Coming soon to this space...playoff projections!
Something new this year that I'm going to do is that I'm going to use the regional fan rankings as a substitute for regional rankings. We've got a lot of really smart people putting time and thought into those things so I think it'll be good to pull that input in between now and November when we get official NCAA regional rankings. The exception being the West which doesn't have any fan balloting/rankings on Post Patterns so that will continue to be left up to my own whims.
I'll try to have something out here sometime tomorrow. Just a quick overview- the Pool breakdown is 24/2/6 (A/B/C) this year pending the SAA's AQ status. I know Pat had mentioned that he has a question in to the home office in Indy about whether or not the SAA gets an auto bid or not. This is significant because if the SAA goes to Pool A, I believe Pool B shrinks to 1 (if my math is correct) and this is significant because it's not just a matter of moving the SAA champ from B and A with a zero net change to the field. The SAA champ may not stack up in Pool B- as such, moving that at-large spot from Pool B to the SAA champ makes life really, really difficult for teams out there like Chicago, TLU, and the MASCAC champ because that one Pool B bid is going to Wesley and without a second Pool B slot, the door is more or less going to be slammed shut on these other teams.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 14, 2014, 04:07:07 PM
We've got a lot of really smart people putting time and thought into those things...
Whoa now, don't flatter yourself.
Ok, I'm jumping ahead of the North region poll here because I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to get back to this later this week. A couple of notes here:
- The Pool A projections are a reflection of current league standings. In cases of ties, I'm picking who I think will win (I can't go figure out each conferences tiebreak rules) and we'll adjust as we go over the next month or so.
- For the at-large teams, I'm also not making an attempt to predict future results: this is intended to be a snapshot of how things look through the last week of competition. The one caveat to this is where we have leagues with a bunch of 1-loss teams bunched up (like the MIAC). In that case I'm taking one team from that league and leaving the rest out. We know how the committee feels about giving at-large bids to three teams from one region so we can guess that they'll have the same prejudice against three teams from the same conference. And, the reality is that all of the teams in that type of situation more or less still have to play each other so we aren't going to wind up with three 9-1 teams from one league.
- Also note that the records I'm posting are regional records, with D3 records mixed in where appropriate. Non D3 results aren't of any particular importance.
And with that, here we go. Here's your look at Pool A:
League | Team |
ASC | UMHB |
CC | Johns Hopkins |
CCIW | North Central |
ECFC | Castleton State |
E8 | St. John Fisher |
HCAC | Franklin |
IIAC | Wartburg |
LL | Hobart |
MAC | Widener |
MIAA | Trine |
MIAC | Bethel |
MWC | Carroll |
NACC | Concordia (Wis) |
NCAC | Wabash |
NEFC | Western New England |
NJAC | Montclair State |
NWC | Linfield |
OAC | Mount Union |
ODAC | Hampden-Sydney |
PAC | Washington & Jefferson |
SCIAC | Chapman |
UMAC | St. Scholastica |
USAC | Maryville |
WIAC | UW-Whitewater |
Pool B (2 bids):Wesley (4-0, 5-0 vs. D3, 0.718 SOS) - Lock it up. With Wesley finished with Division III competition, there is zero percent chance that the first (and maybe only) of these bids doesn't belong to Wesley. Wesley is also 3-0 vs. RROs (regionally ranked opponents) according to the pollsters. Wesley will be mentioned in this space each week for accounting purposes, but this is the probably the last breakdown of their résumé I'll do because it's not changing between now and the end of the season.
Texas Lutheran (5-0, 0.579 SOS) - TLU is hanging on to this spot just over Chicago based on SOS. TLU has an SOS drain coming over the last three weeks of the season, but if they can win out after the UMHB game, I think they've got a decent shot at hanging on to this bid.
Teams on the Pool B watch list: Chicago, Centre, Framingham State, Rhodes, Hendrix, Fitchburg State
Pool C (6 bids):Round and round we go. Up first:
John Carroll (5-0, 0.558 SOS, 1-0 vs RRO)
Thomas More (4-2, 0.452 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
Delaware Valley (5-0, 0.574, 1-0 vs RRO)UW-SP (5-0, 0.558 SOS, 1-0 vs RRO)
I think you can see where this is headed. Del Val has the best SOS and a favorable result against regionally ranked Lycoming. Could arge that Point's RRO result against North Central is more impressive, but it's a bit of a moot point.
Round 2:
John Carroll (5-0, 0.558 SOS, 1-0 vs RRO)
Thomas More (4-2, 0.452 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
Buffalo State (5-1, 0.600 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)
UW-SP (5-0, 0.558 SOS, 1-0 vs RRO)Certainly Buffalo State looks nice with the two quality wins and the higher SOS, but they do have the loss which negates some of that good stuff. I'm taking Stevens Point here with the North Central win as their advantage over the other teams here.
Round 3:
John Carroll (5-0, 0.558 SOS, 1-0 vs RRO)Thomas More (4-2, 0.452 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
Buffalo State (5-1, 0.600 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)
Concordia-Moorhead (4-1, 0.526 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
JCU and Stevens Point have essentially the same body of work to this point. Beating North Central is a shade better than beating Heidelberg, hence JCU waits their turn. But you could easily have taken these two teams in either order.
Round 4:
Wittenberg (4-0, 0.519 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (4-2, 0.452 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
Buffalo State (5-1, 0.600 SOS, 2-0 vs RRO)Concordia-Moorhead (4-1, 0.526 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Now we get to the Bengals. I know I said their loss hurts and earlier said that non-D3 results aren't important, but way back in the back of our minds we know that Witt lost a game to Butler who maybe isn't that great in 2014. The big SOS advantage for Buff State wins the day here.
Round 5:
Wittenberg (4-0, 0.519 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)Thomas More (4-2, 0.452 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
Rowan (3-2, 0.681 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Concordia-Moorhead (4-1, 0.526 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)
Full disclosure- Because Buffalo State was taken, Ithaca and Salisbury got tossed out even though they would have been the next two in line out of the East. Rowan is an interesting case because look at that SOS. But they've only played two ranked teams and they've lost to both, so it's hard to give them an overwhelming amount of credit. The selection here is Wittenberg with the undefeated (mostly) record and an RRO win that's going to get increasingly impressive as DePauw keeps winning.
Round six:
Wheaton (5-0, 0.323 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (4-2, 0.452 SOS, 0-2 vs RRO)
Rowan (3-2, 0.681 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Concordia-Moorhead (4-1, 0.526 SOS, 1-1 vs RRO)The Cobbers currently sit atop the runner-up milieu in the MIAC, but have a long way to go to hang on to this bid. That's a rugged league. Wheaton is undefeated here, but they have a serious SOS problem. The good news for Wheaton is that everybody they play from here on out will increase their OWP (currently 230 out of 231), but they're also not going to get a lot of help out of Kalamazoo and Eau Claire. Wheaton doesn't have much (any) room for error this season.
Thomas More was an interesting case as I did this today. They sat there for six rounds, which as I understand the way vote capital works in the selection room (it shouldn't work at all, but it's a real thing unfortunately), it's hard to imagine a team sitting there from the very beginning of the Pool C process and not being selected. Had the rankings broke another way and, say, Ursinus was in front of Thomas More it would have been a really tough decision there in the last couple of picks.
And just for fun, the next team I would have pulled up from the West (Johnnie and Tommies are dismissed) would have been PLU...PLU also has SOS problems and they're going to want to really, really pull for carnage in the WIAC and MIAC or else they won't get their rematch with Linfield in week 12.
I think Buff State would received the Pool A bid in the E 8 today. Both SJF and Buff State are 3-1 in conference and Buff State beat Salisbury which Beat SJF.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 15, 2014, 10:43:15 AM
I think Buff State would received the Pool A bid in the E 8 today. Both SJF and Buff State are 3-1 in conference and Buff State beat Salisbury which Beat SJF.
That looks like a three way tie to me and...
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 15, 2014, 10:38:52 AM
- The Pool A projections are a reflection of current league standings. In cases of ties, I'm picking who I think will win (I can't go figure out each conferences tiebreak rules) and we'll adjust as we go over the next month or so.
Everything you just said is true, but as we look down the road in the E8, there are way too many games left (in particular a h2h between Buff State and SJF) for the Buff State beat Salisbury beat SJF train to be germane. Am I fudging a little there by going with SJF in the projection? Yeah, a little. But I think there's some common sense behind it.
To address the point though, what happens if Buff State is A and SJF is C? Net change to my projected field is probably nothing. Fisher becomes the first team on the board from the East...my order of selection then probably goes UWSP, JCU, Witt, SJF, Del Val, C-M. Maybe C-M, SJF, Del Val. Either way, the 32 stay the same.
This is amazing.
You know what could make a lot of Pool C candidates nervous? What if TLU were to pull off the upset this week and Chicago were to upset(?) Bethel. Both could then easily win out. Then if Centre were to win out there would be 4 undefeated teams for two Pool B spots.
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 15, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
You know what could make a lot of Pool C candidates nervous? What if TLU were to pull off the upset this week and Chicago were to upset(?) Bethel. Both could then easily win out. Then if Centre were to win out there would be 4 undefeated teams for two Pool B spots.
That sure would make a lot of Pool C candidates nervous. But the odds of
all three of those teams finishing undefeated are not very good.
Chicago beating Bethel would be a big upset. I'm pulling for it as a UAA alum, but it doesn't seem very likely to me.
TLU beating UMHB would be an even bigger upset.
Centre has an OK chance to finish undefeated, but Rhodes is a formidable obstacle standing in the way.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 15, 2014, 11:54:25 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 15, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
You know what could make a lot of Pool C candidates nervous? What if TLU were to pull off the upset this week and Chicago were to upset(?) Bethel. Both could then easily win out. Then if Centre were to win out there would be 4 undefeated teams for two Pool B spots.
That sure would make a lot of Pool C candidates nervous. But the odds of all three of those teams finishing undefeated are not very good.
Chicago beating Bethel would be a big upset. I'm pulling for it as a UAA alum, but it doesn't seem very likely to me.
TLU beating UMHB would be an even bigger upset.
Centre has an OK chance to finish undefeated, but Rhodes is a formidable obstacle standing in the way.
IF and that is a big IF those team do remain undefeated, I would not have a problem with them taking a spot from some other credible Pool C teams. I know some may and are better, but for those teams to win out, they would have as you mentioned would had beaten some really good teams and showed themselves worthy. As far as the other possible Pool C, I would easily and happily say, win you conference and you are in.
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 15, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
You know what could make a lot of Pool C candidates nervous? What if TLU were to pull off the upset this week and Chicago were to upset(?) Bethel. Both could then easily win out. Then if Centre were to win out there would be 4 undefeated teams for two Pool B spots.
It would be interesting to see where those teams land in the regional rankings should all of that play out.
I can't imagine a scenario where an undefeated team doesn't make the field, but the placement of Centre in the South region would be of particular interest. If they beat Rhodes, Rhodes is unlikely to be regionally ranked which means Centre would have zero results against RROs. I'm not holding out much hope for a quality SOS either. So it comes down to whether or not Centre would be ranked higher than somebody like E&H or Muhlenberg or even Thomas More...and if they wouldn't be, Centre may not even get discussed for selection. It's an interesting hypothetical.
All of that said, TLU isn't beating UMHB. Not. A. Chance. Chicago is a heavy, heavy underdog on the road as well. Ironically, the team that I believe is maybe third in this little group of three has the best chance to wind up undefeated, and if they do, they'll probably join Wesley as a Pool B selection. But they have to go unbeaten. Centre doesn't have wiggle room.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 15, 2014, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 15, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
You know what could make a lot of Pool C candidates nervous? What if TLU were to pull off the upset this week and Chicago were to upset(?) Bethel. Both could then easily win out. Then if Centre were to win out there would be 4 undefeated teams for two Pool B spots.
Chicago is a heavy, heavy underdog on the road as well.
I put the number at 21.5 in the pick-em's. 5 of 9 pickers so far have taken Bethel to cover the spread. Massey predicts 28-3. Giganto upset if it happens.
Assuming UWW runs the WIAC table.....
It looks like the only way a WIAC team can get a Pool C bid is if Stevens Point knocks off Platteville this weekend. If UWP would win that game, I don't think a 2-loss UWP team gets a bid. Even though their only losses are against NCC and UWW. Not sure if the committee rewards a strong SOS when a team has two-losses.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 15, 2014, 02:15:37 PM
Assuming UWW runs the WIAC table.....
It looks like the only way a WIAC team can get a Pool C bid is if Stevens Point knocks off Platteville this weekend. If UWP would win that game, I don't think a 2-loss UWP team gets a bid. Even though their only losses are against NCC and UWW. Not sure if the committee rewards a strong SOS when a team has two-losses.
SJF got an at large last year with two losses in the E8.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 15, 2014, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 15, 2014, 02:15:37 PM
Assuming UWW runs the WIAC table.....
It looks like the only way a WIAC team can get a Pool C bid is if Stevens Point knocks off Platteville this weekend. If UWP would win that game, I don't think a 2-loss UWP team gets a bid. Even though their only losses are against NCC and UWW. Not sure if the committee rewards a strong SOS when a team has two-losses.
SJF got an at large last year with two losses in the E8.
Yes, great point. They had those two road conference losses. Of course it all depends on who the other Pool C candidates will be as well.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 15, 2014, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 15, 2014, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 15, 2014, 02:15:37 PM
Assuming UWW runs the WIAC table.....
It looks like the only way a WIAC team can get a Pool C bid is if Stevens Point knocks off Platteville this weekend. If UWP would win that game, I don't think a 2-loss UWP team gets a bid. Even though their only losses are against NCC and UWW. Not sure if the committee rewards a strong SOS when a team has two-losses.
SJF got an at large last year with two losses in the E8.
Yes, great point. They had those two road conference losses. Of course it all depends on who the other Pool C candidates will be as well.
Maybe even moreso, it matters who the other at-large candidates are in your own region. SJF got tremendous help in week 11 to climb up to the front of the East's at-large line last year, and it seems like part of the game is getting to the table first. So could a multiple loss WIAC team get ranked ahead of 1-loss runners up elsewhere? That's a big thing to watch.
A two-loss WIAC team fighting with a one-loss runner-up from the MIAC, NWC and what would happen if Wartburg stumbled once in the IIAC? Hmmmm....
NOTE: I really don't think Wartburg will stumble, and I don't know if the MIAC can have a one-loss runner up outside of C-M unless Bethel gets upset and C-M gets past St. Thomas AND Gustavus.
Wally,
Are you saying a 9-1 Wheaton would not make the Pool C field based on your current projections? That would be unprecedented. But I understand the SOS and lack of non-conference strength is not helping.
Quote from: USee on October 15, 2014, 08:03:42 PM
Wally,
Are you saying a 9-1 Wheaton would not make the Pool C field based on your current projections? That would be unprecedented. But I understand the SOS and lack of non-conference strength is not helping.
But USee, Wheaton will not finish 9-1, after both NCC and IWU (with a recovered Warner throwing for 500 yards) beat them. ;D
Quote from: USee on October 15, 2014, 08:03:42 PM
Wally,
Are you saying a 9-1 Wheaton would not make the Pool C field based on your current projections? That would be unprecedented. But I understand the SOS and lack of non-conference strength is not helping.
Right now, we've got Wheaton as the third at-large team in the North and we learned last year "you're not gonna get three from the same region".
Now, Wheaton does have some advantages in the schedule (non of which are related to SOS, unfortunately). Both of the teams that the North region voters have placed ahead of Wheaton, should they both end as runners up in their leagues, will have lost AFTER Wheaton hypothetically loses to North Central. When you lose isn't a criteria per se, but we've followed the rankings enough to know that it absolutely matters and teams that wind up with one loss generally cycle around each other based on who lost last. JCU will lose in Week 11. Witt (or Wabash) play in Week 10. Wheaton's Brass Bell game is Week 8.
And, you're right- it would be weird for Wheaton or any 9-1 CCIW runner up to not get invited. Wheaton's name and Wheaton's league carry weight (also not criteria, but I've seen enough now to know that that stuff matters whether people openly admit it or not). So reputation also works in Wheaton's favor. But right now Wheaton's SOS ranks 220 (out of 231). That will come up some as they go through league play, but not as much as usual because the CCIW didn't bank as many September wins as they usually do. And Kalamazoo and Eau Claire probably won't win four games between them. I think when you add it all up, Wheaton is going to look an awful lot like Thomas More from 2013, and Thomas More wasn't really in the conversation last year (poor SOS, no quality wins).
Really I think Wheaton getting in or not depends on whether or not they cycle to the front of the North's at-large queue after JCU and whoever winds up 2nd in the NCAC lose. If Wheaton is first in line, they'll get in. If not, it could be a difficult sell.
Wally,
How about some scenarios for NCAC(DePauw, Wabash, and Witt).
I really appreciate all the time and effort you put into D3boards.com!
GO BASH!!!!
Quote from: bashgiant on October 16, 2014, 08:15:02 AM
Wally,
How about some scenarios for NCAC(DePauw, Wabash, and Witt).
I really appreciate all the time and effort you put into D3boards.com!
GO BASH!!!!
We could have a long winded breakdown of remaining games and about 100 different what-ifs that work around other hypothetical results around the region, but what it all distills down to is
don't lose twice. Provided they don't lose any other games, I think the Witt/Wabash loser has a pretty good chance, but the timing of that game might push the loser to the back of the line in the North region and things get really dicey (happened to Wabash last year).
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 15, 2014, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: USee on October 15, 2014, 08:03:42 PM
Wally,
Are you saying a 9-1 Wheaton would not make the Pool C field based on your current projections? That would be unprecedented. But I understand the SOS and lack of non-conference strength is not helping.
Right now, we've got Wheaton as the third at-large team in the North and we learned last year "you're not gonna get three from the same region".
Now, Wheaton does have some advantages in the schedule (non of which are related to SOS, unfortunately). Both of the teams that the North region voters have placed ahead of Wheaton, should they both end as runners up in their leagues, will have lost AFTER Wheaton hypothetically loses to North Central. When you lose isn't a criteria per se, but we've followed the rankings enough to know that it absolutely matters and teams that wind up with one loss generally cycle around each other based on who lost last. JCU will lose in Week 11. Witt (or Wabash) play in Week 10. Wheaton's Brass Bell game is Week 8.
And, you're right- it would be weird for Wheaton or any 9-1 CCIW runner up to not get invited. Wheaton's name and Wheaton's league carry weight (also not criteria, but I've seen enough now to know that that stuff matters whether people openly admit it or not). So reputation also works in Wheaton's favor. But right now Wheaton's SOS ranks 220 (out of 231). That will come up some as they go through league play, but not as much as usual because the CCIW didn't bank as many September wins as they usually do. And Kalamazoo and Eau Claire probably won't win four games between them. I think when you add it all up, Wheaton is going to look an awful lot like Thomas More from 2013, and Thomas More wasn't really in the conversation last year (poor SOS, no quality wins).
Really I think Wheaton getting in or not depends on whether or not they cycle to the front of the North's at-large queue after JCU and whoever winds up 2nd in the NCAC lose. If Wheaton is first in line, they'll get in. If not, it could be a difficult sell.
Fascinating. I can't disagree with any of your analysis. I can't see JCU getting moved down below Wheaton and Witt/Wabash loser so my guess is it comes down to those teams and 1-How did they lose to the AQ and 2-If it's Witt, does their loss to Butler affect them (even though it shouldn't). I think if Wabash beats Witt in week 10 that Wheaton likely gets the #2 spot behind JCU in the North but if Witt wins I don't see Wheaton moving ahead of Wabash. But the unseen subjectivity of the committee will certainly be at play as you indicate.
I have long known that Mike Swider schedules non-conference teams knowing that 9-1 gets him in. I have never liked that but the reality is at Wheaton he just doesn't have the horses to play UWW and other tough non-conference teams and then survive the CCIW slate. His best DB blew his knee at Wabash this year. But a 9-1 Wheaton that doesn't get in the playoffs will force some re-thinking of that strategy. Stay tuned....
Quote from: USee on October 16, 2014, 11:23:55 AM
Fascinating. I can't disagree with any of your analysis. I can't see JCU getting moved down below Wheaton and Witt/Wabash loser so my guess is it comes down to those teams and 1-How did they lose to the AQ and 2-If it's Witt, does their loss to Butler affect them (even though it shouldn't). I think if Wabash beats Witt in week 10 that Wheaton likely gets the #2 spot behind JCU in the North but if Witt wins I don't see Wheaton moving ahead of Wabash. But the unseen subjectivity of the committee will certainly be at play as you indicate.
One other thing to watch for in the North region is DePauw. DePauw is a wild card. If they get to 9-1 and are on an 8 game win streak and don't get the NCAC AQ out of the deal, they could leapfrog everybody but JCU. And who knows, maybe even over JCU depending on how much the North RAC loves Wabash between weeks 10 and 11.
If Wabash beats Witt and then loses to Depauw, who finishes 9-1, that would be a quagmire. You would have Depauw, Wabash, Witt, and Wheaton at 9-1. Who wins the NCAC AQ?
We really don't know. If they all have lost to each other, it may be road record in conference or longest winning streak. Both of those data points have been in tie-breakers in the past.
Quote from: USee on October 16, 2014, 12:19:27 PM
If Wabash beats Witt and then loses to Depauw, who finishes 9-1, that would be a quagmire. You would have Depauw, Wabash, Witt, and Wheaton at 9-1. Who wins the NCAC AQ?
Awhile back on these boards, I think I remember reading that some conferences go with whichever team has the longest conference championship drought....if all things are equal.
There are written guidelines for the CCIW in a 3 way tie. Anyone can find them on the CCIW conference website. NCAC has no such animal. From reading the discussion here and on the NCAC board in the past, no one knows if there is anything official or if they will just throw 3 envelopes down the stairs and the one that flies farthest is the winner. This is knowable information right now. Surprising we are going on over a year with no clarity on this.
Quote from: USee on October 16, 2014, 01:12:18 PM
There are written guidelines for the CCIW in a 3 way tie. Anyone can find them on the CCIW conference website. NCAC has no such animal. From reading the discussion here and on the NCAC board in the past, no one knows if there is anything official or if they will just throw 3 envelopes down the stairs and the one that flies farthest is the winner. This is knowable information right now. Surprising we are going on over a year with no clarity on this.
I swear I promised I wasn't going to let myself get into this until after Week 10 this year. But alas, here I am.
Yes, it should be on the website, but it isn't. I don't think the league office is actively hiding it, I just don't think it's of any particular importance for them to post it anywhere. It's been published before by journos who have asked about it. I tracked down an article from 2010 (not exactly current, but I think there was also an article in 2012 when the possibility of a Wabash/Witt/OWU tie existed and things were the same). Unless there have been changes, it goes like this:
1. H2Hs - Tie, everybody has beaten everybody else.
2. Results vs. other NCAC opponents in descending order- Tie since the three tied would have all beaten everybody beneath them in the league.
3. Fewest conference away losses - This is where you'll figure out who wins. If Wabash beats Witt and DePauw beats Wabash, DePauw is scratched because of their loss at Witt, Wabash and Witt are undefeated on the road and you'll go back to the top to break the Wabash/Witt tie, which in this case breaks in favor of Wabash.
Now, that's if the presidents or coaches or whoever comes up with this policy haven't completely changed it up. The NCAC has since gone to a full round robin, which eliminates the need for tiebreaking based on the lunacy of the preseason power ranking (which would have been next on the list), but I don't think it necessarily mandates any other changes to the tiebreak policy.
Another interesting scenario develops if Wooster beats Witt (in Wooster), Witt beats Wabash (in Springfield), and Wabash has already beaten Wooster (in C'ville). Those three all have one loss on the road and push the third tiebreak. The next tiebreak (if we assume the power ranking thing is gone) is the longest running conference winning streak- which would break in favor of Wooster.
Well if you want a tangled web how about this: I found this years North Regional committee:
Erik Raeburn, co-chair Wabash North Coast
Chris Martin, co-chair CCIW CCIW
Patrick Etherton Millikin CCIW
Mike Leonard Franklin Michigan Intercol.
Jack Hatem Denison North Coast
Mark Walsh Aurora Northern Athletics
Mike Leonard Franklin Heartland Collegiate
John Snell Baldwin Wallace OAC
The National Committee Members from the North Region are the first two listed.
So the "Unseen subjective" criteria these guys will use to sort the top three Pool C's for the North Region are up to this unbiased, unaffiliated few. 8-)
And in case you are wondering (and to post it on the record for reference in a few weeks when this board gets hot) the National Committee is:
Current members of the committee are:
East Region east region
Jack McKiernan
Associate Director of Athletics
Kean University
John Marzka
Head Football Coach
Albright College
north region north region
Chris Martin
Commissioner
College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Erik Raeburn
Head Football Coach
Wabash College
south region south region
Jack Leipheimer
Director of Athletics
Thiel College
Loren Dawson
Head Football Coach
Austin College
west region west region
Rodney Sandberg
Head Football Coach
Whitworth University
Duey Naatz, chair
Director of Athletics
University of Wisconsin, Stout
It should be noted that Rod Sandberg was Wheaton's DCoordinator last year.
Quote from: USee on October 16, 2014, 01:45:03 PM
Well if you want a tangled web how about this: I found this years North Regional committee:
Erik Raeburn, co-chair Wabash North Coast
Chris Martin, co-chair CCIW CCIW
Patrick Etherton Millikin CCIW
Mike Leonard Franklin Michigan Intercol.
Jack Hatem Denison North Coast
Mark Walsh Aurora Northern Athletics
Mike Leonard Franklin Heartland Collegiate
John Snell Baldwin Wallace OAC
The National Committee Members from the North Region are the first two listed.
So the "Unseen subjective" criteria these guys will use to sort the top three Pool C's for the North Region are up to this unbiased, unaffiliated few. 8-)
1. I know you know this, but the only way to avoid such a problem would be having all bottom-feeders represented on the committee, or having some randomly chosen people completely unaffiliated with Division III football altogether.
2. I think there's a mistake on that list, which has Mike Leonard listed twice, once as affiliated with the MIAA. I assume that was supposed to be an MIAA coach?
I assume so as well. That is a cut and paste from the "preliminary championship handbook". I know Dean Kreps from Hope used to be on the committee so presumably its someone like that.
And yes of course there are going to be affiliations. Can't be avoided. Just depends on their alliances, kind of like our own little "Game of Thrones".
Quote from: USee on October 16, 2014, 02:01:30 PM
And yes of course there are going to be affiliations. Can't be avoided. Just depends on their alliances, kind of like our own little "Game of Thrones".
Ha! I wouldn't mind changing the annual Purple Wedding into a Red Wedding.
Clarification: That's a very loose literary analogy. I'm not rooting for the Stagg Bowl to turn into a literal bloodbath after halftime. :)
excellent Wally. Love it.
Here is the link to the "pre-championship handbook" in case anyone is interested
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamp_DIII_Football_2014-15_Revised.pdf
It does show SAA as AQ.
Errata: CWRU and CMU listed as a B not part of PAC.
It's a moot point, but does it make sense for CWRU to be North region when nine of its ten games are against South teams?
Quote from: ADL70 on October 16, 2014, 07:37:28 PM
It does show SAA as AQ.
Errata: CWRU and CMU listed as a B not part of PAC.
It's a moot point, but does it make sense for CWRU to be North region when nine of its ten games are against South teams?
It has several mistakes in that section. It lists Cornell still a part of the IIAC (they've been in the MWC for 3(?) years now. Marantha is no longer a member of the NACC, Presentation (they have listed in the UMAC) has left the NCAA altogether. It also has the MASCAC as getting a Pool A.
So, we reported that error about the MASCAC to the NCAA a couple weeks ago and we have not heard back from them yet. In our reading of the Division III rules regarding AQs, the MASCAC does not qualify for one in football in 2014.
Good grief, that championship manual is a mess, isn't it? Nebraska Wesleyan? Seriously. Remember in Major League when Rachel Phelps hands the list of players she intends to invite to camp to the front office? That's how I felt reading that list. "Cross him off then."
Hopefully this stuff gets cleared up because it's important to the bid breakdown. If the SAA is getting an AQ and MASCAC is not, the A/B/C breakdown should be 25/2/5, yes?
Wow. We've always talked about Nebraska Wesleyan when it comes to hoops, if they decide to come play with us or the NAIA. They have the choice. But I've never heard them talked about in football terms, since they don't play ANYONE from the NCAA. Kind of hard to present yourself as a "B" candidate when you are 0-0 in the room. Oh, and Morningside hung 83 on them, but still...
BTW, Morningside's scored 56, 83, 72, 68, and 76 this season. They average 714 yards a game this season. You thought Mt. Union and UMHB rolled up people in their league...
Other mistakes that I've spotted:
Brockport State, who joined the Empire 8 this season, is still listed in the NJAC.
Southern Virginia (who might not be eligible for the playoffs this season, and won't matter anyway) is not even listed.
The ASC list includes McMurry, Mississippi College, and Texas Lutheran (incidentally, TLU, is listed twice appearing both in the ASC and in the South Region's Pool B teams).
Macalester is listed in the UMAC, but currently playing in the MWC
Thus, compiling all mistakes noted so far in one post (I'll add to this list if needed)
- CWRU and CMU listed as Pool B teams; should be listed in Presidents Athletic Conference (ADL70)
- Cornell mistakenly listed in IIAC; should be listed in MWC (hickory_cornhusker)
- Maranatha mistakenly listed in NACC; should be listed as independent/Pool B (hickory_cornhusker)
- Presentation mistakenly listed in UMAC, no longer plays NCAA football (hickory_cornhusker)
- The SAA and MASCAC are both listed as receiving AQ bids, of which we are uncertain
- Nebraska Wesleyan listed in Pool B, no longer plays NCAA football (wally_wabash)
- Brockport State mistakenly listed in NJAC, should be listed in Empire 8 (ExTartanPlayer)
- Southern Virginia is not listed anywhere, should be listed in NJAC (ExTartanPlayer)
- McMurry listed in ASC, is not playing Division III football this season (ExTartanPlayer)
- Mississippi College listed in ASC, is not playing Division III football this season (ExTartanPlayer)
- Texas Lutheran listed in ASC, should be listed in Pool B only (ExTartanPlayer)
- Macalester listed in UMAC, should be listed in MWC (ExTartanPlayer)
I'll update this list (to keep them all in one place) if anyone wants to send a comprehensive list to the NCAA with all of this.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 16, 2014, 10:47:13 PM
So, we reported that error about the MASCAC to the NCAA a couple weeks ago and we have not heard back from them yet. In our reading of the Division III rules regarding AQs, the MASCAC does not qualify for one in football in 2014.
Is it possible the MASCAC submitted their paperwork for a Pool A bid before they started playing as a league? When the NACC started they had all of their other sports start play in fall of 2006 while football waited for their schools to finish scheduling commitments so football didn't start until fall of 2008 but started their probationary period in fall of 2006 so the Pool A bid was waiting for them when they started play. The rules from what I remember say you need to be a conference for 2 years as a probationary period. The rules don't say you need to have been sponsoring the sport for 2 years. Maybe the MASCAC started their probationary period before they started conference competition in football.
Kinda doesn't matter when they submitted their paperwork if they weren't playing as a league, I don't think. The issue is that the MASCAC has only five of its actual members that play football and has four associate members from the Little East. That's why the waiting period.
The inquiry has been resubmitted... hopefully the NCAA can reply relatively soon.
Mark Emmert visited UChicago yesterday when he was in town. I should have asked him when I met him. Maybe he would have known the status of the MASCAC.
Hah!
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on October 21, 2014, 07:51:35 PM
Mark Emmert visited UChicago yesterday when he was in town. I should have asked him when I met him. Maybe he would have known the status of the MASCAC.
I would be interested if he knew what the MASCAC was without prompting...
Alright, let's do this again. This week we're going to roll with the SAA in Pool A, the MASCAC not, and an A/B/C breakdown of 25/2/5. It's really close as to whether or not Pool B is one bid or two. Hopefully we can find some clarity (drink!) soon.
Here we go.
Pool A, new teams in italics:
League | Team |
ASC | UMHB |
CC | Johns Hopkins |
CCIW | North Central |
ECFC | Husson |
E8 | St. John Fisher |
HCAC | Franklin |
IIAC | Wartburg |
LL | Hobart |
MAC | Widener |
MIAA | Trine |
MIAC | Bethel |
MWC | Carroll |
NACC | Concordia (Wis) |
NCAC | Wabash |
NEFC | Western New England |
NJAC | Montclair State |
NWC | Linfield |
OAC | Mount Union |
ODAC | Hampden-Sydney |
PAC | Washington & Jefferson |
SAA | Centre |
SCIAC | Chapman |
UMAC | St. Scholastica |
USAC | Huntingdon |
WIAC | UW-Whitewater |
- Castleton State lost which left Husson at the top of a tightly bunched ECFC. This is a one-bid league, so no at-large dominoes are falling here. Fun race to watch though with five teams at 3-0 or 2-1.
- Centre is new because last week I didn't give the SAA a bid.
- Huntingdon is new this week because, well, I goofed last week. As of last week, the Hawks had already beaten CNU and Maryville and should have been listed. My bad.
Pool B:Wesley (4-0, 5-0 in D3, 0.712 SOS, 3-0 vs. RRO)
Texas Lutheran (6-0, 0.542 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
TLU is the pick this week, but things get really interesting for them if they lose by 60 to UMHB this week (totally possible). If TLU loses in a fashion that isn't flattering, we're going to pull in Framingham State (5-1, 0.650 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO) and Chicago back in for this second bid. And for right now, with the SAA out of Pool B, it's basically those three teams (TLU, FSU, UC) for that one non-Wesley Pool B bid.
Pool C: Round 1:John Carroll (6-0, 0.522 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (5-2, 0.448 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Delaware Valley (6-0, 0.604 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)UW-Platteville (5-1, 0.551 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
-Taking Delaware Valley first here based SOS, the nice win against Lycoming, and another really nice win against Montclair State who isn't ranked by the East region voters, but is in my tournament field at the moment. Del Val and Widener are racing toward a 9-0 vs. 9-0 game in week 11.
Round 2:John Carroll (6-0, 0.522 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)Thomas More (5-2, 0.448 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Buffalo State (5-1, 0.563 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
UW-Platteville (5-1, 0.551 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- JCU is the next best option with their undefeated record and RRO win (My assumption is that Heidelberg remains ranked despite their second loss as everybody after the top six teams in the North region keeps losing as well and Heidelberg is not likely to lose again). JCU and UMU are probably both very safely in when they play for the OAC title in week 11.
Round 3:Wittenberg (5-0, 0.536 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (5-2, 0.448 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Buffalo State (5-1, 0.563 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
UW-Platteville (5-1, 0.551 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)- Now this is interesting. Witt was selected last week (and maybe they will be this week...I'm hammering this out stream-of-consciousness style) but DePauw losing to OWU likely takes them out of the regional rankings and costs Wittenberg a precious RRO result. I digress. Here in round 3 it's razor thin for me between Buffalo State and UW-Platteville, and I'm leaning toward Platteville based on not just the quality win (I think UW-SP still has the résumé of a ranked team- for now) and they have a quality loss, whereas Buff State's loss to Alfred gets less respectable each week. Fear not E8 friends...I have a feeling Buff State will be ok.
Round 4:Wittenberg (5-0, 0.536 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (5-2, 0.448 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Buffalo State (5-1, 0.563 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
Concordia-Moorhead (5-1, 0.551 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)- Copy and past from the Platteville or Buff State situation above. C-M and Platteville have basically identical profiles so the same reasoning applies.
And now I have a conundrum. I've operated with the caveat that once I select an at-large team from one league, I remove other teams from that league from at-large consideration. But here in the West, my next four teams are either MIAC teams or WIAC teams (the gap is that wide). And right now, if there were a regional ranking, I can't see a scenario where somebody like Northwestern or Macalester is ranked. So I'm going to break my rule, and reinstate the candidacy for the next team up in the West- St. John's
Round 5:Wittenberg (5-0, 0.536 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
Thomas More (5-2, 0.448 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
Buffalo State (5-1, 0.563 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
St. John's (5-1, 0.568 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)- Welp. I lied about Buff State. Applying the same logic that I've been using today, if I took UW-P and C-M with slightly lower SOS's than Buff State, why would I pass on St. John's who has a higher SOS? Answer: I wouldn't. Not included is last week's win at Gustavus Adolphus (I don't think they can be in the West's top 10 with their SOS), but that was a really nice win in a tough spot there for the Johnnies.
A couple of other notes here:
- Witt is undefeated and uninvited which is weird. 1) They're not really undefeated and I think that would matter, even if not officially. 2) That SOS is going to be a high water mark for Witt. That will settle down to something closer to 0.500 as they still have games left with Allegheny and Kenyon. 3) the RRO result (DePauw) going away crushed them. If DePauw stays ranked, Witt is in, no question.
- Today the MIAC places three teams in my field. There is ZERO PERCENT chance that this happens on Selection Sunday. Too many head-to-heads left and too many losses to accumulate amongst these teams bunched at the top for them to not whack each other down to one viable at-large play.
- Keep an eye on Oshkosh. They're probably going to take it on the chin at the Perk this weekend, but if they get November road wins at Stevens Point and at Platteville, I'll bet they play their way in, despite that crazy (and winless) September schedule.
- PLU was on thin ice as it was last week, and they fell through last week. There's not enough schedule help for PLU to be considered from here on out.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
- PLU was on thin ice as it was last week, and they fell through last week. There's not enough schedule help for PLU to be considered from here on out.
Yup, we're done. West coast is pretty straight forward (with no Pool C). Winner of Chapman vs. Redlands goes to Linfield for round 1.
What's RRO?
Thanks
Quote from: RLW on October 22, 2014, 01:46:00 PM
What's RRO?
Yep, what he said. Official regional rankings won't come until after the games of 11/1, but in the meantime I am using the fan polling from each of the regions done by contributors to Post Patterns as a substitute (with the exception of the West, where they don't do a fan poll).
I would also recommend reading through the playoff FAQ (http://d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs), which should help bring into focus a lot of the criteria that I talk about in the write up, but don't explain entirely.
Quote from: d-train on October 22, 2014, 01:01:33 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
- PLU was on thin ice as it was last week, and they fell through last week. There's not enough schedule help for PLU to be considered from here on out.
Yup, we're done. West coast is pretty straight forward (with no Pool C). Winner of Chapman vs. Redlands goes to Linfield for round 1.
If Chapman wins, I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch, because both teams are better than they were during the first matchup. However, it would be nice to see a second place MIAC, WIAC, or another Midwest team get sent out to Linfield in the 1st round. Maybe if they set up the other regions during the 1st two rounds having majority of the trips bus rides.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 22, 2014, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 22, 2014, 01:01:33 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
- PLU was on thin ice as it was last week, and they fell through last week. There's not enough schedule help for PLU to be considered from here on out.
Yup, we're done. West coast is pretty straight forward (with no Pool C). Winner of Chapman vs. Redlands goes to Linfield for round 1.
If Chapman wins, I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch, because both teams are better than they were during the first matchup. However, it would be nice to see a second place MIAC, WIAC, or another Midwest team get sent out to Linfield in the 1st round. Maybe if they set up the other regions during the 1st two rounds having majority of the trips bus rides.
That's probably the way it works with the teams I have projected today, but if TLU doesn't qualify then UMHB is going to be a geographical orphan which opens up the opportunity to send the SCIAC champion to Texas and somebody else up to Linfield. Not that we can guarantee the committee would exercise that opportunity to do something a little different (and avoid a regular season rematch if Chapman wins the SCIAC), but it would at least be an option.
Are there any contenders for 'surprise team that gets RRd and pulls a bubble team up along with it??"
Quote from: smedindy on October 22, 2014, 09:26:25 PM
Are there any contenders for 'surprise team that gets RRd and pulls a bubble team up along with it??"
Well, Wheaton would certainly benefit if Coe or the Elmhurst/IWU winner this week gets ranked. I'd judge all three to be in the teens in their regions currently.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 22, 2014, 09:57:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 22, 2014, 09:26:25 PM
Are there any contenders for 'surprise team that gets RRd and pulls a bubble team up along with it??"
Well, Wheaton would certainly benefit if Coe or the Elmhurst/IWU winner this week gets ranked. I'd judge all three to be in the teens in their regions currently.
I can't see a scenario where IWU can be regionally ranked in a way that helps Wheaton's criteria. They certainly can't lose a fourth game, which means beating both Wheaton and North Central. And if the context is that Wheaton loses the Brass Bell game this weekend, a second loss knocks them out of Pool C for sure. If they win the Brass Bell, they'll not have much need for Pool C anyway.
Elmhurst, on the other hand, could perhaps not only get ranked, but be one of those sneaky, secret, post-Week-11 ranked teams smeds mentioned if they can get to 7-3 by beating North Central on the final Saturday. THAT situation would also pull into play the CCIW point differential tiebreak, so we wouldn't know how it could affect Wheaton until after all of that calculus was done.
I think Coe is a real longshot to get ranked out West. Such a deep region, plus they have a nasty little h2h result with UW-SP lingering which is going to keep them stuck firmly behind the Pointers in that region until such time as Stevens Points loses enough games to not be relevant (which has the added effect of wiping out any small positive that might otherwise exist from the Kohawks having lost that game).
Wally,
Why are there only 5 Pool C bids this year again? Or is that even settled? Is it because there will be 2 pool B bids? and if pool B team doesn't get selected they are then a Pool C candidate? I can't remember all this.
Quote from: USee on October 23, 2014, 12:19:04 AM
Wally,
Why are there only 5 Pool C bids this year again? Or is that even settled? Is it because there will be 2 pool B bids? and if pool B team doesn't get selected they are then a Pool C candidate? I can't remember all this.
I think it's just because that's what is left over to get to 32 teams. Last week when I was under the impression that the SAA and MASCAC were still not AQ eligible, that made for 24 As, 2 Bs, and then 6 Cs to get to 32. This week, the SAA gets an AQ, so we have 25 As, 2 Bs, and just 5 Cs.
I believe the math involved in figuring out how many Pool B bids goes something like this: find the average number of teams in Pool A conferences (which comes out to something just over 8), and divide by the number of teams that are independent or play in conferences that don't qualify for automatic bids (the five independents, 10 MASCACs, and 4 SCACs or 19 teams total), then drop the remainder (19/8.something = 2.something = 2 bids). If the SAA (7 teams) isn't an AQ league, then the Bs would be 27/8.something = 3.something = 3 bids (which is what we had last year). Now that 8.something would have to be north of 8.7 to still only end up with 2 bids, and I'm sure it isn't that high.
Now, if you take the MASCACs out and give them a Pool A, then you only get one Pool B, but you've got 26 As and still just the 5 Cs. I tried to sneak an extra C in there last week, but now that I've looked at it more, I don't think that math works out.
