Chairwoman Joy Solomen will be joining us Sunday night on "In the HuddLLe" (http://InTheHuddLLe.com -- 7:30-9:30pm EST) for the second straight year to discuss the process and picks. Either way, I'm sure there will be questions about the NJAC scenario and how it played out.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2010, 01:45:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2010, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:33:48 PM
9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO. H2H has to matter.
Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me. It doesn't follow the present SoS order.
Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise.
Again, I'd love to agree with you -- but I'm feeling queasy about this situation. Chairwoman Joy Solomen will be joining us Sunday night on "In the HuddLLe" (http://InTheHuddLLe.com -- 7:30-9:30pm EST) for the second straight year to discuss the process and picks. Either way, I'm sure there will be questions about the NJAC scenario and how it played out.
You should feel queasy. I'm certainly not saying that I'm right here...I'm just stating what is obvious and just (if Cortland qualifies automatically). If anybody can talk their way out of the importance of a h2h result, it's the selection committee.
I agree a pick of Rowan instead of Montclair would just seem wrong to me. Unfortunately the NCAA uses math and lack of logic to make their picks. Could they place them both in just to avoid the situation altogether?
Quote from: pg04 on November 11, 2010, 02:11:42 PM
I agree a pick of Rowan instead of Montclair would just seem wrong to me. Unfortunately the NCAA uses math and lack of logic to make their picks. Could they place them both in just to avoid the situation altogether?
I can't see the North and South not getting two bids each, barring a shock this weekend. So, I just don't think there's room for two in the East.
You gotta love politcics. ::)
Quote from: d-train on November 11, 2010, 01:36:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2010, 01:20:44 AM
in the final (never to be seen) Regional Ranking.
Pat, didn't they release these a year or two ago? Any chance that set a new 'transparency' precedent (wishful thinking, I know)?
They did in some sports, not in football. I challenged them on this specifically, noting that their counterparts in other sports were releasing the final regional rankings, but still, the football committee refused.
I think they didn't want to be challenged on the fallacy that had 9-1 W&J going to Mount Union while 8-2 Susquehanna went to Delaware Valley in the same bracket, because to have Susquehanna ahead of W&J suggests that it was indeed possible to have a 2-loss team ahead of a 1-loss team, contradicting what they did in selecting Pool C teams.
Quote from: pg04 on November 11, 2010, 02:11:42 PM
I agree a pick of Rowan instead of Montclair would just seem wrong to me. Unfortunately the NCAA uses math and lack of logic to make their picks. Could they place them both in just to avoid the situation altogether?
I don't know if you guys follow pro basketball, but over on ESPN there's a guy named Hollinger who is famous for using fairly irrelevant statistics to 'prove' which teams are better than other. There is usually little relationship between his rankings and reality.
For example, his current numbers have Houston (1-6) ranked ahead of San Antonio (6-1), Utah (5-3) and Atlanta (6-3). Whenever I see his stuff I think about how the NCAA picks these playoff teams.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: rams1102 on November 11, 2010, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2010, 11:38:19 PM
Using this, here is how I would line up the board for each region:
South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)
North: 1) Wheaton; 2) Ohio Northern; 3) Illinois Wesleyan (or Wittenberg/Trine if a loss occurs)
East: 1) Rowan; 2) Montclair; 3) Springfield (I know the first two are troublesome, but the Committee may use the "last quarter of the season" principle to justify this ordering over the head-to-head in Week 2)
West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)
And when they go to picking:
1) Wheaton
2) Hampden-Sydney
3) Ohio Northern
4) Hardin-Simmons
5) Bethel
6) Rowan
Why would you put Rowan ahead of Montclair? Just curious. Thanks.
Would I personally? No. However, the Committee seems to be doing some gymnastics right now to place Rowan at the top of the triangle (#2E). There are a few ways to justify the move. First, Rowan beat a team already in the playoffs at that point (Cortland). Montclair lost to that team. Rowan will have a slightly better SoS. Finally, the Handbook allows the Committee to focus on the final 25% of the season when in a bind. When the 3rd-to-last game is included (rounding out), Rowan is 3-0, while Montclair is 2-1.