And yes, any B-eligible teams that don't get selected for one of the B bids migrate to the C pool, although a B-eligible team has never received a C bid. I think the closest we've come to that is CWRU in 2011. The Spartans went 9-1 and were either passed over there at the end of the selection process by Illinois College (9-1, very similar profile to CWRU as I recall) or SJF, who had lost twice but held a massive SOS advantage- as they tend to do- and had a favorable common opponent result with CWRU (Rochester). It may have been that Fisher was selected even before IC and IC was the last team in, but whatever the case, that's as close as we've come to having a B-eligible team get a C bid. I don't see it happening this year either, although if TLU can lose to UMHB and still stay ahead of a single-loss Chicago team AND the North region cannibalism continues through the end of the season, then the Maroons might have a slim shot at taking a C bid. That's a lot of stars that have to align for that to happen though. Which, now that i think about it, brings us back to Elmhurst- Chicago could be the team that would benefit the most from Elmhurst sneaking into those final double-secret rankings. Rhodes is win this Saturday away from probably being a ranked team in the South, Bethel will be ranked, and if Elmhurst winds up ranked if they can get to 7-3 with a win over North Central, then all of a sudden Chicago could be 8-1, 2-1 vs. RROs and that gets you selected. Of course if they end up 8-1, 2-1 vs. RROs, they'd almost certainly jump TLU and get the other Pool B.
I took a look at how the geography would affect the matchups based on the current 32 teams... unless the NCAA decides to spring for some more flights it would end up with just one first round flight and a couple of rematches.
Chapman at Linfield (only flight)
Texas Lutheran at Mary Hardin-Baylor (only schools within 500 miles)
Huntingdon at Centre (only school within 500 miles of Huntingdon)
Husson at either W New England or Cortland St (only two schools within 500 miles of Husson)
As it stands, the Minnesota/Wisconsin area is tough... assuming the MIAC works itself out and only has one pool C team I came up with some possible matchups for that area
Concordia WI at UW-Whitewater
Carroll at Wartburg
St Scholastica at Bethel
UW-Platteville vs MIAC #2
Not going to bother trying to build a full bracket until the picture is clearer. Still plenty of football left and I'm sure several teams currently projected in will fall out by week 11. But there isn't much else to do mid-week.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2014, 01:16:06 AM
Chicago could be the team that would benefit the most from Elmhurst sneaking into those final double-secret rankings. Rhodes is win this Saturday away from probably being a ranked team in the South, Bethel will be ranked, and if Elmhurst winds up ranked if they can get to 7-3 with a win over North Central, then all of a sudden Chicago could be 8-1, 2-1 vs. RROs and that gets you selected. Of course if they end up 8-1, 2-1 vs. RROs, they'd almost certainly jump TLU and get the other Pool B.
Flipping this back the other way, assuming Chicago wins out and gets to 8-1 (which is no certainty), that will benefit Bethel as well (either for seeding purposes as an AQ or as an 8-2 Pool C candidate).
9-1 Bethel with multiple results against RRO's including a W over regionally-ranked Chicago + 1-2 more W's against whoever else from the MIAC ends up ranked, and a lone loss against undefeated and RR Wartburg will have a strong enough resume for a pretty high seed, as far as one-loss teams go.
Meanwhile, if they lose a game, 8-2 Bethel's Pool C hopes would be greatly enhanced by Chicago finishing RR'd, giving them an extra W in that column for consideration.
Wally - thanx for your insightful weekly probable play-off contenders.
FWIW - the MIAC is a toss-up right now. With four weeks of play left, there are five teams with one loss (though Bethel is undefeated in conference play). Those five teams could, in theory anyways, all beat each other up so that they all end up with 6 and 2 conference records at the end of the season, provided they beat the other teams in the league that are not part of this mix. It is just way too early to project who will take the MIAC and what the record of the second place team will be.
This week, Bethel and St. Thomas lock horns. If Bethel wins, the Tommies have two losses and their chances do not look all that promising for post-season play.
Hang on, it's going to be a wild ride in the MIAC this year!
The scenario probably is that UMHB, Wesley, Mt. Union and UW-W are the "#1's" in their 'region' if they choose to do so. (I'm throwing Wesley to the East; Delaware Valley is a strong contender too with a good SOS, Hobart's SOS is weaker now, Johns Hopkins is higher than Hobart but they'd be 'moving' as well).
This means that the West will again be bloody again, as Wartburg or Linfield may not make the final 8 unless the committee becomes creative again. If Wheaton beats NC and Wabash wins out, the "North" will have three unbeatens as well. W & J is also looming - they can go three different ways (East, North, South).
A question is if THREE MIAC teams come in, with good SOS and geographically close, what will they do. St. John's, C-M, Bethel can easily get to Wartburg, Carroll, Concordia, St. Scholastica and UW-W.
If they'd only allow more first round travel...
Some folks are (rightful) very careful when hoping for creative bracketing. Might easily end up with Linfield, UMHB, the SCIAC champ (Redlands/Chapman winner), and one more in a four-team grouping for the sake of flights.
Talking about tournament regions in terms of North, South, East, and West is becoming very inaccurate and very dated...to the point that it's becoming a peeve of mine. I made a post about this in the E8 forum to squelch the idea that Mount Union always gets "shipped East". Oh wait- here it is:
Quote from: wally_wabash on September 24, 2014, 03:32:48 PM
I'm not sure North Central belongs on the same list as Linfield and Wesley. Because they almost beat Mount Union that one time when Mount Union flatly refused to play any defense for the last three weeks of the tournament? Nah. Maybe if they were repeatedly getting knocked out by either Mount Union and Whitewater, but that's not the case- even though it seems like most people give them that kind of benefit of the doubt. IMO, North Central is closer to the strata occupied by SJF than they are the strata occupied by Linfield and Wesley.
Quote from: fisheralum91 on September 23, 2014, 11:23:14 AM
Totally understood.
That tier is established.
Im just hoping that Fisher is the team that keeps UMU out of the East region this year!
It doesn't really work that way anymore. If you look at the quadrant breakdown by region in the last three tournaments (Mount Union's quadrant is denoted by asterisk):
2013:
*Quad1- 3E, 2N, 3S
Quad2- 4N, 4W
Quad3- 1N, 3S, 4W
Quad4- 5E, 1N, 1S, 1W
2012:
Quad1- 2N, 6W
Quad2- 1E, 3N, 1S, 3W
Quad3- 3E, 2N, 3S
*Quad4- 4E, 1N, 3S
2011:
Quad1- 3E, 2N, 2S, 1W
Quad2- 3E, 1N, 1S, 3W
Quad3- 1E, 4S, 3W
*Quad4- 4N, 2S, 2W
So you can see that the regions don't really line up as geographically neat as they used to. The committee has done a good job in the last few years of of mixing and matching pods to get reasonably balanced quadrants. The idea that Mount Union gets "shipped" into a region loaded with East teams is dated.
N/S/E/W just isn't the way they build this bracket anymore. We shouldn't limit our thinking in that way.
Let's hope it continues. But still, to minimize flights, they need to 'pod' teams together in the first round. As you know, the difference between some W and N, or some N, S and E can be small enough to amalgamate the regions yet still keep flights down.
What I was trying to drive at is that we may have a first round game or two that are 'stacked' because of geography, and that's outside of the normal shenanigans that happen with the NWC, SCIAC and the Texas schools. So I probably fed into the regional thing unintentionally.
I think the perception that Mt. Union hops even now is because they are geographically close enough to do so. So is Wesley and Del Val. And there are plenty of schools that Wartburg or Whitewater can get to in round 1. For example, Wartburg is within 500 miles of Wabash. (I can't see that as a potential first round game now, but still...)
Of course we have to wait a while for this, but again IF three MIAC schools qualify to avoid first round rematches the hopping around will probably begin.
This is the fun part!
I can't see three in from one conference...only slight chance is if they are (rock-paper-scissors) co-champs with two Pool C candidates that have just the one loss each.
The four team pod thing is really, IMO, the right way to think about pairing teams together when and if people want to put together mock brackets (which I think is awesome...mock brackets and 4-team pods). And it makes sense. When you get down to regional finals, even if you were to put teams from the same geographic region all together as much as you could (paying no attention whatsoever to properly seeding the four best teams or otherwise trying to balance the regions), it's hard to guarantee no flights at that point. So why trap yourself with the geographical boundaries when you're probably going to have to pay for a 2-3 flights in the quarterfinals anyway? Joy Solomon's committees deserve credit for breaking that barrier.
I think the larger point, and this is something that comes up somewhere every year either in the East forums or at some point on the ATN podcast or other places here and there, is that people desperately want the committee to pick the best team in the East region and make them a #1 seed. The committee is under no such obligation. That kind of thing is what leads to regions having 3 of the top 8 teams in it and we don't want that anymore. We want some balance out there. East region teams can earn a #1 seed by, let's say, not losing a game or two during the season. That would be a good start. More immediate and more likely to get an East region a #1 seed sometime in the near future is the free agent acquisition of Wesley. But people also shouldn't be under the impression that that's going to immediately get teams like SJF or Hobart out from under Mount Union. As long as you live within 500 miles of Alliance, that's always going to be a possibility.
10-0 Wartburg and 10-0 Wabash wouldn't be a first round game, but it's not out of the question to see that as a potential second round game with those two in the same little pod. You could also see a pod that has NCC go play at Wartburg in the second round (that would be more likely...similar to NCC's 2011 tournament placement). Tons of possibilities and options when let ourselves ignore what geographic region teams are in.
Quote from: d-train on October 23, 2014, 03:30:45 PM
I can't see three in from one conference...only slight chance is if they are (rock-paper-scissors) co-champs with two Pool C candidates that have just the one loss each.
Yep. I know I selected 2 MIAC teams in Pool C this week, but honestly there is a (much) greater chance that the MIAC gets zero at-large bids than they get two of them. Too much MIAC-on-MIAC violence to be done for more than one team to be alive in Pool C after week 11.
I'm interested to see the RR's of course, but the East RR's will be the most intriguing to see where things stack up, and if the E8's great SOS outweigh their cannibalization. Also, to see if their committee can finagle Framingham back into conversations again with their strong SOS, though they have lost a game.
The East seems to know how to get the deal done and get their teams in...
Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2014, 03:53:05 PM
I'm interested to see the RR's of course, but the East RR's will be the most intriguing to see where things stack up, and if the E8's great SOS outweigh their cannibalization. Also, to see if their committee can finagle Framingham back into conversations again with their strong SOS, though they have lost a game.
The East seems to know how to get the deal done and get their teams in...
In a related story: if the MASCAC isn't getting a Pool A, and Framingham finishes 9-1 while Endicott runs the table and wins the NEFC (not a given, with games vs. undefeated MIT and WNEC), it would greatly help Framingham's Pool B/C case if Endicott squeaked into the East rankings (and if Rowan wins the NJAC, presumably also getting into the East rankings).
I did get a reply... it is being looked in to.
Referred to a dreaded sub-committee....
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
Alright, let's do this again. This week we're going to roll with the SAA in Pool A, the MASCAC not, and an A/B/C breakdown of 25/2/5. It's really close as to whether or not Pool B is one bid or two. Hopefully we can find some clarity (drink!) soon.
++k Extra k for podcast reference
Quote from: ADL70 on October 24, 2014, 07:13:49 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
Alright, let's do this again. This week we're going to roll with the SAA in Pool A, the MASCAC not, and an A/B/C breakdown of 25/2/5. It's really close as to whether or not Pool B is one bid or two. Hopefully we can find some clarity (drink!) soon.
++k Extra k for podcast reference
Glad somebody picked up on that. Otherwise it looks like I'm just shouting random nonsense. :)
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2014, 10:03:25 AM
Quote from: ADL70 on October 24, 2014, 07:13:49 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 22, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
Alright, let's do this again. This week we're going to roll with the SAA in Pool A, the MASCAC not, and an A/B/C breakdown of 25/2/5. It's really close as to whether or not Pool B is one bid or two. Hopefully we can find some clarity (drink!) soon.
++k Extra k for podcast reference
Glad somebody picked up on that. Otherwise it looks like I'm just shouting random nonsense. :)
I grinned when I saw it...
As did I, and I +1'd ... but I didn't say anything. Thanks for playing our game!
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
East region teams can earn a #1 seed by, let's say, not losing a game or two during the season. That would be a good start.
Do you mean the regular season or the entire season?
Because it seems like not losing a game for the entire season is a pretty ridiculous standard to hold anyone to, considering the current state of affairs in D-III football.
But that has to be what you mean, right? Because the East region
did have a team go without a regular-season loss in 2012. And 2013. And, in all likelyhood, will have one in 2014 as well.
An East team will earn a #1 seed when an East team is considered one of the top 4 teams in the country. Until then, it won't, and shouldn't, happen. It's pretty simple.
Quote from: jknezek on October 24, 2014, 03:23:19 PM
An East team will earn a #1 seed when an East team is considered one of the top 4 teams in the country. Until then, it won't, and shouldn't, happen. It's pretty simple.
I don't disagree, and neither do a lot of East posters. And I wouldn't consider an unbeaten Hobart to even be in that discussion. In fact, I wouldn't have even considered a 10-0 Fisher to automatically be in the discussion, considering I wrote several posts on the E8 about what the teams on Fisher's schedule would need to do to help them earn that recognition if they did go 10-0.
That said, if people are going to write "That would be a good first step" posts about East teams, they could at least take them time to get their facts straight. It's one thing to be patronizing, but lecturing a region to do something they've already done—twice—is pretty insulting
Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 24, 2014, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 24, 2014, 03:23:19 PM
An East team will earn a #1 seed when an East team is considered one of the top 4 teams in the country. Until then, it won't, and shouldn't, happen. It's pretty simple.
I don't disagree, and neither do a lot of East posters. And I wouldn't consider an unbeaten Hobart to even be in that discussion. In fact, I wouldn't have even considered a 10-0 Fisher to automatically be in the discussion, considering I wrote several posts on the E8 about what the teams on Fisher's schedule would need to do to help them earn that recognition if they did go 10-0.
That said, if people are going to write "That would be a good first step" posts about East teams, they could at least take them time to get their facts straight. It's one thing to be patronizing, but lecturing a region to do something they've already done—twice—is pretty insulting
True. And we were in agreement on the E8ish pages if I recall.
Quote from: jknezek on October 24, 2014, 04:04:13 PM
True. And we were in agreement on the E8ish pages if I recall.
We were. In fact, I think a lot of E8 posters understand completely the lack of geographical regions thing. I think sometimes posts get written in a way where it sounds like we don't—I know I've had a couple that sound that way. But I think almost everyone who writes, "Man, I wish Mount Union wouldn't get shipped East" really means "Man I wish the East would have a team deserving of a #1 seed."
I don't disagree that that isn't always clear, and we should probably stop saying variations of "I hate it when Mount comes East" or whatever variant. But I also think some non-E8/LL posters who haven't heard all the lengthy discussions we've had on the topic see those posts and assume we're all living in denial about how the system works.
Trust us, non-East guys, we get it. There's a reason we all groan at Hobart's unwillingness to schedule a quality team OOC and Fisher's inability to figure out how a ****ing triple option works.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 24, 2014, 04:15:08 PM
Trust us, non-East guys, we get it. There's a reason we all groan at Hobart's unwillingness to schedule a quality team OOC and Fisher's inability to figure out how a ****ing triple option works.
+K. That got a chuckle out of me
Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 24, 2014, 03:18:31 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
East region teams can earn a #1 seed by, let's say, not losing a game or two during the season. That would be a good start.
Do you mean the regular season or the entire season?
Because it seems like not losing a game for the entire season is a pretty ridiculous standard to hold anyone to, considering the current state of affairs in D-III football.
But that has to be what you mean, right? Because the East region did have a team go without a regular-season loss in 2012. And 2013. And, in all likelyhood, will have one in 2014 as well.
The regular season. Come on, now. Although the latter is actually important. You wouldn't necessarily have to win EVERY game for the entire season, but you would have to win enough games in one year's tournament to give yourself seeding leverage the following year
if you go undefeated in that following year. But let's just stick to winning 10 games first.
The Liberty League is kind of not very good. Make the case, using selection and seeding criteria, for Hobart to have been awarded a #1 regional seed in 2012, 2013, and/or 2014.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 24, 2014, 04:15:08 PM
Trust us, non-East guys, we get it. There's a reason we all groan at Hobart's unwillingness to schedule a quality team OOC and Fisher's inability to figure out how a ****ing triple option works.
That's hilarious. Well played, sir. :)
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2014, 04:31:51 PM
The regular season. Come on, now. But let's just stick to winning 10 games first.
The Liberty League is kind of not very good. Make the case, using selection and seeding criteria, for Hobart to have been awarded a #1 regional seed in 2012, 2013, and/or 2014.
I can't, because there isn't one. I don't need to, however, because I never claimed there was. My only complaint—and the only thing I quoted—was that that you wrote that a good "first step" would be going undefeated in the regular season, and that seemed unfair considering it had been accomplished twice, and will probably be accomplished a third time.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point. I'm just saying, if we're going to lay out step they need to complete, let's start with ones they
haven't taken. Like that hilarious schedule/triple option thing you guys love so much. Suppose Fisher had beaten Salisbury this year, for example. How would they look right now?
Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 24, 2014, 04:52:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2014, 04:31:51 PM
The regular season. Come on, now. But let's just stick to winning 10 games first.
The Liberty League is kind of not very good. Make the case, using selection and seeding criteria, for Hobart to have been awarded a #1 regional seed in 2012, 2013, and/or 2014.
I can't, because there isn't one. I don't need to, however, because I never claimed there was. My only complaint—and the only thing I quoted—was that that you wrote that a good "first step" would be going undefeated in the regular season, and that seemed unfair considering it had been accomplished twice, and will probably be accomplished a third time.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point. I'm just saying, if we're going to lay out step they need to complete, let's start with ones they haven't taken. Like that hilarious schedule/triple option thing you guys love so much. Suppose Fisher had beaten Salisbury this year, for example. How would they look right now?
They'll look the same, because just like some teams who can't make it into the Top 25, it is all the same with making it pass the Elite 8, until an East teams does that or beat a Top 6 team within the season, the highest a Eastern regional Team will get is a lovely #2 seed and a trip to either UWW, UMHB, Wesley, or that place that no one wins at.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 24, 2014, 05:08:37 PM
They'll look the same, because just like some teams who can't make it into the Top 25, it is all the same with making it pass the Elite 8, until an East teams does that or beat a Top 6 team within the season, the highest a Eastern regional Team will get is a lovely #2 seed and a trip to either UWW, UMHB, Wesley, or that place that no one wins at.
I'm okay with that. Not likely to happen, of course. But you've got to earn it on the field.
SJF would look nice NOW, but their SOS will take a big hit when they play Alfred State and when Otterbein plays their tough OAC games, starting with B-W. Otterbein could realistically finish 4-6.
That Alfred State game is just a lose-lose. If Fisher crushes them, they are doing what they are supposed to. If it's within 3 scores then it's a problem. If Fisher loses, their program will implode right on the spot. But no matter what the outcome, their SOS will suffer bringing that team to the fold.
Is it next year yet? OOC will be John Carroll and possibly Thomas More. Unless the TM game is trying to be worked into a later season.
Quote from: smedindy on October 24, 2014, 05:49:50 PM
SJF would look nice NOW, but their SOS will take a big hit when they play Alfred State and when Otterbein plays their tough OAC games, starting with B-W. Otterbein could realistically finish 4-6.
Also, Otterbein beat Baldwin Wallace today to improve to 5-1 in conference. I think they should be favored against Ohio Northern and more realistically will finish 6-3 in conference. Which is about what I expected of them this year.
Centre looks on its way to 10-0 after beating Rhodes. They could leap into "B" with TLU's loss, depending on who the NCAA decides gets an "A" THIS week...
Quote from: boobyhasgameyo on October 25, 2014, 09:30:23 AM
That Alfred State game is just a lose-lose. If Fisher crushes them, they are doing what they are supposed to. If it's within 3 scores then it's a problem. If Fisher loses, their program will implode right on the spot. But no matter what the outcome, their SOS will suffer bringing that team to the fold.
Isn't Alfred State still provisional and has no affect on SOS? If you go to the SOS page they are at the bottom listed as 0-0.
I knew they were a provisional member of D3, but I didn't know that it wouldn't have any impact on the SOS as a result. Thanks for the knowledge share! +k
Having no affect on SOS is just as bad as a negative affect. It's one data point they have to throw out.
Unless is something as horrid as an Alfred State game....
Pat can correct me on this since I can't be sure due to the time of the night and the day I had... but I believe provisional teams now can count towards all criteria, but still aren't eligible for post-season play. Or at least they have to maybe be a second year provisional. The idea is that teams, especially conference teams, aren't hurt by having a game they have to play (i.e. conference) because it doesn't go towards any data or information.
If Oshkosh wins out to finish 6-1 in WIAC and 6-4 overall, do they have any chance at a Pool C, with three NC losses being to a D1-FCS (South Dakota State) a pair of NAIA (Robert Morris and Marian) schools?
Just curious and I figured there at least one of the more knowledgeable posters on here would know...
They will have a chance. I wonder where their SOS will wind up, though and if they'll be RR'd.
Quote from: cubs on October 26, 2014, 09:13:01 PM
If Oshkosh wins out to finish 6-1 in WIAC and 6-4 overall, do they have any chance at a Pool C, with three NC losses being to a D1-FCS (South Dakota State) a pair of NAIA (Robert Morris and Marian) schools?
W/l record against non d3 opponents is still a secondary criteria. Stacked against a 9-1/8-2 team in with multiple RRO opponents, I don't see how a 6-4 could ever get a pool C, even if we got to the secondary criteria. To repeat one of Pat's mantras, it's not who you lose to, it's who you beat that counts.
They'd have beaten all of the WIAC but Whitewater, including Platteville and Stevens Point. That's a good resume! If it gets to the secondary criteria they're hosed, but beating Platteville and UW-SP is pretty strong, as I think even a two loss WIAC team will still be regionally ranked...
It's how a 6-1 Oshkosh with a decent SOS (it will rise after Platteville and UWSP) will stack up in the West and then against the others.
Thanks for the replies guys.... Didn't realize it was a "secondary" criteria.
Quote from: smedindy on October 26, 2014, 10:52:12 PM
They'd have beaten all of the WIAC but Whitewater, including Platteville and Stevens Point. That's a good resume! If it gets to the secondary criteria they're hosed, but beating Platteville and UW-SP is pretty strong, as I think even a two loss WIAC team will still be regionally ranked...
It's how a 6-1 Oshkosh with a decent SOS (it will rise after Platteville and UWSP) will stack up in the West and then against the others.
This is where it gets tricky for Oshkosh. If they beat Stevens Point, Stevens Point probably can't be an RRO and they probably need that result to get to the front of the West's at-large queue. They are an interesting case for sure. Doesn't hurt to have a WIAC apologist chairing the committee either.
The moral of the story is "Win Your League..."
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2014, 01:50:32 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 26, 2014, 10:52:12 PM
They'd have beaten all of the WIAC but Whitewater, including Platteville and Stevens Point. That's a good resume! If it gets to the secondary criteria they're hosed, but beating Platteville and UW-SP is pretty strong, as I think even a two loss WIAC team will still be regionally ranked...
It's how a 6-1 Oshkosh with a decent SOS (it will rise after Platteville and UWSP) will stack up in the West and then against the others.
This is where it gets tricky for Oshkosh. If they beat Stevens Point, Stevens Point probably can't be an RRO and they probably need that result to get to the front of the West's at-large queue. They are an interesting case for sure. Doesn't hurt to have a WIAC apologist chairing the committee either.
I have a hard time imagining UWO getting much love. It might be secondary criteria, but I'd wager it'll still have a subjective affect (I'm not arguing it should, mind you) on how they're viewed.
More than that, you've got a lot of MIAC schools to position as well. SJU, Cobbers and Bethel are probably (assuming favorites keep winning) all sitting with a single 'good' loss, more d3 wins and multiple 'good' wins than UWO. And we tend to forget about all the other teams from non-power conferences that will be in the mix as well (Carroll, Pacific, St. Scholastica, Chapman).
There's just a lot of quality in the West, and not enough spots.
Teams that will be discussed by the West committee include, in no particular order:
Linfield
UWW
UWP
UWSP
UWO
Pacific
Chapman
Wartburg
Bethel
Concordia
SJU
GAC (depending on Saturdays result)
Carroll
CSS
Macalester (though their Hamline loss means they have virtually zero shot at being ranked)
In terms of D3 schedule, these are all currently unbeaten or 1 loss teams.
As always, we'll hopefully get more clarity as things progress. But the MIAC and WIAC could make things crazy.
As a 'West' guy, here's how I'd slot them today. I realize Wally's mentioned before it's frustrating not having a West Fan Poll.
My West Poll w/ SoS:
1. UWW .467
2. Wartburg .589 (they feel like 'one of those teams'. The Wartburg posters are debating their merits compared to the 99 and 03 teams)
3. Linfield .556 (Judging by last year, I'd guess the committee actually puts Linfield here, based on SoS)
4. Bethel .596
5. Concordia .540 (committee could view them as 1-1 v. RRO...For both the Cobbers and Johnnies, they've got some good wins and losses)
6. SJU .503 (their lone loss came with their top 2 qb's out due to injury)
7. UWP .511 (Concordia loss looks better than the North Central loss at this point, committee won't know if the NCC loss is a RR result yet)
8. UWSP .521
9. Chapman .571
10. UWO .478
11. GAC .444 (I give them credit for the SJU loss, where Carroll has played no one of note)
12. Carroll .518 (RRO over W-L and SoS here. Plus, I think GAC and Pacific would beat them H2H. They don't pass the smell test to me)
13. Pacific .498 (UD loss is ugly, non D-3 results bring another loss)
14.CSS .484
15. MAC .348 (brutal!!)
I think the really muddy part is trying to figure out the MIAC and WIAC order. I debated putting UWP ahead of SJU, but I had a hard time separating them from Concordia, and I think Concordia is better than the non-Whitewater WIAC squads. Might be some MIAC bias here. But I watched the Little Brass Bell and wasn't impressed with North Central (at least compared to where they've historically been).
Pick it apart boys!
Quote from: hazzben on October 27, 2014, 01:50:07 PM
7. UWP .511 (Concordia loss looks better than the North Central loss at this point, committee won't know if the NCC loss is a RR result yet)
Absolutely will be a RRO. The North Region, after about the top 5 or 6 teams, is an absolute tire fire this year. No chance that North Central falls outside of the top 10 (that we know of...if Elmhurst gets them in week 11, they might fall out, but it'll be secret).
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2014, 02:05:05 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 27, 2014, 01:50:07 PM
7. UWP .511 (Concordia loss looks better than the North Central loss at this point, committee won't know if the NCC loss is a RR result yet)
Absolutely will be a RRO. The North Region, after about the top 5 or 6 teams, is an absolute tire fire this year. No chance that North Central falls outside of the top 10 (that we know of...if Elmhurst gets them in week 11, they might fall out, but it'll be secret).
I realize NCC will be a RRO. But the West Committee won't know that when compiling the first weeks ranking. Whereas they
will know where they'll be slotting the West teams. Make sense?
NCC will help UWP down the road, just like Chicago might help Bethel (assuming NCC and Chi keep winning and remain ranked). But it won't in the first poll released.
Which brings up another question. Do we know what the criteria is this year regarding RRO...is it once ranked always ranked or not?
Quote from: hazzben on October 27, 2014, 02:09:11 PM
Which brings up another question. Do we know what the criteria is this year regarding RRO...is it once ranked always ranked or not?
From the pre-championship manual:
QuoteResults versus regionally ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection.
Conference postseason contests are included;
So the rankings that actually help decide things are only the very last rankings, which are conveniently secret.
Kind of "we'll tell you all the of criteria... well except a few of them"
Quote from: bashbrother on October 27, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
Kind of "we'll tell you all the of criteria... well except a few of them"
Let me help by expanding a bit. "We'll tell you all the criteria, but we won't tell you how we applied the criteria at the only time it really mattered."
Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2014, 03:01:48 PM
Quote from: bashbrother on October 27, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
Kind of "we'll tell you all the of criteria... well except a few of them"
Let me help by expanding a bit. "We'll tell you all the criteria, but we won't tell you how we applied the criteria at the only time it really mattered."
I think the shorthand for what you're describing is this:
NCAA
Just ink in Wabash, Witt, NC, Wheaton, Mt. Union, Chicago and JCU as sure-to-be-ranked North Teams. I may write Franklin in heavy pencil as well. As for the other two spots...gah.
I'd say Elmhurst would be ranked NOW, if you ignore that Loras loss. They may drop out quickly facing Wheaton and North Central as two of their last three.
Each MIAA team has a horrible loss (Trine lost to Manchester, Adrian to Wisconsin Lutheran) or could play themselves out as easily as they did (Hope doesn't have a bad loss, but has two of them and faces Adrian and Trine the next two weeks).
DePauw may sneak in but they could easily by 5-5 by season's end (not probable, but it could happen).
MSJ may be viable but that Millsaps loss continues to look bad.
The leading NACC team is probably the Wisconsin flavor of Concorida. Maybe at 8-2 with wins over Trine and a CCIW team (North Park, but still...) they could be ranked?
Otterbein or Heidelberg may be a default candidate, maybe?
Thinking about St John's only loss coming while the top two QB's were injured.
Out of curiosity and understanding the rules don't allow for this.
If UWW, Wesley or Mt (I use these schools because their QB's proved their abilities on the national stage last year) lost their QB for one big game- and ended up losing that game, do you feel the selection committee would take the injury into consideration?
Perhaps it would be a moot point as they'd be 9-1 w decent SOS, but maybe they consider the injury when doing the seedings.
Beat Bethel, for one. Solves most of the issues since I think a 1-loss MIAC team makes it. As for seeding, you're probably under three teams anyway in the West area depending on RR's and all. Who has the tiebreaker if there's a three-way cluster between SJ, Bethel and C-M?
A close Bethel loss and a loss by C-M to St. Thomas may test that "2 losses but their QB was hurt" theory if the West RR's are nice to you. If C-M wins out and you lose to Bethel then it may be curtains.
We'll need to watch the RR's for this, for sure. Who knows what they have up their sleeve?
Do we have anything on the SAA/MASCAC automatic qualifier status yet? I'm getting ready to do a rundown here. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm sticking with SAA does qualify automatically, MASCAC does not.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2014, 09:53:31 AM
Do we have anything on the SAA/MASCAC automatic qualifier status yet? I'm getting ready to do a rundown here. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm sticking with SAA does qualify automatically, MASCAC does not.
I have kept my eye out for the "Final Championship Manual" but don't think its out yet.
Here is the link for others to check periodically.
http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-football
Alright, let's do this. Again, SAA is getting an A bid in this universe, the MASCAC is not, and the A/B/C bid allocation is 25/2/5. Next Wednesday we get our first official regional rankings, so this projection will happen sometime shortly after those get released.
Pool A, new teams in italics:
League | Team |
ASC | UMHB |
CC | Johns Hopkins |
CCIW | Wheaton |
ECFC | Husson |
E8 | St. John Fisher |
HCAC | Franklin |
IIAC | Wartburg |
LL | Hobart |
MAC | Widener |
MIAA | Trine |
MIAC | Bethel |
MWC | Carroll |
NACC | Concordia (Wis) |
NCAC | Wabash |
NEFC | MIT |
NJAC | Montclair State |
NWC | Linfield |
OAC | Mount Union |
ODAC | Hampden-Sydney |
PAC | Washington & Jefferson |
SAA | Centre |
SCIAC | Chapman |
UMAC | St. Scholastica |
USAC | Christopher Newport |
WIAC | UW-Whitewater |
- Wheaton's giant win over North Central gives them control over the CCIW (yes, Elmhurst, I know you're there) and takes the Thunder out of a pretty precarious Pool C situation. They weren't going to look good. Now it's North Central sweating bullets (we'll get to that later)
- MIT takes over the lead in the the NEFC with a monster game this Saturday with Endicott. Endicott still has a game left with Western New England as well, so the NEFC could turn itself into a three way mess.
- One week after I corrected my Huntingdon mistake, the Hawks lost a kind of a bad game against LaGrange and lost their spot in the field. Barring any other USAC weirdness, Christopher Newport (newly projected in) and Maryville will play in Week 11 for this bid.
Pool B:
Wesley (4-0, 5-0 vs. D3, 2-0 vs. RRO, 0.676 SOS)The other Pool B looks like it comes down to:
Texas Lutheran (5-1, 0-1 vs. RRO, 0.592 SOS)Framingham State (6-1, 0-1 vs. RRO, 0.562 SOS)
Chicago (6-1, 1-1 vs RRO, 0.517 RRO)
I'm giving Chicago an RRO win vs. Elmhurst because I think they'll make the North's top 10 this week. Framingham's RRO result is Rowan, and the Profs are right now, at best, a fringe ranked team. Despite their beastly schedule, I'm not sure that even the East RAC could justify their 4-3 record being in the top ten. But for today, it'll stand. TLU is obviously fresh off their UMHB whoopin'. This is a tough call. I'm giving the nod to TLU based on their SOS, but that SOS is at it's highwater mark. It's going to fall a fair amount as they play through their SCAC schedule. So today, TLU is in, but over the next three week's they're in trouble here if Chicago continues win (especially if Elmhurst can beat either Wheaton or North Central and be ranked at the end), and while Framingham might lose their RRO next week, they also have a game against Endicott, which they won, and Endicott is probably a win over MIT on Saturday from popping up in the East's rankings. The point is that TLU's résumé is right now as good as it's going to get. Chicago and Framingham have avenues for help in the primary criteria. So this isn't just as easy as if TLU keeps winning, this bid is theirs. They could easily lose this spot as their competitors accumulate beneficial criteria capital.
Pool C...as always, I'm going to do this stream-of-consciousness style. Right now, I don't have any idea how this plays out. Let's get to it.
Round 1: John Carroll (7-0, 1-0 vs. RRO, 0.498 SOS)
Thomas More (6-2, 0-2 vs. RRO, 0.433 SOS)
Delaware Valley (7-0, 2-0 vs. RRO, 0.551 SOS)UW-Platteville (6-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, 0.511 SOS)
--Delaware Valley, I think, is getting pretty close to lock status. If they don't win the MAC, they've got really nice looking wins against Lycoming and Montclair State (in position to win the NJAC). The SOS is nice. Really good looking profile here.
Round 2: John Carroll (7-0, 1-0 vs. RRO, 0.498 SOS)
Thomas More (6-2, 0-2 vs. RRO, 0.433 SOS)
St. Lawrence (6-1, 0-0 vs. RRO, 0.549 SOS)
UW-Platteville (6-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, 0.511 SOS)--Platteville still has a RRO win against Stevens Point. That's gone should Stevens Point lose at all to non-Whitewater teams and it may be gone even if they lose to Whitewater. Lots of good teams out in the West. The order in the West is going to get shuffled next week. C-M plays St. Thomas, Platteville gets Whitewater...just to start.
Round 3: John Carroll (7-0, 1-0 vs. RRO, 0.498 SOS)Thomas More (6-2, 0-2 vs. RRO, 0.433 SOS)
St. Lawrence (6-1, 0-0 vs. RRO, 0.549 SOS)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, 0.540 SOS)
-- John Carroll is the choice here despite a significant SOS difference with C-M. But I like them here because they do have the regional ranked win against Heidelberg (whether or not I think Heidelberg ought to be ranked, they're going to be) and I think John Carroll is going to be no worse than the 4th ranked team in the North, maybe 3rd at the end of week 11. Their SOS won't be much different then, but they've been rock solid.
Round 4: Wittenberg (6-0, 0-0 vs. RRO, 0.484 SOS)
Thomas More (6-2, 0-2 vs. RRO, 0.433 SOS)
St. Lawrence (6-1, 0-0 vs. RRO, 0.549 SOS)
Concordia-Moorhead (6-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, 0.540 SOS)-- The Cobbers are the clear choice here with the heavy SOS advantage and quality results which everybody else lacks. C-M finds themselves in big trouble if they lose this week or next.
Round 5: Wittenberg (6-0, 0-0 vs. RRO, 0.484 SOS)
Thomas More (6-2, 0-2 vs. RRO, 0.433 SOS)
St. Lawrence (6-1, 0-0 vs. RRO, 0.549 SOS)
UW-Stevens Point (6-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, 0.521 SOS)-- As with last week, I'm breaking my rule about not having more than one team from the same league be eligible for Pool C because the gap between the third WIAC/MIAC team and who's left in the West is massive. And this week, Stevens Point looks a little better than St. John's does (that is what a game with Carleton does for your selection profile). Point gets Oshkosh this week, so their season is on the line (as is Oshkosh's). This fifth spot is really fluid.
Looking ahead, the West still has some work to do on itself and then that's going to open this fifth spot up to somebody else. Some thoughts:
- St. Lawrence is probably not in play with a looming game against Hobart. They'll either win that game and win the LL or they'll get knocked out.
- I'm really interested to see what happens after the Witt/Wabash game and where the loser of that game gets slotted relative to North Central. I don't believe North Central should slide ahead of single loss Wabash and I don't think that' would happen. Single loss Witt is a different deal though...The SOS gap and RRO difference between those two might make it feasible for the North RAC to move Witt back behind North Central if they lose. I don't favor that kind of most recent loser cycling back to the end of the line thinking, but that's sometimes how it works. The larger point is that North Central today doesn't even see the board here. After the next couple of weeks, if North Central does get slotted ahead of Witt and behind JCU, they'd see the board and they'd start to have a very 2013 SJF feel to their profile. Interesting team to watch.
- I'm starting to think that we are almost certainly going to have a two-loss Pool C team. We're pretty rapidly running out of one-loss candidates and we've still got three weeks and lots of head-to-heads left.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2014, 03:07:10 PM
- I'm starting to think that we are almost certainly going to have a two-loss Pool C team. We're pretty rapidly running out of one-loss candidates and we've still got three weeks and lots of head-to-heads left.
I think you're probably right. Running through it (by conference) to find all potential one-loss teams that could end up in Pool C...
ASC: if HSU beats UMHB for the AQ, then UMHB could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup.
Very unlikely.
CC: if Muhlenberg wins out or if Ursinus beats Muhl and JHU, there could be a one-loss runnerup (Muhlenberg in scenario 1, Hopkins in scenario 2).
CCIW: if Elmhurst beats Wheaton for the AQ, then Wheaton could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Pretty unlikely.
ECFC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
E8: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
HCAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
IIAC: if BVU beats Wartburg and wins the AQ, then Wartburg could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Very unlikely.
LL: if SLU beats Hobart and wins the AQ, then Hobart could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Very unlikely.
MAC: runnerup (DelVal/Widener loser) is likely to be 9-1.
MIAA: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
MIAC: see below, too complicated to hash out yet
MWC: if Macalester beats Carroll this week and wins the AQ, Carroll could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup.
NACC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
NCAC: runnerup is likely to have one D3 loss (8-1 against D3 if it's Wit, 9-1 if it's Wabash).
NEFC: if MIT takes the AQ and WNE runs the table, WNE could be on the board; if Endicott beats MIT and loses to WNE, there's a messy tiebreaker, but someone will be on the board with one loss.
NJAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
NWC: if Pacific beats Linfield and wins the AQ, then Linfield could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Unlikely.
OAC runnerup (JCU/Mount loser)
ODAC: if Emory & Henry runs the table, they could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup (already have played likely champ HSC).
PAC: if Waynesburg beats W & J and wins the AQ, then W & J could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Very unlikely.
SAA: if Birmingham-Southern beats Centre and wins the AQ, then Centre could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Unlikely.
SCIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
UMAC: if Greenville beats St. Scholastica and wins the AQ, then CSS could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Possible?
USAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
WIAC: if UWP beats UWW and wins the AQ, then UWW could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Very unlikely.
On the MIAC, a place from which a one-loss runnerup would likely be a lock because of the sterling SOS and RR results that most of those teams will likely be sporting come season's end...the MIAC's remaining one-loss teams are as follows:
Bethel (5-0, 6-1): @GAC, @SJU, Augsburg
Concordia-Moorhead (5-1, 7-1): @UST, GAC
GAC (4-1, 6-1): Bethel, @C-M, @UST
SJU (4-1, 6-1): @Augsburg, Bethel, @St. Olaf
I guess my point in going through all of that was figuring out that the only possible scenario with a one-loss MIAC runnerup is Bethel running the table and Concordia-Moorhead doing the same. The only other combination of those 11 games that I can drum up that leaves two MIAC teams with one loss is Gustavus Adolophus and St. John's both running the table (in which case St. John's would win the conference title and GAC would be 9-1 and in Pool C), but that seems less likely than the other option of Bethel and C-M both running the table; it's just hard to imagine Bethel losing two straight to GAC and SJU.
Narrowing the above list down, here are conferences that
realistically could produce a 1-loss Pool C candidate:
CC - Muhlenberg
MAC - DelVal/Widener loser
MIAC - if someone emerges from the aforementioned bloodbath with one loss and without the Pool A
MWC - Carroll (would have to lose to Macalester)
NCAC - Witt/Wabash loser
NEFC - possibly WNE or MIT
OAC - JCU/Mount loser
ODAC - Emory & Henry (needs to beat Guilford in finale)
UMAC - St. Scholastica (would have to lose to Greenville)
WIAC - UWW (would have to lose to UWP)
Narrowing
that list down, since a few of those currently-undefeated-leader-needs-to-lose-to-someone-that-wins-out scenarious are still rather unlikely, I think you'll have a one-loss Pool C team on the board from the Centennial, MAC, MIAC (maybe), NCAC, NEFC (maybe), OAC, and ODAC. So that's probably, at most, seven one-loss teams that are going to be in the mix (I realize not all of them will necessarily be "on the board" because of the regional pecking order, just fleshing out all of the teams who might be in these conversations).
Why is Thomas More on the South board and not Muhlenberg? I don't think I've seen the Mules in this exercise this year and they're a candidate for 9-1. Ursinus could be there too. I think one of those is a better choice than Thomas More (though Ursinus plays JH Saturday so you may want to just slot in Muhlenberg there now....)
With the current field of 32 based on Wally's projections... here's what I see
Huntingdon falling out reduces the geographic orphan games to 3.
Chapman at Linfield
Texas Lutheran at UMHB
Husson at MIT or Montclair St
If the NCAA keeps the flights to a minimum... I just don't see how they avoid a possible Linfield-UMHB 2nd round game. They'd have 1 flight in the 1st round and 1 (maybe 2 depending on what Husson does) in the 2nd round. Hopefully they splurge for an extra flight so that isn't the case.
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2014, 05:09:48 PM
Why is Thomas More on the South board and not Muhlenberg? I don't think I've seen the Mules in this exercise this year and they're a candidate for 9-1. Ursinus could be there too. I think one of those is a better choice than Thomas More (though Ursinus plays JH Saturday so you may want to just slot in Muhlenberg there now....)
I happen to agree with you, but through this week at least I'm using the fan polls (where available) on Post Patterns as surrogate regional rankings. So why Thomas More instead of Muhlenberg? Because the folks ranking teams in the South region said so. If I were ranking this unilaterally, I'd probably have Muhlenberg ahead of Thomas More because they do grade out a little better per the criteria, unless we're giving Thomas More not just a pass for losing to Wesley, but giving them credit for having played Wesley in the first place.
But then even if we put Muhlenberg on top of the South's queue here, the Mules are 6-1, 0-1 vs. RRO, with a 0.502 SOS which makes me give them a look as I go down through the rounds (Thomas More isn't really a consideration at this point), but ultimately I don't think I'm picking Muhlenberg either. With coming carnage and a favorable regional ranking next week though, Muhlenberg, if they keep winning, is going to look better and better.
It's probably worth sharing my next-ups in each region's at large queue. Here's what was next up after today's exercise (teams left on the table- first out if you will- in italics):
North:
Witt, North Central, Chicago, Heidelberg
South:
Thomas More, Muhlenberg, Guilford, Emory & Henry
East:
St. Lawrence, Lycoming, Ithaca, Framingham State
West: St. John's, UW-Oshkosh, St. Thomas, Gustavus Adolphus
Forgot about the fan poll thing deal bit. We need Wes to come back and fill ours in!
We should include Chicago and Framingham (or TLU) as a one-loss "C" potentials unless they mess up somehow.
QuoteHopefully they splurge for an extra flight so that isn't the case.
O'BANNONED!
Quote from: smedindy on October 29, 2014, 05:58:51 PM
Forgot about the fan poll thing deal bit. We need Wes to come back and fill ours in!
We should include Chicago and Framingham (or TLU) as a one-loss "C" potentials unless they mess up somehow.
If everybody who I think should win does win from here on out (which is far from a guarantee if you've been following my year in the pick 'ems), I actually think the top rated B team (after Wesley) is going to be Framingham State. I think they've going to get an RRO
win against Endicott and possibly a second RRO result with Rowan depending on how the East region eats itself in November. The regional rankings are absolutely going to be kinder to the Rams than the fan balloting has been. I think Chicago is going to lose their RRO win that I'm currently giving them with Elmnurst. And I think TLU is going to have their SOS taken down significantly and be left with zero quality wins and an unflattering result against the only RRO they played. The wild card is Rhodes and whether or not the South RAC finds room for them in the rankings. If so, Chicago is definitely back in play and it becomes maybe a toss up with the Maroons and the fRams.
Now, as far those teams in the C Pool, I think Chciago is a long shot because I'm not sure they can get close enough to the front of the line to get in. At best, I see Chicago as the third team in line in the North and, well, "you're not gonna get three." Framingham, on the other hand, could absolutely climb up to be the second team in line out of the East...maybe even the first team in line. They'd actually have a decent shot as a single loss team in Pool C I think. O, the feathers that would ruffle if that came to pass.
I don't know what clamor would be louder, the MASCAC getting an "A" because of NCAA 'reasons' or buffoonery, or a MASCAC team getting a "C", again. I am sure the East will do their normal thing and somehow rank teams in their secret ranking to help themselves especially if Endicott beats MIT.
Though Framingham did acquaint themselves well last year against Ithaca in a close loss.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2014, 05:13:37 PM
If the NCAA keeps the flights to a minimum... I just don't see how they avoid a possible Linfield-UMHB 2nd round game. They'd have 1 flight in the 1st round and 1 (maybe 2 depending on what Husson does) in the 2nd round. Hopefully they splurge for an extra flight so that isn't the case.
Yeah, that really should be a 3rd round game - but the almightly dollar might rule the day.
With the assumption that the first two rounds should have as few flights as possible here's the pods that could work with the current projected field (and the top couple teams in each bracket).
Texas Lutheran @ (1) Mary Hardin-Baylor (only schools within 500 miles of each other)
Chapman @ (2) Linfield (west coast orphans)
MIT @ (3) Hobart
Husson @ Montclair St (Husson can only get to MIT or Montclair)
----
Concordia (WI) @ (1) UW-Whitewater
Carroll @ Bethel
St Scholastica @ (2) Wartburg
UW-Stevens Point @ Concordia-Moorhead (C-M makes things tough... only 5 teams can reach and one is Bethel)
----
Christopher Newport @ (1) Mount Union
Centre @ Wheaton
Trine @ (2) Wabash
Franklin @ UW-Platteville (I'd rather have Wheaton and Platteville swapped but Centre is too far away)
----
Delaware Valley @ (1) Wesley
St John Fisher @ Washington & Jefferson
Hampden-Sydney @ (2) Johns Hopkins
John Carroll @ Widener
I did fill in a few future results (such as DelVal-Widener) and I simply chose the current conference leader as the winner.
I basically built the bracket from the top down (except for the Hobart pod which I filled in later on) or if you prefer west to east. I don't like that Delaware Valley ends up as essentially an 8 seed in their bracket but there weren't any obvious choices geographically once I had filled in all the other teams (moving Chris Newport to Wesley still leaves the same problem only with Mount Union rather than Wesley)
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
Given that there's still 3 weeks of action left... these should be considered pre-pre-preliminary projections and taken with a giant block of salt. 8-) I'm sure there's something I missed but it's not too bad for still having more than 1/4 of the season left.
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
The Franklin Wabash match up would be interesting.
Quote from: bashgiant on October 30, 2014, 07:30:33 AM
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
pose a threat
The Franklin Wabash match up would be interesting.
Projections are interesting fodder and if Wabash's remaining schedule consisted of NCAC bottom-dwellers everyone is seemingly on track. There are three games to play out, and though Hiram may not pose a major threat a summary dismissal of DePauw (as a spoiler which has happened before :o) or Wittenberg (still unbeaten in DIII matches) on these recent pages might be premature. Post season inclusion is dependent on LG victories in back to back rivalry games - and this old geezer believes in that positive outcome but forty-six years of history is always in the back of his feeble brain. ;) WAF
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 30, 2014, 04:28:57 AM
With the assumption that the first two rounds should have as few flights as possible here's the pods that could work with the current projected field (and the top couple teams in each bracket).
Texas Lutheran @ (1) Mary Hardin-Baylor (only schools within 500 miles of each other)
Chapman @ (2) Linfield (west coast orphans)
MIT @ (3) Hobart
Husson @ Montclair St (Husson can only get to MIT or Montclair)
----
Concordia (WI) @ (1) UW-Whitewater
Carroll @ Bethel
St Scholastica @ (2) Wartburg
UW-Stevens Point @ Concordia-Moorhead (C-M makes things tough... only 5 teams can reach and one is Bethel)
----
Christopher Newport @ (1) Mount Union
Centre @ Wheaton
Trine @ (2) Wabash
Franklin @ UW-Platteville (I'd rather have Wheaton and Platteville swapped but Centre is too far away)
----
Delaware Valley @ (1) Wesley
St John Fisher @ Washington & Jefferson
Hampden-Sydney @ (2) Johns Hopkins
John Carroll @ Widener
I did fill in a few future results (such as DelVal-Widener) and I simply chose the current conference leader as the winner.
I basically built the bracket from the top down (except for the Hobart pod which I filled in later on) or if you prefer west to east. I don't like that Delaware Valley ends up as essentially an 8 seed in their bracket but there weren't any obvious choices geographically once I had filled in all the other teams (moving Chris Newport to Wesley still leaves the same problem only with Mount Union rather than Wesley)
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
Given that there's still 3 weeks of action left... these should be considered pre-pre-preliminary projections and taken with a giant block of salt. 8-) I'm sure there's something I missed but it's not too bad for still having more than 1/4 of the season left.
I believe if St. John Fisher goes 9-1, they would definitely have a home game, I see it as
MIT @ St. John Fisher
Husson @ Hobart
Montclair State @ Washington & Jefferson
Quote from: cave2bens on October 30, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: bashgiant on October 30, 2014, 07:30:33 AM
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
pose a threat
The Franklin Wabash match up would be interesting.
Projections are interesting fodder and if Wabash's remaining schedule consisted of NCAC bottom-dwellers everyone is seemingly on track. There are three games to play out, and though Hiram may not pose a major threat a summary dismissal of DePauw (as a spoiler which has happened before :o) or Wittenberg (still unbeaten in DIII matches) on these recent pages might be premature. Post season inclusion is dependent on LG victories in back to back rivalry games - and this old geezer believes in that positive outcome but forty-six years of history is always in the back of his feeble brain. ;) WAF
No dismissing anybody or anything...nothing is in ink here. :)
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 30, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
I believe if St. John Fisher goes 9-1, they would definitely have a home game, I see it as
MIT @ St. John Fisher
Husson @ Hobart
Montclair State @ Washington & Jefferson
I would probably guess that 9-1 SJF with a conference championship plays a home game also. Husson can't go Hobart without flying, so that's probably right out. Right now it's hard to see Husson playing anybody other than Montclair State.
Quote from: cave2bens on October 30, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: bashgiant on October 30, 2014, 07:30:33 AM
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
pose a threat
The Franklin Wabash match up would be interesting.
Projections are interesting fodder and if Wabash's remaining schedule consisted of NCAC bottom-dwellers everyone is seemingly on track. There are three games to play out, and though Hiram may not pose a major threat a summary dismissal of DePauw (as a spoiler which has happened before :o) or Wittenberg (still unbeaten in DIII matches) on these recent pages might be premature. Post season inclusion is dependent on LG victories in back to back rivalry games - and this old geezer believes in that positive outcome but forty-six years of history is always in the back of his feeble brain. ;) WAF
Not saying anything is set in stone by any means. Anything can happen on any given Saturday as we witnessed 2 years ago. I was just saying that would be a pretty interesting match up since the 2 schools are fairly close to each other and both schools seem to have decent programs. Have they ever played each other?
GO BASH!
I know we are dealing in some hypotheticals here, but let me just make sure I understand things right. So, assuming TLU doesn't get into the playoffs, is it likely that the winner of the SCIAC (Chapman or Redlands) would probably travel to face UMHB in Round 1?
By the way, love all the work you guys put into this stuff. It's fun to theorize and look at what the bigger picture might look like.
Quote from: bashgiant on October 30, 2014, 10:57:05 AM
Not saying anything is set in stone by any means. Anything can happen on any given Saturday as we witnessed 2 years ago. I was just saying that would be a pretty interesting match up since the 2 schools are fairly close to each other and both schools seem to have decent programs. Have they ever played each other?
GO BASH!
Franklin and Wabash? They were in the same league for a long, long time. Are we far enough removed from the ICAC days that some of my fellow Wallies aren't even aware that it ever happened?? Now
I feel old.
In the time since Wabash and Franklin were in the same conference, the two schools played a home and home series in 2006/2007. Franklin won at their place in OT in 2006, Wabash won a tight and exciting game in 2007 (Dustin Huff broke the single game total offense record in that game- 499 yards- record still stands). Chad Rupp was a monster for Franklin. Those were two of the best games I've seen in the last decade.
Quote from: GillCJ1 on October 30, 2014, 11:05:44 AM
I know we are dealing in some hypotheticals here, but let me just make sure I understand things right. So, assuming TLU doesn't get into the playoffs, is it likely that the winner of the SCIAC (Chapman or Redlands) would probably travel to face UMHB in Round 1?
By the way, love all the work you guys put into this stuff. It's fun to theorize and look at what the bigger picture might look like.
I wish it were likely. I really, really do. Having a NWC/SCIAC round is boring, particularly when those two teams have already played this year. I hope, in the event that UMHB is orphaned (forcing two first round flights no matter what), that they'll send the SCIAC champion to Texas and send somebody else to Linfield. My hunch is that you'll still get a SCIAC/NWC first round game even in this scenario, but at least this scenario opens the door for them to do something different.
Recognize TLU's SOS will take a big hit after they play currently winless Southwestern and two-win Trinity. Austin (3-3 v D3) might help the SOS if they can beat both Trinity and Southwestern. There are two statements I thought I would never make ...
Pat has confirmed elsewhere that the SAA does have an "A" bid.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2014, 12:28:49 AM
Where the difference lies with the SAA is that the conference only needed to be in existence for two years (five or more schools with football by NCAA standards) and have seven football programs in the third year. It does not have to have seven teams for two years and then qualify in the third. That's where our preseason thinking was off.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 30, 2014, 11:31:08 AM
Recognize TLU's SOS will take a big hit after they play currently winless Southwestern and two-win Trinity. Austin (3-3 v D3) might help the SOS if they can beat both Trinity and Southwestern. There are two statements I thought I would never make ...
Pat has confirmed elsewhere that the SAA does have an "A" bid.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2014, 12:28:49 AM
Where the difference lies with the SAA is that the conference only needed to be in existence for two years (five or more schools with football by NCAA standards) and have seven football programs in the third year. It does not have to have seven teams for two years and then qualify in the third. That's where our preseason thinking was off.
Well ... to be perfectly clear on this, the NCAA has listed both SAA and MASCAC in the AQs for 2014. We're only objecting to the MASCAC based on the rules. Not sure this *quite* gets to the level of confirmed but it's pretty solid.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: bashgiant on October 30, 2014, 10:57:05 AM
Not saying anything is set in stone by any means. Anything can happen on any given Saturday as we witnessed 2 years ago. I was just saying that would be a pretty interesting match up since the 2 schools are fairly close to each other and both schools seem to have decent programs. Have they ever played each other?
GO BASH!
Franklin and Wabash? They were in the same league for a long, long time. Are we far enough removed from the ICAC days that some of my fellow Wallies aren't even aware that it ever happened?? Now I feel old.
In the time since Wabash and Franklin were in the same conference, the two schools played a home and home series in 2006/2007. Franklin won at their place in OT in 2006, Wabash won a tight and exciting game in 2007 (Dustin Huff broke the single game total offense record in that game- 499 yards- record still stands). Chad Rupp was a monster for Franklin. Those were two of the best games I've seen in the last decade.
I've only been following Wabash for a couple years. You're only as old as you feel. Guess that makes me a fossil.
GO BASH!
If Redlands wins the SCIAC, I'm not sure it matters (as they played both UMHB and Linfield). Chapman at UMHB would be a fresh match-up.
Thanks for the replies, everyone!
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: cave2bens on October 30, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: bashgiant on October 30, 2014, 07:30:33 AM
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
pose a threat
The Franklin Wabash match up would be interesting.
Projections are interesting fodder and if Wabash's remaining schedule consisted of NCAC bottom-dwellers everyone is seemingly on track. There are three games to play out, and though Hiram may not pose a major threat a summary dismissal of DePauw (as a spoiler which has happened before :o) or Wittenberg (still unbeaten in DIII matches) on these recent pages might be premature. Post season inclusion is dependent on LG victories in back to back rivalry games - and this old geezer believes in that positive outcome but forty-six years of history is always in the back of his feeble brain. ;) WAF
No dismissing anybody or anything...nothing is in ink here. :)
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 30, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
I believe if St. John Fisher goes 9-1, they would definitely have a home game, I see it as
MIT @ St. John Fisher
Husson @ Hobart
Montclair State @ Washington & Jefferson
I would probably guess that 9-1 SJF with a conference championship plays a home game also. Husson can't go Hobart without flying, so that's probably right out. Right now it's hard to see Husson playing anybody other than Montclair State.
Well the NCAA need to move that game about a hour east to neutral site to save cost. I am sure the Hobart faithful will still show up.
How much cost gets saved having to rent out a neutral site stadium and now having to spring for travel for two teams instead of one? Come on now. I know we're all in the hypothetical here, but let's try to color inside the lines.
Quote from: cave2bens on October 30, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: bashgiant on October 30, 2014, 07:30:33 AM
Now if Stevens Point drops out of the last Pool C spot and a team not in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area takes it that would free up some flexibility. Platteville could move over and face C-M, Trine to Mount Union, Franklin to Wabash, Chris Newport to Wesley, and so on.
pose a threat
The Franklin Wabash match up would be interesting.
Projections are interesting fodder and if Wabash's remaining schedule consisted of NCAC bottom-dwellers everyone is seemingly on track. There are three games to play out, and though Hiram may not pose a major threat a summary dismissal of DePauw (as a spoiler which has happened before :o) or Wittenberg (still unbeaten in DIII matches) on these recent pages might be premature. Post season inclusion is dependent on LG victories in back to back rivalry games - and this old geezer believes in that positive outcome but forty-six years of history is always in the back of his feeble brain. ;) WAF
The LG's know that they have 3 tough games ahead of them to get to the playoff's. Their focus is totally on the game with Hiram this weekend. We are all glad to see Hiram's turn around which is good for the NCAC. That having been said, the LG's are preparing for this Saturday against a much improved Hiram team.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 12:28:42 PM
How much cost gets saved having to rent out a neutral site stadium and now having to spring for travel for two teams instead of one? Come on now. I know we're all in the hypothetical here, but let's try to color inside the lines.
Honestly, there have been
sight site changes due to field conditions, I am pretty sure there is a field that could accommodate both teams and fans according to NCAA regulations that is only about an hour east of Geneva, which surely would be within 500 miles of Bangor, ME. There really wouldn't be no hotel cost on Hobart, the only cost would be for the Bus. Aren't all playoff games NCAA events and normal pricing is according to the NCAA established rates. I think the cheapest flight for 72 individuals would be around $50,000.
Its less than 500 miles from Bangor to Montclair. I suppose if MIT went 10-0 they could host Husson in Rd 1 too.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 30, 2014, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 12:28:42 PM
How much cost gets saved having to rent out a neutral site stadium and now having to spring for travel for two teams instead of one? Come on now. I know we're all in the hypothetical here, but let's try to color inside the lines.
Honestly, there have been sight site changes due to field conditions, I am pretty sure there is a field that could accommodate both teams and fans according to NCAA regulations that is only about an hour east of Geneva, which surely would be within 500 miles of Bangor, ME. There really wouldn't be no hotel cost on Hobart, the only cost would be for the Bus. Aren't all playoff games NCAA events and normal pricing is according to the NCAA established rates. I think the cheapest flight for 72 individuals would be around $50,000.
I mean, just no. This isn't even a possibility. I'm not aware of any precedent for the NCAA to play games at neutral sites during the first four rounds of the tournament. It just doesn't happen.
Why would Hobart, or anybody for that matter, forgo a home game in the postseason to accommodate a visitor? You play all season to accumulate enough wins to play those games on your own field.
The only way a team qualified to host won't get a home game is if they don't apply for it or the NCAA rejects them. I find those scenarios unlikely, especially the former.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 30, 2014, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 12:28:42 PM
How much cost gets saved having to rent out a neutral site stadium and now having to spring for travel for two teams instead of one? Come on now. I know we're all in the hypothetical here, but let's try to color inside the lines.
Honestly, there have been sight site changes due to field conditions, I am pretty sure there is a field that could accommodate both teams and fans according to NCAA regulations that is only about an hour east of Geneva, which surely would be within 500 miles of Bangor, ME. There really wouldn't be no hotel cost on Hobart, the only cost would be for the Bus. Aren't all playoff games NCAA events and normal pricing is according to the NCAA established rates. I think the cheapest flight for 72 individuals would be around $50,000.
I mean, just no. This isn't even a possibility. I'm not aware of any precedent for the NCAA to play games at neutral sites during the first four rounds of the tournament. It just doesn't happen.
Why would Hobart, or anybody for that matter, forgo a home game in the postseason to accommodate a visitor? You play all season to accumulate enough wins to play those games on your own field. As ITH Radio mentioned, MIT would be the best bet to host, especially if they go undefeated, seeding gets trumped for travel purposes.
I did some research and found some data regarding policies...http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf (page 9). However, you are right, couldn't find data regarding a host institution using a neutral site to accommodate a visiting team due to budget constraints by the NCAA, especially if it is no benefit to the Host institution.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 30, 2014, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 12:28:42 PM
How much cost gets saved having to rent out a neutral site stadium and now having to spring for travel for two teams instead of one? Come on now. I know we're all in the hypothetical here, but let's try to color inside the lines.
Honestly, there have been sight site changes due to field conditions, I am pretty sure there is a field that could accommodate both teams and fans according to NCAA regulations that is only about an hour east of Geneva, which surely would be within 500 miles of Bangor, ME. There really wouldn't be no hotel cost on Hobart, the only cost would be for the Bus. Aren't all playoff games NCAA events and normal pricing is according to the NCAA established rates. I think the cheapest flight for 72 individuals would be around $50,000.
I mean, just no. This isn't even a possibility. I'm not aware of any precedent for the NCAA to play games at neutral sites during the first four rounds of the tournament. It just doesn't happen.
Why would Hobart, or anybody for that matter, forgo a home game in the postseason to accommodate a visitor? You play all season to accumulate enough wins to play those games on your own field.
Wheaton played @Franklin in 2008 at a local high school near Franklin due to field conditions. Not necessarily neutral, but it was not at Franklin.
Quote from: USee on October 30, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on October 30, 2014, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 30, 2014, 12:28:42 PM
How much cost gets saved having to rent out a neutral site stadium and now having to spring for travel for two teams instead of one? Come on now. I know we're all in the hypothetical here, but let's try to color inside the lines.
Honestly, there have been sight site changes due to field conditions, I am pretty sure there is a field that could accommodate both teams and fans according to NCAA regulations that is only about an hour east of Geneva, which surely would be within 500 miles of Bangor, ME. There really wouldn't be no hotel cost on Hobart, the only cost would be for the Bus. Aren't all playoff games NCAA events and normal pricing is according to the NCAA established rates. I think the cheapest flight for 72 individuals would be around $50,000.
I mean, just no. This isn't even a possibility. I'm not aware of any precedent for the NCAA to play games at neutral sites during the first four rounds of the tournament. It just doesn't happen.
Why would Hobart, or anybody for that matter, forgo a home game in the postseason to accommodate a visitor? You play all season to accumulate enough wins to play those games on your own field.
Wheaton played @Franklin in 2008 at a local high school near Franklin due to field conditions. Not necessarily neutral, but it was not at Franklin.
Franklin had been on the road the first two rounds of the playoffs and ended up playing at Franklin HS which is a couple miles away
I wonder if Texas Lutheran drops out and Chapman goes to UMHB could perhaps Husson end up at Linfield in round 1?
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2014, 02:20:35 PM
The only way a team qualified to host won't get a home game is if they don't apply for it or the NCAA rejects them. I find those scenarios unlikely, especially the former.
Remember that these playoff host selection criteria pretty much cut across all of D3 sports. Not every school may have the nessecary equipment and facilities to host every sport for which they play. I remember being at one D3 school in Ohio many years ago for a basketball game and they did not have a regulation sized basketball court.
I'm also sure its happened from time to time that a school's athletic department neglects to timely mail in the playoff hosting application form. #nightmaresthatmakesidswakeupinacoldsweat
I do know it happens in other sports; I was speaking football specifically. In basketball, it's a little more common because a school needs the facilities to host four teams and their fans. Gym size and locker rooms can be a struggle for some.
Something to keep in mind... the NCAA is dealing with a major budget deficit and there are a lot of cost-cutting items on the table mainly all in the championship side of things (since 75% of the Division III budget goes to championships). I wouldn't even think about ideas where the NCAA will send a team like Husson to Linfield in the early rounds because maybe it would work. They aren't going to do it. Start thinking as much regionally and within 500 miles as you can and don't even bet on a flight unless they have no choice - and even then think short flights to save on fuel costs. Every team in football has to have a chartered flight due to the size of the teams, so the costs are also higher as a result.
Another thing to keep in mind, a team could decide to host at another location if they so choose, but if the NCAA doesn't like the budget proposed in the hosting papers they can either reject the bid or tell the school they are only paying for a certain amount. I bet the Franklin situation came up as being hosted elsewhere after the hosting was awarded - during the week. I highly doubt the NCAA would approve a site knowing it would be moved anyway, unless Franklin's bid was for the high school field in the first place.
Bottom line... keep your expectations for spending as low as you can and when they spend a little more or spring for a flight that was only a dream... you can be pleasantly surprised.
Officially from the NCAA: the MASCAC and SAA will remain Pool B teams this season. Pre-championship handbooks will reflect that information soon (updates where necessary).
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 31, 2014, 05:22:24 PM
Officially from the NCAA: the MASCAC and SAA will remain Pool B teams this season. Pre-championship handbooks will reflect that information soon (updates where necessary).
Is there also then clarification on whether that creates a third B bid or is it at two?
2 Bs,6 Cs
They didn't officially tell Dave that but that is what our math says should be the case. Whether the NCAA does the math correctly this next time around, your guess is as good as mine. If not, we'll share our math with the folks in Indy. They have been accepting of our math in the past.
Well then.
So how does this change things? Dominos! TLU is out of my B this week and Centre is in. Centre might get to 10-0 with a bad SOS and no quality wins and I'm really, really curious to see if the committee would spit at that 10-0 and take somebody like 9-1 Framingham State instead. I don't think they would, but if there were ever going to be a case to be made for doing it, it's going to be that one. Really interesting to watch what happens there (if we get there).
That bumps TLU to Pool C. The south region's fan voters don't think much of TLU, but I think they'll be ranked ahead of Thomas More next Wednesday and probably ahead of Muhlenberg as well. That puts TLU at the front of the South's C line. Do I think TLU with an 8-1 D3 record and a not terrible SOS would sit there through six full rounds of voting? I do not. I would project TLU in as a Pool C team today.
I kind of feel bad for the SAA.
Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2014, 12:51:00 AM
I kind of feel bad for the SAA.
True, but it's a problem of their own choosing. Consider what the split did to the SCAC schools that no longer have any hope of a Pool C bid.
The SCAC thing aside, the issue is the NCAA"s inability to articulate, or follow, or comprehend, even, their own rules....
I think the real question is whether Nebraska Wesleyan will get a Pool B :P
I kind of agree with everything on this page. The SAA schools made their own bed, but it seems like it should be made clear BEFORE the season who's in Pool A and who isn't.
Interesting weekend. the Pool C picture will start to become much clearer. We get our first official regional rankings this week as well. Wally will have some real data to go on finally. In the CCIW if Wheaton and NCC win out the Cards may have more than a chance as a pool C with 6 bids.
Oshkosh knocks off Stevens Point today 21-7 at Stevens Point.
Platteville loses at home to Whitewater 17-7.
If both win next week, could Oshkosh at Platteville the last week of the regular season be for a Pool C bid?
Quote from: cubs on November 01, 2014, 06:03:34 PM
Oshkosh knocks off Stevens Point today 21-7 at Stevens Point.
Platteville loses at home to Whitewater 17-7.
If both win next week, could Oshkosh at Platteville the last week of the regular season be for a Pool C bid?
We'll be able to say more when we see the regional rankings on Wednesday. I'm still not sure that Oshkosh is really actually in play for Pool C, where/if they get placed in the regional rankings on Wednesday is probably the #1 thing I'm looking for.
With Platteville now carrying a second loss, I don't think I would say that the week 11 Platteville/Oshkosh game is a play-in game per se, but it's definitely an elimination game.
As much as I like chaos, I don't think Linfield's loss changes the "C" calculus. Pacific has to win out, I think, to win the "A" and then Linfield would have two losses. Though I don't know the NWC tiebreaker. Pacific has to beat Willamette first.
St. Thomas may have made it harder for a MIAC "C" again if St. John's loses to Bethel. That would be 2 losses for STJ, CM and STT, and they each beat the other. That MIAC result MAY open up a slot for a Platteville in the WIAC to be on the board. There's no way an 8-1 Carroll gets on the board, is there?
(Funny, if things break, the MWC championship game could be Carroll vs. Macalester, refugees from the IIAC and MIAC (though it was a while ago Mac was in the MIAC).
I'd still keep an eye on Muhlenberg. The South may have learned from the East about rankings, though I don't think they have another RR result in them.
Framingham may have lost their RR opponent chance now that Endicott loost to MIT. I don't know if Rowan can be RR'd with three losses, even if those three losses were to excellent teams.
Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2014, 11:20:07 AM
The SCAC thing aside, the issue is the NCAA"s inability to articulate, or follow, or comprehend, even, their own rules....
It does seem ridiculous that we have to tell them what their own conferences' membership is and what their rules are.
Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2014, 08:25:41 PM
As much as I like chaos, I don't think Linfield's loss changes the "C" calculus. Pacific has to win out, I think, to win the "A" and then Linfield would have two losses. Though I don't know the NWC tiebreaker. Pacific has to beat Willamette first.
St. Thomas may have made it harder for a MIAC "C" again if St. John's loses to Bethel. That would be 2 losses for STJ, CM and STT, and they each beat the other. That MIAC result MAY open up a slot for a Platteville in the WIAC to be on the board. There's no way an 8-1 Carroll gets on the board, is there?
I was just thinking the same thing. There's a handful of top-ranked conferences that won't have one-loss teams this year: WIAC (UWP), MIAC (STJ, CM, STT), CCIW (NCC). That's assuming UWW and Bethel wins next weekend.
I wonder if that will open the door for one-loss teams in conferences where SOS isn't that strong? If anything the Linfield loss certainly opens the door for the #1 seed out West. MHB? Wartburg? UWW?
I think your #1 seeds are UWW, UMU, UMHB, and Wesley until further notice. I don't think Wesley can be dislodged from a top regional seed. I don't think UWW or UMHB have lose-able games left, so they're solid. Mount Union's game with John Carroll is the one left that could upset the apple cart here. I don't think JCU automatically gets Mount Union's top seed if they win though. You'd definitely need to have a long and serious conversation about Wartburg being a top seed in that case. Perhaps a 10-0 Wabash team with a pair of victories over regionally ranked teams is also in play there (fingers crossed that Hampden-Sydney got that crap out of their system on Saturday). But it'd probably be between Wartburg and JCU if JCU can win.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2014, 11:14:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2014, 11:20:07 AM
The SCAC thing aside, the issue is the NCAA"s inability to articulate, or follow, or comprehend, even, their own rules....
It does seem ridiculous that we have to tell them what their own conferences' membership is and what their rules are.
I believe you have to do this because they are to busy counting there millions and millions they collect from D1 and don't have the time for D3's silly little tournament.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2014, 10:31:10 PM
I think your #1 seeds are UWW, UMU, UMHB, and Wesley until further notice.
I agree with the above from a national perspective, seeding wise. I wonder whether Wesley will be placed in the "South" like they have previously or are they going to be viewed as an "East" team now that they have the agreement in hand to join the NJAC in 2015.
While I do suspect they'll earn a bracket heading come playoff time, it wouldn't surprise me if they were regionally ranked #2 in the South behind UMHB, which we've seen in prior seasons.
If (and this is a big if) Mount were to lose their last game then the next top 4 teams could easily be the high seeds in respective regions:
Wartburg - West
UW Whitewater - North
Wesley - East
UMHB- South
If Mount does win, then:
Whitewater - West
Mount - North
Wesley - East
UMHB - South
To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.
1 -- UWW
2 -- UMU
3 -- UMHB
4 -- Wesley
I could easily see 2 and 3 being reversed, but if both teams are undefeated and you start going to that secondary criteria of "past playoff performance" you would put UMU second. This method also has the benefit of showing who we think will go on the road at the end.
Quote from: jknezek on November 03, 2014, 10:12:44 AM
To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.
Except for how many flights the NCAA will spring for... :)
Quote from: jknezek on November 03, 2014, 10:12:44 AM
To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.
Co-sign.
Quote from: art76 on November 03, 2014, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 03, 2014, 10:12:44 AM
To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.
Except for how many flights the NCAA will spring for... :)
Oh I know. But the N/S/E/W team designations aren't that important anymore. All that matters is the first round has a few flights as possible which leaves a lot of latitude without the designations inside 500 miles. Is Wesley East or South? Who cares. Some of the East is more than 500 miles, a lot of the South is as well. If they are a 1 seed a pod will be built in the mid-atlantic probably borrowing from both those regions.
Same with UMU. Are they N or E? Or even S? Again, a lot of 500 mile possibilities, no need for the geographic designation. Even UWW can be N or W.
Just end labeling with the geographics. It won't change what happens and it makes more sense plus provides that extra piece of data for the end game.
Quote from: jknezek on November 03, 2014, 10:26:47 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 03, 2014, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 03, 2014, 10:12:44 AM
To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.
Except for how many flights the NCAA will spring for... :)
Oh I know. But the N/S/E/W team designations aren't that important anymore. All that matters is the first round has a few flights as possible which leaves a lot of latitude without the designations inside 500 miles. Is Wesley East or South? Who cares. Some of the East is more than 500 miles, a lot of the South is as well. If they are a 1 seed a pod will be built in the mid-atlantic probably borrowing from both those regions.
Same with UMU. Are they N or E? Or even S? Again, a lot of 500 mile possibilities, no need for the geographic designation. Even UWW can be N or W.
Just end labeling with the geographics. It won't change what happens and it makes more sense plus provides that extra piece of data for the end game.
Spread the word, brother.
Updating your conference-by-conference list of all potential one-loss teams that could end up in Pool C...the list of possibilities reallllllly thinned out this week thanks to a few upsets.
(*Note: I know that playoff selection for Pool C does not go by conference, it's just the easiest way for me to tick off all possible one-loss teams in Pool C, thus giving an idea how many 1-loss teams may end up on the board)
ASC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
CC: if 7-1 Muhlenberg wins out (biggest hurdle: 6-2 Ursinus), they will be a 9-1 Pool C candidate.
CCIW: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
ECFC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
E8: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
HCAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
IIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
LL: if 7-1 SLU beats 8-0 Hobart and wins the AQ, then Hobart could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Unlikely.
MAC: runnerup (DelVal/Widener loser) is likely to be 9-1.
MIAA: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
MIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
MWC: 7-1 Carroll could be on the board as a one-loss team in Pool C with loss to Macalaster this past week.
NACC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
NCAC: runnerup is likely to have one D3 loss (8-1 against D3 if it's Wit, 9-1 if it's Wabash).
NEFC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup. Curry did everyone a giant favor by beating Western New England.
NJAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
NWC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
OAC: runnerup (JCU/Mount loser) is likely to be 9-1.
ODAC: if 7-1 Emory & Henry runs the table, they could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup (could be a messy tiebreaker in the ODAC, results still pending here)
PAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
SAA: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
SCIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
UMAC: if 7-2 Greenville beats 9-0 St. Scholastica and wins the AQ, then CSS could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup. Possible?
USAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
WIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup. (*although UW-Oshkosh, with a win over UW-Platteville, would only have one Division III loss)
Narrowing the above list down, here are conferences that realistically could produce a 1-loss Pool C candidate:
CC - Muhlenberg
MAC - DelVal/Widener loser
MWC - Carroll
NCAC - Witt/Wabash loser
OAC - JCU/Mount loser
ODAC - Emory & Henry (needs to beat Guilford in finale)
UMAC - St. Scholastica (would have to lose to Greenville)
WIAC - UW-Oskhosh*
I'll go a step further and say that the MAC runnerup, NCAC runnerup, and OAC runnerup are the "locks" to be in Pool C with one loss. Also a strong possibility for Muhlenberg, Carroll, Emory & Henry (although two of those teams must beat a reasonably challenging opponent to secure their 9-1 records). UW-Oshkosh could be 6-4, but would have a 6-1 Division III record. In summary, there will probably be no more than seven teams in Pool C with one loss, and possibly as few as four or five. The door should be open for a few two-loss candidates.
Wally, I know this isn't how you go about the Pool C analysis, but use this information as you see fit.
I just looked at the MWC site. Carroll won't skip the last week - they'll play the corresponding team in the other division. (Interesting way to do it, really...you get divisions, a championship game and everyone gets that last game, just can't schedule senior day that week I guess.)
Right now, if Carroll finishes second they may face Cornell, Illinois College or Monmouth. I don't see a RR win there, and quite possibly loss #2.
k+ ExTP
One team I'd throw into the equation is Fram St of MASCAC. Yes, I get they are Pool B but with only two spots and 100% liklihood of the first going to Wesley and the other probably landing with Centre (esp if they go 10-0), the Rams would fall into the Pool C pot as another 9-1 squad.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 03, 2014, 01:48:19 PM
k+ ExTP
One team I'd throw into the equation is Fram St of MASCAC. Yes, I get they are Pool B but with only two spots and 100% liklihood of the first going to Wesley and the other probably landing with Centre (esp if they go 10-0), the Rams would fall into the Pool C pot as another 9-1 squad.
Same for Texas Lutheran, right? Possible 1-loss Pool B that would be thrown into the Pool C mix.
I'm really intrigued by Centre. They are really going to put to the test the epic struggle between win% and SOS/quality results. Centre may well be 10-0, but they have NOTHING else on their profile.
Could the NCAA pave the way for a bid as an 'apology' fro screwing up the SAA auto-bid message? OH, CONSPIRACY!
It's not like they deliberately scheduled hacks and frauds. Hanover, W&L and Wash U. are all having terrible seasons. W&L has really fallen off the map...
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 01:58:59 PM
I'm really intrigued by Centre. They are really going to put to the test the epic struggle between win% and SOS/quality results. Centre may well be 10-0, but they have NOTHING else on their profile.
Poor Centre. Hanover, W&L, Millsaps and Wash U are all having really bad years in the historical context of their programs. Combine that with a conference with two second year programs, Hendrix and Berry, and you are just out of luck.
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 02:02:43 PM
It's not like they deliberately scheduled hacks and frauds. Hanover, W&L and Wash U. are all having terrible seasons. W&L has really fallen off the map...
No, they didn't. But neither did Wabash last year when they played Hanover and that was the rallying cry for why Wabash shouldn't (and didn't) get in. What I find interesting here is that the committee chair is the same guy that beat the drum for SOS and quality wins and he was quick to spit on a superior win percentage in favor of a team that he thought challenged itself*. Centre is going to have
probably the worst SOS of any at-large eligible team and zero results against ranked opponents. It's an interesting case and maybe really the first time that we can see a committee decide whether or not 10-0, regardless of how weak the rest of your profile is, earns automatic passage to the tournament.
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
Excellent points, fellas, about Framingham State and TLU. I had only been scrounging around for conference runners-up, but had not accounted for the Pool B spillover into Pool C.
Framingham State, TLU, and Chicago all are potential one-loss Pool B candidates, drastically increasing our prospective group of one-loss teams in the C pool.
I'll go on record as saying that if Centre finishes 10-0, I think they should be in. After Wesley's selection, none of the other teams in Pool B are candidates that it would be a grave injustice to omit...while wally_wabash is correct in saying that they have nothing else on their profile and an awful SOS, I don't think Framingham State, TLU, or Chicago has a profile that much more impressive. TLU and Chicago were both blown out by their respective regionally-ranked opponents, Framingham State probably will not have a result against an RRO and lost to 5-3 not-winning-the-NJAC Rowan.
So let's consider RRO results basically a wash. Everybody in this discussion for Pool B slot #2 either didn't play one or got blown out. Let's look at the best win:
Centre's best win will be against 8-2 Rhodes or 7-3 Hendrix (depending on the result of the Rhodes/Hendrix game this week).
Chicago's best win will probably be Rhodes, also.
TLU's best win will probably be 7-2 Hardin-Simmons (which probably is a little better than any of the above, but how much so?)
Framingham State's best win is either 7-3 Endicott or 7-3 Western Connecticut.
Nobody else has a big scalp. If Chicago had played a more even game with Bethel, or TLU had stayed within 28 points of UMHB, I might be pleading their respective cases for inclusion over undefeated Centre. But I don't see anything that overrides the undefeated record here. For whatever this is worth, I also don't see this as some galling attempt for a team to schedule their way to a playoff berth. Hanover, Defiance, Washington & Lee...the teams that they scheduled, although several are having rather poor seasons, are not traditionally-awful programs. Powerhouses, no, but usually teams in the ballpark of .500 or slightly better. It just happens that they're all having terrible seasons, which is crushing Centre's SOS.
*Disclosure: I also played for a Pool B team with a very similar profile to Centre (10-0, no quality wins, mediocre SOS) that got in and won a game. Although I was not yet posting, I recall similar discussions about whether we merited a ranking/bid with our undefeated record because we hadn't played anyone. So I acknowledge a bit of sympathy for an undefeated team that hasn't gotten the chance to prove itself against sterling competition. I actually think Centre, it could be argued, has played a better schedule than we did that season (our best win was - shield your eyes - an overtime win against 6-4 WashU; our second best win was either 14-7 against 5-5 Thiel or 20-10 against 5-5 Case Western).
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
Seconded.
Wally, I see your point, but after the look I just took, I don't think the one-loss candidates in play (in Pool B, anyway) are strong enough to merit inclusion over Centre. I get your drift, really, and if Chicago, TLU, or Framingham was a particularly strong one-loss case, I might buy it. But I don't think any of them is quite strong enough to be "the one loss team that kept an undefeated team home" in 2014.
I think Centre's argument is different for "B" than "C". Their competition of a "B" slot isn't fierce. If they get to "C" then you have to look at Centre vs. a bundle of teams with good resumes and one loss. That may not look good.
I bet the South RR's will be telling, especially how they place Centre vs. TLU.
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 02:41:22 PM
I think Centre's argument is different for "B" than "C". Their competition of a "B" slot isn't fierce. If they get to "C" then you have to look at Centre vs. a bundle of teams with good resumes and one loss. That may not look good.
I bet the South RR's will be telling, especially how they place Centre vs. TLU.
Yep. It will be interesting to see if the committee rewards TLU for simply scheduling the game. Let's face it, getting their doors torn off at home doesn't indicate they are a good team, but it also doesn't tell me much vis a vis other non-elite opponents. So while I wouldn't knock TLU for getting badly beaten by an an elite, I also am not inclined to reward them simply for scheduling the game. Had they stayed within the same zip code, I would have used the game in forming my opinion of TLU. Since they didn't say within the same state, it is pretty much a useless result in determining quality.
Like the TLU/Centre placement in the "South", I am curious re the "East" placement of HOB given their low SoS and as of now, no win over a RRO (might have been different if Endicott beat MIT but no dice).
Given two MAC squads with same overall record (8-0) as HOB but with better SoS and at least one of them having a solid W over a RRO (DVC over Montclair), it will be telling if HOB's "body of work" (high ranking and being a playoff participant every year since 2011) outweighs the SoS/RRO part.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
The only way to really guarantee an great SOS opponent is to schedule Mt. Union, UMHB, Wesley, Linfield, Wheaton, North Central, Wabash or Whitewater. Franklin may be one of those (they were 5-5 in 2005...)They haven't had a meh SOS record in a decade. Linfield was 6-3 a few years ago. Wesley was .500 a decade ago. So was Whitewater (wow...times change!). Wabash was 6-4 in 2004. I don't know if I'd trust another MIAC school, an OAC school or a WIAC school to guarantee a 7 win or more opponent.
I may have missed one or two...
(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
The only way to really guarantee an great SOS opponent is to schedule Mt. Union, UMHB, Wesley, Linfield, Wheaton, North Central, Wabash or Whitewater. Franklin may be one of those (they were 5-5 in 2005...)They haven't had a meh SOS record in a decade. Linfield was 6-3 a few years ago. Wesley was .500 a decade ago. So was Whitewater (wow...times change!). Wabash was 6-4 in 2004. I don't know if I'd trust another MIAC school, an OAC school or a WIAC school to guarantee a 7 win or more opponent.
I may have missed one or two...
(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).
a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 02:52:27 PM
(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).
a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.
That is absolutely true.
I'll slightly redirect smedindy's point: it's really, really hard to pick a team that's guaranteed to finish any better than 6-4.
6-4 is better than 1-9, by a longshot, for SOS boosts. But sometimes you can schedule a team that looks like a safe bet to finish with a decent record, they can fall flat on their face. From 2006-2013, Washington & Lee never finished worse than 4-6 and had winning records more often than not. If the Generals were playing to their normal standard, Centre's gawd-awful SOS would at least be floating a little bit higher. Instead, W & L is a 1-7 anchor weighing down that Centre SOS.
Point being that it's nice to try to schedule "pretty good" nonconference opponents, but few teams are, uh, "recession proof" locks to finish over .500 when you're projecting records 3-4-5 years out from now.
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.
Oh for sure. That difference is worth about 0.037 to your final SOS number, which on the current rankings is worth about 60 spots. You're talking about an entire quartile's worth of the division that you move.