PERSONALLY, I feel the head-to-head, even though it was in Week 2, should dominate here. Yet, I'm really not getting the feeling that the Committee is going to pay full honor to it right now. Call it a hunch -- but it's not so much a stretch that it's a wacky call.
You know I'm really getting crazy with all of this stuff and please do not take offense. Rowan beat Cortland at home by (3) points and Montclair loses to Cortland at their place by (1) point. Then the committee looks at the final 25% (Morrissville, W. Conn and TCNJ), give me a break. Then I hear that Rowan had a rookie QB and now the Senior QB has been doing a great job. Hello, the rookie beat Lycoming in game #1 which is helping their SOS. We beat Rowan by (19). A fact is a fact. Ater all of that, I guess they are ahead of Montclair, so everyone thinks the NCAA will say. Let's see how Saturday plays out. Thanks for listening. ;D
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2010, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:33:48 PM
9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO. H2H has to matter.
Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me. It doesn't follow the present SoS order.
Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise.
That's how I see it. The committee has enough to worry about I don't think there's any reason to make this difficult.
Don't get on the committee for botching something they haven't botched yet.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2010, 12:03:04 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2010, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2010, 01:33:48 PM
9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO. H2H has to matter.
Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me. It doesn't follow the present SoS order.
Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise.
That's how I see it. The committee has enough to worry about I don't think there's any reason to make this difficult.
Don't get on the committee for botching something they haven't botched yet.
I think there is precedence to think they will botch it.
I should say there is precedence to say that they may botch it.
I'm not nearly the cynic you guys all are.
I'm all for taking the committee to task for mistakes & misreads, but it's kind of a [not-cool] move to already be complaining & to be assuming they'll mess up.
Each committee is made up of different people and some really have done a nice job. The Dick Kaiser-led committees were really top notch & understood the process & were happy to discuss it.
Last year they got 31 of the right teams and I think they thought they were doing the right thing with W&J. The real gripe was with the secrecy ... If you're confident in everything you've done, the openness is basically the committee explaining how it's done rather than taking a defensive posture.
If you're already drumming up disappointment, you're basically making it so the committee can't win, and if they have to pick six out of 10 and then follow orders on being cheap, people are going to be disappointed no matter what they do.
Quote from: pg04 on November 12, 2010, 12:12:09 AM
I should say there is precedence to say that they may botch it.
That's fair.
Me personally, I just see where it's a thankless job and some people like to sit back and nitpick. That goes over better with me when you understand and can articulate the alternatives. Even though Frank is sort of taking an adversarial role already, you can't say he doesn't understand the process.
I'm not sure I see a scenario where there aren't gripes this year since so many teams are in the mix in Week 11. If a bunch don't lose, they're going to have a real tough job.
What would impress me is if the spokesperson, understanding this, tried to maintain a tone of explanation & openness, and the folks went at the committee in search of clarity and understanding instead of looking for trouble.
In all honesty, there's going to be disagreement with whatever they do. The best outcome would be to understand the choices they make and why. I think they should be accountable and consistent in their application from year to year, but same time, there will be reasons to gripe no matter what.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2010, 12:26:40 AM
I'm all for taking the committee to task for mistakes & misreads, but it's kind of a [not-cool] move to already be complaining & to be assuming they'll mess up.
I'm going to side with the cynics here a little bit, just for this reason -- the committee's own regional rankings are an advance look at the selections, and it sure does seem like they might be messing that up.
Consider it like a politician floating a policy statement out there to get the public's reaction before making it happen. They've floated this possible at-large bid call. How are people not going to react to it?
Let's keep in mind the process. The regional committee will rank the teams first. They don't really care (nor should they) that one of those three is an AQ. For their purposes, the teams are practically tied and they have to break it somehow.
Then, that rank goes to the National committee. When it comes time choose Pool C, they will take the top team off each of the regional lists and place them on the board. The fact that Rowan might be ahead of their conference AQ and a team that beat them seems suspect at this point in the process, even though it might be perfectly warranted in the previous rank.
So here's the wildcard (and we won't know the answer until Sunday): does the National committee revisit the NJAC situation and possibly rerank the non-AQ teams before going on with the rest of the Pool C discussion?