But the thing is that you can't go and seek out a team that you know beyond any shadow of any doubt that is going to be 6-4 at worst. Certainly not 3-4 years in advance. And that's the narrative when a 9-1 team gets left at the platform for an 8-2 team that managed to get some non-league games with teams that turned out to not be terrible- you can't go find teams that you know are going to help your SOS.
And the next thing is but Whitewater! But Mount Union! They're always looking for games! There's no upside to playing those teams and (probably) losing in September. Or maybe you Buff State your way into a win in September. You still have to beat them again in November/December. If I'm catching that lightning in a bottle, I want it to be in the tournament, not in a September game.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 03:31:52 PM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.
Oh for sure. That difference is worth about 0.037 to your final SOS number, which on the current rankings is worth about 60 spots. You're talking about an entire quartile's worth of the division that you move.
But the thing is that you can't go and seek out a team that you know beyond any shadow of any doubt that is going to be 6-4 at worst. Certainly not 3-4 years in advance. And that's the narrative when a 9-1 team gets left at the platform for an 8-2 team that managed to get some non-league games with teams that turned out to not be terrible- you can't go find teams that you know are going to help your SOS.
And the next thing is but Whitewater! But Mount Union! They're always looking for games! There's no upside to playing those teams and (probably) losing in September. Or maybe you Buff State your way into a win in September. You still have to beat them again in November/December. If I'm catching that lightning in a bottle, I want it to be in the tournament, not in a September game.
There are no "guarantees" in life. You can schedule the currently good teams and 80% of the time they'll still be good 4 years from now. If that team is 1-9 well then you will at least have a better shot to beat them and improve your W/L. It stands to reason that if Washington and Lee had one of their better seasons this year Centre might be helping their SOS but adding a loss.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
I largely agree with this. Obviously no one can predict the future when they make these schedules. There is some nuance to this though.
Say back in 2011 Team A scheduled Wartburg, SJF or Linfield and Team B scheduled Hamline, Crown or Macalester. Team A certainly appears to be going after good comp and Team B certainly appears to be avoiding it.
When Team A get's credit for a solid SoS, I think there's credit due. When Team B is complaining, I say they've got no one to blame but themselves. Now is it possible Linfield implodes (in a way they haven't done in almost 60 years), sure. Can Macalester slink over to the MWC and suddenly have a solid record that no one could have predicted, sure. But in these instances, we have a pretty good idea what team A & B were intending to do.
In general, if a school schedules a team that recently (say, last 5 years) has been above average in a strong, typically deep conference (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, E8, etc.) or very good in a middling conference (IIAC, NWC, etc.) I give them props for trying to go out and schedule good teams.
9-1 with a good SOS would make their "C" profile better, for sure. That profile has been established. A 10-0 with a awful SOS hasn't been approached yet.
QuoteIn general, if a school schedules a team that recently (say, last 5 years) has been above average in a strong, typically deep conference (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, E8, etc.) or very good in a middling conference (IIAC, NWC, etc.) I give them props for trying to go out and schedule good teams.
Right, but a above average team in those conferences still could be 6-4 or 5-5. That doesn't help much. Maybe in OOWP, but then there's the OAC where everyone plays nine conference games, so the OOWP and OWP tend to normalize to .500 anyway.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 03:31:52 PM
And the next thing is but Whitewater! But Mount Union! They're always looking for games! There's no upside to playing those teams and (probably) losing in September. Or maybe you Buff State your way into a win in September. You still have to beat them again in November/December. If I'm catching that lightning in a bottle, I want it to be in the tournament, not in a September game.
That leaves you with little margin for error. 8-2 teams in "C" do happen, of course, but you're usually last on the bubble and sweating it out.
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 03:31:52 PM
And the next thing is but Whitewater! But Mount Union! They're always looking for games! There's no upside to playing those teams and (probably) losing in September. Or maybe you Buff State your way into a win in September. You still have to beat them again in November/December. If I'm catching that lightning in a bottle, I want it to be in the tournament, not in a September game.
That leaves you with little margin for error. 8-2 teams in "C" do happen, of course, but you're usually last on the bubble and sweating it out.
8-2 at-larges happen for teams in leagues that have been granted favored nations status. Franklin, had they beaten IWU and lost to say the hypothetical conference champion MSJ and also to UWW, isn't getting in. Less hypothetical is the case of Wittenberg- there's a really, really strong possibility that Wittenberg could lose to a really good 10-0 Wabash team and to FCS Butler and not get in. Perhaps most applicable is the case of Thomas More. Thomas More isn't getting in and they "stepped up" and played one of the power teams. 9-1 Thomas More had a shot. 8-2 Thomas More most likely doesn't.
also, I hope to never hear from the committee chair again "but we discounted their SOS advantage because they got that from being in a strong conference"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Less of a problem in football with few non-conference games but we should be adding data, not throwing it out.
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 04:21:03 PM
also, I hope to never hear from the committee chair again "but we discounted their SOS advantage because they got that from being in a strong conference"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Less of a problem in football with OOWP meaning less but we should be adding data, not throwing it out.
Amen to that, which is why the decision to get rid of the once ranked, always ranked clause irks me. We're ignoring useful and really meaningful data in a scenario where we already don't have a ton of data to work with.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 04:24:42 PM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 04:21:03 PM
also, I hope to never hear from the committee chair again "but we discounted their SOS advantage because they got that from being in a strong conference"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Less of a problem in football with few non-conference games but we should be adding data, not throwing it out.
Amen to that, which is why the decision to get rid of the once ranked, always ranked clause irks me. We're ignoring useful and really meaningful data in a scenario where we already don't have a ton of data to work with.
is it really too much of a burden for the committee to rank all the teams? I agree with the decision that a team that was top ten but is no longer should be valued less than a end of season top ten team, but that win should still help those teams as it's still a good win, just not a top-ten win.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 04:19:24 PM
Thomas More isn't getting in and they "stepped up" and played one of the power teams. 9-1 Thomas More had a shot. 8-2 Thomas More most likely doesn't.
I really, really WISH you were wrong here. Sigh. Oh well. :)
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
The only way to really guarantee an great SOS opponent is to schedule Mt. Union, UMHB, Wesley, Linfield, Wheaton, North Central, Wabash or Whitewater. Franklin may be one of those (they were 5-5 in 2005...)They haven't had a meh SOS record in a decade. Linfield was 6-3 a few years ago. Wesley was .500 a decade ago. So was Whitewater (wow...times change!). Wabash was 6-4 in 2004. I don't know if I'd trust another MIAC school, an OAC school or a WIAC school to guarantee a 7 win or more opponent.
I may have missed one or two...
(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).
Thomas More has played an undefeated Wesley, an undefeated W&J and a 7 win Waynesburg team. Their SOS advantage from those games will be completely nullified by playing in a weaker than usual PAC.
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 04:02:50 PM
QuoteIn general, if a school schedules a team that recently (say, last 5 years) has been above average in a strong, typically deep conference (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, E8, etc.) or very good in a middling conference (IIAC, NWC, etc.) I give them props for trying to go out and schedule good teams.
Right, but a above average team in those conferences still could be 6-4 or 5-5. That doesn't help much. Maybe in OOWP, but then there's the OAC where everyone plays nine conference games, so the OOWP and OWP tend to normalize to .500 anyway.
5-5 would be about the definition of average. Possibly even meaning they went 3-5 in conference. For me, 'above average' means you're usually above .500 in conference play over the course of those 5 years. And typically, for those teams, from those conferences, they're probably doing pretty well out of conference then as well.
And notice I didn't list the OAC. Basically, unless you're scheduling Mount, I'm just not sure you can count on the team you've scheduled being good. That's not to say the OAC #2 isn't good. It's just to say we usually have no idea who that #2 is going to be 3-4 years from now.
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
The only way to really guarantee an great SOS opponent is to schedule Mt. Union, UMHB, Wesley, Linfield, Wheaton, North Central, Wabash or Whitewater. Franklin may be one of those (they were 5-5 in 2005...)They haven't had a meh SOS record in a decade. Linfield was 6-3 a few years ago. Wesley was .500 a decade ago. So was Whitewater (wow...times change!). Wabash was 6-4 in 2004. I don't know if I'd trust another MIAC school, an OAC school or a WIAC school to guarantee a 7 win or more opponent.
I may have missed one or two...
(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).
Thomas More has played an undefeated Wesley, an undefeated W&J and a 7 win Waynesburg team. Their SOS advantage from those games will be completely nullified by playing in a weaker than usual PAC.
Thomas More's SOS also took a dent from Hanover losing all of their close games (48-42 to RHIT, 31-28 to Defiance, 20-14 to Bluffton, 37-35 to Anderson) and currently sitting at 1-7 instead of their usual .500-level play.
Besides the PAC's down season, another thing that hurt TMC is that the newly-unbalanced PAC schedule ended up with them playing all of the bottom-feeders and missing 6-3 Bethany. Give them a game with Bethany at 5-4 or 6-3 instead of winless Grove City and they get another little boost.
Which, as we're saying all over the place in this conversation, shows how silly it is to use the SOS metric as such a big component here. So much of this is influenced by things that are out of a team's control and rather unpredictable. Thomas More's SOS could be .05 points higher with a couple of those random bounces on the schedule.
I'm not feeling all that bad for TMC, or any two-loss team, as I'm a believer that any wild-card bids are a crapshoot and that everybody's (or most everybody) has got a path to the dance by winning their conference.
I think what we're all getting here is that we want to see Margin of Victory added to the data.
Quote from: hazzben on November 03, 2014, 05:05:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 04:02:50 PM
QuoteIn general, if a school schedules a team that recently (say, last 5 years) has been above average in a strong, typically deep conference (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, E8, etc.) or very good in a middling conference (IIAC, NWC, etc.) I give them props for trying to go out and schedule good teams.
Right, but a above average team in those conferences still could be 6-4 or 5-5. That doesn't help much. Maybe in OOWP, but then there's the OAC where everyone plays nine conference games, so the OOWP and OWP tend to normalize to .500 anyway.
5-5 would be about the definition of average. Possibly even meaning they went 3-5 in conference. For me, 'above average' means you're usually above .500 in conference play over the course of those 5 years. And typically, for those teams, from those conferences, they're probably doing pretty well out of conference then as well.
And notice I didn't list the OAC. Basically, unless you're scheduling Mount, I'm just not sure you can count on the team you've scheduled being good. That's not to say the OAC #2 isn't good. It's just to say we usually have no idea who that #2 is going to be 3-4 years from now.
What I meant was in the OAC and NCAC, with nine-game schedules, you're playing everyone once. The conference records for the teams under the runner up (if they have just one conference loss) will be slightly under .500. They have one extra game, and it's usually happened that even if they sweep the non-conference you're just going to get to a game over .500 in OWP at best.
Example - JCU this year, if they lose to mount will have played nine OAC opponents. Their nine opponents will have an OAC record of 37-44. The OAC went 6-3 in non-conference outside of JCU so JCU's OWP is 43-47 before taking their game into account. They played St. Vincent who at 3-5 makes them now 46-52 with two games to go. Conceivably, a runner up OAC team could get to 55-45 but that's with an OAC sweep and the runner up being the only team to beat their opponent. A huge leap. Normally, they're around .500 or just shy in OWP.
It's the OOWP that's the variable, but you can't expect everyone to schedule killers. I mean, you could tell Marietta, Muskingum and Wilmington to go play Wabash, W&J and Wittenberg, but I doubt if they would and I doubt if those three schools would schedule the dregs anyway. JCU is helped by Muskingum playing Waynesburg and Otterbein playing SJF, but Marietta played Kenyon and Capital played Earlham. Urp.
But you are right that the 2nd or 3rd place OAC teams tend to rotate - now it's 'Berg and JCU. In the past it was ONU and B-W. Sometimes Capital and Otterbein. You just don't know.
And I'd agree 100%, SoS is tough for 10 team leagues.
It's one of the reasons I wasn't torn up (but definitely annoyed) that Mac jumped over to the MWC rather than rejoin the MIAC. I'd much rather be able to schedule a quality non-con than have another team on the schedule that would likely finish somewhere south of 3-7.
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
I think what we're all getting here is that we want to see Margin of Victory added to the data.
No, I don't think that's a good idea really at all.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 03, 2014, 12:19:04 PM
Updating your conference-by-conference list of all potential one-loss teams that could end up in Pool C...the list of possibilities reallllllly thinned out this week thanks to a few upsets.
(*Note: I know that playoff selection for Pool C does not go by conference, it's just the easiest way for me to tick off all possible one-loss teams in Pool C, thus giving an idea how many 1-loss teams may end up on the board)
...
Narrowing the above list down, here are conferences that realistically could produce a 1-loss Pool C candidate:
CC - Muhlenberg
MAC - DelVal/Widener loser
MWC - Carroll
NCAC - Witt/Wabash loser
OAC - JCU/Mount loser
ODAC - Emory & Henry (needs to beat Guilford in finale)
UMAC - St. Scholastica (would have to lose to Greenville)
WIAC - UW-Oskhosh*
I'll go a step further and say that the MAC runnerup, NCAC runnerup, and OAC runnerup are the "locks" to be in Pool C with one loss. Also a strong possibility for Muhlenberg, Carroll, Emory & Henry (although two of those teams must beat a reasonably challenging opponent to secure their 9-1 records). UW-Oshkosh could be 6-4, but would have a 6-1 Division III record. In summary, there will probably be no more than seven teams in Pool C with one loss, and possibly as few as four or five. The door should be open for a few two-loss candidates.
Plus a few Pool B leftovers. Wesley is in for the first Pool B bid, but in the absence of the first RR, here are some Pool B's that may be on the Table.
Framingham State
Centre
Texas Lutheran (which must rank above Thomas More to have a chance).
+1 xTP!
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 03, 2014, 05:05:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 04:02:50 PM
QuoteIn general, if a school schedules a team that recently (say, last 5 years) has been above average in a strong, typically deep conference (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, E8, etc.) or very good in a middling conference (IIAC, NWC, etc.) I give them props for trying to go out and schedule good teams.
Right, but a above average team in those conferences still could be 6-4 or 5-5. That doesn't help much. Maybe in OOWP, but then there's the OAC where everyone plays nine conference games, so the OOWP and OWP tend to normalize to .500 anyway.
5-5 would be about the definition of average. Possibly even meaning they went 3-5 in conference. For me, 'above average' means you're usually above .500 in conference play over the course of those 5 years. And typically, for those teams, from those conferences, they're probably doing pretty well out of conference then as well.
And notice I didn't list the OAC. Basically, unless you're scheduling Mount, I'm just not sure you can count on the team you've scheduled being good. That's not to say the OAC #2 isn't good. It's just to say we usually have no idea who that #2 is going to be 3-4 years from now.
What I meant was in the OAC and NCAC, with nine-game schedules, you're playing everyone once. The conference records for the teams under the runner up (if they have just one conference loss) will be slightly under .500. They have one extra game, and it's usually happened that even if they sweep the non-conference you're just going to get to a game over .500 in OWP at best.
Example - JCU this year, if they lose to mount will have played nine OAC opponents. Their nine opponents will have an OAC record of 37-44. The OAC went 6-3 in non-conference outside of JCU so JCU's OWP is 43-47 before taking their game into account. They played St. Vincent who at 3-5 makes them now 46-52 with two games to go. Conceivably, a runner up OAC team could get to 55-45 but that's with an OAC sweep and the runner up being the only team to beat their opponent. A huge leap. Normally, they're around .500 or just shy in OWP.
It's the OOWP that's the variable, but you can't expect everyone to schedule killers. I mean, you could tell Marietta, Muskingum and Wilmington to go play Wabash, W&J and Wittenberg, but I doubt if they would and I doubt if those three schools would schedule the dregs anyway. JCU is helped by Muskingum playing Waynesburg and Otterbein playing SJF, but Marietta played Kenyon and Capital played Earlham. Urp.
But you are right that the 2nd or 3rd place OAC teams tend to rotate - now it's 'Berg and JCU. In the past it was ONU and B-W. Sometimes Capital and Otterbein. You just don't know.
Smed. You have to exclude the John Carroll games in your calculations. The OWP will always be exactly .500 counting only conference games since the OAC plays a round robin. 36-36.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 09:44:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
I think what we're all getting here is that we want to see Margin of Victory added to the data.
No, I don't think that's a good idea really at all.
of course it is. You don't have to give extra credit to Mount for winning 100-0 versus 70-0. People love to point out exceptions to the margin of victory rule rather than point out all the cases where the margin gave us meaningful predictive data.
Oh, derp. I did it at work while waiting on exports and packing boxes.
I am waiting for the committee to use the "Body of Work" explanation. I translate that in terms of Division III, "Prior Year(s)?" results.
Quote from: jknezek on November 03, 2014, 10:12:44 AM
To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.
1 -- UWW
2 -- UMU
3 -- UMHB
4 -- Wesley
I could easily see 2 and 3 being reversed, but if both teams are undefeated and you start going to that secondary criteria of "past playoff performance" you would put UMU second. This method also has the benefit of showing who we think will go on the road at the end.
All I know is that UWW and UMU will not bee seeing each other until Salem, which I agree. Therefore, seeds are going to be in favor of that relationship based on prior year history.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 09:44:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
I think what we're all getting here is that we want to see Margin of Victory added to the data.
No, I don't think that's a good idea really at all.
of course it is. You don't have to give extra credit to Mount for winning 100-0 versus 70-0. People love to point out exceptions to the margin of victory rule rather than point out all the cases where the margin gave us meaningful predictive data.
[/quote]
It's not just about 100-0 vs. 70-0. Even if you put a cap on it - something like any win over 28 points being equal - you're still opening a few cans of worms that I find pretty objectionable. Teams with a 14-21 point lead and 2 minutes to go would har incentive to keep trying to score instead of getting the backups a few snaps or just kneeling on it. In general, teams would be more reluctant to put backups in during games near whatever the MOV cutoff is, lest the backups give up a score and hurt your MOV.
I know that you pretty much don't care about anyone else's feelings, but some of us do.
Plus, not all 17-point wins are created equal. Team A gets out to a 31-7 lead with ten minutes to play, puts in the JV defense & pulls the starting offense, and cruises home with a 31-14 win. Team B enters the fourth quarter in a 17-14 nailbiter before a touchdown and then a pick-six blow the margin up to 31-14. Team A dominated; Team B's game was in doubt til the end. They'd get the same credit because Team A took their foot off the gas, as any good sportsmen would do, and elected to get their young guys some experience rather than assuring the largest possible margin.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 04, 2014, 06:28:58 AM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 09:44:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
I think what we're all getting here is that we want to see Margin of Victory added to the data.
No, I don't think that's a good idea really at all.
of course it is. You don't have to give extra credit to Mount for winning 100-0 versus 70-0. People love to point out exceptions to the margin of victory rule rather than point out all the cases where the margin gave us meaningful predictive data.
It's not just about 100-0 vs. 70-0. Even if you put a cap on it - something like any win over 28 points being equal - you're still opening a few cans of worms that I find pretty objectionable. Teams with a 14-21 point lead and 2 minutes to go would har incentive to keep trying to score instead of getting the backups a few snaps or just kneeling on it. In general, teams would be more reluctant to put backups in during games near whatever the MOV cutoff is, lest the backups give up a score and hurt your MOV.
I know that you pretty much don't care about anyone else's feelings, but some of us do.
Plus, not all 17-point wins are created equal. Team A gets out to a 31-7 lead with ten minutes to play, puts in the JV defense & pulls the starting offense, and cruises home with a 31-14 win. Team B enters the fourth quarter in a 17-14 nailbiter before a touchdown and then a pick-six blow the margin up to 31-14. Team A dominated; Team B's game was in doubt til the end. They'd get the same credit because Team A took their foot off the gas, as any good sportsmen would do, and elected to get their young guys some experience rather than assuring the largest possible margin.
Blowouts aren't given the same weight as the games against the best teams on the schedule but it's important that the 4th quarter of all games isn't "meaningless". The worst thing that happens in sports is when the players are playing in "garbage" time. The JV quarterback doesn't just want to play in "garbage" time, he wants to throw the ball and have it count for something. You could leave your first team out there but you're risking injury for very little statistical gain. Athletes will understand that they're not just trying to score at the end of the game to make you feel bad, they're just trying to continue playing. One of the most crucial findings in sabermetrics, across virtually all sports, is that the average margin by which a team wins or loses conveys more information than wins and losses alone.
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 08:04:42 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 04, 2014, 06:28:58 AM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 09:44:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
I think what we're all getting here is that we want to see Margin of Victory added to the data.
No, I don't think that's a good idea really at all.
of course it is. You don't have to give extra credit to Mount for winning 100-0 versus 70-0. People love to point out exceptions to the margin of victory rule rather than point out all the cases where the margin gave us meaningful predictive data.
It's not just about 100-0 vs. 70-0. Even if you put a cap on it - something like any win over 28 points being equal - you're still opening a few cans of worms that I find pretty objectionable. Teams with a 14-21 point lead and 2 minutes to go would har incentive to keep trying to score instead of getting the backups a few snaps or just kneeling on it. In general, teams would be more reluctant to put backups in during games near whatever the MOV cutoff is, lest the backups give up a score and hurt your MOV.
I know that you pretty much don't care about anyone else's feelings, but some of us do.
Plus, not all 17-point wins are created equal. Team A gets out to a 31-7 lead with ten minutes to play, puts in the JV defense & pulls the starting offense, and cruises home with a 31-14 win. Team B enters the fourth quarter in a 17-14 nailbiter before a touchdown and then a pick-six blow the margin up to 31-14. Team A dominated; Team B's game was in doubt til the end. They'd get the same credit because Team A took their foot off the gas, as any good sportsmen would do, and elected to get their young guys some experience rather than assuring the largest possible margin.
Blowouts aren't given the same weight as the games against the best teams on the schedule but it's important that the 4th quarter of all games isn't "meaningless". The worst thing that happens in sports is when the players are playing in "garbage" time. The JV quarterback doesn't just want to play in "garbage" time, he wants to throw the ball and have it count for something. You could leave your first team out there but you're risking injury for very little statistical gain. Athletes will understand that they're not just trying to score at the end of the game to make you feel bad, they're just trying to continue playing. One of the most crucial findings in sabermetrics, across virtually all sports, is that the average margin by which a team wins or loses conveys more information than wins and losses alone.
MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes. But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes. But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.
Care to explain like I'm 5? Organic?
for me as well Wally? :)
http://youtu.be/B1QpyGa61zs (http://youtu.be/B1QpyGa61zs)
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 04, 2014, 05:52:27 AM
I am waiting for the committee to use the "Body of Work" explanation. I translate that in terms of Division III, "Prior Year(s)?" results.
That's correct. On our show last season that was basically admitted / alluded to by the Chair, i.e., prior playoff experience / results are factored in.
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes. But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.
Care to explain like I'm 5? Organic?
MOV, in the absence of incentive to push the score differential as far as you can, is useful. And it could absolutely be a useful data point. However, once you attach that particular incentive to the MOV, the usefulness of that number is gone because now teams are making the effort to skew the stat and it doesn't mean the thing that you think it means anymore.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes. But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.
Care to explain like I'm 5? Organic?
MOV, in the absence of incentive to push the score differential as far as you can, is useful. And it could absolutely be a useful data point. However, once you attach that particular incentive to the MOV, the usefulness of that number is gone because now teams are making the effort to skew the stat and it doesn't mean the thing that you think it means anymore.
Didn't I address this point by saying it wouldn't have to award the blowouts? Use the law of diminishing returns like Sagarin does. Teams should make every effort to "skew" all stats. Doesn't mean they're going to be successful as the defense and the statistician will be there to cut out the noise. Have we already forgotten about our discussion about how difficult it is for a coach to guarantee an upgrade to their SOS through scheduling? Wouldn't it be nice to have a criteria that they could affect in-game?
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes. But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.
Care to explain like I'm 5? Organic?
MOV, in the absence of incentive to push the score differential as far as you can, is useful. And it could absolutely be a useful data point. However, once you attach that particular incentive to the MOV, the usefulness of that number is gone because now teams are making the effort to skew the stat and it doesn't mean the thing that you think it means anymore.
Didn't I address this point by saying it wouldn't have to award the blowouts? Use the law of diminishing returns like Sagarin does. Teams should make every effort to "skew" all stats. Doesn't mean they're going to be successful as the defense and the statistician will be there to cut out the noise. Have we already forgotten about our discussion about how difficult it is for a coach to guarantee an upgrade to their SOS through scheduling? Wouldn't it be nice to have a criteria that they could affect in-game?
By incentivizing poor sportsmanship? No. Not that way.
It's easy to say that you can include MOV as a criteria, but only in certain, non-blowout cases. I don't know how you can do that. Where is the line? How do you decide what points in a game are meaningful and what points aren't? And when do you decide when teams are piling on just to pile on and when teams are scoring late with a lot of duplicate number guys? It's impossible to corral all of that because every game is a case by case basis and nobody on these committees has time to scrub every single game to "cut out the noise" as you say.
We can use MOV in models to predict results and to predict maybe which at-large teams have performed better than others, but you can't attach selection incentive to it or else it loses its meaning. It's like when the subjects of some kind of social study become aware that they are subjects of some kind of social study and their behavior changes. Whatever it was that you were trying to learn about the way people behave naturally is destroyed.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 10:53:39 AM
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes. But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.
Care to explain like I'm 5? Organic?
MOV, in the absence of incentive to push the score differential as far as you can, is useful. And it could absolutely be a useful data point. However, once you attach that particular incentive to the MOV, the usefulness of that number is gone because now teams are making the effort to skew the stat and it doesn't mean the thing that you think it means anymore.
Didn't I address this point by saying it wouldn't have to award the blowouts? Use the law of diminishing returns like Sagarin does. Teams should make every effort to "skew" all stats. Doesn't mean they're going to be successful as the defense and the statistician will be there to cut out the noise. Have we already forgotten about our discussion about how difficult it is for a coach to guarantee an upgrade to their SOS through scheduling? Wouldn't it be nice to have a criteria that they could affect in-game?
By incentivizing poor sportsmanship? No. Not that way.
It's easy to say that you can include MOV as a criteria, but only in certain, non-blowout cases. I don't know how you can do that. Where is the line? How do you decide what points in a game are meaningful and what points aren't? And when do you decide when teams are piling on just to pile on and when teams are scoring late with a lot of duplicate number guys? It's impossible to corral all of that because every game is a case by case basis and nobody on these committees has time to scrub every single game to "cut out the noise" as you say.
We can use MOV in models to predict results and to predict maybe which at-large teams have performed better than others, but you can't attach selection incentive to it or else it loses its meaning. It's like when the subjects of some kind of social study become aware that they are subjects of some kind of social study and their behavior changes. Whatever it was that you were trying to learn about the way people behave naturally is destroyed.
I don't think you have to draw a line. Every additional point helps less than the previous point. You could make the curve especially steep at the higher margins. I'm not sure how Sagarin works it but it's said that 70-0 is nearly equal to 35-0.
I don't see anyone crying foul in D3 about 50 point losses. They happen all the time.
MOV could skew it at lower levels as well. If I have first and ten from the opponents 30 with a minute left and up 7, I'm not taking two knees and going home. I'm going to try to get more points. When people are playing for MOV of victory it changes how games end.
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on November 04, 2014, 11:22:59 AM
MOV could skew it at lower levels as well. If I have first and ten from the opponents 30 with a minute left and up 7, I'm not taking two knees and going home. I'm going to try to get more points. When people are playing for MOV of victory it changes how games end.
Go ahead and risk a turnover when you've already won the game if you just kneel. The other team will be more excited about the possibilities than the coach just trying to pump up the margin.
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on November 04, 2014, 11:22:59 AM
MOV could skew it at lower levels as well. If I have first and ten from the opponents 30 with a minute left and up 7, I'm not taking two knees and going home. I'm going to try to get more points. When people are playing for MOV of victory it changes how games end.
I was thinking of similar scenarios as well. I actually bet that with a 7-point margin, teams would just take the knees instead of risking it., but I could see a game that's, say, 28-17 with a minute to play. Losing team's last-ditch possession ends with a final incomplete pass on their own 10-yard line, sealing the victory for the team with 28 already on the board. They decide to run it in for a 35-17 final instead of taking the knees and going home.
I like wally's description above: "It's like when the subjects of some kind of social study become aware that they are subjects of some kind of social study and their behavior changes. Whatever it was that you were trying to learn about the way people behave naturally is destroyed."
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 04, 2014, 11:30:53 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on November 04, 2014, 11:22:59 AM
MOV could skew it at lower levels as well. If I have first and ten from the opponents 30 with a minute left and up 7, I'm not taking two knees and going home. I'm going to try to get more points. When people are playing for MOV of victory it changes how games end.
I was thinking of similar scenarios as well. I actually bet that with a 7-point margin, teams would just take the knees instead of risking it., but I could see a game that's, say, 28-17 with a minute to play. Losing team's last-ditch possession ends with a final incomplete pass on their own 10-yard line, sealing the victory for the team with 28 already on the board. They decide to run it in for a 35-17 final instead of taking the knees and going home.
I like wally's description above: "It's like when the subjects of some kind of social study become aware that they are subjects of some kind of social study and their behavior changes. Whatever it was that you were trying to learn about the way people behave naturally is destroyed."
They fumble and the other team runs it back then still has 45 seconds to try an onside kick and get down the field again. Even if you recover the onside kick the 7-8 points of margin that you just lost hurts more than the potential 7 points helped if you didn't fumble and did score again. I'd take the knee.
I'm not a fan of a criteria that tells me Mount Union's 13-point win over MHB—in which they trailed with less than five minutes to go and tied with 15 seconds to go—is basically the same as Cortland's 14-point win over Endicott—in which the Red Dragons led 7-0 after their first possession, never trailed, and led 42-14 early in the 4th quarter
On the flip side, I don't believe John Carroll's 80-0 win over Marietta is any different than Mount Union's 63-7 win over Marietta—even though one was 24 points closer
We need to apply some common sense to these things, in both directions. We need to be willing to look at two similar scores and say "Those games were drastically different" and two scores that might be significantly different and say "Those games were essentially the same thing"
A very limited MOV would be nice. 21 points max? But each game is different and raw MOV doesn't say much.
Perhaps a measurement of offensive and defensive power that's normalized against opponents. A modified KenPom approach as it were.
While I'm not on board with the MOV thing, I'm really glad we're having this conversation. Last season I lamented about how crappy the SOS is and really how bare bones the selection criteria in general are. We have a good skeleton of things from which to select and seed teams, but it needs fleshing out- it needs more context. Strength of schedule needs more context beyond just counting wins and losses in a vacuum. Quality wins, currently defined as wins against teams regionally ranked at the time of selection, is a good start but isn't perfect- your top 10 in the West isn't equivalent to the top 10 in the South, right? East #8 might not make the North's rankings while the North's 12th or 13th best team might be 6 or 7 in the East (all hypotheticals here).
The criteria we have are a good, objective start, but they need more. More useable data (ORAR anybody?), more freedom for the RACs to interpret...I don't know what all else. But conversations like these are a good start.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 03:12:01 PM
Last season I lamented about how crappy the SOS is and really how bare bones the selection criteria in general are. We have a good skeleton of things from which to select and seed teams, but it needs fleshing out- it needs more context. Strength of schedule needs more context beyond just counting wins and losses in a vacuum.
Since you mention it...
http://thebiglead.com/2014/11/04/tcu-strength-of-schedule-top-10-or-in-the-50s-depends-where-you-look/
"On the surface, TCU's 30-7 home romp of Minnesota is a "good" win. The Gophers are 6-2. Except when you look closer at Minnesota, which Sports Reference's method does, that victory isn't impressive: the Gophers beat horrible non-conference teams, and barely beat Big 10 bottom-feeders Northwestern and Purdue (at home!). It gets worse: the Gophers lost to lowly Illinois Saturday."
The OOWP tries to do that; but again there needs to be context.
We can talk all we want, but the committee will do as they wish. :'(
But I'll bet we know more. Add Pat to the committee as a start. :)
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 04, 2014, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 03:12:01 PM
Last season I lamented about how crappy the SOS is and really how bare bones the selection criteria in general are. We have a good skeleton of things from which to select and seed teams, but it needs fleshing out- it needs more context. Strength of schedule needs more context beyond just counting wins and losses in a vacuum.
Since you mention it...
http://thebiglead.com/2014/11/04/tcu-strength-of-schedule-top-10-or-in-the-50s-depends-where-you-look/
"On the surface, TCU's 30-7 home romp of Minnesota is a "good" win. The Gophers are 6-2. Except when you look closer at Minnesota, which Sports Reference's method does, that victory isn't impressive: the Gophers beat horrible non-conference teams, and barely beat Big 10 bottom-feeders Northwestern and Purdue (at home!). It gets worse: the Gophers lost to lowly Illinois Saturday."
That same article has a metric that lists TCU's SoS in the 50's.
So not all SoS metrics are created equal is what I take from it, not that they're useless.
Quote from: Gray Fox on November 04, 2014, 05:02:27 PM
We can talk all we want, but the committee will do as they wish. :'(
But I'll bet we know more. Add Pat to the committee as a start. :)
Add a D3 fan to the panel too... it's maybe a 20 minute drive for me to get to NCAA HQ ;)
I'm downright giddy today, guys. I love regional rankings day.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
I'm downright giddy today, guys. I love regional rankings day.
What time will they come out? 3ish?
Quote from: ITH radio on November 05, 2014, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
I'm downright giddy today, guys. I love regional rankings day.
What time will they come out? 3ish?
That's in the ballpark. There's not a specific time (that I know of) that get released, but mid-to-late afternoon is usually when it happens. D3football.com will have them up ASAP I'm sure.
FWIW - it'll be interesting to see how we fans in the West that have had our first poll posted stack up against what the NCAA does for ranking the teams regionally later this afternoon.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
I'm downright giddy today, guys. I love regional rankings day.
No matter what happens it will be perfect compared to the 2013 hoops regional ranking release day where we found out the multiplier was broken and a game against a 10-0 team was equivalent to a game against a 18-7 team.
Quote from: art76 on November 05, 2014, 11:04:34 AM
FWIW - it'll be interesting to see how we fans in the West that have had our first poll posted stack up against what the NCAA does for ranking the teams regionally later this afternoon.
I think you guys are pretty close. If today's NCAA rankings are different, my guess is that St. John's is ahead of Linfield and Platteville. I don't know if they'd put Chapman ahead of St. Thomas and Platteville...I'm leaning toward no, but it's possible. The real wild card is what they do with Oshkosh. Oshkosh's placement in today's rankings may have a massive impact on the at-large situation.
Is there any certain formula that is used? My West ballot was identical to the consensus 1-7 but after that I was a little off. Might think that I am weighing one thing too much and others not enough.
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2014, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage. You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014. What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule. Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.
The only way to really guarantee an great SOS opponent is to schedule Mt. Union, UMHB, Wesley, Linfield, Wheaton, North Central, Wabash or Whitewater. Franklin may be one of those (they were 5-5 in 2005...)They haven't had a meh SOS record in a decade. Linfield was 6-3 a few years ago. Wesley was .500 a decade ago. So was Whitewater (wow...times change!). Wabash was 6-4 in 2004. I don't know if I'd trust another MIAC school, an OAC school or a WIAC school to guarantee a 7 win or more opponent.
I may have missed one or two...
(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).
Thomas More has played an undefeated Wesley, an undefeated W&J and a 7 win Waynesburg team. Their SOS advantage from those games will be completely nullified by playing in a weaker than usual PAC.
Thomas More this year is a prime example of looking at who you lost to instead of who you beat. And the answer to that question is the same whether or not they schedule Wesley, and I'd argue the Wesley loss probably helps their case. Certainly a win would have.
They're just going to get stuck on the table with teams who have wins over RROs and SoS that's good and they're not going to measure up.
Good intentions are great for Pat and I to talk about, but the committee can't take a team with good intentions over one who also has good wins.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: AO on November 04, 2014, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 04, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes. But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.
Care to explain like I'm 5? Organic?
MOV, in the absence of incentive to push the score differential as far as you can, is useful. And it could absolutely be a useful data point. However, once you attach that particular incentive to the MOV, the usefulness of that number is gone because now teams are making the effort to skew the stat and it doesn't mean the thing that you think it means anymore.
Agree.
I also think from being on the board the first time this season and reading the past several pages that folks are a little too focused on SoS. It's a tool, one of many in the box, but it's not an end-all. Nor is wins over RROs (which I think is probably the most valuable) or overall win%.
I also don't think folks are disregarding the non-division results quite enough. Witt isn't going to be penalized by the Butler loss IMO, but they could use that to separate from another team with a similar mark. UW-Oshkosh is going to be an interesting case study as well, but it would have been moreso if it had beaten UW-W and lost to UW-P or something.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 04, 2014, 02:33:18 PM
I'm not a fan of a criteria that tells me Mount Union's 13-point win over MHB—in which they trailed with less than five minutes to go and tied with 15 seconds to go—is basically the same as Cortland's 14-point win over Endicott—in which the Red Dragons led 7-0 after their first possession, never trailed, and led 42-14 early in the 4th quarter
On the flip side, I don't believe John Carroll's 80-0 win over Marietta is any different than Mount Union's 63-7 win over Marietta—even though one was 24 points closer
We need to apply some common sense to these things, in both directions. We need to be willing to look at two similar scores and say "Those games were drastically different" and two scores that might be significantly different and say "Those games were essentially the same thing"
Good points.
For the poll, as I'm speed-reading through dozens of results, I look for three things:
1) Was it a one-score, either-way game in the fourth quarter?
2) Was it a two- or three-score game in the fourth quarter?
3) Was it never in doubt in the fourth quarter?
and vote accordingly.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 05, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 04, 2014, 02:33:18 PM
I'm not a fan of a criteria that tells me Mount Union's 13-point win over MHB—in which they trailed with less than five minutes to go and tied with 15 seconds to go—is basically the same as Cortland's 14-point win over Endicott—in which the Red Dragons led 7-0 after their first possession, never trailed, and led 42-14 early in the 4th quarter
On the flip side, I don't believe John Carroll's 80-0 win over Marietta is any different than Mount Union's 63-7 win over Marietta—even though one was 24 points closer
We need to apply some common sense to these things, in both directions. We need to be willing to look at two similar scores and say "Those games were drastically different" and two scores that might be significantly different and say "Those games were essentially the same thing"
Good points.
For the poll, as I'm speed-reading through dozens of results, I look for three things:
1) Was it a one-score, either-way game in the fourth quarter?
2) Was it a two- or three-score game in the fourth quarter?
3) Was it never in doubt in the fourth quarter?
and vote accordingly.
Yeah, those are the rough lines I'd draw. I'd probably add a 4th, which differentiates between say, a 31-3 win and a 51-3 win over roughly the same caliber opponent. I feel like the 45-50 point win is something "good not great" teams can't really get to, while the big powers do. But that's only if I'm looking at teams in the Top 15 or so
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 05, 2014, 01:51:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 05, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 04, 2014, 02:33:18 PM
I'm not a fan of a criteria that tells me Mount Union's 13-point win over MHB—in which they trailed with less than five minutes to go and tied with 15 seconds to go—is basically the same as Cortland's 14-point win over Endicott—in which the Red Dragons led 7-0 after their first possession, never trailed, and led 42-14 early in the 4th quarter
On the flip side, I don't believe John Carroll's 80-0 win over Marietta is any different than Mount Union's 63-7 win over Marietta—even though one was 24 points closer
We need to apply some common sense to these things, in both directions. We need to be willing to look at two similar scores and say "Those games were drastically different" and two scores that might be significantly different and say "Those games were essentially the same thing"
Good points.
For the poll, as I'm speed-reading through dozens of results, I look for three things:
1) Was it a one-score, either-way game in the fourth quarter?
2) Was it a two- or three-score game in the fourth quarter?
3) Was it never in doubt in the fourth quarter?
and vote accordingly.
Yeah, those are the rough lines I'd draw. I'd probably add a 4th, which differentiates between say, a 31-3 win and a 51-3 win over roughly the same caliber opponent. I feel like the 45-50 point win is something "good not great" teams can't really get to, while the big powers do. But that's only if I'm looking at teams in the Top 15 or so
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I don't know how much I differentiate between 72-16 and 35-7. Some, but not much.
Once the margin gets to 28 or so, it's basically adding more confetti to Times Square New Years Eve...
Quote from: ITH radio on November 05, 2014, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
I'm downright giddy today, guys. I love regional rankings day.
What time will they come out? 3ish?
Or maybe never. This is interminable.
Quote from: smedindy on November 05, 2014, 03:54:15 PM
Once the margin gets to 28 or so, it's basically adding more confetti to Times Square New Years Eve...
Hmm... I thought that official unit of "runaway victory" on the D3boards was 21 points, "the Monkey Stomp".
Depends on your tolerance level, Ralph! ;)
Certainly, though, in a high-flying league 21 points could be 1/2 of a quarter; against a gritty defense-oriented team 28-3 is a paddlin' for sure...
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2014, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 05, 2014, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 05, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
I'm downright giddy today, guys. I love regional rankings day.
What time will they come out? 3ish?
Or maybe never. This is interminable.
I guess nobody told the College Football Playoff Selection Committee they had to do D3 rankings, too :)
While we wait . . . I am still wondering if RACs will end up not factoring in RRO wins against out of region opponents. If the final secret ranking is the only one that counts, and assuming the RACs are working at the same time and would not have an opportunity to share data mid-conference call, how would they? Clearly the final selection committee would be able to factor in out-of-region RROs when comparing the top four regional teams on the board. But they would still then be limited by the RACs ranking and not able to consider someone further down a region's ranking who, with a good out-of-region RRO result, might have a better resume.
Points to ponder . . .
Quote from: wabndy on November 05, 2014, 05:54:30 PM
While we wait . . . I am still wondering if RACs will end up not factoring in RRO wins against out of region opponents. If the final secret ranking is the only one that counts, and assuming the RACs are working at the same time and would not have an opportunity to share data mid-conference call, how would they? Clearly the final selection committee would be able to factor in out-of-region RROs when comparing the top four regional teams on the board. But they would still then be limited by the RACs ranking and not able to consider someone further down a region's ranking who, with a good out-of-region RRO result, might have a better resume.
Points to ponder . . .
This is a rare factor because of the lack of high-quality out-of-region games out there in the regular season. The actual Selection Committee has been able to re-rank or "send back" the regionals for revisions -- depending on the year and the edict from the NCAA. However, either way, there is a way to account for that.
Rankings are up
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 05, 2014, 06:38:04 PM
Rankings are up
I hope everyone enjoys kissing their sister. There are three opportunities in these rankings... I won't pretend to understand how that happens in a set of opinion rankings...
Projection coming...quick thoughts:
- TLU S#5. Maybe a bit of a shock there, but keep in mind TLU (for now) has a nice SOS and Hardin-Simmons getting ranked (S#10) is HUGE for the Bulldogs.
- Oshkosh in the rankings at W#8...right behind Platteville and just second in line in the West (counting the Platteville/Oshkosh winner together there.
Good stuff. Ok, projection coming soon.
Projection with regional rankings and clarified bid breakdowns (24/2/6). Here we go.
Pool A:
League | Team |
ASC | UMHB |
CC | Johns Hopkins |
CCIW | Wheaton |
ECFC | Husson |
E8 | St. John Fisher |
HCAC | Franklin |
IIAC | Wartburg |
LL | Hobart |
MAC | Widener |
MIAA | Trine |
MIAC | Bethel |
MWC | Illinois College |
NACC | Lakeland |
NCAC | Wabash |
NEFC | MIT |
NJAC | Montclair State |
NWC | Linfield |
OAC | Mount Union |
ODAC | Hampden-Sydney |
PAC | Washington & Jefferson |
SCIAC | Chapman |
UMAC | St. Scholastica |
USAC | Christopher Newport |
WIAC | UW-Whitewater |
-- Macalester threw the MWC into an anybody's guess situation and my guess this week is Illinois College.
-- Benedictine kneecapped Concorida-Wis. last week which puts Lakeland on top of the NACC. Lakeland hosts Concordia this weekend.
Pool B:Wesley (5-0, 0.675 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO) - I think Wesley had a shot at maybe being the #1 team in the South until Rowan and Salisbury lost a bunch of games. 1-0 vs. RRO is not as good as 3-0 vs. RRO. Hot sports take.
So, the other Pool B team. The interesting thing here is that TLU and Centre are t5 in the South which doesn't help me one bit. The candidates are:
E5 Framingham State (7-1, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
9N Chicago (6-1, 0.523 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
5S TLU (6-1, 0.540 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)5S Centre (8-0, 0.436 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
I'm selecting Texas Lutheran here as the only team on the board to have a quality win in addition to the best SOS. I still have no idea whether or not the South RAC or the national committee would spit at 10-0 Centre if both teams win their final two games. If it gets to that point, it'll be a first. We've never had a committee have to make this exact choice before. Framingham State lost their shot at an RRO win with Endicott's loss and I think that now kind of eliminates them from Pool B. Without a quality win, I don't know that they could be selected in front of undefeated Centre or TLU with that RRO win (teetering on the edge there with Hardin Simmons at S10). Interestingly, HSU has two tough games left with ETBU and LC and if they lose either of those games, it could be Rhodes just lingering out there in the fringe of these rankings that would provide boosts for both Centre (at TLU's expense) and Chicago. Interesting intersections there.
Pool C:Round 1:
N2 John Carroll (8-0, 0-464 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
5S Centre (8-0, 0.436 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
1E Delaware Valley (0.532 SOS, 2-0 vs. RRO)5W St. John's (7-1, 0.513 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
-- Pretty easy choice here. Delaware Valley is the highest ranked team on the board (not officially a criteria), they have the best SOS, and two quality wins. Centre has the better win percentage, but there's no other meat on those bones.
Round 2:
2N John Carroll (8-0, 0-464 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)5S Centre (8-0, 0.436 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
5E Framingham State (7-1, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
5W St. John's (7-1, 0.513 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
-- John Carroll is also very highly ranked (not likely to change with a loss to Mount Union if it comes to that...I think they're still the first team up in the North even with that loss) they have the quality win over Heidelberg. The SOS isn't there, but when you rub elbows with Mount Union that sort of thing doesn't seem to matter as much.
Round 3:
5N Wittenberg (7-0, 0.498 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
5S Centre (8-0, 0.436 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
5E Framingham State (7-1, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
5W St. John's (7-1, 0.513 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)-- The Johnnies don't have the same SOS edge over Centre as Del Val did, but they still have the quality win and they play in a league that has massive clout (also not a criteria).
Now it gets fun.
Round 4:
5N Wittenberg (7-0, 0.498 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
5S Centre (8-0, 0.436 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)5E Framingham State (7-1, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
7W UW-Platteville (6-2, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- So Centre is the last team that's been on the board from the start. Platteville has the superior SOS and they've played two ranked teams, both losses that weren't necessarily terrible (in the sense that TLU/UMHB or Chicago/Bethel were terrible). Witt hasn't lost, but will if they stay in this pool. Oh how Framingham wishes that Endicott had beaten MIT. Centre is my pick based on the undefeated record and assuming they've built up balloting capital to this point (which is a real thing, even though it should disgust us all).
Round 5:
5N Wittenberg (7-0, 0.498 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)7S Muhlenberg (7-1, 0.491 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
5E Framingham State (7-1, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
7W UW-Platteville (6-2, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Framingham will have built up a lot of capital to this point, but if we're playing this out, Witt is going to get a big SOS boost this week from Wabash and if they lose (which is how they end up here in the first place) they'll have a regionally ranked result. Which Framingham doesn't. So I'll take the Tigers here. But you can make a case for Framingham or Platteville in this spot. And that's doomsday for Platteville because...
Round 6:
6N North Central (6-2, 0.551 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)7S Muhlenberg (7-1, 0.491 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
5E Framingham State (7-1, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
7W UW-Platteville (6-2, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- So Platteville is out because with this board there's no way Platteville can be taken ahead of North Central (h2h). I think we can eliminate Muhlenberg as well with the low(er) SOS and no quality results (42-26 vs. Hopkins isn't particularly useful to them here). Framingham State has now been in play for four rounds. That really matters (it shouldn't). North Central has a cozy 28-7 win over ranked Platteville, and their loss is by a field goal at the horn to 3N Wheaton. Is their loss at Stevens Point (unranked) a bigger blemish than Framingham's loss at home Rowan (31-21...31-13 late in the 4th)? I say no. North Central is the pick, but this is razor thin. You could go either way with this last pick.
Interestingly, I think I'd be inclined to take Platteville in that last round were it not for the presence of North Central. But once North Central is at the same table as Platteville, Platteville is second banana. There's just no reasonable way around that.
Next up out of the North would have been Heidelberg which means Chicago doesn't even get a sniff in Pool C. Their best chance is going to be for Hardin-Simmons to lose, and for Rhodes to get ranked, although I think there's some more help needed there (E&H and Guilford linger around out there in unranked limbo with one loss in the South).
MIT should be in line to get the Pool A bid from the NEFC. (Am I not correct?)
My first run at the rankings has these picks. (Assume the higher ranked team will prevail for the rest of the season.)
Pool B:
Wesley (S#2)
Framingham State (E#5)
Pool C:
John Carroll (N#1)
Widener (E#3)
Texas Lutheran (S#T5) Better SOS in the South Region
UW-P or UW-O winner (W#7 / W#8)
On the table for the last 2 picks:
St Lawrence (E#6)
Wittenberg (N#5) even after a close loss to Wabash
Centre (S#T5)
St John (W#T5)
(and Wally has just posted his, too.)
But wally you can't have 3 teams from the North, no? I agree that you can't take Platteville with North Central on the board, so it would seem that Framingham State gets the last spot.
Wally, in Pool C, you're using the wrong SOS for Centre, I believe (0.464 instead of 0.436). This may matter since the difference between their SOS and Framingham State's would be close to 0.100 and could create chaos in the 4th and 5th picks below. Just flagging that in case you feel it would cause a change. Otherwise, great work as always.
Also, Schwami, there was a correction made about the three C teams in a region last year after our interview was conducted with the Committee Chairman. The point was that it would be extremely tough based on the way the anonymous ordinal system used to pick the teams can work, but it is not impossible.
- Frank
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 05, 2014, 08:56:24 PM
Wally, in Pool C, you're using the wrong SOS for Centre, I believe (0.464 instead of 0.436). This may matter since the difference between their SOS and Framingham State's would be close to 0.100 and could create chaos in the 4th and 5th picks below. Just flagging that in case you feel it would cause a change. Otherwise, great work as always.
Also, Schwami, there was a correction made about the three C teams in a region last year after our interview was conducted with the Committee Chairman. The point was that it would be extremely tough based on the way the anonymous ordinal system used to pick the teams can work, but it is not impossible.
- Frank
Yep, had the wrong SOS there. I blame copy and paste. :) Really in Centre's case, at least in my view tonight, the SOS is bad and the degree to which it is bad is almost irrelevant. The question with them becomes whether or not the committee would leave a 10-0 team out there in the wind for the duration of the process. I don't think they would. Between being 10-0 and the voting capital that accumulates, I just don't think they can sit there unselected for more than four rounds. They are an intriguing case for sure.
Quote from: Schwami on November 05, 2014, 08:54:32 PM
But wally you can't have 3 teams from the North, no? I agree that you can't take Platteville with North Central on the board, so it would seem that Framingham State gets the last spot.
I think the qualifier last year was that there were only five bids available. I'm not going to let that go from last year for a long time because it was an incredibly dumb thing for the chair to say, but this year with the extra bid it's a little bit different. That said, in my mock selection here, Framingham is on the board for an awfully long time and it's not at all unreasonable for them to get selected in that sixth round instead of North Central who just showed up to the party.
Frank, thanks for the clarification --- I had forgotten about that later explanation :P
The anonymous ordinal system would still work to Framingham's benefit as wally notes. Perhaps not enough though.
this stuff is awesome to contemplate. Thanks Wally for doing the heavy lifting so we can all pontificate the outcomes. It's going to be a fascinating couple of weeks.
Here's my latest bracket based on Wally's projections
Texas Lutheran @ (1) Mary Hardin-Baylor (only schools within 500 miles of each other)
Chapman @ Linfield (west coast orphans)
Montclair St @ (2) Hobart
Husson @ MIT (Husson can only get to MIT or Montclair)
----
Lakeland @ (1) UW-Whitewater
North Central @ St John's
Illinois College @ (2) Wartburg
St Scholastica @ Bethel
----
Trine @ (1) Mount Union
Wittenberg @ Wheaton
Franklin @ (2) Wabash
John Carroll @ Centre
----
Christopher Newport @ (1) Wesley
Widener @ Washington & Jefferson
Hampden-Sydney @ (2) Johns Hopkins
St John Fisher @ Delaware Valley
Quadrant 1 is the orphan bracket... with Linfield losing the "seeding" is a lot more normal. Ideally Husson would end up at Hobart but that's not in range. So either MIT or Montclair St gets a tough game on the road while the other hosts Husson. Based on regional rankings MIT gets Husson.
Quadrant 2 is the MN-WI bracket... not a lot to discuss here. Perhaps an argument for NCC hosting but I doubt it as of the current results.
Quadrant 3 is the IL-IN-OH bracket. Keeping John Carroll away from Mount Union means they're either a 3 or a 6 seed. I could see them hosting Centre rather than on the road.
Quadrant 4 is the South-East bracket. With DelVal being ahead of Widener in the regional rankings I swapped them compared to the last projection. SJF is rough as a 6 here... but with DelVal being a 2 or 3 that forces Widener to a 4 or 5. That means W&J or SJF has to play at DelVal.
Are there any glaring errors I've missed?
3 Cs out of 5 (what we had last year) is a lot different than 3 out of 6. Taking last year, the committee was apparently hard pressed to pick a 3rd team from the same region while another region still has its first on the board. With 6 pool Cs (thanks SAA, Mascac!) there is a little more honey to spread around.
Quote from: wabndy on November 05, 2014, 09:12:41 PM
3 Cs out of 5 (what we had last year) is a lot different than 3 out of 6. Taking last year, the committee was apparently hard pressed to pick a 3rd team from the same region while another region still has its first on the board. With 6 pool Cs (thanks SAA, Mascac!) there is a little more honey to spread around.
This is probably making the point better than I did. Had there been a sixth C bid last year, it was going to be Wabash's without question.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 05, 2014, 09:11:37 PM
Here's my latest bracket based on Wally's projections
Texas Lutheran @ (1) Mary Hardin-Baylor (only schools within 500 miles of each other)
Chapman @ Linfield (west coast orphans)
Montclair St @ (2) Hobart
Husson @ MIT (Husson can only get to MIT or Montclair)
----
Lakeland @ (1) UW-Whitewater
North Central @ St John's
Illinois College @ (2) Wartburg
St Scholastica @ Bethel
----
Trine @ (1) Mount Union
Wittenberg @ Wheaton
Franklin @ (2) Wabash
John Carroll @ Centre
----
Christopher Newport @ (1) Wesley
Widener @ Washington & Jefferson
Hampden-Sydney @ (2) Johns Hopkins
St John Fisher @ Delaware Valley
Quadrant 1 is the orphan bracket... with Linfield losing the "seeding" is a lot more normal. Ideally Husson would end up at Hobart but that's not in range. So either MIT or Montclair St gets a tough game on the road while the other hosts Husson. Based on regional rankings MIT gets Husson.
Quadrant 2 is the MN-WI bracket... not a lot to discuss here. Perhaps an argument for NCC hosting but I doubt it as of the current results.
Quadrant 3 is the IL-IN-OH bracket. Keeping John Carroll away from Mount Union means they're either a 3 or a 6 seed. I could see them hosting Centre rather than on the road.
Quadrant 4 is the South-East bracket. With DelVal being ahead of Widener in the regional rankings I swapped them compared to the last projection. SJF is rough as a 6 here... but with DelVal being a 2 or 3 that forces Widener to a 4 or 5. That means W&J or SJF has to play at DelVal.
Are there any glaring errors I've missed?
Not an error - but another option: if Macalester were to take the MWC instead of Illinois College, then you could send them to play Bethel while St. Scholastica goes to Wartburg to avoid a repeat of last year's opening round (that was in the metro-dome.)
Also, I don't see JCU with one loss being a 3 seed at the expense of undefeated Wheaton as a 4 seed. The committee avoids first round matchups, second round not so much. I think Wheaton is the 3 and faces Bash in round 2 in your bracket.
That said in 2010 with NCC and Wheaton both in the field the committee sent Wheaton into a bracket with Coe/Bethel/St Thomas/Wartburg and NCC into a bracket with UWW/ONU/Franklin. Then in 2012 they sent Elmhurst into the St Thomas bracket and NCC into the Linfield bracket. All this to say the location of Wheaton/NCC gives the committee flexibility to fit them in different brackets.
How much do you see TLU's SOS moving over the next two weeks based solely on Southwestern? It looks like they are 3rd worst strength of schedule nationally. TLU still has to play them once, so that will give their opponent's SoS a hit. TLU's other game is against Austin College. It just so happens that Austin College played Southwestern twice this year. Presumably that would lowever TLU's opponent's opponent's SoS a hit as well, no?
I think NCC has to block UWP if they get to the table at the same time. I can totally see taking Framingham instead of the Cards in that scenario. That's the kind of stuff we usually talk about on Monday after selection Sunday. Cool we can get to it w 2 games to play, however it's unlikely that will happen. In the West St Johns or Bethel will have 2 losses. If its St Johns it moves all of Wally's picks up and creates some completely different scenarios including two 2 loss teams being picked?
Hope Wally's right re HOB.
Seemed a 2 east ranking indicated they didn't view the Statesmen in top 8 and would end up as a 3-4 seed in whichever bracket they land in.
Mont and MIT would be a nice if not lucky draw for them IMO
Re: the FCgriz bracket, one thing the committee has done a nice job of the past few seasons is mixing the pods up. So conferences that get two teams in like the CCIW and E8 in previous seasons, aren't necessarily staring at a Round 2 rematch.
Doesn't look like there's any way to avoid the Texas game or the West Coast Game this year. Unless maybe If Redlands bumps Chapman into C.
IIRC, this would be the first year Bs that spill over into C get selected.
Lots can change of course.
Also, MIT or Husson being guaranteed a spot in Round 2? I almost think they'd find a way to send Husson to Montclair, but then MIT kinda gets jobbed by having to go to Hobart.
Curious about St. Lawrence too. Or Morrisville State. Those would change the geography.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 06, 2014, 08:17:48 AM
Also, MIT or Husson being guaranteed a spot in Round 2? I almost think they'd find a way to send Husson to Montclair, but then MIT kinda gets jobbed by having to go to Hobart.
Curious about St. Lawrence too. Or Morrisville State. Those would change the geography.
Keith,
Do you think there are going to be any trips like it was a couple year's ago with NCC going to Cal Lu, HS-C to Linfield and Linfield to Wesley? It would be nice to see that again
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 06, 2014, 08:34:30 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 06, 2014, 08:17:48 AM
Also, MIT or Husson being guaranteed a spot in Round 2? I almost think they'd find a way to send Husson to Montclair, but then MIT kinda gets jobbed by having to go to Hobart.
Curious about St. Lawrence too. Or Morrisville State. Those would change the geography.
Keith,
Do you think there are going to be any trips like it was a couple year's ago with NCC going to Cal Lu, HS-C to Linfield and Linfield to Wesley? It would be nice to see that again
Rounds 2 and 3 often feature some pretty weird matchups and significant travel. There's only so much the committee can do to control it. Eventually Salisbury has to go to Whitewater or Fisher to UMHB or Hobart to St. Thomas.
As things stand, it looks pretty unlikely that we'll get any oddities in Round 1. With the two NWC teams the past few years, you had to do something with SCIAC. This time you probably set them up with NWC. I guess even if Pacific wins, Chapman can't host by virtue of its loss to Linfield.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 06, 2014, 08:17:48 AM
Also, MIT or Husson being guaranteed a spot in Round 2? I almost think they'd find a way to send Husson to Montclair, but then MIT kinda gets jobbed by having to go to Hobart.
Curious about St. Lawrence too. Or Morrisville State. Those would change the geography.
I think you're probably right re the above. A 2nd rd game of Montclair vs. Hobart seems more "fair" than MIT or Husson advancing, but you never know. I suppose Hobart could be placed in a bracket and end up hosting a Wittenburg or something, then have to travel (if they won) to a JCU.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 06, 2014, 08:17:48 AM
Also, MIT or Husson being guaranteed a spot in Round 2? I almost think they'd find a way to send Husson to Montclair, but then MIT kinda gets jobbed by having to go to Hobart.
Curious about St. Lawrence too. Or Morrisville State. Those would change the geography.
The thing is, MIT is ranked ahead of Montclair in the regional rankings. Now if Montclair were to jump MIT then certainly I could see Husson to Montclair.
Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:
Region 1
1. Whitewater
8. Lakeland
4. Wheaton
5. St. John's
3. Bethel
7. Trine
2. Wartburg
6. St. Scholastica
Region 2
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
8. Texas Lutheran
4. St. John Fisher
5. Washington and Jefferson
3. Linfield
6. Chapman
2. Johns Hopkins
7. Centre
Region 3
1. Mount Union
6. Montclair State
4. Wittenburg
5. North Central
3. Wabash
7. Franklin
2. John Carroll
8. Illinois College
Region 4
1. Wesley
7. Christopher Newport
6. MIT
8. Husson
3. Widener
5. Hampden-Sidney
2. Hobart
4. Delaware Valley
Lower numbers host. Region 1 would host Region 4 and Region 2 would host Region 3 when it gets down to that point. I have not verified all the 500 mile rule possibilities, but I think I'm ok on that front. I think I have no same conference match-ups in the first round. I did use D3's top 25 to rank all the teams that received votes for ranking the teams 1 through 7 – two 7 and all four 8 seeds are "equal" after that and mileage kicked in for where to place them in the remaining 6 spots.
Feel free to comment.
Centre to Johns Hopkins is 574 miles. that won't work.
Wesley and CNU is a rematch, probably not going to happen since it doesn't need to happen for mileage reasons.
I don't see Widener and DVC in the same bracket since the NCAA seems to avoid regular season match ups repeated in the playoffs.
Maybe swap Wash & Jeff w/ DVC? The Presidents are w/i the 500 mile zone from HOB.
RE MONT - they could jump MIT due to SOS bump after playing Mo State. Don't think there's anyone left on MIT's sked that will afford the same boost. If HOB beats SLU, they'll drop down to around 9 or 10 so Mont should move up.
Quote from: jknezek on November 06, 2014, 09:34:38 AM
Centre to Johns Hopkins is 574 miles. that won't work.
Wesley and CNU is a rematch, probably not going to happen since it doesn't need to happen for mileage reasons.
Trine to Bethel is 579 miles
Illinois College to John Carroll is 565 miles.
Before we sharpen our pencils too much trying to figure out who might travel to where, keep this list in mind. Here are the games still to be played between now regionally ranked opponents:
E1 Delaware Vallet @ E3 Widener - Week 11
E2 Hobart @ E6 St. Lawrence - Week 10
E10 Ithaca @ E4 St. John Fisher - Week 10
N2 John Carroll @ N1 Mount Union - Week 11
N3 Wabash @ N5 Wittenberg - Week 10
W3 Bethel @ W5 St. Johns - Week 10
W8 UW-Oshkosh @ W7 UW-Platteville - Week 11
W10 Pacific @ W4 Linfield - Week 11
Quote from: wabndy on November 06, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Before we sharpen our pencils too much trying to figure out who might travel to where, keep this list in mind. Here are the games still to be played between now regionally ranked opponents:
E1 Delaware Vallet @ E3 Widener - Week 11
E2 Hobart @ E6 St. Lawrence - Week 10
E10 Ithaca @ E4 St. John Fisher - Week 10
N2 John Carroll @ N1 Mount Union - Week 11
N3 Wabash @ N5 Wittenberg - Week 10
W3 Bethel @ W5 St. Johns - Week 10
W8 UW-Oshkosh @ W7 UW-Platteville - Week 11
W10 Pacific @ W4 Linfield - Week 11
Wholeheartedly agree.
I have always viewed Wally's Pool C projection exercise as a fascinating study that helps us being up a few hypotheticals (for example, the likelihood that toward the end of the Pool C process both NCC and UWP will be on the board and that it's pretty much unthinkable that a committee could choose UWP over NCC if that's the final slot available for discussion). I think trying to actually piece together the bracket makes my head hurt...although it also allows consideration of hypotheticals like who can travel to where and helps figure out who might host.
I also don't see a precedent (other than for travel that exceeds 500 miles) for an undefeated team to be seeded lower than a 1 loss team. In the hypothetical bracket, you have Wheaton as a 4 seed and Bethel as a 3. While I understand how Bethel is ranked higher by the poll, I don't think the committee would seed them based on the poll. Usually the undefeated team gets the nod over the 1 loss. Two undefeated teams is a different story.
Quote from: USee on November 06, 2014, 10:57:34 AM
I also don't see a precedent (other than for travel that exceeds 500 miles) for an undefeated team to be seeded lower than a 1 loss team. In the hypothetical bracket, you have Wheaton as a 4 seed and Bethel as a 3. While I understand how Bethel is ranked higher by the poll, I don't think the committee would seed them based on the poll. Usually the undefeated team gets the nod over the 1 loss. Two undefeated teams is a different story.
I think this has happened to St. Scholastica once or twice. It's a rare situation, but I think it does happen. Centre is almost assuredly in this boat this year. 10-0 Centre is not a slam dunk to make this field and if you're not a slam dunk to make the field, you're probably not getting a high seed. If there were seeds. :)
Quote from: jknezek on November 06, 2014, 09:34:38 AM
Centre to Johns Hopkins is 574 miles. that won't work.
Wesley and CNU is a rematch, probably not going to happen since it doesn't need to happen for mileage reasons.
When did the NCAA establish the 500 miles rule and how long has this been in place? I wonder how much of a difference in cost would it be if it was extended to 600 miles and how the student-athletes would be effected. I know a 10 hour bus ride is longer than and 8 hour, but wouldn't it help somehow.
Yep. One year I came up with a completely feasible bracket after the last game was played but before the official bracket came out. I wasn't even close. There are simply too many possibilities to play with and I've never bothered again. Neat to speculate, but since they aren't geographically constrained anymore it's mostly an exercise in futility to build a bracket. The Pool C stuff is much more practical to work with, and Wally does a fantastic job.
Second Try
Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:
Region 1
1. Whitewater
7. Trine
4. Wheaton
5. St. John's
3. Bethel
8. Lakeland
2. Wartburg
6. St. Scholastica
Region 2
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Texas Lutheran
3. St. John Fisher
4. Delaware Valley
6. Centre
8. Hampden-Sidney
2. Linfield
5. Chapman
Region 3
1. Mount Union
6. Montclair State
4. Wittenburg
5. North Central
3. Wabash
8. Illinois College
2. John Carroll
7. Franklin
Region 4
1. Wesley
5. Washington and Jefferson
6. MIT
8. Husson
3. Johns Hopkins
7. Christopher Newport
2. Hobart
4. Widener
Lower numbers host. Region 1 would host Region 4 and Region 2 would host Region 3 when it gets down to that point. I have now verified all the 500 mile rule possibilities, man – what a pain in the butt. I think I have no same conference match-ups in the first round. I did use D3's top 25 to rank all the teams that received votes for ranking the teams 1 through 7 – two 7 and all four 8 seeds are "equal" after that and mileage kicked in for where to place them in the remaining 6 spots.
As Wally alluded to, there are no "seeds" per se, which is why I chose D3's ranking over anything else. As you can plainly see, I ranked the teams within their respective brackets and some of the brackets have more fire-power in them. That's a direct result of the 500 mile travel rule.
Thanx to all for pointing out the problems in the first edition.
Feel free to comment.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 06, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 06, 2014, 09:34:38 AM
Centre to Johns Hopkins is 574 miles. that won't work.
Wesley and CNU is a rematch, probably not going to happen since it doesn't need to happen for mileage reasons.
When did the NCAA establish the 500 miles rule and how long has this been in place? I wonder how much of a difference in cost would it be if it was extended to 600 miles and how the student-athletes would be effected. I know a 10 hour bus ride is longer than and 8 hour, but wouldn't it help somehow.
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. The only areas where you get really big problems with distance are the NW, Texas, Maine and the occasional non-Texas south team (Maryville last year was a bit of a puzzle that worked out to H-SC's favor, but the same issues would be true of Huntingdon, Berry, or Sewanee). Adding 100 miles won't do much to alleviate the first two areas, the last two would probably provide a few more options, but it's rarely come up. The 500 mile distance is plenty for almost everything we need. 16+ hour bus trips round trip is a lot to ask. I know teams do longer sometimes, but it is pretty brutal.
To be honest I think going to 600 miles would have more effect on the second round and later as the committee would have even more mandate to save costs. Not only would I not want a semi or quarter decided by a team worn out from a 10+ hour bus ride, but I wouldn't want the committee to have dollars more firmly wedged in their mind when projected out games past the first round.
Quote from: art76 on November 06, 2014, 11:31:16 AM
Second Try
Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:
Region 2
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Texas Lutheran
3. St. John Fisher
4. Delaware Valley
6. Centre
8. Hampden-Sidney
2. Linfield
5. Chapman
I don't think that there's any way the NCAA would set up 2 flights like that in the 2nd round when they could just have 1. If Linfield was unbeaten there's argument about how unfair it would be but since they lost I have much less of a problem sending Linfield to Texas in round 2.
When I made my bracket I basically came up with 4 team pods then paired those up into brackets of 8. I didn't even attempt to decide which quarter would face which in the semifinals.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 06, 2014, 12:01:37 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 06, 2014, 11:31:16 AM
Second Try
Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:
Region 2
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Texas Lutheran
3. St. John Fisher
4. Delaware Valley
6. Centre
8. Hampden-Sidney
2. Linfield
5. Chapman
I don't think that there's any way the NCAA would set up 2 flights like that in the 2nd round when they could just have 1. If Linfield was unbeaten there's argument about how unfair it would be but since they lost I have much less of a problem sending Linfield to Texas in round 2.
When I made my bracket I basically came up with 4 team pods then paired those up into brackets of 8. I didn't even attempt to decide which quarter would face which in the semifinals.
And all you'd have to do is point to 2011 when Linfield was undefeated and got flown to Wesley (who had 1 loss) in round 2.....fairness has nothing to do with it! ::)
Again, the pairings is difficult excercise. There is no way a 1 loss OAC team is getting a higher seed than undefeated Witt/Wabash winner. I don't care who it is. Wally's point on Centre is taken and we will see what the comittee does with them. My guess is they will be higher than most people expect. The "seeds" are important because the difference of facing UWW or Mt Union in round 2 vs having a second home playoff game as a 2 v 3.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2014, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: wabndy on November 06, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Before we sharpen our pencils too much trying to figure out who might travel to where, keep this list in mind. Here are the games still to be played between now regionally ranked opponents:
E1 Delaware Vallet @ E3 Widener - Week 11
E2 Hobart @ E6 St. Lawrence - Week 10
E10 Ithaca @ E4 St. John Fisher - Week 10
N2 John Carroll @ N1 Mount Union - Week 11
N3 Wabash @ N5 Wittenberg - Week 10
W3 Bethel @ W5 St. Johns - Week 10
W8 UW-Oshkosh @ W7 UW-Platteville - Week 11
W10 Pacific @ W4 Linfield - Week 11
Wholeheartedly agree.
I have always viewed Wally's Pool C projection exercise as a fascinating study that helps us being up a few hypotheticals (for example, the likelihood that toward the end of the Pool C process both NCC and UWP will be on the board and that it's pretty much unthinkable that a committee could choose UWP over NCC if that's the final slot available for discussion). I think trying to actually piece together the bracket makes my head hurt...although it also allows consideration of hypotheticals like who can travel to where and helps figure out who might host.
While I agree with that, it would be interesting to see what happens if UWO wins out and they are on the table the same time as North Central. UWO would be 2-0 against common opponents (UWSP and UWP) while NCC would be 1-1.
If I am NCC, I am pulling for UWP to beat UWO in two weeks!!!!
For the record, I don't think there's any way that 10-0 Centre gets all the way through Pool B and Pool C without being selected. That's too much time on the table and eventually the committee is going to have to decide whether they want to be the group that sets the precedent for cutting a 10-0 team out of the tournament. They won't do it. BUT, there are definitely criteria-based arguments to include a whole lot of teams other than Centre if everybody in that room agrees to put heavy, heavy weight on RROs and SOS.
If Centre is left teetering on the edge though, I think the message from the committee is clear: don't play Hanover. :)
Also FWIW, I love the mock bracketing! It's really, really hard. I'll do one also at some point, probably next week when the field firms up a bit.
Quote from: cubs on November 06, 2014, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2014, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: wabndy on November 06, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Before we sharpen our pencils too much trying to figure out who might travel to where, keep this list in mind. Here are the games still to be played between now regionally ranked opponents:
E1 Delaware Vallet @ E3 Widener - Week 11
E2 Hobart @ E6 St. Lawrence - Week 10
E10 Ithaca @ E4 St. John Fisher - Week 10
N2 John Carroll @ N1 Mount Union - Week 11
N3 Wabash @ N5 Wittenberg - Week 10
W3 Bethel @ W5 St. Johns - Week 10
W8 UW-Oshkosh @ W7 UW-Platteville - Week 11
W10 Pacific @ W4 Linfield - Week 11
Wholeheartedly agree.
I have always viewed Wally's Pool C projection exercise as a fascinating study that helps us being up a few hypotheticals (for example, the likelihood that toward the end of the Pool C process both NCC and UWP will be on the board and that it's pretty much unthinkable that a committee could choose UWP over NCC if that's the final slot available for discussion). I think trying to actually piece together the bracket makes my head hurt...although it also allows consideration of hypotheticals like who can travel to where and helps figure out who might host.
While I agree with that, it would be interesting to see what happens if UWO wins out and they are on the table the same time as North Central. UWO would be 2-0 against common opponents (UWSP and UWP) while NCC would be 1-1.
If I am NCC, I am pulling for UWP to beat UWO in two weeks!!!!
In the primary criteria, it would seem like UWO has a significant advantage on North Central. We'll have to see exactly how that Oshkosh/Platteville plays out to properly compare the results, but Oshkosh beating a team that North Central lost is very significant. That very thing (common opponent result vs. a non-ranked team) put two-loss SJF in over 1-loss CWRU in 2011.
As it stands, I think Platteville is drawing dead against North Central and North Central would be drawing dead against Oshkosh, so yes, North Central really wants Platteville to win in week 11. But those scenarios only play out if the UW team is on the table at the same time as North Central. The UW team could already be in the field by the time North Central gets to the table.
Quote from: USee on November 06, 2014, 12:12:44 PM
Again, the pairings is difficult excercise. There is no way a 1 loss OAC team is getting a higher seed than undefeated Witt/Wabash winner. I don't care who it is. Wally's point on Centre is taken and we will see what the comittee does with them. My guess is they will be higher than most people expect. The "seeds" are important because the difference of facing UWW or Mt Union in round 2 vs having a second home playoff game as a 2 v 3.
There are a number of places in the D3 Top 25 ranking where no loss teams are ranked lower than one or even two loss teams. I have no delusions in expecting that the NCAA will follow my example, because there is always more than one way to skin a cat. Records do count, but we all know that some one or two loss teams from loaded conferences will consistently beat other undefeated teams from conferences that are not as strong. So one of the questions you need to ask yourself is, do you want the teams with better records seeded higher than teams that are better on the field? I don't - I want the better teams to be able to play longer in the post season.
In a perfect world, if I had a couple million to donate for travel purposes, my bracket would be as follows:
Region 1
1. Whitewater
8. Husson
4. Washington & Jefferson
5. St. John's
3. Wheaton (Ill.)
6. Centre
2. Johns Hopkins
7. Trine
Region 2
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
8. St. Scholastica
4. St. John Fisher
5. Delaware Valley
3. Linfield
6. Montclair State
2. Hobart
7. CNU
Region 3
1. Mount Union
8. Lakeland
4. Wittenburg
5. North Central
3. Bethel
6. Hampden-Sydney
2. John Carroll
7. Franklin
Region 4
1. Wesley
8. MIT
4. Widener
5. Chapman
3. Wabash
6. Texas Lutheran
2. Wartburg
7. Illinois College
Quote from: art76 on November 06, 2014, 12:41:04 PM
Quote from: USee on November 06, 2014, 12:12:44 PM
Again, the pairings is difficult excercise. There is no way a 1 loss OAC team is getting a higher seed than undefeated Witt/Wabash winner. I don't care who it is. Wally's point on Centre is taken and we will see what the comittee does with them. My guess is they will be higher than most people expect. The "seeds" are important because the difference of facing UWW or Mt Union in round 2 vs having a second home playoff game as a 2 v 3.
There are a number of places in the D3 Top 25 ranking where no loss teams are ranked lower than one or even two loss teams. I have no delusions in expecting that the NCAA will follow my example, because there is always more than one way to skin a cat. Records do count, but we all know that some one or two loss teams from loaded conferences will consistently beat other undefeated teams from conferences that are not as strong. So one of the questions you need to ask yourself is, do you want the teams with better records seeded higher than teams that are better on the field? I don't - I want the better teams to be able to play longer in the post season.
The difference between the Top 25 and the NCAA's rankings and how they select and "seed" teams is that the Top 25 doesn't have any rules. You can vote for whoever you like based on whatever personal criteria you want to apply in whatever manner you choose to apply it. These regional ranking committees and then the national selection committee are bound by published criteria.
A couple of years ago Bethel had to go play a first round game at Concordia-Chicago. I'm sure I could go back through the archives and unearth any number of angry posts about that site assignment. Bethel advanced, but only after defending a two point try with 18 seconds left. Brace yourself here- good football gets played outside of the MIAC and the WIAC and the E8. The better teams always advance regardless of whether or not they have to play on the road, but we shouldn't be bending over backwards to award home games to teams that lost twice just because we think their conference is strong. If they're good, they'll advance.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 06, 2014, 12:44:15 PM
In a perfect world, if I had a couple million to donate for travel purposes, my bracket would be as follows:
Region 1
1. Whitewater
8. Husson
4. Washington & Jefferson
5. St. John's
3. Wheaton (Ill.)
6. Centre
2. Johns Hopkins
7. Trine
Region 2
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
8. Lakeland
4. St. John Fisher
5. Delaware Valley
3. Linfield
6. Montclair State
2. Hobart
7. CNU
Region 3
1. Mount Union
8. Lakeland
4. Wittenburg
5. North Central
3. Bethel
8. Hampden-Sydney
2. John Carroll
7. Franklin
Region 4
1. Wesley
8. MIT
4. Widener
5. Chapman
3. Wabash
6. Texas Lutheran
2. Wartburg
7. Illinois College
Whew! Poor Lakeland has to play both Mary Hardin-Baylor and Mount Union in the first round. :)
Yeah, if money were no object this would be a lot easier that's for sure.
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does indeed seed teams - they just refuse to reveal to us peons what the seeds are.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2014, 12:56:10 PM
I'm pretty sure the NCAA does indeed seed teams - they just refuse to reveal to us peons what the seeds are.
The last time I saw a seeded tournament bracket, they had some crazy texas sub-bracket with a 2. UMHB playing a 3. Trinity in the first round. Chalk this one up 100% to the NCAA's image minders not wanting to appear cheap. That being said, we have seen some improvements such as expanded bracket and no obvious 1 vs 2 island matchups.
Trivia item. Total number of teams per football region (per d3football.com - not that the NCAA would be a reliable source): North 53, East 70, South 57, West 64. The smallest region (north) is easily looking at 2 Pool C bids and quite possibly 3.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 09:36:49 AM
I don't see Widener and DVC in the same bracket since the NCAA seems to avoid regular season match ups repeated in the playoffs.
They avoid conference rematches in Round 1 when possible considering the 500-mile rule, which is not the same as avoiding regular-season rematches in the playoffs.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 06, 2014, 12:12:16 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 06, 2014, 12:01:37 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 06, 2014, 11:31:16 AM
Second Try
Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:
Region 2
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Texas Lutheran
3. St. John Fisher
4. Delaware Valley
6. Centre
8. Hampden-Sidney
2. Linfield
5. Chapman
I don't think that there's any way the NCAA would set up 2 flights like that in the 2nd round when they could just have 1. If Linfield was unbeaten there's argument about how unfair it would be but since they lost I have much less of a problem sending Linfield to Texas in round 2.
When I made my bracket I basically came up with 4 team pods then paired those up into brackets of 8. I didn't even attempt to decide which quarter would face which in the semifinals.
And all you'd have to do is point to 2011 when Linfield was undefeated and got flown to Wesley (who had 1 loss) in round 2.....fairness has nothing to do with it! ::)
I've noticed that the committees sometimes, perhaps as a small form of rebellion, have gone by the flights mandate in Round 1 but have not shown a lot of concern for who has to fly in Rounds 2-4.
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
Those would be traditional match ups. But we get what you're saying... 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5... it's when you get the 1v3/4 that it gets annoying. Or second round 1v2/3...
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
Did he also say "THE TRUTH ABOUT SEEDINGS!!!??? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
That Concordia - Chicago team was kind of scoffed at by a lot of folks, then they up and did that to Bethel. I think Bethel played down to their competition just a smidge.
Even after the Bethel near miss, they were just 89th in Massey and 199th in Massey SOS. That, of course, matters not to the NCAA. They were second in the regional rankings in the North because that year everyone decided to lose a game except for you know who...
Quote from: jknezek on November 06, 2014, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
Those would be traditional match ups. But we get what you're saying... 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5... it's when you get the 1v3/4 that it gets annoying. Or second round 1v2/3...
Right, I meant the like the 2 vs 5 or other "annoying" matchups
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
Honestly, that's a poor reason to not publish seedings. We're savvy enough to understand the travel constraints in the first round.
Given a choice between seeing seedings or the post-Week 11 rankings though, gimme the rankings all day. I want to see those so bad and there's no good reason whatsoever to keep those secret.
Sure there's a good reason - it's the NCAA! ;D
The only two more corrupt sports' organizations are the IOC and FIFA.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2014, 12:30:31 PM
For the record, I don't think there's any way that 10-0 Centre gets all the way through Pool B and Pool C without being selected. That's too much time on the table and eventually the committee is going to have to decide whether they want to be the group that sets the precedent for cutting a 10-0 team out of the tournament. They won't do it.
To be honest, why should they? 10-0 is all the reason we need to see if a team should keep playing until they lose.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 06, 2014, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2014, 12:30:31 PM
For the record, I don't think there's any way that 10-0 Centre gets all the way through Pool B and Pool C without being selected. That's too much time on the table and eventually the committee is going to have to decide whether they want to be the group that sets the precedent for cutting a 10-0 team out of the tournament. They won't do it.
To be honest, why should they? 10-0 is all the reason we need to see if a team should keep playing until they lose.
I'm on your side, Keith. 10-0 is hard to do no matter what league you play in. I think 10-0 should be an automatic ticket to the field.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2014, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
Honestly, that's a poor reason to not publish seedings. We're savvy enough to understand the travel constraints in the first round.
Given a choice between seeing seedings or the post-Week 11 rankings though, gimme the rankings all day. I want to see those so bad and there's no good reason whatsoever to keep those secret.
Agree. I think the only good reason would be to protect the identity of a school that forgot to apply to host, and even then there's no real need to prevent transparency. These are definitely facts that we all can accept and deal with. The secrecy makes seeds a bigger deal than they would be if released.
Great work and read by all you guys. I just keep wondering what happens to Wesley and the projected 1 seed if they Lose to UNC-Charlotte in 2 weeks. I know it is not supposed to matter and I hope it doesn't, but you never know. The bracket projections are great to read. Seeing who has to beat who to move on is fun. Thanks again to all of you who are partaking in this madness.
It's an odd game to take into consideration because what does it tell us about Wesley's standing against the other teams in the D-III playoffs? Nothing, unless they win. It looks better to have your seeds all be unbeaten but a loss there should not (although it may) change anything.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing. The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule. It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember. The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.
I did one just for fun. Here's my bracket:
Lakeland @ UW-Whitewater
North Central @ St. John's
Delaware Valley @ Johns Hopkins
Centre @ Wabash
Texas Lutheran @ UMHB
Chapman @ Linfield
Wittenberg @ Wheaton
St. Scholastica @ Wartburg
Trine @ Mount Union
MIT @ St. John Fisher
John Carroll @ Hobart
Hampden-Sydney @ Widener
Christopher Newport @ Wesley
Husson @ Montclair State
Franklin @ W&J
Illinois College @ Bethel
A few things that make this probably not even close to what would happen in reality:
- I'm working that 500 mile limit hard here...lot of long trips in this one
- I'm not psyched about the OAC teams in the same quadrant, but I was stuck with the OAC teams together or the MAC teams together and, frankly, I'm wiped out and I'm done trying to rework it. :)
- I've got a lot of potential second round flights here (although just one guaranteed I think). My guess is that the committee will put together groups of four that guarantee a limit on flights in the second weekend. Although now that I look at it again, I think this bracket is likely to only produce two extra flights (in addition to the West/Texas pod) in the second round. So maybe it's not that bad really.
Here are a couple of tidbits for you guys to have in the back of your minds:
- 600 miles as a distance instead of 500 has been brought up by ice hockey, but apparently hasn't gotten much off the table. With regional games criteria having gone from 200 to 500 miles, the chances that 500 will go to 600 for tournament travel now seems a bit silly. Also, while 600 miles on a bus these days is far easier than it was even five or ten years ago (buses these days are pretty impressive), it is still a 8-10 hour trip and that is hard to justify.
- In football, they charter flights. There are too many tickets to be able to that many people on commercial flights (also, one of the reasons one plan to cut down in terms of the championship budget is to put in place a three-day grace period between bracket announcements and the first game - doesn't affect football; affects sports like lacrosse, baseball, even basketball to some extent). Charter flights are getting more and more expensive, so the idea of having an extra flight in any round should be taken out of everyone's minds. Also, the liaisons tend to look at all of the scenarios and have been known to go back to committees (in all sports) and have them change items here and there to reduce the risk of extra flights. This doesn't mean the right number of upsets in the right part of the brackets involving the right teams doesn't force more flights... but bet on the fact that it has to be an absolute necessity to get an "extra" flight out of any budget these days.