Quote from: altor on November 12, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
Let's keep in mind the process. The regional committee will rank the teams first. They don't really care (nor should they) that one of those three is an AQ. For their purposes, the teams are practically tied and they have to break it somehow.
Then, that rank goes to the National committee. When it comes time choose Pool C, they will take the top team off each of the regional lists and place them on the board. The fact that Rowan might be ahead of their conference AQ and a team that beat them seems suspect at this point in the process, even though it might be perfectly warranted in the previous rank.
So here's the wildcard (and we won't know the answer until Sunday): does the National committee revisit the NJAC situation and possibly rerank the non-AQ teams before going on with the rest of the Pool C discussion?
The ranking as it sits now is probably fine. There's no good way to break that three way tie and using SOS is fair. However, once one of those teams qualifies this weekend and two are left, it should be obvious which one should be slotted ahead of the other based on h2h results. That h2h has to trump everything. We don't play our games on paper, and while I realize the committee largely has to select teams on paper due to the lack of interregional play, in this case specifically they have a h2h result that ought to drive the ranking. It isn't like we're talking about tremendously different resumés here. These teams played each other and play in the same league...their schedules aren't so different that you would really need to lean heavily on OWP and OOWP.
My feeling is that they will get this one right on Sunday, even if this last set of rankings would make you wonder. This seems too obvious for a room of intelligent people to not get right.
Exactly what Wally said in his last paragraph. There's a big giant h2h result and all else (record, record vs. RROs, SoS figure) all the same or virtually the same, and it's not a fluke win either, it's a definitive result. You simply CAN'T justify taking Rowan over Montclair State.
I wouldn't read too much into any regional ranking; they're insightful but they fail to hold up on selection Sunday all the time. Further, I view the 2-3-4 as like when top 25 teams are separated by 2 points. They're basically all ranked the same. If Rowan were to be the A, then yeah, leave Montclair out
I don't like any 9-1 from the NJAC not getting in and Rowan left home would be a shame, but Rowan over Montclair in the face of 26-7 would be a sham.
So there's your test reaction for the politicians, Pat. :)
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2010, 10:46:56 PM
Exactly what Wally said in his last paragraph. There's a big giant h2h result and all else (record, record vs. RROs, SoS figure) all the same or virtually the same, and it's not a fluke win either, it's a definitive result. You simply CAN'T justify taking Rowan over Montclair State.
I wouldn't read too much into any regional ranking; they're insightful but they fail to hold up on selection Sunday all the time. Further, I view the 2-3-4 as like when top 25 teams are separated by 2 points. They're basically all ranked the same. If Rowan were to be the A, then yeah, leave Montclair out
I don't like any 9-1 from the NJAC not getting in and Rowan left home would be a shame, but Rowan over Montclair in the face of 26-7 would be a sham.
So there's your test reaction for the politicians, Pat. :)
Keith, in reality, it's not 2-3-4. When SJF was still at one loss, it was 2-4-5, with Rowan on top. There apparently was something standing out in the minds of the Committee/Subcommittee that allowed Rowan to be discernible from the other two teams to the degree that allowed another team to fit between Rowan and the rest. Just because SJF lost and dropped down didn't change that fact since nothing changed inside the triangle last week. There is something they have in mind there, and it's not overthinking it -- the set of Rankings was odd but unignorable.
HSU missed a 39 yd FG to lose at Louisiana College 44-42.
LC finishes in the tie for 2nd in the ASC with HSU.
HSC beat Randolph-Macon to lock in the Pool C bid from the South.
A Pool C bid just went to another region. Is that the East?
Wabash has only one in-region loss and utterly destroyed previously undefeated DePauw today. I wonder if they can have ANY realistic hopes?
For Bash fans the WashU loss kills them. They would have a chance otherwise. I think the precedent for total losses has been set vs in region
Well everyone did what they had to. The strenght of schedule + owp / oowp leads me to believe that Cortland will be the NJAC Champs and if so Congratulations. It appears that everyone has Rowan in as the Pool C, but to me it is pure bull. They lost the H2H by (19) to Montclair. If they get in and Montclair is out, it is nothing but NCAA politics. With the Hard-Sim loss they may be a chance for (2) slots for the East.