Interested in all these projections that have HOB as effectively a 2 seed when it appears the ERC put them below a "Top 8". I know the Statesmen will get a bump if they can beat SLU for a RRO and it should help their SoS, but it sure felt like the Comm has a different view on HOB than maybe the rest, or some of us, do.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 07, 2014, 11:12:02 AM
Interested in all these projections that have HOB as effectively a 2 seed when it appears the ERC put them below a "Top 8". I know the Statesmen will get a bump if they can beat SLU for a RRO and it should help their SoS, but it sure felt like the Comm has a different view on HOB than maybe the rest, or some of us, do.
It might be a familiarity breeds complacency problem. Hobart has done what Hobart has done the last few years, so the committee is probably confident they know the "national quality" of the team. Whereas with a few other teams undefeated you have these shiny new toys that they don't know the ceiling quite as well. That makes those other teams a little more exciting mentally perhaps...
Saying this here since I don't know where else to bring it up: Southern Virginia counts as a D3 opponent. Wesleys SOS takes a little bit of a shot. Does this factor into seedings with Wesley, Wartburg and perhaps Bethel?
Quote from: ITH radio on November 07, 2014, 11:12:02 AM
Interested in all these projections that have HOB as effectively a 2 seed when it appears the ERC put them below a "Top 8". I know the Statesmen will get a bump if they can beat SLU for a RRO and it should help their SoS, but it sure felt like the Comm has a different view on HOB than maybe the rest, or some of us, do.
Like the NCAA, I don't officially seed the teams but I think in my mock bracket Hobart plays like a 3 seed. :)
k+ WW
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 06, 2014, 07:23:19 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing. The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule. It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember. The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.
Also, Dave McHugh's #WhyD3 Show interview with Dan Dutcher, the NCAA's VP for D-III, talks about budgeting and playoff travel in much more clear terms than a paragraph in the manual:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Y1WD-C7NQ
Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2014, 12:30:17 PM
Saying this here since I don't know where else to bring it up: Southern Virginia counts as a D3 opponent. Wesleys SOS takes a little bit of a shot. Does this factor into seedings with Wesley, Wartburg and perhaps Bethel?
This is interesting because I've been thinking about this as well and Wesley might not be locked in to a #1 seed like we've thought. Adding in the SoVirginia game does ding Wesley's SOS. It goes from ridiculously beastly to just beastly. They're fine on the SOS front. Where Wesley stops being fine is that Rowan, Salisbury, and Louisiana College have gone on to post decidedly pedestrian seasons. What could have been a 5-0 vs. D3 with a beastly SOS and as much as 3-0 vs. RRO is going to wind up as 5-0 vs. D3 with a beastly SOS and 1-0 vs. RRO. Now, if they beat UNCC in Week 11, they win. #1 seed, hands down, no argument. If they don't though, here are some things to consider:
Wartburg - 8-0, .583 SOS (actually better than Wesley's currently, but that'll change), 1-0 vs. RRO with that one being what might be the MIAC champion and current West #3 Bethel. And a beatemdown at that. Very impressive.
Delaware Valley - Sitting at 8-0 currently and ranked #1 in the east (in spite of my projecting Widener to win the MAC), could get to 10-0 with a respectable SOS and- check this out- 3-0 vs. RRO (Montclair State, Lycoming, Widener). That's seriously heady stuff there.
I think those two teams would both be in play for a #1 seed, along with Wesley, if Wesley loses to UNCC.
With the discussion above, would they cluster Wartburg and UWW as #1 seeds since they could easily be a 3rd round matchup without a flight?
Are we going to come to this?
/O'Bannoned....;
I wonder how much favorable impact the plummeting price of oil will have on the cost of these charters. One hopes the operators will pass some of the savings on to the AA. Given the push to cut the division's budget, the result 20% lower prices could have a decent impact, assuming oil stays down.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 08, 2014, 09:12:11 AM
I wonder how much favorable impact the plummeting price of oil will have on the cost of these charters. One hopes the operators will pass some of the savings on to the AA. Given the push to cut the division's budget, the result 20% lower prices could have a decent impact, assuming oil stays down.
That was the best joke I've read in a long time ;)
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2014, 12:31:17 AM
With the discussion above, would they cluster Wartburg and UWW as #1 seeds since they could easily be a 3rd round matchup without a flight?
Are we going to come to this?
/O'Bannoned....;
Maybe but I doubt it. They separated UWW and St Thomas as #1's in the past. The precedent for putting high seeds together in early rounds is usually due to travel. With the location in the midwest of Wartburg, UWW, etc those shouldn't be issues.
Thanks to their epic let down of an offensive performance St John Fisher is out of Pool A consideration. Question now is do they have a chance to sneak in as a two loss at large bid again?
They may thank their stars that Hobart won but they're going to fall behind Framingham and may not make it to the table.
Maybe not. Frank noted the Fisher SOS was wrong in the rankings. May not drop far after all?
Quote from: ITH radio on November 08, 2014, 06:01:44 PM
Maybe not. Frank noted the Fisher SOS was wrong in the rankings. May not drop far after all?
If there is a two loss team I think it's Bethel this season. The two non-conference teams Bethel played this year have lost one game between them.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 06, 2014, 07:23:19 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing. The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule. It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember. The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.
Okay, well Rowan played at UMHB in Round 2 last year, and H-SC played at Linfield, then in Round 2 SJFC went to UMHB and Linfield and Whitewater played. A more flight-conscious arrangement would have put the UMHB/Redlands Round 1 game in the path of the Linfeld/PLU game, and they weren't even in the same quadrant.
So whatever point you're trying to make might be correct, but it doesn't refute my original observation.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2014, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2014, 12:30:17 PM
Saying this here since I don't know where else to bring it up: Southern Virginia counts as a D3 opponent. Wesleys SOS takes a little bit of a shot. Does this factor into seedings with Wesley, Wartburg and perhaps Bethel?
This is interesting because I've been thinking about this as well and Wesley might not be locked in to a #1 seed like we've thought. Adding in the SoVirginia game does ding Wesley's SOS. It goes from ridiculously beastly to just beastly. They're fine on the SOS front. Where Wesley stops being fine is that Rowan, Salisbury, and Louisiana College have gone on to post decidedly pedestrian seasons. What could have been a 5-0 vs. D3 with a beastly SOS and as much as 3-0 vs. RRO is going to wind up as 5-0 vs. D3 with a beastly SOS and 1-0 vs. RRO. Now, if they beat UNCC in Week 11, they win. #1 seed, hands down, no argument. If they don't though, here are some things to consider:
Wartburg - 8-0, .583 SOS (actually better than Wesley's currently, but that'll change), 1-0 vs. RRO with that one being what might be the MIAC champion and current West #3 Bethel. And a beatemdown at that. Very impressive.
Delaware Valley - Sitting at 8-0 currently and ranked #1 in the east (in spite of my projecting Widener to win the MAC), could get to 10-0 with a respectable SOS and- check this out- 3-0 vs. RRO (Montclair State, Lycoming, Widener). That's seriously heady stuff there.
I think those two teams would both be in play for a #1 seed, along with Wesley, if Wesley loses to UNCC.
This was a good observation, but I wonder how Bethel and Montclair State losing change it.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2014, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 07, 2014, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: thewaterboy on November 07, 2014, 12:30:17 PM
Saying this here since I don't know where else to bring it up: Southern Virginia counts as a D3 opponent. Wesleys SOS takes a little bit of a shot. Does this factor into seedings with Wesley, Wartburg and perhaps Bethel?
This is interesting because I've been thinking about this as well and Wesley might not be locked in to a #1 seed like we've thought. Adding in the SoVirginia game does ding Wesley's SOS. It goes from ridiculously beastly to just beastly. They're fine on the SOS front. Where Wesley stops being fine is that Rowan, Salisbury, and Louisiana College have gone on to post decidedly pedestrian seasons. What could have been a 5-0 vs. D3 with a beastly SOS and as much as 3-0 vs. RRO is going to wind up as 5-0 vs. D3 with a beastly SOS and 1-0 vs. RRO. Now, if they beat UNCC in Week 11, they win. #1 seed, hands down, no argument. If they don't though, here are some things to consider:
Wartburg - 8-0, .583 SOS (actually better than Wesley's currently, but that'll change), 1-0 vs. RRO with that one being what might be the MIAC champion and current West #3 Bethel. And a beatemdown at that. Very impressive.
Delaware Valley - Sitting at 8-0 currently and ranked #1 in the east (in spite of my projecting Widener to win the MAC), could get to 10-0 with a respectable SOS and- check this out- 3-0 vs. RRO (Montclair State, Lycoming, Widener). That's seriously heady stuff there.
I think those two teams would both be in play for a #1 seed, along with Wesley, if Wesley loses to UNCC.
This was a good observation, but I wonder how Bethel and Montclair State losing change it.
Lots of results around the world today that affect a lot more than just Pool A. Wednesday's rankings are going to be interesting.
Haven't seen Emory & Henry discussed as a potential Pool C, but with an H-SC win over the good guys and an E&H win over Guilford, the Wasps are 9-1 but H-SC is ODAC champs by virtue of same conference record and h2h over E&H.
They weren't ranked, though. They may be now.
Quote from: smedindy on November 08, 2014, 09:37:42 PM
They weren't ranked, though. They may be now.
All of the zaniness today seemed to stay out of the South region, so I'm not sure where E&H can move up. I believe the South's top 10 went 9-0 today (Wesley on the bye).
Do you think the West could so something so a 9-1 Carroll makes the board somehow? Or do they rank the MIAC, WIAC and NWC over them. They have a good SOS, but I can't think that a team that lost to Macalester is playoff worthy. (No offense, Scots, but, wow...)
The MWC did get two in a couple of years ago.
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2014, 04:39:27 PM
Do you think the West could so something so a 9-1 Carroll makes the board somehow? Or do they rank the MIAC, WIAC and NWC over them. They have a good SOS, but I can't think that a team that lost to Macalester is playoff worthy. (No offense, Scots, but, wow...)
The MWC did get two in a couple of years ago.
I was thinking about that. Kind of like a 1 loss Centre. But that one loss.....yikes. It should be noted that Carroll is rejoining the CCIW (I think for 2016 but not sure).
Here's the Pool A results as they stand plus any games involving teams that could win with their conference records (I don't know each conference's tiebreakers so there could be teams that can't win listed)
ASC: Mary Hardin-Baylor
CC: Johns Hopkins
CCIW: Wheaton
E8: Ithaca
ECFC: Husson (6-0) @ Mount Ida (5-1); Norwich (5-1) vs Castleton St
HCAC: Franklin
IIAC: Wartburg
LL: Hobart
MAC: Delaware Valley (8-0) @ Widener (8-0); de facto championship game
MIAA: Adrian (4-1) @ Trine (4-1); de facto championship game
MIAC: St John's (6-1) @ St Olaf; Bethel (6-1) vs Augsburg; Concordia-Moorhead (6-2) off; St Thomas (5-2) vs Gustavus Adolphus
MWC: Macalester (5-0) @ Illinois College (5-0); championship game
NACC: Lakeland (5-0) @ Benedictine (4-1); Wisconsin Lutheran (4-1) vs Concordia (WI)
NCAC: Wittenberg
NEFC: MIT
NJAC: Rowan (5-1) @ TCNJ; Montclair St (5-1) @ Kean; Morrisville St (6-1) off
NWC: Pacific (6-0) @ Linfield (5-1); de facto championship game
OAC: John Carroll (8-0) @ Mount Union (8-0); de facto championship game
ODAC: Hampden-Sydney (5-1) vs Randolph-Macon; Guilford (4-2) @ Emory & Henry (5-1); Bridgewater (4-2) @ Catholic
PAC: Washington & Jefferson
SCIAC: Chapman
UMAC: St Scholastica
USAC: Christopher Newport
WIAC: UW-Whitewater
Pool B contenders
Centre (9-0) @ Birmingham-Southern
Chicago (7-1) @ Case Western Reserve
Framingham St (8-1) vs Worcester St
Texas Lutheran (8-1) vs Southwestern
Wesley (9-0) @ Charlotte (D1-AA)
Teams with 2 or fewer losses not listed above (many have no chance... just listed for listing sake)
ASC: Hardin-Simmons (6-2) @ Louisiana College
CC: Muhlenberg (8-1) @ Moravian
CCIW: North Central (7-2) @ Elmhurst
E8: St John Fisher (7-2) @ Alfred
HCAC: Mt St Joseph (8-2) off
IIAC: Central (7-2) vs Dubuque
LL: St Lawrence (7-2) @ Merchant Marine
MAC: Lycoming (7-2) @ FDU-Florham
MWC: Carroll (8-1) @ Monmouth
NCAC: Wabash (8-1) vs DePauw
NWC: Pacific Lutheran (6-2) vs George Fox
OAC: Heidelberg (7-2) vs Baldwin-Wallace
PAC: Thomas More (8-2) off; Waynesburg (7-2) vs Wash & Jeff
SAA: Rhodes (7-2) @ Millsaps
UMAC: Northwestern (8-2) off
WIAC: UW-Oshkosh (5-1*) @ UW-Platteville (7-2)
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2014, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2014, 04:39:27 PM
Do you think the West could so something so a 9-1 Carroll makes the board somehow? Or do they rank the MIAC, WIAC and NWC over them. They have a good SOS, but I can't think that a team that lost to Macalester is playoff worthy. (No offense, Scots, but, wow...)
The MWC did get two in a couple of years ago.
I was thinking about that. Kind of like a 1 loss Centre. But that one loss.....yikes. It should be noted that Carroll is rejoining the CCIW (I think for 2016 but not sure).
Would kind of depend on what Macalester does in the MWC championship, too.
Looking at 2 loss teams that have an argument on whether they should be considered, I think Thomas More has as good an argument as anyone else. Losses to Wesley #4 and Wash and Jeff #14 are better than most other 2 loss teams. Trouble is they are 8 in RR for the South and they will never get to the board with 2 or 3 other teams currently ranked ahead of them that might not get off the board and there is no way they all get out of the way. I don't think any of them lose next week so tough one for Thomas More.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 09, 2014, 06:43:55 PM
Looking at 2 loss teams that have an argument on whether they should be considered, I think Thomas More has as good an argument as anyone else. Losses to Wesley #4 and Wash and Jeff #14 are better than most other 2 loss teams. Trouble is they are 8 in RR for the South and they will never get to the board with 2 or 3 other teams currently ranked ahead of them that might not get off the board and there is no way they all get out of the way. I don't think any of them lose next week so tough one for Thomas More.
Agree completely - it's going to be a lot like my freshman year in 1995 when we finished 5th in the North Region. Franklin had #1 (in the North) Hanover beat in The Victory Bell Game, but blew it late in the game. We were one of 5 in the region to finish undefeated that year and it still stings.
The loss to Wesley is understandable, I would've like to see them beat W&J and if not for losing our starting QB at the end of the 3rd Q in what was a 3 point game, we'll never know.
I'm hoping for carnage with Muhlenberg, Centre and Texas Lutheran. But really, if your defense gives up 82 in a game, should you be Regionally Ranked in the Top 10 for that season???
TLU's SOS is pretty high, though. That and one loss is what's keeping TLU there.
As of right now I believe there are 28 teams either undefeated or with 1 loss. Of that group here's who ends up in Pool C:
John Carroll or Mount Union
Delaware Valley or Widener
Muhlenberg
Carroll
Wabash
Emory & Henry
Pool B Centre (or Texas Lutheran)
Pool B Framingham St
Pool B Chicago
If a 2 loss team gets in they would have to get in before at least 4 of those. Going to be a long week of waiting and discussing rankings
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2014, 09:41:10 PM
TLU's SOS is pretty high, though. That and one loss is what's keeping TLU there.
Plus it gives UMHB a drive in for round 1. ;)
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2014, 09:41:10 PM
TLU's SOS is pretty high, though. That and one loss is what's keeping TLU there.
This is true. I'm just reacting emotionally. :-\
We discuss the playoffs in detail in the "4th qtr" of last night's show (basically after the LL / ER centric interviews and discussion / Union WR Kyle Reynolds and previewing the Dutchmen Shoes game):
www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/10/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 09, 2014, 09:44:56 PM
As of right now I believe there are 28 teams either undefeated or with 1 loss. Of that group here's who ends up in Pool C:
John Carroll or Mount Union
Delaware Valley or Widener
Muhlenberg
Carroll
Wabash
Emory & Henry
Pool B Centre (or Texas Lutheran)
Pool B Framingham St
Pool B Chicago
If a 2 loss team gets in they would have to get in before at least 4 of those. Going to be a long week of waiting and discussing rankings
2-loss Bethel has some pretty clear "there's no way you can put that team in ahead of us" arguments against a few of these.
Carroll lost to Macalester, who lost to the sixth-place team in the MIAC. I don't think any serious argument can be made that Carroll belongs in the field
Bethel directly beat Chicago head-to-head. If they don't go through Pool B and they're sitting on the board in Pool C, there's no chance Chicago goes in before Bethel.
The cavalry (wally) will no doubt be here soon with his more nuanced analysis, but from this chair right now...the Mount-JCU loser and the DelVal-Widener loser look like the only stone-cold Pool C locks. At least someone from that Wabash, Muhlenberg, E & H, Framingham State group (assuming all finish 9-1) will get in and maybe all four will, but once the two-loss teams like Bethel are on the board, I doubt that all of the one-loss beauties will be in. Somebody's staying home at 9-1. Maybe two or three somebodies.
BTW, Wally, can you drop me an email? pat.coleman (at) d3sports
Thanks!
My guess is other B is TLU and they do rematch against UMHB to save a trip in that bracket.
C's go to DVC (think WID wins), JCU (think UMU wins), Centre (could be TLU here if for some reason Centre doesn't get B), Bethel (only 2 loss in), Wabash (Carroll not in RRs so nm that), and Fram St last in (beats out Muhl and others on SoS).
So basically one south C, two east, two north and one west
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2014, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 09, 2014, 09:44:56 PM
As of right now I believe there are 28 teams either undefeated or with 1 loss. Of that group here's who ends up in Pool C:
John Carroll or Mount Union
Delaware Valley or Widener
Muhlenberg
Carroll
Wabash
Emory & Henry
Pool B Centre (or Texas Lutheran)
Pool B Framingham St
Pool B Chicago
If a 2 loss team gets in they would have to get in before at least 4 of those. Going to be a long week of waiting and discussing rankings
2-loss Bethel has some pretty clear "there's no way you can put that team in ahead of us" arguments against a few of these.
Carroll lost to Macalester, who lost to the sixth-place team in the MIAC. I don't think any serious argument can be made that Carroll belongs in the field
Bethel directly beat Chicago head-to-head. If they don't go through Pool B and they're sitting on the board in Pool C, there's no chance Chicago goes in before Bethel.
The cavalry (wally) will no doubt be here soon with his more nuanced analysis, but from this chair right now...the Mount-JCU loser and the DelVal-Widener loser look like the only stone-cold Pool C locks. At least someone from that Wabash, Muhlenberg, E & H, Framingham State group (assuming all finish 9-1) will get in and maybe all four will, but once the two-loss teams like Bethel are on the board, I doubt that all of the one-loss beauties will be in. Somebody's staying home at 9-1. Maybe two or three somebodies.
I would think Wabash is a near lock as Pool C with a win this Saturday. The win over HSC gives them the criteria they didn't have last year. JCU/MT U loser will be off the board early and it's not clear to me that any of the other candidates have as strong a resume. SOS will be a factor in there but that RRO win is huge. I would think you get Del Valley, JCU in round 1/2 and then you are going to see 2 two loss teams on the board quickly (Bethel and NCC) along with the 1 loss teams you mention above. Interesting stuff.
If Carroll gets in over Wabash (or any of the other 1 loss teams mentioned here) I will seriously consider changing my allegiance to women's soccer. That seems preposterous.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2014, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 09, 2014, 09:44:56 PM
As of right now I believe there are 28 teams either undefeated or with 1 loss. Of that group here's who ends up in Pool C:
John Carroll or Mount Union
Delaware Valley or Widener
Muhlenberg
Carroll
Wabash
Emory & Henry
Pool B Centre (or Texas Lutheran)
Pool B Framingham St
Pool B Chicago
If a 2 loss team gets in they would have to get in before at least 4 of those. Going to be a long week of waiting and discussing rankings
2-loss Bethel has some pretty clear "there's no way you can put that team in ahead of us" arguments against a few of these.
Carroll lost to Macalester, who lost to the sixth-place team in the MIAC. I don't think any serious argument can be made that Carroll belongs in the field
Bethel directly beat Chicago head-to-head. If they don't go through Pool B and they're sitting on the board in Pool C, there's no chance Chicago goes in before Bethel.
The cavalry (wally) will no doubt be here soon with his more nuanced analysis, but from this chair right now...the Mount-JCU loser and the DelVal-Widener loser look like the only stone-cold Pool C locks. At least someone from that Wabash, Muhlenberg, E & H, Framingham State group (assuming all finish 9-1) will get in and maybe all four will, but once the two-loss teams like Bethel are on the board, I doubt that all of the one-loss beauties will be in. Somebody's staying home at 9-1. Maybe two or three somebodies.
Assuming none of them pick up a 2nd loss this weekend, then a minimum of 3 (9 teams, 6 spots) will fail to make the playoffs. Plus however many 2 loss teams jump in ahead. So it could be at least 4. And don't forget about oddball UW-Oshkosh with only 1 D3 loss.
Based on the regional rankings from last week... Carroll and Emory & Henry weren't in the rankings at all and will probably never reach the discussion. I bet at least 1 of the pool B teams gets left out. So that cuts it down to 6. Then it's a matter of what 2 loss teams get to the discussion.
A Framingham loss will help the South Region contenders.
For the 8 at-large bids, and assuming no surprises this weekend, here are my picks.
Wesley is in at Pool B1.
Centre will be undefeated and earns a bid, B2/C.
Texas Lutheran (also B2/C is a one-loss to UMHB. This is a bus ride for the first round. TLU has the credientials to be at least the 8th best at large team.)
I like the UMU/John Carroll loser.
I like the Widener/Del Valley loser.
Wabash (especially if H-SC clinches the ODAC)
I have these on the table with two bids left:
Bethel (with losses to Wartburg and the Johnnies), then UW-Oshkosh.
Framingham State (B/C)
Muhlenberg, then Thomas More (a loss to Wesley and to W&J.)
Carroll, then Chicago.
I haven't seen this discussed yet (maybe I just missed it) but how are all these scenarios affected if Pacific beats Linfield and takes the NWC title? I don't see it happening, but if it did would Linfield still make the field with two losses and what domino effect would that have on everyone else?
I don't think so. Would drop LIN into the 7 range in the RRs and Bethel has a better SoS.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
I have these on the table with two bids left:
Bethel (with losses to Wartburg and the Johnnies), then UW-Oshkosh.
Framingham State (B/C)
Muhlenberg, then Thomas More (a loss to Wesley and to W&J.)
Carroll, then Chicago.
Shouldn't wins be more important than losses? Bethel has wins over multiple regionally ranked teams, the losses to good teams help the SOS, but the wins are going to be what gets them in and keeps Thomas More out.
Ralph,
Your picks seem plausible except for the North. The first issue is Carroll is considered being in the West region for ranking purposes. Given that North Central and Heidleberg are both ranked ahead of Chicago and Carroll doesn't even appear in the rankings, what makes you think either of those will jump those other 2 loss teams in their regions? I don't see that happening.
Yeah I think Pat and Keith started the whole "it's not who you lose to it's who you beat [drinking game] saying a while back".
Bethel has #2 SOS in D3, that plus quality wins says more than losses IMO.
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
I haven't seen this discussed yet (maybe I just missed it) but how are all these scenarios affected if Pacific beats Linfield and takes the NWC title? I don't see it happening, but if it did would Linfield still make the field with two losses and what domino effect would that have on everyone else?
I don't think Linfield gets in with two losses. If Linfield lost (which I don't really expect), there would be an interesting domino effect because now the discussion of who hosts who out West gets interesting. Does 8-1 Chapman host 7-2 (7-1 in D3) Pacific, does Pacific get the home game by virtue of better result vs. common opponent, or do they both get sent elsewhere with an NCAA gamble that knocking both out early will eliminate the need for second-round flights with those two?
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2014, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 10, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
I haven't seen this discussed yet (maybe I just missed it) but how are all these scenarios affected if Pacific beats Linfield and takes the NWC title? I don't see it happening, but if it did would Linfield still make the field with two losses and what domino effect would that have on everyone else?
I don't think Linfield gets in with two losses. If Linfield lost (which I don't really expect), there would be an interesting domino effect because now the discussion of who hosts who out West gets interesting. Does 8-1 Chapman host 7-2 (7-1 in D3) Pacific, does Pacific get the home game by virtue of better result vs. common opponent, or do they both get sent elsewhere with an NCAA gamble that knocking both out early will eliminate the need for second-round flights with those two?
I'd probably go Pacific @ Chapman with winner heading to UMHB. Wouldn't be perfect seeding (but nothing egregious) and keeps all the necessary flights in their own little pod.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 06, 2014, 07:23:19 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing. The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule. It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember. The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.
Okay, well Rowan played at UMHB in Round 2 last year, and H-SC played at Linfield, then in Round 2 SJFC went to UMHB and Linfield and Whitewater played. A more flight-conscious arrangement would have put the UMHB/Redlands Round 1 game in the path of the Linfeld/PLU game, and they weren't even in the same quadrant.
So whatever point you're trying to make might be correct, but it doesn't refute my original observation.
I know I am pulling out a post from a couple days ago but I've said this before a couple times: Everything that the NCAA has said suggests this year will be different.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 12:52:24 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 06, 2014, 07:23:19 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing. The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule. It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember. The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.
Okay, well Rowan played at UMHB in Round 2 last year, and H-SC played at Linfield, then in Round 2 SJFC went to UMHB and Linfield and Whitewater played. A more flight-conscious arrangement would have put the UMHB/Redlands Round 1 game in the path of the Linfeld/PLU game, and they weren't even in the same quadrant.
So whatever point you're trying to make might be correct, but it doesn't refute my original observation.
I know I am pulling out a post from a couple days ago but I've said this before a couple times: Everything that the NCAA has said suggests this year will be different.
Pat. Can you elaborate a bit more on what "different" really means. I see the 1/2 bracketing comments, but would like your thougts on imact of the choices this year.
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 01:39:52 PM
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.
This is certainly the mantra people need to follow. The division had a surplus and extra money for a few years, that tide has changed and even the money from the Turner/CBS deal is now getting smaller each year. Plan for no flights and be happy with any.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 01:39:52 PM
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.
This is certainly the mantra people need to follow. The division had a surplus and extra money for a few years, that tide has changed and even the money from the Turner/CBS deal is now getting smaller each year. Plan for no flights and be happy with any.
I thought it was just that the rate of annual increase was less than the average annual increase in travel costs? The new CBS/Turner deal is not back loaded and was a 41% increase.
Lots of folks seem to be using "because they pair nicely with Mary Hardin-Baylor" as a reason for putting TLU in the field. (Not *the* reason, but *a* reason.)
I seem to remember a selection chair in the past say they pick the field, then start to look at pairings. In other words, these processes are not interrelated. Perhaps this is an old wives' tale. But it would suggest that TLU's geography wouldn't be a consideration when their criteria are assessed as a Pool B or C candidate.
Can any of the poobahs confirm that this is how the selection process works?
Yes, that's correct.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 01:39:52 PM
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
This is a lot more important to me than who plays who in what round. I really don't mind the necessary evil of minimizing flights once the 32 teams are selected that much. If that means any Texas team has to play UMHB, fine. If that means Husson plays at MIT in the first round this year, even though both teams are low seeds, I'm fine with that, too.
But as kiko said, including TLU over Centre (for example) because they pair nicely with UMHB is a thing to be avoided.
Quote from: kiko on November 10, 2014, 03:07:08 PM
Lots of folks seem to be using "because they pair nicely with Mary Hardin-Baylor" as a reason for putting TLU in the field. (Not *the* reason, but *a* reason.)
I seem to remember a selection chair in the past say they pick the field, then start to look at pairings. In other words, these processes are not interrelated. Perhaps this is an old wives' tale. But it would suggest that TLU's geography wouldn't be a consideration when their criteria are assessed as a Pool B or C candidate.
Can any of the poobahs confirm that this is how the selection process works?
Correct... I can't tell you how many times committee chairs have pointed out they don't look at the bracket until they select teams and at no time are teams selected or not selected because it would help bracket teams especially with travel islands. Furthermore, I have never seen an example of where this actually happened.
Quote from: AO on November 10, 2014, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 01:39:52 PM
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.
This is certainly the mantra people need to follow. The division had a surplus and extra money for a few years, that tide has changed and even the money from the Turner/CBS deal is now getting smaller each year. Plan for no flights and be happy with any.
I thought it was just that the rate of annual increase was less than the average annual increase in travel costs? The new CBS/Turner deal is not back loaded and was a 41% increase.
From everything I have been told:
- The former CBS deal with backloaded... the current Turner/CBS deal is frontloaded. You can hear Dan Dutcher say those exact words in the interview I conducted with him in September and Pat already linked to in this converation.
- Just because there is more money from the TV deal doesn't mean there is more money. For starters, Division III only gets 3.18% and the costs of conducting all championships in Division III has been steadily climbing for a number of years. The most costly have been travel and administrative (like referee fees, for example). Also, they allowed things to get a bit out of control in the past with flights and that hurt as well.
Quote from: AO on November 10, 2014, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 01:39:52 PM
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.
This is certainly the mantra people need to follow. The division had a surplus and extra money for a few years, that tide has changed and even the money from the Turner/CBS deal is now getting smaller each year. Plan for no flights and be happy with any.
I thought it was just that the rate of annual increase was less than the average annual increase in travel costs? The new CBS/Turner deal is not back loaded and was a 41% increase.
This is correct -- smaller in comparison to how the costs are rising, but a larger overall number.
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2014, 04:39:27 PM
Do you think the West could so something so a 9-1 Carroll makes the board somehow?
I'd be really surprised by this. They aren't ranking Mac, who beat Carroll. And they aren't ranking St. Scholastica, who is undefeated.
Mac is likely getting left off because of that horrible Hamline loss. And there's a lot of quality 1 and two loss teams that I think everyone thinks would handle Carroll.
If they get ranked (big if), I don't think they ever even make it to the board for consideration. The 'West' committee usually doesn't pull shenanigans with its rankings (cough...east...cough) ;)
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: AO on November 10, 2014, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 01:39:52 PM
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.
This is certainly the mantra people need to follow. The division had a surplus and extra money for a few years, that tide has changed and even the money from the Turner/CBS deal is now getting smaller each year. Plan for no flights and be happy with any.
I thought it was just that the rate of annual increase was less than the average annual increase in travel costs? The new CBS/Turner deal is not back loaded and was a 41% increase.
From everything I have been told:
- The former CBS deal with backloaded... the current Turner/CBS deal is frontloaded. You can hear Dan Dutcher say those exact words in the interview I conducted with him in September and Pat already linked to in this converation.
- Just because there is more money from the TV deal doesn't mean there is more money. For starters, Division III only gets 3.18% and the costs of conducting all championships in Division III has been steadily climbing for a number of years. The most costly have been travel and administrative (like referee fees, for example). Also, they allowed things to get a bit out of control in the past with flights and that hurt as well.
I suppose I could also just ask Dr. Cureton about it next time I see him. Completely forgot he was vice chair (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jzdgQOfgSM) of the president's council. I'd think he'd be a good advocate for the road to the Stagg considering he played college football.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 03:26:07 PM
Quote from: kiko on November 10, 2014, 03:07:08 PM
Lots of folks seem to be using "because they pair nicely with Mary Hardin-Baylor" as a reason for putting TLU in the field. (Not *the* reason, but *a* reason.)
I seem to remember a selection chair in the past say they pick the field, then start to look at pairings. In other words, these processes are not interrelated. Perhaps this is an old wives' tale. But it would suggest that TLU's geography wouldn't be a consideration when their criteria are assessed as a Pool B or C candidate.
Can any of the poobahs confirm that this is how the selection process works?
Correct... I can't tell you how many times committee chairs have pointed out they don't look at the bracket until they select teams and at no time are teams selected or not selected because it would help bracket teams especially with travel islands. Furthermore, I have never seen an example of where this actually happened.
If it ever happened, it would have been Trinity placed against East Texas Baptist in 2003. Those were teams that should never have played each other in round 1...
Quote from: bman on November 10, 2014, 05:18:37 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 03:26:07 PM
Correct... I can't tell you how many times committee chairs have pointed out they don't look at the bracket until they select teams and at no time are teams selected or not selected because it would help bracket teams especially with travel islands. Furthermore, I have never seen an example of where this actually happened.
If it ever happened, it would have been Trinity placed against East Texas Baptist in 2003. Those were teams that should never have played each other in round 1...
I think you're missing the point.
The example here is the hypothetical selection of 2014 TLU as an at-large team specifically to give UMHB a travel partner, but both of the 2003 teams were automatic qualifiers; neither team was
selected to help with travel. They were certainly
paired against one another to help with travel, which we've all acknowledged as a necessary evil after the field of teams has been selected. For a parallel to your 2003 example, Husson is probably going to play at MIT in round 1. Those are probably two of the bottom six or so teams in the field as a whole, but MIT might be the only team in the field within 500 miles.
Quote from: USee on November 10, 2014, 12:21:56 PM
Ralph,
Your picks seem plausible except for the North. The first issue is Carroll is considered being in the West region for ranking purposes. Given that North Central and Heidleberg are both ranked ahead of Chicago and Carroll doesn't even appear in the rankings, what makes you think either of those will jump those other 2 loss teams in their regions? I don't see that happening.
My bad. You are right about the North Central & Heidelberg issue in the North Region. I think that both are still left on the table, with Chicago and Carroll sittng several teams off the table in line.
(I will be surprised if the North gets 3 Pool C bids.)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 12:52:24 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 08, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 06, 2014, 07:23:19 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 06, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
Makes sense KM.
The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.
Because of the #2 ranking of UMHB, they will probably make sure that UWW and Mount Union end up on the same side of the bracket and meet in a semi-final.
I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing. The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule. It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember. The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.
Okay, well Rowan played at UMHB in Round 2 last year, and H-SC played at Linfield, then in Round 2 SJFC went to UMHB and Linfield and Whitewater played. A more flight-conscious arrangement would have put the UMHB/Redlands Round 1 game in the path of the Linfeld/PLU game, and they weren't even in the same quadrant.
So whatever point you're trying to make might be correct, but it doesn't refute my original observation.
I know I am pulling out a post from a couple days ago but I've said this before a couple times: Everything that the NCAA has said suggests this year will be different.
Which could also mean that UWW and Mount Union could be bracketed into the same semi-final, creating a new Stagg pairing regardless.
WHD
Quote from: bman on November 10, 2014, 05:18:37 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 10, 2014, 03:26:07 PM
Quote from: kiko on November 10, 2014, 03:07:08 PM
Lots of folks seem to be using "because they pair nicely with Mary Hardin-Baylor" as a reason for putting TLU in the field. (Not *the* reason, but *a* reason.)
I seem to remember a selection chair in the past say they pick the field, then start to look at pairings. In other words, these processes are not interrelated. Perhaps this is an old wives' tale. But it would suggest that TLU's geography wouldn't be a consideration when their criteria are assessed as a Pool B or C candidate.
Can any of the poobahs confirm that this is how the selection process works?
Correct... I can't tell you how many times committee chairs have pointed out they don't look at the bracket until they select teams and at no time are teams selected or not selected because it would help bracket teams especially with travel islands. Furthermore, I have never seen an example of where this actually happened.
If it ever happened, it would have been Trinity placed against East Texas Baptist in 2003. Those were teams that should never have played each other in round 1...
That game was back in the days of the old "Texas Sub-bracket".
Another way to look at the bracketing from a geographic perspective is..
Who deserves to host a first round game?
Who deserves to host a second round game?
etc...
Is MIT hosting Husson really preventing a vastly superior team from hosting?
Somewhere in these rankings there is minimal difference/distinction between the actual strengths of the ordinals.
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 10, 2014, 06:33:29 PM
Which could also mean that UWW and Mount Union could be bracketed into the same semi-final, creating a new Stagg pairing regardless.
WHD
I don't think that has to happen. Projecting all the way out the semifinals is probably dangerous anyway, but either way, if the committee is planning for the top seeds to get to the semis and are worried about travel four weeks into the tournament, Wesley is driveable to Alliance and UMHB is either going to have to fly or be flown to no matter what. I'd bank on Whitewater and UMHB on one side, Wesley and Mount Union on the other side.
I'm not sure what the official mileage calculator is for the NCAA (probably sponsorship dollars available there!), but google maps tells me UMU and UWW are 502 miles apart which equals a flight. So I think you're safe either way.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 06:53:04 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 10, 2014, 06:33:29 PM
Which could also mean that UWW and Mount Union could be bracketed into the same semi-final, creating a new Stagg pairing regardless.
WHD
I don't think that has to happen. Projecting all the way out the semifinals is probably dangerous anyway, but either way, if the committee is planning for the top seeds to get to the semis and are worried about travel four weeks into the tournament, Wesley is driveable to Alliance and UMHB is either going to have to fly or be flown to no matter what. I'd bank on Whitewater and UMHB on one side, Wesley and Mount Union on the other side.
I'm not sure what the official mileage calculator is for the NCAA (probably sponsorship dollars available there!), but google maps tells me UMU and UWW are 502 miles apart which equals a flight. So I think you're safe either way.
NCAA Calculator (https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles) says UWW and Mount are 507 miles apart.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2014, 07:04:01 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 06:53:04 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 10, 2014, 06:33:29 PM
Which could also mean that UWW and Mount Union could be bracketed into the same semi-final, creating a new Stagg pairing regardless.
WHD
I don't think that has to happen. Projecting all the way out the semifinals is probably dangerous anyway, but either way, if the committee is planning for the top seeds to get to the semis and are worried about travel four weeks into the tournament, Wesley is driveable to Alliance and UMHB is either going to have to fly or be flown to no matter what. I'd bank on Whitewater and UMHB on one side, Wesley and Mount Union on the other side.
I'm not sure what the official mileage calculator is for the NCAA (probably sponsorship dollars available there!), but google maps tells me UMU and UWW are 502 miles apart which equals a flight. So I think you're safe either way.
NCAA Calculator (https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles) says UWW and Mount are 507 miles apart.
Misisng an opportunity there. The NCAA Mileage Calculator powered by Mapquest. That could totally fund an extra flight or two. :)
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 07:08:36 PM
Misisng an opportunity there. The NCAA Mileage Calculator powered by Mapquest. That could totally fund an extra flight or two. :)
I like Google Maps!!
/true 'dat
//double true
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2014, 07:04:01 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 06:53:04 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 10, 2014, 06:33:29 PM
Which could also mean that UWW and Mount Union could be bracketed into the same semi-final, creating a new Stagg pairing regardless.
WHD
I don't think that has to happen. Projecting all the way out the semifinals is probably dangerous anyway, but either way, if the committee is planning for the top seeds to get to the semis and are worried about travel four weeks into the tournament, Wesley is driveable to Alliance and UMHB is either going to have to fly or be flown to no matter what. I'd bank on Whitewater and UMHB on one side, Wesley and Mount Union on the other side.
I'm not sure what the official mileage calculator is for the NCAA (probably sponsorship dollars available there!), but google maps tells me UMU and UWW are 502 miles apart which equals a flight. So I think you're safe either way.
NCAA Calculator (https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles) says UWW and Mount are 507 miles apart.
Misisng an opportunity there. The NCAA Mileage Calculator powered by Mapquest. That could totally fund an extra flight or two. :)
No. We can't do that. The NCAA never exploits things for profit...
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2014, 07:04:01 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 06:53:04 PM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 10, 2014, 06:33:29 PM
Which could also mean that UWW and Mount Union could be bracketed into the same semi-final, creating a new Stagg pairing regardless.
WHD
I don't think that has to happen. Projecting all the way out the semifinals is probably dangerous anyway, but either way, if the committee is planning for the top seeds to get to the semis and are worried about travel four weeks into the tournament, Wesley is driveable to Alliance and UMHB is either going to have to fly or be flown to no matter what. I'd bank on Whitewater and UMHB on one side, Wesley and Mount Union on the other side.
I'm not sure what the official mileage calculator is for the NCAA (probably sponsorship dollars available there!), but google maps tells me UMU and UWW are 502 miles apart which equals a flight. So I think you're safe either way.
NCAA Calculator (https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles) says UWW and Mount are 507 miles apart.
Misisng an opportunity there. The NCAA Mileage Calculator powered by Mapquest. That could totally fund an extra flight or two. :)
The Google Maps NCAA Mileage Calculator presented by Dr Pepper
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2014, 08:04:14 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2014, 07:08:36 PM
Misisng an opportunity there. The NCAA Mileage Calculator powered by Mapquest. That could totally fund an extra flight or two. :)
I like Google Maps!!
/true 'dat
//double true
Hahahahaha
+K
Interesting stuff coming today. Things I'm looking for:
- Bethel's placement relative to the UW schools (who I think are playing a virtual play-in game this week...if not a direct play-in, definitely an elimination game)
- Is the South RAC going to pick an order between TLU and Centre this week? Is there more thought that needs to be given to ranking Hardin-Simmons instead of E&H...which dominos its way into TLU's profile.
- Will North Central jump Wabash in the North rankings? I don't think they should, but you honestly never know.
- What happens in the East? Does Montclair fall out entirely? St. Lawrence also? And if either fall out, who gets in? Ranking Buffalo State or Utica gives SJF a brownie point that they need desperately. Maybe Morrisville State played their way into the rankings. Maybe Rowan?
I would be surprised if NCC is ahead of Wabash as well. I am also interested in who shows up at the bottom of each region's rankings, potentially changing the strength of those ranked higher by adding RRO's. In particular who shows up at bottom of the North and the South.
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
Usee.
I see U see we all see.. ;)
the cats will take care of one team this sat for you . The Dogs are going down. Cats want another shot at the John's >:(. And others ... :) ;D IF they bring their A game.. :o 8-)
DesertCat-
I have little doubt that will be the case. Which is why I posted that today vs next week! 8-)
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
Great points. The randomness of that simple circumstance has impact that is difficult to measure. Looking forward to your "picks" after today's RR.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
How do you determine "strong" in a way that isn't 1000 percent subjective and self-serving?
I completely agree with your points about this particular shortcoming of the regional rankings system. One thing that they could do to add a little bit of depth of the regional rankings and how they are considered is- and this is novel- let any team that has been ranked at any point during the regional rankings process count as a ranked opponent. We'll call it "once ranked, always ranked" and it will be glorious.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
How do you determine "strong" in a way that isn't 1000 percent subjective and self-serving?
I completely agree with your points about this particular shortcoming of the regional rankings system. One thing that they could do to add a little bit of depth of the regional rankings and how they are considered is- and this is novel- let any team that has been ranked at any point during the regional rankings process count as a ranked opponent. We'll call it "once ranked, always ranked" and it will be glorious.
just spitballin' ideas The NCAA seems opposed to objective data. We could learn a lot from Offensive/Defensive efficiency and margin of victory but as we learned last year from the hoops chairman some committee members rely on the "eye test".
The Concordia win still won't count even if we go back to "once ranked always ranked". Every team for 1st to worst should be ranked.
One other example of the small-game-big-picture dominoes (just posting it here although it doesn't really affect the Pool C picture) is Husson's bid to win the ECFC title.
If Husson wins, they're in, and their only travel options in the first round sans flight are going to be MIT or Framingham-State-if-they-get-in (I think).
Just another example of how a single random game between two "regular" (i.e. non-top-25) D3 teams can have wild implications across the board.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 09:41:26 AM
Interesting stuff coming today. Things I'm looking for:
- Bethel's placement relative to the UW schools (who I think are playing a virtual play-in game this week...if not a direct play-in, definitely an elimination game)
- Is the South RAC going to pick an order between TLU and Centre this week? Is there more thought that needs to be given to ranking Hardin-Simmons instead of E&H...which dominos its way into TLU's profile.
- Will North Central jump Wabash in the North rankings? I don't think they should, but you honestly never know.
- What happens in the East? Does Montclair fall out entirely? St. Lawrence also? And if either fall out, who gets in? Ranking Buffalo State or Utica gives SJF a brownie point that they need desperately. Maybe Morrisville State played their way into the rankings. Maybe Rowan?
Life would be a lot easier if there were no upsets....
Though I can't really think how E&H wasn't ranked when the ODAC is usually a quality conference. I know their SOS is bad in this context thanks to Ferrum and Sewanee.
Because they weren't getting votes and not RR'd, and have generally been blah lately, I didn't even realize they were 8-1. Yet here we are. If they beat Guilford I think they're have a legit case for a "C".
I don't think SLU falls out as their Coach is on the ERC. Besides 7-2 is still pretty good and SLU's SOS is very high (.6143) now after playing HOB. Plus they have the H2H over MoState who beat Montclair (last week's #8) H2H. I'm guessing SLU stays.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
How do you determine "strong" in a way that isn't 1000 percent subjective and self-serving?
I completely agree with your points about this particular shortcoming of the regional rankings system. One thing that they could do to add a little bit of depth of the regional rankings and how they are considered is- and this is novel- let any team that has been ranked at any point during the regional rankings process count as a ranked opponent. We'll call it "once ranked, always ranked" and it will be glorious.
Genius! Let's use our vast influence to get it implemented! ;)
Quote from: ITH radio on November 12, 2014, 01:14:45 PM
I don't think SLU falls out as their Coach is on the ERC. Besides 7-2 is still pretty good and SLU's SOS is very high (.6143) now after playing HOB. Plus they have the H2H over MoState who beat Montclair (last week's #8) H2H. I'm guessing SLU stays.
Dropping SLU now would be ridiculous. I'd even argue they should remain as high as #7 (possibly dropping behind Ithaca).
I'm all for reevaluating a team's full body of work when polling & ranking, but if being 7-1 with a loss to Norwich & win over Morrisville State was a #6-worthy resume last week and kept them ahead of MIT, Lycoming, and the other contenders, it certainly doesn't make sense to move them beneath those teams after a two-point loss to regional #2 Hobart. That's the worst kind of "dropping teams that lose and raising teams that win regardless of quality of result" movement.
Summarized: if SLU was #6 and MIT was #7 last week, and the only new data is Hobart 29, SLU 27 + MIT 55, Maine Maritime 37, I see no rational argument for dropping SLU beneath MIT this week. Lycoming beat a 3-6 team by a point, Montclair lost, etc. No reasonable argument for moving anyone, save Ithaca, ahead of them (and if Morrisville St. jumps SLU, then I'll really blow a gasket).
This board this time of year is one of my favorite things. I will often read a post, have a reaction, and the next post will say the same thing I would have said.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in the separation between picking the 32 teams and then matching them. TLU would probably be in on the merits, but I honestly don't believe if it were close, they'd get put in to save a flight. Remember that the committee is a bunch of coaches and commissioners who want to see the process work and get the best teams in, because some day in theory it would affect them. (Raeburn is obviously going to have to recuse himself for much of the Pool C chat)
The penny-pinchers are separate from the committee. There was at least one year where we know the matchups got changed from the bracket the committee made and the NCAA approved because there was an unneccessary flight in there, which suggests to me that even though the committee probably knows the impact of its decisions, the penny pinching happens in the matchup phase, not in the team selection phase.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
A Framingham loss will help the South Region contenders.
For the 8 at-large bids, and assuming no surprises this weekend, here are my picks.
Wesley is in at Pool B1.
Centre will be undefeated and earns a bid, B2/C.
Texas Lutheran (also B2/C is a one-loss to UMHB. This is a bus ride for the first round. TLU has the credientials to be at least the 8th best at large team.)
I like the UMU/John Carroll loser.
I like the Widener/Del Valley loser.
Wabash (especially if H-SC clinches the ODAC)
I have these on the table with two bids left:
Bethel (with losses to Wartburg and the Johnnies), then UW-Oshkosh.
Framingham State (B/C)
Muhlenberg, then Thomas More (a loss to Wesley and to W&J.)
Carroll, then Chicago.
Of that group, Bethel gets in. Playing Wartburg and Chicago in addition to the MIAC really helps. The Royals could have as many as five results vs. RROs.
There are a lot of teams who could benefit from an apple-cart upsetting upset or two.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
How do you determine "strong" in a way that isn't 1000 percent subjective and self-serving?
I completely agree with your points about this particular shortcoming of the regional rankings system. One thing that they could do to add a little bit of depth of the regional rankings and how they are considered is- and this is novel- let any team that has been ranked at any point during the regional rankings process count as a ranked opponent. We'll call it "once ranked, always ranked" and it will be glorious.
Am I making things up or didn't D3 used to have that?
Quote from: crufootball on November 12, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
How do you determine "strong" in a way that isn't 1000 percent subjective and self-serving?
I completely agree with your points about this particular shortcoming of the regional rankings system. One thing that they could do to add a little bit of depth of the regional rankings and how they are considered is- and this is novel- let any team that has been ranked at any point during the regional rankings process count as a ranked opponent. We'll call it "once ranked, always ranked" and it will be glorious.
Am I making things up or didn't D3 used to have that?
Yes---Wally forgot his sarcasm /sarcasm coding. :)
I missed this last week and I'm not finding anything in the obvious locations- is the NCAA putting out the regional data sheets with the rankings this year? I've seen them do this in other sports.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
Quote from: crufootball on November 12, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
How do you determine "strong" in a way that isn't 1000 percent subjective and self-serving?
I completely agree with your points about this particular shortcoming of the regional rankings system. One thing that they could do to add a little bit of depth of the regional rankings and how they are considered is- and this is novel- let any team that has been ranked at any point during the regional rankings process count as a ranked opponent. We'll call it "once ranked, always ranked" and it will be glorious.
Am I making things up or didn't D3 used to have that?
Yes---Wally forgot his sarcasm /sarcasm coding. :)
Haha I thought there might be sarcasm but I wasn't sure, was there a stated reason to leaving that data off'?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 02:34:24 PM
I missed this last week and I'm not finding anything in the obvious locations- is the NCAA putting out the regional data sheets with the rankings this year? I've seen them do this in other sports.
Hmm... I just looked at last week's and didn't see it. Great question someone else might be able to answer while I go searching :). That being said, it is a rather easy number to come up with in football (versus basketball which uses a multiplier), so here is D3football's page with SOS data: http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template (http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template)
Quote from: crufootball on November 12, 2014, 02:35:45 PM
Haha I thought there might be sarcasm but I wasn't sure, was there a stated reason to leaving that data off'?
Scheduling quirks. If team A might have been ranked highly after week 9 but then lost 2 games which dropped them to 18th, wins against Team A shouldn't be a "top 10 win".
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2014, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 02:34:24 PM
I missed this last week and I'm not finding anything in the obvious locations- is the NCAA putting out the regional data sheets with the rankings this year? I've seen them do this in other sports.
Hmm... I just looked at last week's and didn't see it. Great question someone else might be able to answer while I go searching :). That being said, it is a rather easy number to come up with in football (versus basketball which uses a multiplier), so here is D3football's page with SOS data: http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template (http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template)
I'm sure D3football can get it right, but I'd prefer that the NCAA prove that their numbers are correct.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2014, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 02:34:24 PM
I missed this last week and I'm not finding anything in the obvious locations- is the NCAA putting out the regional data sheets with the rankings this year? I've seen them do this in other sports.
Hmm... I just looked at last week's and didn't see it. Great question someone else might be able to answer while I go searching :). That being said, it is a rather easy number to come up with in football (versus basketball which uses a multiplier), so here is D3football's page with SOS data: http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template (http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template)
Oh, I use the D3football.com SOS page for that information. I was just curious in general about the data sheets since I've seen them released with other rankings. :)
I guess I didn't read far enough ahead and this did get addressed.
I don't like an 8 seed vs. a 7 when a 2 plays a 3, but otherwise I can live with it too.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2014, 03:11:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2014, 01:39:52 PM
When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.
This is a lot more important to me than who plays who in what round. I really don't mind the necessary evil of minimizing flights once the 32 teams are selected that much. If that means any Texas team has to play UMHB, fine. If that means Husson plays at MIT in the first round this year, even though both teams are low seeds, I'm fine with that, too.
But as kiko said, including TLU over Centre (for example) because they pair nicely with UMHB is a thing to be avoided.
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on November 12, 2014, 02:35:45 PM
Haha I thought there might be sarcasm but I wasn't sure, was there a stated reason to leaving that data off'?
Scheduling quirks. If team A might have been ranked highly after week 9 but then lost 2 games which dropped them to 18th, wins against Team A shouldn't be a "top 10 win".
I guess that makes sense, but as others have seemed to point out you would think that it could at least be a secondary criteria option to show that Team A was at least good enough to be consider a top team in a region.
As a UMHB fan I will be very interested to see what happens in the HSU-LC game this weekend since a loss surely takes HSU out of the rankings and I don't see how LC jumps in despite their only D3 loses being to regional ranked teams.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 12, 2014, 01:14:45 PM
I don't think SLU falls out as their Coach is on the ERC. Besides 7-2 is still pretty good and SLU's SOS is very high (.6143) now after playing HOB. Plus they have the H2H over MoState who beat Montclair (last week's #8) H2H. I'm guessing SLU stays.
Coaching being on the committee could hurt as much as help, as some people might be overly critical so as not to appear unfairly favorable.
Re: Regional rankings stopping at 10, it's obviously not balanced, but the rankings have to stop somewhere. Maybe they could rank out to 12 and 15, with a decreasing point system for wins over teams farther out. But maybe that would be unnecessarily complicated.
Quote from: crufootball on November 12, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: AO on November 12, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Who knew in late September when the regional air traffic control facility in Aurora was set on fire, cancelling hundreds of flights, that our Pool C picture would be affected. But Chicago had its game against West Region #10 cancelled as a result of that incident and it could have implications on both teams come selection Sunday.
It's not just those two teams either, USee. Let's say Chicago and Pacific played and Pacific won the game. That second loss probably takes Chicago out of the rankings which then impacts Bethel's profile profoundly. 8-2, 1-2 vs. RROs with one narrow win over St. Thomas and two pretty bad losses to Wartburg and St. John's makes Bethel much less attractive than they are with that 2-2 RRO record. And if Chicago had won the game with Pacific, I'm not sure they'd get a lot more than a little SOS boost and whatever benefit of the doubt capital comes along with having played and beaten the NWC co-champion, but I think we might be taking Chicago's chances at initiation a little more seriously.
This illustrates my main issue with the RROs. A win vs. #11 and #10 is valued wildly different. Bethel also handled Concordia, who should be knocking on the doorstep of the regional rankings but if they're not #10 it doesn't count. Perhaps each region should get to rank more or less teams depending on how strong the region is.
How do you determine "strong" in a way that isn't 1000 percent subjective and self-serving?
I completely agree with your points about this particular shortcoming of the regional rankings system. One thing that they could do to add a little bit of depth of the regional rankings and how they are considered is- and this is novel- let any team that has been ranked at any point during the regional rankings process count as a ranked opponent. We'll call it "once ranked, always ranked" and it will be glorious.
Am I making things up or didn't D3 used to have that?
That's the joke.
Is it just me or are the regional rankings coming out much later at night this year?
They need to get a new hamster to power the generator...
Maybe they didn't have the money to pay the power or internet bill. ::)
Maybe the South RAC is deadlocked trying to break the TLU/Centre tie.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 08:13:05 PM
Maybe the South RAC is deadlocked trying to break the TLU/Centre tie.
Rankings are up!
and I'm kind of scratching my head a little....
Actually Muhlenberg swapped with Centre and are now tied with TLU for 5th. Not sure what the logic is in the order of those three after not much happening last week. ???
SOUTH
1 Wesley 5-0 9-0
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor 9-0 9-0
3 Johns Hopkins 9-0 9-0
4 Washington & Jefferson 9-0 9-0
5 Texas Lutheran 7-1 8-1
5 Muhlenberg 8-1 8-1
7 Centre 9-0 9-0
8 Thomas More 8-2 8-2
9 Hampden-Sydney 7-2 7-2
10 Hardin-Simmons 4-2 6-2
Let's post 'em all:
EAST
1 Delaware Valley 9-0 9-0
2 Hobart 9-0 9-0
3 Widener 9-0 9-0
4 Framingham State 8-1 8-1
5 Ithaca 7-2 7-2
6 St. John Fisher 6-2 7-2
7 MIT 8-0 8-0
8 St. Lawrence 7-2 7-2
9 Rowan 6-3 6-3
10 Husson 6-1 7-1
NORTH
1 Mount Union 9-0 9-0
2 John Carroll 9-0 9-0
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 9-0 9-0
4 Wittenberg 8-0 8-1
5 Wabash 8-1 8-1
6 North Central (Ill.) 7-2 7-2
7 Franklin 7-2 7-2
8 Heidelberg 7-2 7-2
9 Chicago 7-1 7-1
10 Adrian 7-2 7-2
SOUTH
1 Wesley 5-0 9-0
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor 9-0 9-0
3 Johns Hopkins 9-0 9-0
4 Washington & Jefferson 9-0 9-0
5 Texas Lutheran 7-1 8-1
5 Muhlenberg 8-1 8-1
7 Centre 9-0 9-0
8 Thomas More 8-2 8-2
9 Hampden-Sydney 7-2 7-2
10 Hardin-Simmons 4-2 6-2
WEST
1 Wisconsin-Whitewater 8-0 9-0
2 Wartburg 9-0 9-0
3 Saint John's (Minn.) 8-1 8-1
4 Linfield 7-1 7-1
5 Wisconsin-Platteville 7-2 7-2
6 Bethel (Minn.) 7-2 7-2
6 Chapman 7-1 7-1
8 Wisconsin-Oshkosh 5-1 5-4
9 St. Thomas (Minn.) 7-2 7-2
10 Pacific (Ore.) 6-1 6-2
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
A cynic may also see this as a way for them to ensure/justify the TLU to MHB game in round 1 :)
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Im a MASCAC guy so I'm rooting for Framingham St, but these rankings seem to suggest Framingham is getting the 2nd Pool B, and not undefeated Centre. I just can't see the committee leaving an undefeated team out of the tournament. The last time a Pool B was undefeated in the Northeast, a very weak Suny-Maritime team was given the 3 seed in the regional rankings and promptly lost by 60 in the first round.
Whats even more interesting looking at these rankings from an east perspective is this. If Del Val goes out and beats Widener, Framingham is positioned to be #3 in the regional rankings and probably the first east team off the board for Pool C. Everyone has been assuming that the Del Val vs Widener loser would be an automatic Pool C winner. These rankings, especially from a Widener view, make that look a lot more riskier now.
Bethel behind Platteville is a significant development. That puts North Central in the drivers seat for 2 Loss teams unless Platteville is off the board before NCC shows up. That would require Wabash or JCU/Mt U loser to go after UWP, which isn't happening. So likely NCC and Platteville are on the board at the same time and Bethel is hosed. WOW.
I think SJF may be the best two-loss team. The West also may be hedging and can bump Oshkosh up if they win Saturday...
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
Bethel behind Platteville is a significant development. That puts North Central in the drivers seat for 2 Loss teams unless Platteville is off the board before NCC shows up. That would require Wabash or JCU/Mt U loser to go after UWP, which isn't happening. So likely NCC and Platteville are on the board at the same time and Bethel is hosed. WOW.
I thought Platteville's jump was unwarranted after this past week but I also think they should have been ahead of Chapman last week so I guess this is a correction for last week's error....
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 09:07:59 PM
I think SJF may be the best two-loss team. The West also may be hedging and can bump Oshkosh up if they win Saturday...
If Cortland beats Ithaca in Cortaca and Morrisville ends up ranked, then does that make St. Lawrence the best two-loss team? Granted, SLU's SOS will nosedive a bit after the USMMA game.
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 12, 2014, 09:02:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Im a MASCAC guy so I'm rooting for Framingham St, but these rankings seem to suggest Framingham is getting the 2nd Pool B, and not undefeated Centre. I just can't see the committee leaving an undefeated team out of the tournament. The last time a Pool B was undefeated in the Northeast, a very weak Suny-Maritime team was given the 3 seed in the regional rankings and promptly lost by 60 in the first round.
Whats even more interesting looking at these rankings from an east perspective is this. If Del Val goes out and beats Widener, Framingham is positioned to be #3 in the regional rankings and probably the first east team off the board for Pool C. Everyone has been assuming that the Del Val vs Widener loser would be an automatic Pool C winner. These rankings, especially from a Widener view, make that look a lot more riskier now.
I think you forgot about Texas Lutheran for the second Pool B bid?
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
Bethel behind Platteville is a significant development. That puts North Central in the drivers seat for 2 Loss teams unless Platteville is off the board before NCC shows up. That would require Wabash or JCU/Mt U loser to go after UWP, which isn't happening. So likely NCC and Platteville are on the board at the same time and Bethel is hosed. WOW.
Yeah, Bethel is in a world of hurt right now. It seems set up for the UWP/UWO winner to be in front of them.
Take aways if you're Bethel.
1. Don't lose two games and put your fate in someone else's hands
2. If you do lose two road games to RRO, make sure they're close losses (unless they're to NCC or UWW at home ???)
3. Maybe the biggest take away, and it pains me to say it...don't schedule tough non-con games if you play in a top 4 conference. The gauntlet that is the MIAC makes it really worthless to schedule a tough non-con and risk a loss if SOS and especially RRO aren't significant. 2-2 v. RRO is < 0-2 ???
QuoteNotes:
Bethel should be higher than Platteville because it has a win against a regionally ranked team. Figuring matchups here will be more influenced by geography than seeding.
Any chance the committee reads D3football.com's reactions ;) Ouch, but, we left it in their hands. :-\
Yeah--I don't see how they can justify Platteville over Bethel....equal record but Bethel with the much better SOS and the win over RRO..... I think if you switched those two teams it would be about right.....
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 12, 2014, 09:15:00 PM
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 12, 2014, 09:02:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Im a MASCAC guy so I'm rooting for Framingham St, but these rankings seem to suggest Framingham is getting the 2nd Pool B, and not undefeated Centre. I just can't see the committee leaving an undefeated team out of the tournament. The last time a Pool B was undefeated in the Northeast, a very weak Suny-Maritime team was given the 3 seed in the regional rankings and promptly lost by 60 in the first round.
Whats even more interesting looking at these rankings from an east perspective is this. If Del Val goes out and beats Widener, Framingham is positioned to be #3 in the regional rankings and probably the first east team off the board for Pool C. Everyone has been assuming that the Del Val vs Widener loser would be an automatic Pool C winner. These rankings, especially from a Widener view, make that look a lot more riskier now.
I think you forgot about Texas Lutheran for the second Pool B bid?
You're right Frank. I did. Just shocking to me that their are two teams with a blemished record that seem to be in front of an undefeated team for that Pool B slot, especially how undefeated teams of the past seem to get fairly high regional rankings. If Centre doesn't get the Pool B, they have no shot for a Pool C according to these rankings.
Quote from: hazzben on November 12, 2014, 09:28:07 PM
3. Maybe the biggest take away, and it pains me to say it...don't schedule tough non-con games if you play in a top 4 conference. The gauntlet that is the MIAC makes it really worthless to schedule a tough non-con and risk a loss if SOS and especially RRO aren't significant. 2-2 v. RRO is < 0-2 ???
If you follow #3 you could screw yourself with a different committee who WANTS you to schedule those games. Don't play with fire and schedule hacks and frauds.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 09:44:17 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 12, 2014, 09:28:07 PM
3. Maybe the biggest take away, and it pains me to say it...don't schedule tough non-con games if you play in a top 4 conference. The gauntlet that is the MIAC makes it really worthless to schedule a tough non-con and risk a loss if SOS and especially RRO aren't significant. 2-2 v. RRO is < 0-2 ???
If you follow #3 you could screw yourself with a different committee who WANTS you to schedule those games. Don't play with fire and schedule hacks and frauds.
We wouldn't be screwing ourselves at all. You're telling me a one loss MIAC team is staying home...doubtful.
Look, let's make this fair for everyone. Shorten the season by three weeks and make the play-offs just three weeks longer and you'd have room for 256 teams in the play-offs. ;D
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
Bethel behind Platteville is a significant development. That puts North Central in the drivers seat for 2 Loss teams unless Platteville is off the board before NCC shows up. That would require Wabash or JCU/Mt U loser to go after UWP, which isn't happening. So likely NCC and Platteville are on the board at the same time and Bethel is hosed. WOW.
This of course only helps North Central if Platteville beats Oshkosh on Saturday. If Platteville is off the board -- or not yet on the board -- then the Cardinals would not have that H2H chit against whomever they are compared.
Last projection here where the NCAA opens up the kimono. After today, it's all a secret. Let's get started.
Pool A (24 bids):
League | Team |
ASC | UMHB |
CC | Johns Hopkins |
CCIW | Wheaton |
ECFC | Husson |
E8 | Ithaca |
HCAC | Franklin |
IIAC | Wartburg |
LL | Hobart |
MAC | Widener |
MIAA | Trine |
MIAC | St. John's |
MWC | Illinois College |
NACC | Lakeland |
NCAC | Wittenberg |
NEFC | MIT |
NJAC | Rowan/Morrisville State |
NWC | Linfield |
OAC | Mount Union |
ODAC | Hampden-Sydney |
PAC | Washington & Jefferson |
SCIAC | Chapman |
UMAC | St. Scholastica |
USAC | Christopher Newport |
WIAC | UW-Whitewater |
-- note that clnched bids are in
bold-- note that teams new to the projection this week are in
italics
- 14 total bids have been clinched
- Ithaca and Wittenberg pulled off minor upsets to earn bids to the tournament
- Montclair State getting upended also takes them out of the field and puts in, well I'm not sure. I'm reading probably Rowan, the ATN podcast is using prior NJAC tiebreak precedent to postulate that it might be Mo. State. I'm pretty sure it's one or the other. If we get confirmation that Rowan is a win-and-in situation on Friday, I'll amend the NJAC projection to have just Rowan.
Pool B (2 bids): Wesley (5-0, 2-0 vs. RRO, 0.605 SOS) - I said I wasn't going to talk about Wesley anymore because this is locked up, but it is worth noting that Wesley jumped UMHB in the South rankings (why? my guess is that Rowan being ranked makes the difference) which doesn't impact selection, but could impact whether or not Wesley hosts a semifinal. I still think Wesley and UMHB are most likely on the road to UWW and UMU if the top seeds hold, but that flip-flop was interesting.
The other Pool B bid...the players are:
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Texas Lutheran (7-1, 0.544 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- 9N Chicago (7-1, 0.498 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
-- First, whither Centre? The South RAC has decided that Centre isn't as good as TLU, so I don't think we can really lump in to this group tonight. Chicago doesn't have a quality win and their RRO "result" wasn't great (and got a smidge worse with Bethel's second loss). So the Maroons are out. TLU has the SOS advantage, plus they have a RRO win (10s Hardin-Simmons) to go along with their RRO loss to UMHB. Framingham State now has an RRO result, but unfortunately it's a loss to E9 Rowan. The way this board lays out, I think TLU is really the only choice. Less easy to decipher is the case between TLU and Centre, but again, the South RAC made that choice for us.
Pool C (6 bids):Round 1:
- 2N John Carroll (9-0, 0.470 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 1E Delaware Valley (9-0, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Ok, a couple of real surprises here. First Del Val staying 1 in the East despite losing their two RRO wins. That takes so much shine off of that profile. Also, UW-P being ranked ahead of Bethel despite having really no real profile advantage over the Royals. But this is what we've got to work with, so work we will. As the only team on this board with a win against a ranked opponent (I have no earthly idea how that can happen), John Carroll is the pick.
Round 2:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 1E Delaware Valley (9-0, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- This one is tough because the same logic that I used to pick JCU ought to lead me to pick Wabash here. But Wabash does the loss whereas DelVal doesn't, and while it isn't stated criteria, I'm not sure I can assume a scenario where the #1 ranked East team doesn't go off before the #5 ranked North team. If we assume Del Val has a loss (which they would if they are in this spot...they'd also not be #1 in the region at that point), then Wabash is probably the pick. But we'll go with Delaware Valley here.
Round 3:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Welcome back, Rams. Now we have scenario where everybody on this board has a loss, Wabash is the only team with a RRO win, and nobody has a particularly overwhelming SOS advantage. Wabash goes in.
Round 4:
- 5N North Central (7-2, 0.543 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Uh oh, Pioneers. Last week we pretty much determined that North Central being at the table with UW-P means doomsday for the Pioneers. And I kind of think that still has to be the case. And if you're scoring at home, that means Platteville is blocking Bethel at the moment. And now North Central is blocking Platteville. This is interesting. I'm eliminating Platteville because of the North Central h2h. Muhlenberg has been on the board for three rounds. Framingham has been around since Pool B with a Grover Cleveland-like break. If I'm looking at the losses here, Muhlenberg and Framingham were not particularly competitive in their RRO losses. North Central got clipped by a field goal at the buzzer at #3 North Wheaton. I like North Central's RRO loss better than the other two, I really like that they beat a regionally ranked team, they have a decent SOS advantage...does all of that outweigh the extra loss to unranked Stevens Point? I think it does. North Central is the selection.
Round 5:
- 8N Heidelberg (7-2, 0.497 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Honestly, I'm surprised at how this is playing out. At this point we can rule out Heidelberg, because while they do have two results versus RROs, the Princes no-showed in both of those games. And we've got teams here that have built up a good amount of balloting capital at this point. Platteville has the SOS advantage here, their two losses are to ranked teams, and the 17-7 result against #1 West UW-Whitewater is the kind of result that earns you some credit. Platteville can make this all a lot easier on themselves by beating Oshkosh on Saturday.
And what the means, is that Centre isn't getting on the table. Undefeated Centre isn't even getting talked about throughout the entire at-large process and, to be honest, that really bugs me. Those South rankings are really, really strange.
Round 6:
- 8N Heidelberg (7-2, 0.497 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 6W Bethel (7-2, 0.625 SOS, 2-2 vs. RRO)
-- I really don't know how, with that SOS number and the only team throughout this entire process (after Wesley) to have two wins over ranked teams, we could argue against Bethel here. I know Muhlenberg has been there from the start. Framingham has been around for five rounds including the Pool B conversation. But I just don't know how you can apply the criteria in a reasonable manner and not pick Bethel. And we know that the committee, at least the chair of this committee, has indicated preference for strong schedules and quality wins. Schedules don't get a lot more difficult than the one Bethel played in 2014. I'm taking Bethel as the last team in.
Quote from: hazzben on November 12, 2014, 09:46:06 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 09:44:17 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 12, 2014, 09:28:07 PM
3. Maybe the biggest take away, and it pains me to say it...don't schedule tough non-con games if you play in a top 4 conference. The gauntlet that is the MIAC makes it really worthless to schedule a tough non-con and risk a loss if SOS and especially RRO aren't significant. 2-2 v. RRO is < 0-2 ???
If you follow #3 you could screw yourself with a different committee who WANTS you to schedule those games. Don't play with fire and schedule hacks and frauds.
We wouldn't be screwing ourselves at all. You're telling me a one loss MIAC team is staying home...doubtful.
With C bids shrinking from 6 to either 5 or 4, I wouldn't want to risk it.
So does an Oshkosh win over Platteville this weekend help them enough to get ahead of Bethel?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Last projection here where the NCAA opens up the kimono. After today, it's all a secret. Let's get started.
Pool A (24 bids):
League | Team |
ASC | UMHB |
CC | Johns Hopkins |
CCIW | Wheaton |
ECFC | Husson |
E8 | Ithaca |
HCAC | Franklin |
IIAC | Wartburg |
LL | Hobart |
MAC | Widener |
MIAA | Trine |
MIAC | St. John's |
MWC | Illinois College |
NACC | Lakeland |
NCAC | Wittenberg |
NEFC | MIT |
NJAC | Rowan/Morrisville State |
NWC | Linfield |
OAC | Mount Union |
ODAC | Hampden-Sydney |
PAC | Washington & Jefferson |
SCIAC | Chapman |
UMAC | St. Scholastica |
USAC | Christopher Newport |
WIAC | UW-Whitewater |
-- note that clnched bids are in bold
-- note that teams new to the projection this week are in italics
- 14 total bids have been clinched
- Ithaca and Wittenberg pulled off minor upsets to earn bids to the tournament
- Montclair State getting upended also takes them out of the field and puts in, well I'm not sure. I'm reading probably Rowan, the ATN podcast is using prior NJAC tiebreak precedent to postulate that it might be Mo. State. I'm pretty sure it's one or the other. If we get confirmation that Rowan is a win-and-in situation on Friday, I'll amend the NJAC projection to have just Rowan.
Pool B (2 bids):
Wesley (5-0, 1-0 vs. RRO, 0.605 SOS) - I said I wasn't going to talk about Wesley anymore because this is locked up, but it is worth noting that Wesley jumped UMHB in the South rankings (why? my guess is that Rowan being ranked makes the difference) which doesn't impact selection, but could impact whether or not Wesley hosts a semifinal. I still think Wesley and UMHB are most likely on the road to UWW and UMU if the top seeds hold, but that flip-flop was interesting.
The other Pool B bid...the players are:
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Texas Lutheran (7-1, 0.544 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- 9N Chicago (7-1, 0.498 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
-- First, whither Centre? The South RAC has decided that Centre isn't as good as TLU, so I don't think we can really lump in to this group tonight. Chicago doesn't have a quality win and their RRO "result" wasn't great (and got a smidge worse with Bethel's second loss). So the Maroons are out. TLU has the SOS advantage, plus they have a RRO win (10s Hardin-Simmons) to go along with their RRO loss to UMHB. Framingham State now has an RRO result, but unfortunately it's a loss to E9 Rowan. The way this board lays out, I think TLU is really the only choice. Less easy to decipher is the case between TLU and Centre, but again, the South RAC made that choice for us.
Pool C (6 bids):
Round 1:
- 2N John Carroll (9-0, 0.470 SOS, 1-0 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 1E Delaware Valley (9-0, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Ok, a couple of real surprises here. First Del Val staying 1 in the East despite losing their two RRO wins. That takes so much shine off of that profile. Also, UW-P being ranked ahead of Bethel despite having really no real profile advantage over the Royals. But this is what we've got to work with, so work we will. As the only team on this board with a win against a ranked opponent (I have no earthly idea how that can happen), John Carroll is the pick.
Round 2:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 1E Delaware Valley (9-0, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- This one is tough because the same logic that I used to pick JCU ought to lead me to pick Wabash here. But Wabash does the loss whereas DelVal doesn't, and while it isn't stated criteria, I'm not sure I can assume a scenario where the #1 ranked East team doesn't go off before the #5 ranked North team. If we assume Del Val has a loss (which they would if they are in this spot...they'd also not be #1 in the region at that point), then Wabash is probably the pick. But we'll go with Delaware Valley here.
Round 3:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Welcome back, Rams. Now we have scenario where everybody on this board has a loss, Wabash is the only team with a RRO win, and nobody has a particularly overwhelming SOS advantage. Wabash goes in.
Round 4:
- 5N North Central (7-2, 0.543 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Uh oh, Pioneers. Last week we pretty much determined that North Central being at the table with UW-P means doomsday for the Pioneers. And I kind of think that still has to be the case. And if you're scoring at home, that means Platteville is blocking Bethel at the moment. And now North Central is blocking Platteville. This is interesting. I'm eliminating Platteville because of the North Central h2h. Muhlenberg has been on the board for three rounds. Framingham has been around since Pool B with a Grover Cleveland-like break. If I'm looking at the losses here, Muhlenberg and Framingham were not particularly competitive in their RRO losses. North Central got clipped by a field goal at the buzzer at #3 North Wheaton. I like North Central's RRO loss better than the other two, I really like that they beat a regionally ranked team, they have a decent SOS advantage...does all of that outweigh the extra loss to unranked Stevens Point? I think it does. North Central is the selection.
Round 5:
- 8N Heidelberg (7-2, 0.497 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
-- Honestly, I'm surprised at how this is playing out. At this point we can rule out Heidelberg, because while they do have two results versus RROs, the Princes no-showed in both of those games. And we've got teams here that have built up a good amount of balloting capital at this point. Platteville has the SOS advantage here, their two losses are to ranked teams, and the 17-7 result against #1 West UW-Whitewater is the kind of result that earns you some credit. Platteville can make this all a lot easier on themselves by beating Oshkosh on Saturday.
And what the means, is that Centre isn't getting on the table. Undefeated Centre isn't even getting talked about throughout the entire at-large process and, to be honest, that really bugs me. Those South rankings are really, really strange.
Round 6:
- 8N Heidelberg (7-2, 0.497 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 6W Bethel (7-2, 0.625 SOS, 2-2 vs. RRO)
-- I really don't know how, with that SOS number and the only team throughout this entire process (after Wesley) to have two wins over ranked teams, we could argue against Bethel here. I know Muhlenberg has been there from the start. Framingham has been around for five rounds including the Pool B conversation. But I just don't know how you can apply the criteria in a reasonable manner and not pick Bethel. And we know that the committee, at least the chair of this committee, has indicated preference for strong schedules and quality wins. Schedules don't get a lot more difficult than the one Bethel played in 2014. I'm taking Bethel as the last team in.
Really great analysis. Thanks for the info.
I think Centre needs to write some VERY STRONGLY WORDED LETTERS or something...
Quote from: cubs on November 12, 2014, 10:07:57 PM
So does an Oshkosh win over Platteville this weekend help them enough to get ahead of Bethel?
No idea. Tonight's rankings don't make a ton of sense to me.
Quote from: cubs on November 12, 2014, 10:07:57 PM
So does an Oshkosh win over Platteville this weekend help them enough to get ahead of Bethel?
We'll never know, and since it seems the West and South put their rankings on "RANDOM" then...
Wally, really good reasoning for your picks as they stand right now - thanx for walking through it!
I think some of the ranked teams can improve their standing in the last week of play - and we'll never know if they did or didn't. That bugs me too. I'm thinking, whether it was intentional or not, there is wiggle room for the selection committee to pick a team not on the radar right now. We'll know for sure in just four days.
I'm almost wondering if there will be a "TOTES MY BAD!" and revised rankings for the South and West that follow the criteria or something.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.
Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).
I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.
Oof. Centre. :-\
Thanks for the write-up, Wally.
So here's why things got weird in this projection:
- Centre got bumped behind both Pool B TLU AND Pool C Muhlenberg. That shouldn't happen. I can almost see the reasoning for TLU ahead of Centre. I don't see it at all for Muhlenberg. Muhlenberg, devoid of any quality wins, is a hard team to select.
- Lycoming and Montclair State both falling out in the East left Del Val with zero RRO results. Last week they were 2-0 in that category. And with an unimpressive SOS, I don't know how they can be ranked #1 in the region because they look a lot like a team that wound up not getting selected in 2013 with 9 wins, a 0.500-ish SOS, and zero quality results. That's not a lock team, that's a last in/first out team. But they're on the top of the board in the East. But here, I'm not sure there's a better alternative there- none of the non-autoqualifiers in the East's rankings have an RRO win.
- That North Central/UWP result really dictates the last half of the selections. Platteville is not selectable while North Central is present.
If we do this in a way that doesn't limit our consideration to one team at a time from each region, I think the six best Pool C selections are (in some order): OAC runner up, MAC runner up, Centre, Wabash, Bethel, North Central. But there's a not a road you can pave using tonight's rankings and what are supposed to be the selection criteria to get those six teams.
And why not Framingham or Muhlenberg or Chicago or even Emory & Henry while we're at it? Because last year the committee said very emphatically that these bids belong to teams that 1) play strong schedules and 2) have positive RRO results. Maybe the preference of this year's committee is different. It wouldn't be the first time a committee has shifted its preference for quality wins and schedule strength for win percentage or vice versa.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2014, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.
Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).
I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.
But how can Centre get on the board behind TLU and Muhlenberg?
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 12, 2014, 09:32:25 PM
I think you forgot about Texas Lutheran for the second Pool B bid?
You're right Frank. I did. Just shocking to me that their are two teams with a blemished record that seem to be in front of an undefeated team for that Pool B slot, especially how undefeated teams of the past seem to get fairly high regional rankings. If Centre doesn't get the Pool B, they have no shot for a Pool C according to these rankings.
Hear that? That's sound of Ned Beatty echoing throughout the coal mines and tobacco fields in the Commonwealth :o.... And I doubt they even received dinner or flowers first.
My prediction for next week's "contribution" from the South's RC, lead by TLU's HC, Austin's HC and LC's HC: Louisiana College will take over the #10 RR from Hardin-Simmons if they beat them, ensuring TLU stays exactly where they placed themselves.
I don't know how the National Committee would overturn such blatant, self-serving politics, since 2 of the 8 members are on the South RC.
But what a shame for the Centre kids to get screwed over like that. They likely wouldn't have run the table, but theydid have a realistic chance to win at least one game.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2014, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.
Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).
I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.
I really hope you're right, Keith. 10-0 Centre deserves to keep playing. And the South RAC can make sure that happens either by putting Centre ahead of TLU and giving Centre that B bid, or putting Centre behind TLU and ahead of Muhlenberg. 10-0 Centre won't languish for six rounds in Pool C. Muhlenberg is a roadblock though. Other than being 9-1, Muhlenberg doesn't have much of anything else going for it. And last year, 9-1 with not much else didn't get you in.
So the question becomes is the field better without Bethel and the WIAC runner up (because you can't get Bethel without the WIAC runner up) and including Muhlenberg and Centre (because you can't get Centre without Muhlenberg at the moment)?
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 12, 2014, 10:35:14 PM
But what a shame for the Centre kids to get screwed over like that. They likely wouldn't have run the table, but theydid have a realistic chance to win at least one game.
Yep. This is what I keep taking away the most from tonight. I really hope they don't get kicked to the curb come selection time.
Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:09:40 PM
Quote from: cubs on November 12, 2014, 10:07:57 PM
So does an Oshkosh win over Platteville this weekend help them enough to get ahead of Bethel?
No idea. Tonight's rankings don't make a ton of sense to me.
Nor me. Lots of weird stuff in these rankings. You've already covered the wackiness in the South and West, so just to bring back something I posted a few pages ago:
Last week, St Lawrence was 6th and MIT 7th.
SLU lost 29-27 on a FG with 1 minute to play to the #2 team in the East
MIT won 55-37 against Maine Maritime
Somehow, those two results shuffled MIT ahead of SLU
I'm all for reevaluating season bodies of work in each week's rankings, but that's just plain silly.
SLU doesn't look likely to make it into the at large discussion anyway but for some reason this really bothered me as another "they did what?!?" in the RR's.
Centre's low ranking and Bethel behind UWP are the most bothersome IMO. The Bethel ranking, in particular, seems to be just spitting on the NCAA's own criteria.
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:47:20 PM
Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.
Asked this question myself on the Pool B thread, haven't gotten an answer yet. Even K-Mack didn't know. I've been wondering this the last two or three years.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:27:41 PM
So here's why things got weird in this projection:
- Centre got bumped behind both Pool B TLU AND Pool C Muhlenberg. That shouldn't happen. I can almost see the reasoning for TLU ahead of Centre. I don't see it at all for Muhlenberg. Muhlenberg, devoid of any quality wins, is a hard team to select.
- Lycoming and Montclair State both falling out in the East left Del Val with zero RRO results. Last week they were 2-0 in that category. And with an unimpressive SOS, I don't know how they can be ranked #1 in the region because they look a lot like a team that wound up not getting selected in 2013 with 9 wins, a 0.500-ish SOS, and zero quality results. That's not a lock team, that's a last in/first out team. But they're on the top of the board in the East. But here, I'm not sure there's a better alternative there- none of the non-autoqualifiers in the East's rankings have an RRO win.
- That North Central/UWP result really dictates the last half of the selections. Platteville is not selectable while North Central is present.
If we do this in a way that doesn't limit our consideration to one team at a time from each region, I think the six best Pool C selections are (in some order): OAC runner up, MAC runner up, Centre, Wabash, Bethel, North Central. But there's a not a road you can pave using tonight's rankings and what are supposed to be the selection criteria to get those six teams.
And why not Framingham or Muhlenberg or Chicago or even Emory & Henry while we're at it? Because last year the committee said very emphatically that these bids belong to teams that 1) play strong schedules and 2) have positive RRO results. Maybe the preference of this year's committee is different. It wouldn't be the first time a committee has shifted its preference for quality wins and schedule strength for win percentage or vice versa.
All remarkably well reasoned points.
Like a computer, if you put bad information in, you get bad results out. If they fixed the Bethel thing, or took Centre and Wesley in B and let Framingham and TLU fight it out in C, you could run the process again and get something totally different, because of the various teams blocking others from getting to the board.
This just got a whole lot more interesting. I have a feeling we'll be here this time Saturday night (or Sunday night) backwards-recreating the final regional rankings so we can make sense of who got in.
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:47:20 PM
Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.
That's how I approached the selection. And even if they do just kind of throw all of the teams in there, don't the rankings already tell us that TLU is preferred? For the selection committee to take Centre in Pool B would effectively be a total reorder of that RAC's work. And from what I recall, committees generally don't like to do that.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2014, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.
Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).
I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.
After reading Wally's full explanations, I am beginning to doubt myself on the above Centre and Bethel statements.
Once you see Centre behind TLU and Bethel behind Platteville in the rankings, things that make sense anecdotally don't if you follow the process.
Pool B is treated like Pool C, but only for Pool B teams eligible. There is no way a Pool B team ranked behind another Pool B team in the regional rankings will jump them for a Pool B bid. Just as you wouldn't see a Pool C team in a region selected ahead of another Pool C team ranked ahead of them.
What's weird is I don't have a problem with Centre behind Texas Lutheran in the abstract.
If Centre played one opponent as good as UMHB, they'd have a loss like TLU does. Last year TLU went 8-1 with a schedule like Centre's and got left out. This year they upgraded to UMHB and their regional ranking recognizes and rewards them for playing that game. 0-1 vs. an RRO (or 1-1 if Hardin-Simmons remains ranked) is better than 0-0.
But leaving out a 10-0 team, even one that played a bad schedule, seems like it shouldn't happen in a field with six at-large spots.
Out of curiosity, if at this point:
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Round 3:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville" (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking? Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2014, 11:04:01 PM
Pool B is treated like Pool C, but only for Pool B teams eligible. There is no way a Pool B team ranked behind another Pool B team in the regional rankings will jump them for a Pool B bid. Just as you wouldn't see a Pool C team in a region selected ahead of another Pool C team ranked ahead of them.