Feel bad for Wabash wacking DePauw, but they have (2) loses. Should be an interesting day aroune 3:00 tomorrow.
the hardin simmons lose opens things up for several teams, including the njac left out. will be interesting to see how it plays out tomorrow.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 13, 2010, 08:33:13 PM
the hardin simmons lose opens things up for several teams, including the njac left out. will be interesting to see how it plays out tomorrow.
I wish we were in your position. ;) I think this may be your year to go to Salem. Good Luck.
It won't be politics Rams. It is what it is. Only 32 teams get in and if you don't run the table, you are behind the 8-ball and we all know this.
I'm starting to think the NJAC may get all 3 in. The H-S loss was important to the Pool C contestants. And if you look at the Eastern Pool C possibilities...
NEFC - best 2nd place team has 2 losses
E8 - Two teams with 2 losses
LL - RPI has 3 losses
MAC - Three teams with 4 losses
None of those conferences are getting a Pool C consideration unless by some shock Springfield or Fisher slips in with 2 losses. Which leaves only the NJAC with Eastern Pool C considerations. And yes Pool C is a national pool, but I don't think the NCAA is going to send only 5 or 6 Eastern teams to the dance and say forget the rest.
Haven't they done that before, though, Dan?
Yes but wasn't the last time a rather "special" circumstance, where it came down to a 1-loss St John's team vs a 1-loss Cortland team? As much as I hated the decision, I didn't think it was the wrong one. I don't see a traditional 1-loss power with a recent NCAA championship sitting on the bubble competing with the NJAC in 2010.
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2010, 09:11:44 PM
It won't be politics Rams. It is what it is. Only 32 teams get in and if you don't run the table, you are behind the 8-ball and we all know this.
I'm starting to think the NJAC may get all 3 in. The H-S loss was important to the Pool C contestants. And if you look at the Eastern Pool C possibilities...
NEFC - best 2nd place team has 2 losses
E8 - Two teams with 2 losses
LL - RPI has 3 losses
MAC - Three teams with 4 losses
None of those conferences are getting a Pool C consideration unless by some shock Springfield or Fisher slips in with 2 losses. Which leaves only the NJAC with Eastern Pool C considerations. And yes Pool C is a national pool, but I don't think the NCAA is going to send only 5 or 6 Eastern teams to the dance and say forget the rest.
Two things, Montclair should be the Pool C because of H2H. If not, yes it is politics and with the H-S loss anything is possible.
Will the fact GAC and Carleton postponed have any significant effect on Bethel's SOS?
---------
East getting two wouldn't be crazy, but 1 conference getting 3 would be tougher. Especially when they'll be up against 1 loss teams who lost to unbeaten and highly ranked opponents. It could happen, but if it does, it would seem more like the committee didn't want to make the tough choice between the two. Not saying they aren't deserving, there will be several very good teams left at home next week.
A question that occurred to me with two games in Minnesota having to be re-scheduled for tomorrow due to near-blizzard conditions. Fortunately, none of the teams were relevant for playoff consideration. But what does the committee do if one or more IS in the mix for pool B or C consideration?
Shall we play the game. Let's look at the last regional rankings:
1. Delaware Valley
2. Rowan
3. Montclair State
4. Cortland State
5. SUNY-Maritime
6. Maine Maritime
7. Alfred
8. Springfield
9. St. John Fisher
10. Endicott
North Region
1. Mount Union
2. North Central (Ill.)
3. Wheaton (Ill.)
4. Ohio Northern
5. Wittenberg
6. Trine
7. Franklin
8. Illinois Wesleyan
9. Baldwin-Wallace
10. Wabash
South Region
1. Wesley
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor
3. DePauw
4. Thomas More
5. Hardin-Simmons
6. Washington and Lee
7. Hampden-Sydney
8. Salisbury
9. Muhlenberg
10. Ursinus
West Region
1. St. Thomas
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Wartburg
4. Cal Lutheran
5. Coe
6. Bethel
7. Linfield
8. Pacific Lutheran
9. Redlands
10. Central
So the "C" candidates from this list are:
Rowan
Montclair
Maine Maritime
Springfield
St. John Fisher (SUNY Maritime is a B)
Wheaton
Ohio Northern
Illinois Wesleyan
Baldwin Wallace
Wabash
Hardin-Simmons
Hampden - Sydney
Ursinus (Wesley and Salisbury would be B's)
Coe
Bethel
PLU
Redlands
Central
The teams in SOS ranking are:
Illinois Wesleyan (7-3) - 12
Wabash (8-1) - 15
Wheaton (9-1) - 16
St. John Fisher (7-2) - 23
Hampden Sydney (9-1) - 34
Springfield (8-2) - 59
Hardin - Simmons (8-2) - 66
Redlands (8-1) - 69
Baldwin Wallace (7-3) - 82
Ohio Northern (8-1) - 91
Bethel (9-1) - 107
Central (8-2) - 111
Rowan (9-1) - 115
Ursinus (8-2) - 116
Coe (7-1) - 135
Montclair (9-1) - 136
PLU (7-1) - 144
Maine Maritime (8-2) - 171
IWU and B-W are out as three loss teams. Maine Maritime, Ursinus, Central out as two loss teams with low SOS.
So that leaves 13 teams for six spots:
One loss teams:
Wabash
Wheaton
Hampden Sydney
Redlands
Ohio Northern
Montclair State
Bethel
Rowan
Coe
PLU
Two loss high SOS teams:
St. John Fisher
Springfield
Hardin Simmons
If going by the Top 25 and regional rankings all season and not the SOS, it may be a no brainer:
Ohio Northern, Bethel, Wheaton, Hampden Sydney, Hardin Simmons, and either Montclair State or Rowan.
But Wabash's SOS snuck up there with Wooster, Allegheny, Wittenberg, Chicago and DPU's successes.
Wabash has a legitimate chance. I know there will be someone crying tomorrow. Well, a few, because there is a big ol' C logjam.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2010, 10:05:15 PM
A question that occurred to me with two games in Minnesota having to be re-scheduled for tomorrow due to near-blizzard conditions. Fortunately, none of the teams were relevant for playoff consideration. But what does the committee do if one or more IS in the mix for pool B or C consideration?
There's a cutoff for results to be considered for playoffs. I would hope those schools would have tried harder to play if it came up.
I don't see Wabash. SOS is just 1 criteria.
There are at least 2 pool C teams in the North that have to come off the board before them, and that's assuming they jump a few teams in the final ranking.
They'll still be ranked very low in their region and they have no wins over a ranked regional opponent and 1 bad loss.
Very good team, but IMHO, several with better criteria get the final spots.
hazzben: Wabash has a win against DePauw at the very least, and with the way the North went today, Chicago could be a regionally ranked team as well.
New poll on the front: If these were the last Pool C teams on the board, who'd you pick?
1. Coe
2. Wabash
I didn't consider the other two at all.
For the second year in a row, we'll have Dr. Joy Solomen, Chair of the tournament selection committee on ITH tomorrow night - shows starts at 7:30 PM ET.
Please post your questions here once the selections have been made so we can work them into our interview accordingly (we'll have plenty of our own, but always open to input).
You can tune into ITH - www.inthehuddLLe.com - to hear the interview with Dr. Solomen.
Our projections: http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/14/our-final-playoff-projection/
Love the heading/disclaimer for the projected bracket:
"This is only a projection. If it were an actual NCAA bracket, it would make less sense."
Absolutely perfect! ;D
So there is just no way Louisiana College gets in guys?? How does the committee view LC, as a 7-3 team with loss to a NAIA school or a 6-2 team with losses to UMHB and Huntington?
Backer, honestly, it's probably a little bit of both. But they're not going up against any teams with two in-region losses in our final analysis.
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/14/our-final-playoff-projection/
Yea I saw the D3 projections. Also just curious as to the chance LC gets in and goes to UMHB because of the NCAA travel costs?
No -- the NCAA doesn't choose teams based on cost.
Alright thanks for the clear up!
I think if you switch NCC with UWW, make them both #1 seeds, you got the right projections.
Good call on Wabash. If Chicago makes the regional rankings they've definitely got a good shot. But you're right, even DePauw alone might be enough
I got up around 2:30AM and before roplling back over, I went down stairs checked D3 and read the 2nd projections. Decided not to post, slept on it, still kept thinking and now I'm back on the computer. Here we go :
Congrats to Cortland as NJAC Champs. The double monkey stomping of De Pauw by Wabash to me would justify them a Pool C even they are 8-2. Now down to the so called proposed Rowan pick as a Pool C. The stregnth of Schedule as determined by the NCAA, Montclair .493, Rowan .500, Westfield .518, and Lycoming .523. Not much of a difference. Montclair beats Rowan 26-7. The NCAA can pipe as much smoke up my arse as they want but if they pick Rowan as a Pool C instead of Montclair it is nothink but politics and they can spin it any way they want. Oh, by the way is not the AD of Rowan the head of the NCAA Selection Committee. ::) Again if Rowan is in and Montclair is out, this will be a big black for the NCAA, but I guess they probably don't care anyway. >:(
Quote from: rams1102 on November 14, 2010, 10:42:51 AM
I got up around 2:30AM and before roplling back over, I went down stairs checked D3 and read the 2nd projections. Decided not to post, slept on it, still kept thinking and now I'm back on the computer. Here we go :
Congrats to Cortland as NJAC Champs. The double monkey stomping of De Pauw by Wabash to me would justify them a Pool C even they are 8-2. Now down to the so called proposed Rowan pick as a Pool C. The stregnth of Schedule as determined by the NCAA, Montclair .493, Rowan .500, Westfield .518, and Lycoming .523. Not much of a difference. Montclair beats Rowan 26-7. The NCAA can pipe as much smoke up my arse as they want but if they pick Rowan as a Pool C instead of Montclair it is nothink but politics and they can spin it any way they want. Oh, by the way is not the AD of Rowan the head of the NCAA Selection Committee. ::) Again if Rowan is in and Montclair is out, this will be a big black for the NCAA, but I guess they probably don't care anyway. >:(
I'm not sure how the D3 selection works but I do know that if this was D1 basketball that Rowan's AD would have to leave the room when the committee decideds to start talking about Rowan (and it might be all conference schools as well which would include Cortland State and Montclair State). Their pull is severely limited.
It's the same in D-III, cornhusker.
Rams,
As Keith said on the playoff selection blog, I am not sure politics will have anything to do with it. Pat and Gordon's picks have Montclair out and they have no political bent either way. Differing views on the criteria by groups of people can lead to different conclusions, even when looking at the exact same data.
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2010, 12:23:23 PM
Rams,
As Keith said on the playoff selection blog, I am not sure politics will have anything to do with it. Pat and Gordon's picks have Montclair out and they have no political bent either way. Differing views on the criteria by groups of people can lead to different conclusions, even when looking at the exact same data.
I NEVER inferred that Pat or anyone in D3 was political. I did say that Pat understands how the NCAA works. I do believe that there are political implifications in the NCAA selection process. All said, Montclair will get screwed.
Quote from: rams1102 on November 14, 2010, 02:01:42 PM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2010, 12:23:23 PM
Rams,
As Keith said on the playoff selection blog, I am not sure politics will have anything to do with it. Pat and Gordon's picks have Montclair out and they have no political bent either way. Differing views on the criteria by groups of people can lead to different conclusions, even when looking at the exact same data.
I NEVER inferred that Pat or anyone in D3 was political. I did say that Pat understands how the NCAA works. I do believe that there are political implifications in the NCAA selection process. All said, Montclair will get screwed.
There are 7 spots available. There are more than that who feel like they deserve to get in. Someone has to be left out. Perhaps Montclair should schedule someone other than Westfield or whoever they are in the future. Or get a kicker who can make a clutch kick. Either way, you can't blame this on some phantom "politics"
Rams,
The point is the decision does NOT have to be political. Pat and Gordan came to a non-political decision to leave MSU out and Rowan in. There are other reasons than just politics to pick/not pick a team.
Wabash didn't get in. It's not politics. They should have taken care of business. You lose once, you deal with the consequences. Win your league and you're not complaining on this board. Period.
And yes I am disappointed with Wabash not getting in when they had the best SOS of the "C" teams, they did lose to Wash U. and frankly the IIAC (Coe) is better than the NCAC I bet.