Thanks, Dave!
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 10:33:21 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2014, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.
A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.
But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?
And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.
Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.
Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).
I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.
But how can Centre get on the board behind TLU and Muhlenberg?
My thinking had always been they'd be the second B in, with both Wesley and Centre making it largely on the strength of the 1.000 win pct.
After seeing today's rankings and reading the past few pages of debate, you're right, their case isn't just weak, their path is blocked as well.
Not having a regionally ranked opponent and having a bad SoS means it all comes down to how much the committee values win pct.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2014, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:47:20 PM
Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.
Asked this question myself on the Pool B thread, haven't gotten an answer yet. Even K-Mack didn't know. I've been wondering this the last two or three years.
I know McHugh chimed in, but FWIW, I put a question out about this and about whether the national committee can disagree with the regional advisory committee (even if that would more or less defeat the purpose of having them).
I'll confirm/reply if/when I hear back.
Quote from: kiko on November 12, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
Out of curiosity, if at this point:
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Round 3:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville" (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking? Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.
I think it would go Bethel, Wabash, North Central.
I think Bethel goes in as soon as they're on the board.
Quote from: kiko on November 12, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
Out of curiosity, if at this point:
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Round 3:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville" (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking? Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.
Without thinking too hard about it (which is sort of your premise), I think if they took Platteville there, the last three selections would be: Bethel, Wabash, and then probably North Central but by that time with Muhlenberg and Framingham still hanging around for the entirety of the process, one of those two might out-vote North Central there. But, I still think that win over Platteville (who is officially a tournament team in this scenario) outweighs the extra loss for North Central.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2014, 11:13:45 PM
Quote from: kiko on November 12, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
Out of curiosity, if at this point:
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Round 3:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville" (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking? Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.
I think it would go Bethel, Wabash, North Central.
I think Bethel goes in as soon as they're on the board.
There are a couple of small changes that should shake up everything. Like what if UW-Oshkosh beats Platteville, then there's no
common opponent head-to-head with North Central. Assuming Platteville remains in the final regional ranking, UW-O would be 1-1 vs. RRO and .500 or .500ish SoS (because all 7 counting games are vs. WIAC teams).
Likewise, if Del Val beats Widener and puts the Pride in the C field, their win over Rowan (assuming they beat TCNJ and remain ranked) gives them a 1-1 RRO mark, plus an SoS that is in the .480 range now but should jump after the Del Val game.
A wildcard in this process is the assumption Wally is making with his picks is that the "three aren't getting in" bias is gone with the addition of a 6th team. I am not sure that's a reliable assumption. If the committee shuts off the North after Wabash and JCU/Mt U, that changes things as well.
I really don't think the South regional rankings are as wacky as some of you are wanting them to be. I can't find any set criteria for determining the regional rankings, so if that actually exists, I guess I've wasted alot of time. If it doesn't exist, I would think it reasonable that the committee would then look to the posted criteria for determining at large bids. These criteria as they are listed (not in priority order) are as follows:
● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents; (Criterion 1)
● Division III head-to-head competition; (Criterion 2)
● Results versus common Division III opponents; (Criterion 3)
● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included (ed note: there are none of these in 2013); (Criterion 4)
● Division III strength of schedule (Criterion 5)
-- Opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
-- Opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.
● Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's won-lost percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end-of-season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval of the Championships Committee. (Criterion 6)
Each of these criteria are completely objective, with the exception of Criterion 6. I'm assuming Criterion 6 is there to help weed out a team that has 2 or 3 consecutive losses going into playoffs. Whatever the case, it's subjective, so I'll throw it out with the bath water. That leaves us with 5 criteria to compare teams by. It's obvious the perceived problems with the south regional rankings lies with three teams (Team A, Team B, Team C). I try to make this anonymous to help objectivity, but the truth is you all are so well versed in their differences that you probably know exactly whom is whom. Of Teams A, B, and C, none of the three have head to head contests. Criterion 2 is now irrelevant. None of the three have common division iii opponents. Criterion 3 is useless. That leaves us with three criterion to compare the teams by (1, 4, 5).
● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents; (Criterion 1)
● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included (ed note: there are none of these in 2013); (Criterion 4)
● Division III strength of schedule (Criterion 5)
-- Opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
-- Opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.
So let's compare and rank:
WEST RR #5
School D3 W/L SoS OWPx.66 OOWPx.33 Total RRR
Team A 9-0 208 .3913 (219) .5403 .441 0-0
Team B 8-1 35 .5472 (59) .5381 .544 1-1
Team C 8-1 116 .4861 (133) .5323 .502 0-1
Criterion 1 ranking within the three teams:
1st - Team A (rationale: highest %)
2nd - Teams B and C (rationale: identical %)
Criterion 4 ranking within the three teams:
1st - Team B (rationale: only win of the three vs. RRO)
2nd - Team C (rationale: has played a RRO, but lost)
3rd - Team A (rationale: has not played a RRO)
Criterion 5 ranking within the three teams:
1st - Team B (rationale: best SoS)
2nd - Team C (rationale: second best SoS)
3rd - Team A (rationale: worst SoS)
So when we look at how the three teams stack up based on the applicable established criteria to measure them against each other, assigning points for their ranking (3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd) to give them a numerical comparison you would get this:
Team A - 1st, 3rd, 3rd - 5 points
Team B - 2nd, 1st, 1st - 8 points
Team C - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd - 6 points
How would you order these three teams?
That's a really good exercise, timtlu. But there's some other things in play here:
- you're assuming that the criteria are weighted evenly, even to the point of making them ordinal and I don't think that's how any one member of a committee, let alone an entire committee applies the criteria. Everybody places different weight on different pieces of the selection criteria
- we also know what Team C plays in a 9-team league and can ONLY have an SOS near .500. They can't do much better, they can't do much worse. Teams A and B play in smaller leagues which offers both the opportunity to accumulate OWP wins (or losses) that aren't eventually offset by OWP losses (or wins) from round robin league play. Those scenarios can swing the SOS way high or way low depending, really, on how lucky you got with your non-conference opponents' records.
I think the right order is TLU, Centre, Muhlenberg. Being undefeated is hard, regardless of what the NCAA's SOS formula says.
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 11:32:50 PM
A wildcard in this process is the assumption Wally is making with his picks is that the "three aren't getting in" bias is gone with the addition of a 6th team.
This was never a thing.
The primary criteria are not weighted equally. And they don't have to tell what the weights are.
The regional committees follow the criteria but they may not weigh them the same as the national committee.
And year over year the committees change, and their preferences change.
The big thing is that Muhlenberg jumped Centre for really no apparent reason. There's no rational reasoning if they established criteria in week one and then changed it when teams held serve. Usually W/L record is a pretty high indicator. No one has a RR win. There was nothing Centre did or Muhlenberg did or TLU did, really, that would cause a change in the rankings. Yet here we are.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 11:59:34 PM
That's a really good exercise, timtlu. But there's some other things in play here:
- you're assuming that the criteria are weighted evenly, even to the point of making them ordinal and I don't think that's how any one member of a committee, let alone an entire committee applies the criteria. Everybody places different weight on different pieces of the selection criteria
- we also know what Team C plays in a 9-team league and can ONLY have an SOS near .500. They can't do much better, they can't do much worse. Teams A and B play in smaller leagues which offers both the opportunity to accumulate OWP wins (or losses) that aren't eventually offset by OWP losses (or wins) from round robin league play. Those scenarios can swing the SOS way high or way low depending, really, on how lucky you got with your non-conference opponents' records.
I think the right order is TLU, Centre, Muhlenberg. Being undefeated is hard, regardless of what the NCAA's SOS formula says.
There are a couple of other things to consider. Not all RRO losses/wins are equal. About five years ago, the Committee actually utilized the relative positioning of ranked opponents to differentiate teams (I remember that Pat and others found this highly dubious as a technique based on imbalanced regions, but it presumably could be used within the same region as a tool). Beating E1 probably is a bigger win than beating E10, for instance. Also, remember that the word says "Results" and not record. As such, score matters in some cases. One problem I have is that SLU lost to E2 by 2 points and is 0-1 vs. RROs with the #14 SOS. SJF, also with two losses, lost by a larger-than-one-possession margin to E5 and has a comparable (slightly better) SOS. Yet, SLU is two spots below SJF. SLU's results vs. RROs are slightly better, with a very slightly worse SOS position. You could argue SLU belongs above SJF presently based on those "results" and relative positionings. This is just another example of how just ranking flatly in a robotic way isn't the reality of what happens.
I completely agree treating the three criteria equal may not be ideal, but it seems the NCAA or whoever is in charge of setting that criteria made a point to acknowledge there is no priority between them. Without that information, the only way to objectively use the criteria is to treat them equal.
You are also right about the luck of how well your opponents play in the case of A vs B. But at some point a significant difference in wins in losses by those opponents adds up to determine how hard your schedule actually was. However, whether it be bad luck, bad circumstance, or bad scheduling, the results are still the results. Why should one ignore them? And if one does decide to ignore them, then the rankers are now ranking based on subjectivity when they have defined objective criteria.
The other pink elephant is team A is undefeated. Teams B and C both have only 1 loss. Each of those 1 losses came against a RRO. By virtue of not scheduling a RRO (by luck, circumstance, scheduling, or otherwise) team A has 0 losses. If you remove the RRO results from B and C, they also have exactly 0 losses. So the question becomes, how powerful is the penalty of the one loss to a RRO compared to the strength of playing at least one RRO? If a ranker feels these two things negate each other to any comparable power, you are right back to the same resumes based on metrics.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:07:22 AM
The primary criteria are not weighted equally. And they don't have to tell what the weights are.
The regional committees follow the criteria but they may not weigh them the same as the national committee.
And year over year the committees change, and their preferences change.
The big thing is that Muhlenberg jumped Centre for really no apparent reason. There's no rational reasoning if they established criteria in week one and then changed it when teams held serve. Usually W/L record is a pretty high indicator. No one has a RR win. There was nothing Centre did or Muhlenberg did or TLU did, really, that would cause a change in the rankings. Yet here we are.
Actually one of the three teams does have a RR win: Team B.
They DO prioritize them; they just do not say what the priority is. You can't assume things are weighted equally, becausee they aren't. We assume W/L percentage is high on the list, and RR wins are high as well. Last year RR wins and SOS triumphed over W/L for the last "C" spot. In years past two loss teams didn't make it and one loss teams from 'weaker' conferences were in.
And I forgot about TLU's RR win. That may be why they're ahead of Centre. Maybe. But they were tied the week before.
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
Yes, they were tied the week before. I tried to find the SoS from last week to see if there was any significant change between the three, but couldn't. Objectively that would be the only way I see a difference should occur between last week and this week.
Given the metrics for this week, however, who is to say that this weeks poll is actually the silly one. It is equally likely, (actually even moreso likely, if there was no significant change in SoS between the weeks) that last weeks regional rankings were the silly ones.
Once they establish a criteria, they should stick to it for consistencies sake. Nothing about last week's rankings said, "Hey wait" like the West's did this week where Bethel was under Platteville for no reason except reasons, I suppose. No one got an extra RR win, no one lost so they committee had an excuse to shake it up. It changed for no reason.
The committee still finds no love for Emory & Henry, either.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2014, 11:21:31 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2014, 11:13:45 PM
Quote from: kiko on November 12, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
Out of curiosity, if at this point:
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Round 3:
- 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
- t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
- 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville" (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking? Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.
I think it would go Bethel, Wabash, North Central.
I think Bethel goes in as soon as they're on the board.
There are a couple of small changes that should shake up everything. Like what if UW-Oshkosh beats Platteville, then there's no common opponent with North Central. Assuming Platteville remains in the final regional ranking, UW-O would be 1-1 vs. RRO and .500 or .500ish SoS (because all 7 counting games are vs. WIAC teams).
Likewise, if Del Val beats Widener and puts the Pride in the C field, their win over Rowan (assuming they beat TCNJ and remain ranked) gives them a 1-1 RRO mark, plus an SoS that is in the .480 range now but should jump after the Del Val game.
Maybe not head-to-head, but North Central and UWO would have two common opponents- Stevens Point and Platteville.
Oshkosh would be 2-0 with a win Saturday, while North Central would be 1-1. As I mentioned earlier, if I am North Central I am pulling for Platteville to beat Oshkosh.
Oshkosh winning allows the west to correct its mistake - they'll put Bethel in above Oshkosh.
In that case, it'll be MAC runner-up, OAC runner-up, Wabash, Bethel and then....
Framingham
North Central
Muhlenberg
Oshkosh (?)
Does the committee then dive to Framingham or Muhlenberg (assuming the South doesn't correct itself and somehow gets Centre on the board)? Platteville may not be ranked if they lose.
I'd also be curious to see if somehow it shook out that Centre and Oshkosh were paired up against each other for the final at large. Undefeated team, versus a team with a 6-4 overall record but 6-1 in D3. Hmmm....
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents." "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 12:38:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents." "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.
The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)
The committees never really tell us what's in the mixture they are baking until it's out of the oven...
Quote from: cubs on November 13, 2014, 12:28:24 AM
Maybe not head-to-head, but North Central and UWO would have two common opponents- Stevens Point and Platteville.
Oshkosh would be 2-0 with a win Saturday, while North Central would be 1-1. As I mentioned earlier, if I am North Central I am pulling for Platteville to beat Oshkosh.
You're spot on, cubs. When we are looking at just UWO, UWP, and NCC, NCC has the nuts against UWP by virtue of beating them head to head and UWO (if they win on Saturday) would have the nuts on NCC by being 2-0 against the common opponents to NCC's 1-1- plus UWO's win percentage advantage as well.
Now, none of this matters if those North Central and the WIAC runner up don't find themselves at the same intersection in the Pool C process. But if they do (and each of the two projections guided by the NCAA's rankings have led us to that point), there are very clear, defined rights of way there by virtue of schedule overlaps that we don't usually get at selection time.
Frank, the East may be showing itself by deliberately putting Framingham in the best possible place for a "B" that doesn't raise suspicion and making a case for MIT in seeding?
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:53:55 AM
Frank, the East may be showing itself by deliberately putting Framingham in the best possible place for a "B" that doesn't raise suspicion and making a case for MIT in seeding?
In fairness, wherever the East RAC puts Framingham State, Framingham is the only B candidate in the region...they are the de facto nominee, if you will. How much it matters that they are ranked fourth or sixth, I don't know.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:41:43 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 12:38:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents." "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.
The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)
We've been talking this for probably three or four years, Smed. Just saying 0-1 is only the very basic information and not what the committees tend to use.
By the way, congrats, Wally! And thank you!
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/projected-bracket-version-one
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:07:22 AM
The big thing is that Muhlenberg jumped Centre for really no apparent reason. There's no rational reasoning if they established criteria in week one and then changed it when teams held serve. Usually W/L record is a pretty high indicator. No one has a RR win.
Couldn't agree more smed. Set your internal ratings, then evaluate the following week's results and adjust those ratings. All three teams won, with no significant wins. Centre won 27-0.
FWIW, Centre can only play the opponents that are on the schedule- regardless of how good they happen to be this year. And they not only won them all, but did so fairly convincingly by an average margin of 22.3 points. TLU's margin was 8.9 for their D3 opponents. Not part of the exact criterion. But it is part of the proverbial eyeball test I've heard mentioned.
Maybe the National Committee will see through the politics. I just don't understand how a team that loses 72-13, not only isn't penalized in any way, but is actually rewarded by the huge bump that UMHB's 10 wins gives TLU's SOS.
This all smacks of regional gerrymandering. Let's hope it get's vetoed for the kids' sake.
I think any edge helps. They also want to be sure Framingham is on the "C" board, I bet. The East seems to be really good at this.
It seems like the North is the only region without palace intrigue. Wabash lost, and moved to their rightful spot ahead of the best two loss team.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 13, 2014, 01:04:00 AM
I just don't understand how a team that loses 72-13, not only isn't penalized in any way, but is actually rewarded by the huge bump that UMHB's 10 wins gives TLU's SOS.
Nobody in this ranking lost 72-13 since the last poll, and there is nothing to say that Centre or half of the 40 regionally ranked teams couldn't also have lost to UMHB 72-13.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2014, 01:02:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:41:43 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 12:38:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents." "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.
The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)
We've been talking this for probably three or four years, Smed. Just saying 0-1 is only the very basic information and not what the committees tend to use.
I may have missed that memo, Pat. Or slept, or something. Or paid attention to false prophets. Alas. My bad. I guess it's also the, "It's who you beat, not who you lost to" a bit as well.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:36:09 AM
Oshkosh winning allows the west to correct its mistake - they'll put Bethel in above Oshkosh.
Would they? I think after what we saw today, we don't really know at all what the West committee would do. I don't think there's any guarantee they wouldn't slot UWO above Bethel if they won on Saturday.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2014, 01:02:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:41:43 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 12:38:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents." "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.
The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)
We've been talking this for probably three or four years, Smed. Just saying 0-1 is only the very basic information and not what the committees tend to use.
By the way, congrats, Wally! And thank you!
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/projected-bracket-version-one
Thank you, Pat! That bracket is juicy. I like it a lot.
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 12:12:54 AM
If you remove the RRO results from B and C, they also have exactly 0 losses. So the question becomes, how powerful is the penalty of the one loss to a RRO compared to the strength of playing at least one RRO?
If you disregard the loss, just because it was against a Top 4/5/8/whatever team, then you MUST ALSO remove the corresponding 10 wins padding the SOS. Then things get MUCH more interesting.
The RR win was against a RR#10. They were voted to that spot, or possibly higher, by TLU's head coach. This is ANOTHER of your big pink elephants in the room. We're not talking back-room politics. He's dead-center, one of eight on the committee. Fact.
And if LC knocks HS off Saturday and out of the ratings there'll be no more RR win. Unless, of course, LC takes their place, which I totally expect to happen, after what I've seen in this week's reconfiguration.
If Hardin Simmons loses, and Emory & Henry wins, I would think the Wasps have to enter the South rankings. Of course I thought Muhlenberg wouldn't leap Centre.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2014, 01:06:15 AM
Nobody in this ranking lost 72-13 since the last poll, and there is nothing to say that Centre or half of the 40 regionally ranked teams couldn't also have lost to UMHB 72-13.
This acknowledgement doesn't go over very well, lol. Trust me, I speak from experience. However, maybe you will have better luck since you're not the new guy.
Also, I agree the South region has messed up somewhere if the SoS did not have anything more than negligible change from last week to this. Anyone know where to find last week's SoS to figure that out? If it didn't, then we're making an assumption that this week is messed up, though if you look at the criteria they have been given to compare teams, it fits pretty well. Why do we continue to discount that LAST WEEK is much more likely to have been messed up based on those criteria? And if this is the case, wouldn't you rather the committee correct it's mistake, than continue to propagate that mistake just because it has already been established?
Blame the criteria all you want if you think they are poor, but the numbers support the rankings. The conspiracy theory lacks merit.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2014, 01:06:15 AM
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 13, 2014, 01:04:00 AM
I just don't understand how a team that loses 72-13, not only isn't penalized in any way, but is actually rewarded by the huge bump that UMHB's 10 wins gives TLU's SOS.
Nobody in this ranking lost 72-13 since the last poll, and there is nothing to say that Centre or half of the 40 regionally ranked teams couldn't also have lost to UMHB 72-13.
Pat, I understand where you're coming from and I totally agree. It could happen. I know you've seen Centre play against Hendrix because I saw your interviews. Well done, by the way! ;) Assuming you've seen UMHB also. So I'll defer to your assessment there.
Obviously I realize that game didn't happen in the last week. My point is just that it doesn't seem right to dismiss the big loss, just because it could happen to 225 other D3 teams, while at the same time throwing a high SOS number about like it's a badge of honor when it was propped by the ten wins from the team that killed you.
So again, no that game didn't happen in the past week. But what actually did happen that made the RC drop Centre below TLU and Muhlenberg?
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 13, 2014, 01:15:37 AM
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 12:12:54 AM
If you remove the RRO results from B and C, they also have exactly 0 losses. So the question becomes, how powerful is the penalty of the one loss to a RRO compared to the strength of playing at least one RRO?
If you disregard the loss, just because it was against a Top 4/5/8/whatever team, then you MUST ALSO remove the corresponding 10 wins padding the SOS. Then things get MUCH more interesting.
The RR win was against a RR#10. They were voted to that spot, or possibly higher, by TLU's head coach. This is ANOTHER of your big pink elephants in the room. We're not talking back-room politics. He's dead-center, one of eight on the committee. Fact.
And if LC knocks HS off Saturday and out of the ratings there'll be no more RR win. Unless, of course, LC takes their place, which I totally expect to happen, after what I've seen in this week's reconfiguration.
Take the same exercise and apply it to the likely 10th West RR team this week
WEST RR #10
Hardin Simmons 4-2 48 .5476 (58) .5210 .539 0-2
Rhodes 7-2 103 .5077 (104) .5082 .508 0-2
Emory and Henry 8-1 161 .4571 (172) .5201 .478 0-1
HSU - 3rd, 1st, 1st - 7 pts
Rhodes - 2nd, 1st, 2nd - 7 pts
E and H - 1st, 3rd, 3rd - 5 pts
Again, it's not perfect, but its as neutral a metric using the criteria given that I can think of. You could proabably make a case for any of them, but how is ranking HSU #10 so outlandish that is screams collusion?
Last week it was TLU .540, Centre .436 and Muhlenberg .491 according to Wally's analysis.
Now it's TLU .544, Centre .441 and Muhlenberg .502.
Centre actually improved by .001 more.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 13, 2014, 01:26:21 AM
But what actually did happen that made the RC drop Centre below TLU and Muhlenberg?
They realized they screwed the pooch last week, and wanted to make it right?
You keep using that metric when it's not what they use at all.
I have no problem with H/S being ranked. I do think E&H is the proverbial #11...
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 01:33:39 AM
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 13, 2014, 01:26:21 AM
But what actually did happen that made the RC drop Centre below TLU and Muhlenberg?
They realized they screwed the pooch last week, and wanted to make it right?
They didn't. It was a very reasonable ranking, in fact, some were thinking Centre should have been #5 and not TLU.
And did someone from Centre whizz in your Crunchberries? TLU has a better chance at a "C" than Muhlenberg or Centre based on SOS and that RR win. If Centre got the B and TLU was in C it could be what the South needs to get another team in.
A 10-0 team ON THE BOARD would be something the committee couldn't resist putting in. Centre can't get on the board in this configuration.
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 01:31:40 AM
Take the same exercise and apply it to the likely 10th West RR team this week
WEST RR #10
Hardin Simmons 4-2 48 .5476 (58) .5210 .539 0-2
Rhodes 7-2 103 .5077 (104) .5082 .508 0-2
Emory and Henry 8-1 161 .4571 (172) .5201 .478 0-1
HSU - 3rd, 1st, 1st - 7 pts
Rhodes - 2nd, 1st, 2nd - 7 pts
E and H - 1st, 3rd, 3rd - 5 pts
Again, it's not perfect, but its as neutral a metric using the criteria given that I can think of. You could proabably make a case for any of them, but how is ranking HSU #10 so outlandish that is screams collusion?
You're right. Great analysis and very interesting. Thanks.
So comparing SoS week to week
TLU: +.004
Centre: + .005
Muhlenberg: + .011
Not sure what "statistical significance" is, but I can't imagine any of those three make a dent. If anything, the only team to move should be Muhlenberg. Three 5 seeds? Or drop TLU or Centre? If you choose the second option, the criteria given to you seem pretty cut and dry.
I'm not saying the metric is "right". I'm saying it's a very objective way of taking the criteria they are given, and coming up with a "reasonable and feasible" approach to validate or invalidate the rankings. The criteria seem to validate them as being appropriate, not being right. Again, the likelihood of any order being "right" is slim to none. But we've been down that road before.
I've really got to figure out how to edit a quote to keep from flooding the board. All I see are quote and delete options. Whatever the case, I've got to get some sleep. My wife will not be happy given the last two nights and the little one wakes up at 6 a.m. regardless of how much sleep I decide to get.
It's shouldn't be a big enough swing to make a difference, especially since Centre won 27-0 AND TLU had issues with Austin. Muhlenberg did beat Ursinus by 14, and Ursinus was perceived as decent in that conference. But Ursinus lost to Juniata, too, and that says more to me about Ursinus than their 6-3 record.
It's not as headscratching as whatever the West was doing, but still it's puzzling.
I agree smed.
Hard to imagine being 10-0 and not controlling your own destiny. But that's what the RC has created.
Rhodes will win this week. H-S will have their hands full with LC. And E&H-Guilford should be a very good game. Were Rhodes the only victor of the three, the tables would certainly turn, giving Centre the only RR win and securing a spot.
If so, TLU will very likely get in as well. But at least it would remove the "Muhlenberg block". Sounds like a WWII prison camp, doesn't it? Or a heart bypass maneuver. ;-) It's late...
I know this has been discussed but I'm somewhat irritated with the South RC. The whole Centre situation is just jabbing at me. This is a team missing an AQ by a technical rule. Sure they knew what they gave up forming the SAA, but the league has enough members and is almost through it's time. Next year an undefeated Centre is an AQ. This year it is looking like they are blocked from the table by a second place team from an AQ conference. And it's not like that second place team has any quality wins to hang their hat on.
No, I'm not all that upset by TLU being ahead of Centre. I think it's a little stupid that TLU is ahead, but you can make a legitimate case. Putting Muhlenberg ahead of Centre, however, is simply wrong. Muhlenberg had their shot and blew it at home. Centre has taken every shot so far and not blown anything. The playoffs have been about being inclusive, not about the best 32 teams. But here you have the RC trying to make a statement that it isn't about being inclusive, as one team had no shot from day 1 of the season, it's really about them trying to guess who is the best team using limited and often incomparable data.
Congratulations South RC on making this about you, instead of the implied goals of the AQ system.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2014, 12:06:37 AM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 11:32:50 PM
A wildcard in this process is the assumption Wally is making with his picks is that the "three aren't getting in" bias is gone with the addition of a 6th team.
This was never a thing.
Pat,
Maybe I missed something but I remember the committee chair making a comment to this effect last year when Wabash wasn't selected and in your notes on the regional rankings yesterday you said:
"
If the OAC runner-up is among the first at-large teams put into the field, then Wabash will likely get in. But any of the two-loss teams might be a stretch, because that would mean the region gets three at-large teams. That is definitely possible but not likely."
So what did I miss?
Listen in to this around the 43 min mark where Duey explains the unlikelihood of 3 C's from a given region getting in
www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Not likely is not congruent to never gonna happen, though...
Small correction from the article on the d3 homepage. Wesley is 2-0 vs. RROs (Rowan and TMC)
There's a lot of talk here about how nothing has changed in the South from last week, so how could the RC down yonder have made the changes they did.
Keep in mind, we're not on the call. I doubt that the conversation went along the lines of "both were tied; both won; therefore, status quo". All it takes is one individual to change their mind, to look at how other regions might be separating teams with similar criteria, or to be persuaded by a new argument or analysis that was presented on the call. A simple "you're right -- I didn't think of it that way before" or "that is more compelling when it is framed that way" is all it would take.
We're looking for objective changes that may explain the movement. But this is a subjective process, albeit with loose guardrails that are formed from objective criteria. We shouldn't be surprised to see this kind of movement.
What is interesting to me, as I am a partisan hack with North Central roots who is watching the Platteville situation closely, is whether something similar could happen in the West. Ordinarily, I could see that RC making tweaks to adjust where Bethel is ranked relative to Platteville, but only if Platteville were to pick up a win over a lower tier WIAC opponent next week. Given this Saturday's schedule, i have a hard time seeing that sort of adjustment happen if Platteville's next win is over a strong team like Oshkosh. (I don't expect Oshkosh to retain their RR status if they lose that game, so Platteville wouldn't be picking up a RRO victory, but rather just a victory over a well-regarded team.) I struggle to see Bethel jumping Platteville if the Pioneers hold serve.
The $64,000 question to me (well, one of them...) is whether Oshkosh would jump Bethel with a win over Platteville. I don't think they should, but my opinion matters not at all on this question. Like Oshkosh, I don't think Platteville would retain RR status if they lose this weekend. But there is logic to "you beat a team we regarded more highly than Bethel, and you have only one D3 loss, and..." Not the logic that I'd personally use, but it is certainly plausible.
North Central is really really really really on the bubble IMO since they get pushed back in line unless the West Region dominoes get set up in a specific order.
Quote from: kiko on November 13, 2014, 10:17:29 AM
What is interesting to me, as I am a partisan hack with North Central roots who is watching the Platteville situation closely, is whether something similar could happen in the West. Ordinarily, I could see that RC making tweaks to adjust where Bethel is ranked relative to Platteville, but only if Platteville were to pick up a win over a lower tier WIAC opponent next week. But given this Saturday's schedule, i have a hard time seeing that sort of adjustment happen if Platteville's next win is over a strong team like Oshkosh. (I don't expect Oshkosh to retain their RR status if they lose that game, so Platteville wouldn't be picking up a RRO victory, but rather just a victory over a well-regarded team.) I struggle to see Bethel jumping Platteville if the Pioneers hold serve.
The $64,000 question to me (well, one of them...) is whether Oshkosh would jump Bethel with a win over Platteville. I don't think they should, but my opinion matters not at all on this question. Like Oshkosh, I don't think Platteville would retain RR status if they lose this weekend. But there is logic to "you beat a team we regarded more highly than Bethel, and you have only one D3 loss, and..." Not the logic that I'd personally use, but it is certainly plausible.
If Platteville knocks Oshkosh out of the regional ranking or vice versa, I'd have to think that Concordia (8-2 .551 1-2 vs RRO) would take their place and give Bethel another regionally ranked win.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2014, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2014, 01:02:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:41:43 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 12:38:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents." "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.
The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)
We've been talking this for probably three or four years, Smed. Just saying 0-1 is only the very basic information and not what the committees tend to use.
By the way, congrats, Wally! And thank you!
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/projected-bracket-version-one
Thank you, Pat! That bracket is juicy. I like it a lot.
I tried to move teams around within the driving parameters. Thankfully Platteville can drive to Wittenberg so I can move them away from Whitewater (not that I anticipate the two of them meeting, but it's one little bit of flexibility with a West team).
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 09:34:48 AM
I know this has been discussed but I'm somewhat irritated with the South RC. The whole Centre situation is just jabbing at me. This is a team missing an AQ by a technical rule. Sure they knew what they gave up forming the SAA, but the league has enough members and is almost through it's time. Next year an undefeated Centre is an AQ. This year it is looking like they are blocked from the table by a second place team from an AQ conference. And it's not like that second place team has any quality wins to hang their hat on.
No, I'm not all that upset by TLU being ahead of Centre. I think it's a little stupid that TLU is ahead, but you can make a legitimate case. Putting Muhlenberg ahead of Centre, however, is simply wrong. Muhlenberg had their shot and blew it at home. Centre has taken every shot so far and not blown anything. The playoffs have been about being inclusive, not about the best 32 teams. But here you have the RC trying to make a statement that it isn't about being inclusive, as one team had no shot from day 1 of the season, it's really about them trying to guess who is the best team using limited and often incomparable data.
Congratulations South RC on making this about you, instead of the implied goals of the AQ system.
I sympathize with this approach, but it continues to miss the point from my vantage. It's not about "Centre College". It's about the process. Is the ranking committee's job to rank the teams as they see they should be realistically ranked, or is their job to rank the teams in the manner that is most likely to get a certain team into the playoffs?
If it were to actually end up as it stands today, I would feel bad for Centre. But the truth is, this is seen every year in football at every level. How do you rank an undefeated team with no notable wins and losses vs a one loss team whose only loss is by virtue of taking on the risk of playing a significantly better opponent? What do you punish/reward? It varies case to case. As it stands now, Centre's real problem is that they did not play anyone of relavance, but additionally that so many of the teams they played were equally of irrelevance, resulting in the significantly lower SoS. If either of those two situations wasn't the case, they are probably easily justified in front of Muhlenberg.
Quote from: thewaterboy on November 13, 2014, 10:14:57 AM
Small correction from the article on the d3 homepage. Wesley is 2-0 vs. RROs (Rowan and TMC)
Yeah, I modified my original post after the fact, but I think it got posted to the front page before I caught it. I think that typo will get fixed soonish.
I've done it for the first two analyses so I'll keep making my own projected bracket. I've taken the 32 teams from Wally's projections and bracketed them. The 4 regions aren't in any particular order.
Texas Lutheran @ (1) Mary Hardin-Baylor (only schools within 500 miles of each other)
Chapman @ Linfield (west coast orphans)
Ithaca @ (2) Hobart
Husson @ MIT (only school within 500 miles of Husson)
----
Lakeland @ (1) UW-Whitewater
North Central @ Bethel (could be other way around)
St Scholastica @ (2) Wartburg
UW-Platteville @ St John's
----
Trine @ (1) Mount Union
Wabash @ Wash & Jeff
Illinois College @ (2) Wheaton
Franklin @ Wittenberg
----
Chris Newport @ (1) Wesley
Widener @ John Carroll (could be other way around)
Rowan @ (2) Delaware Valley
Hampden-Sydney @ Johns Hopkins
I've projected Mount Union over John Carroll and DelVal over Widener based on the regional rankings. The one thing I'm not happy about is the potential matchup between Chris Newport and John Carroll in the 2nd round which would be just over 500 miles. Not very likely but possible.
that would be a great draw for hobart, but I don't think that'll happen.
i also think Fram St will sneak in somehow (maybe even draw husson).
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 09:34:48 AM
I know this has been discussed but I'm somewhat irritated with the South RC. The whole Centre situation is just jabbing at me. This is a team missing an AQ by a technical rule. Sure they knew what they gave up forming the SAA, but the league has enough members and is almost through it's time. Next year an undefeated Centre is an AQ. This year it is looking like they are blocked from the table by a second place team from an AQ conference. And it's not like that second place team has any quality wins to hang their hat on.
No, I'm not all that upset by TLU being ahead of Centre. I think it's a little stupid that TLU is ahead, but you can make a legitimate case. Putting Muhlenberg ahead of Centre, however, is simply wrong. Muhlenberg had their shot and blew it at home. Centre has taken every shot so far and not blown anything. The playoffs have been about being inclusive, not about the best 32 teams. But here you have the RC trying to make a statement that it isn't about being inclusive, as one team had no shot from day 1 of the season, it's really about them trying to guess who is the best team using limited and often incomparable data.
Congratulations South RC on making this about you, instead of the implied goals of the AQ system.
I sympathize with this approach, but it continues to miss the point from my vantage. It's not about "Centre College". It's about the process. Is the ranking committee's job to rank the teams as they see they should be realistically ranked, or is their job to rank the teams in the manner that is most likely to get a certain team into the playoffs?
If it were to actually end up as it stands today, I would feel bad for Centre. But the truth is, this is seen every year in football at every level. How do you rank an undefeated team with no notable wins and losses vs a one loss team whose only loss is by virtue of taking on the risk of playing a significantly better opponent? What do you punish/reward? It varies case to case. As it stands now, Centre's real problem is that they did not play anyone of relavance, but additionally that so many of the teams they played were equally of irrelevance, resulting in the significantly lower SoS. If either of those two situations wasn't the case, they are probably easily justified in front of Muhlenberg.
Here's the problem. This only matters in the B area. There are more than a few irrelevant A conferences, but if the champ goes undefeated, they are in. Only a few A leagues have unbalanced schedules, so it is almost impossible for an undefeated A team to end up on the C table. It could happen, but it would be very, very rare.
So what we have is a league that is in the B category only for technical reasons. They aren't the worst league in DIII, and their champion is going undefeated. However, thanks to some human interpretation of criteria that is easily disputed, that team could have NO ACCESS to the tournament regardless of what they did, from day 1 of the season. That is not how the tournament is structured and, regardless of the RC, it's not how it should play out.
One of the primary criteria is D3 win percentage. If Centre is undefeated, no team in D3 will have a better win percentage. The spirit of the tournament is to include conference champions. In the spirit of the tournament, an undefeated, conference champion from a conference that qualifies for an AQ in every way except time spent in purgatory, should be rewarded. It's quite simple.
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
Quote from: kiko on November 13, 2014, 10:17:29 AM
What is interesting to me, as I am a partisan hack with North Central roots who is watching the Platteville situation closely, is whether something similar could happen in the West. Ordinarily, I could see that RC making tweaks to adjust where Bethel is ranked relative to Platteville, but only if Platteville were to pick up a win over a lower tier WIAC opponent next week. But given this Saturday's schedule, i have a hard time seeing that sort of adjustment happen if Platteville's next win is over a strong team like Oshkosh. (I don't expect Oshkosh to retain their RR status if they lose that game, so Platteville wouldn't be picking up a RRO victory, but rather just a victory over a well-regarded team.) I struggle to see Bethel jumping Platteville if the Pioneers hold serve.
The $64,000 question to me (well, one of them...) is whether Oshkosh would jump Bethel with a win over Platteville. I don't think they should, but my opinion matters not at all on this question. Like Oshkosh, I don't think Platteville would retain RR status if they lose this weekend. But there is logic to "you beat a team we regarded more highly than Bethel, and you have only one D3 loss, and..." Not the logic that I'd personally use, but it is certainly plausible.
If Platteville knocks Oshkosh out of the regional ranking or vice versa, I'd have to think that Concordia (8-2 .551 1-2 vs RRO) would take their place and give Bethel another regionally ranked win.
That extra win versus a RRO would change the conversation a bit. I do think that the Platteville/Oshkosh loser falls out of the RRs. But if Concordia then moves into the rankings, is that enough for Bethel to jump ahead of both WIAC teams? There's a really strong argument for that, even if (for instance) it was following a Platteville win over a quality-but-no-longer-ranked Oshkosh team.
We'll never see the math on where things land (which I think is stupid and a bit of a CYA by the NCAA to insulate their RCs from second-guessing, but that's a conversation for another day). But the only C's I think should feel any degree of confidence in their chances at this point are Mount/John Carroll, Delaware Valley, Wabash, and Bethel.
Quote from: thewaterboy on November 13, 2014, 10:14:57 AM
Small correction from the article on the d3 homepage. Wesley is 2-0 vs. RROs (Rowan and TMC)
That correction was made probably around the time you were posting this. thanks for the heads up though.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 13, 2014, 10:37:14 AM
that would be a great draw for hobart, but I don't think that'll happen.
i also think Fram St will sneak in somehow (maybe even draw husson).
This is completely possible. I've steered my selections toward teams with higher SOS and especially teams with quality wins because last year, with the same committee chair, every Pool C team selected had an RRO win (or two) while teams like Thomas More (lower SOS, zero quality wins) and Wabash (same deal) were at 9-1 and got left at the table. And Thomas More was there from jump street. The wind could change direction this year and the preferences could shift away from having those quality results and favoring teams with the better win percentages though, which would open up the door for Framingham, Muhlenberg, and eventually Centre. But that's not what the voice of last year's committee (who is also the voice of this year's committee) told us about who these bids are reserved for.
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 10:39:29 AM
One of the primary criteria is D3 win percentage. If Centre is undefeated, no team in D3 will have a better win percentage. The spirit of the tournament is to include conference champions. In the spirit of the tournament, an undefeated, conference champion from a conference that qualifies for an AQ in every way except time spent in purgatory, should be rewarded. It's quite simple.
I know emotionally we want this to be true, but it just isn't. It's the same reason an undefeated Marshall in Division 1 never had a chance this year. The truth of reality is, it is what it is.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2014, 11:18:23 AM
The wind could change direction this year and the preferences could shift away from having those quality results and favoring teams with the better win percentages though, which would open up the door for Framingham, Muhlenberg, and eventually Centre. But that's not what the voice of last year's committee (who is also the voice of this year's committee) told us about who these bids are reserved for.
The moral compass of the south regional committee is supposed to ignore their obligation in order to accommodate for a technicality that actually exists?
Again, I think the blame lies with the criteria/rules. But if you start saying we can bend them once, because well, just because we don't like how it feels, you've opened up Pandora's box. They are there for a reason; this exact type of situation.
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 10:39:29 AM
One of the primary criteria is D3 win percentage. If Centre is undefeated, no team in D3 will have a better win percentage. The spirit of the tournament is to include conference champions. In the spirit of the tournament, an undefeated, conference champion from a conference that qualifies for an AQ in every way except time spent in purgatory, should be rewarded. It's quite simple.
I know emotionally we want this to be true, but it just isn't. It's the same reason an undefeated Marshall in Division 1 never had a chance this year. The truth of reality is, it is what it is.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2014, 11:18:23 AM
The wind could change direction this year and the preferences could shift away from having those quality results and favoring teams with the better win percentages though, which would open up the door for Framingham, Muhlenberg, and eventually Centre. But that's not what the voice of last year's committee (who is also the voice of this year's committee) told us about who these bids are reserved for.
The moral compass of the south regional committee is supposed to ignore their obligation in order to accommodate for a technicality that actually exists?
Again, I think the blame lies with the criteria/rules. But if you start saying we can bend them once, because well, just because we don't like how it feels, you've opened up Pandora's box. They are there for a reason; this exact type of situation.
Don't compare how D1 FBS does post-season to how D3 does it. It is irrelevant and completely undermines your point. The AQs across all qualifying conferences exist in D3, something that demonstrates the divisions desire to be inclusive of champions. There are no AQs in D1. The SAA will be a qualifying conference next year. The fact that this year Centre won't get an AQ is a blip and one easily solved by the committees. Unfortunately, at least so far, they don't seem to want to rectify the problem, despite the general inclusiveness of the tournament in general.
As for bending the rules. We aren't. You are incorrect. There is useful criteria and how the committee decides the weight of the criteria is the issue. That isn't bending or breaking rules or opening Pandora's box. A simple weighting on win percentage makes an excellent case for Centre versus TLU and Muhlenberg. A weighting of SOS works the other way. Both are valid criteria. But given the overall goal of the tournament, and the division in general through the use of AQs, the committee is being foolish.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2014, 11:10:58 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2014, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:47:20 PM
Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.
Asked this question myself on the Pool B thread, haven't gotten an answer yet. Even K-Mack didn't know. I've been wondering this the last two or three years.
I know McHugh chimed in, but FWIW, I put a question out about this and about whether the national committee can disagree with the regional advisory committee (even if that would more or less defeat the purpose of having them).
I'll confirm/reply if/when I hear back.
They can certainly disagree with the regional committees and it is in the national committee's purview to then change the rankings accordingly. It actually happens more than people realize or know. The rankings we see published are not always the ones the regional committees decided on in their vote... they reflect any changes the national committee wanted to make (if they made any at all). This happened last season in basketball to much discussion when Cabrini was moved down to #2 in the Mid-Atlantic region in Week 2 and then ended up back at #1 the next week. The Week 2 move was made by the national committee.
Why would they make moves? The national committee wants all of it's regional committees to be on the same page. If they feel that a regional ranking from the regional committee doesn't reflect the common message, strategy, plan, whatever... they will make a change accordingly (rightly or wrongly). They will then usually converse with that regional committee (especially since members are on the national committee) to explain why they made the chance in an effort for the regional committee to understand the scope. This is also a stop-gap of either the old boy's network, a strategy to set up a team to make the tournament, or any other conspiracy people may think happens behind closed doors.
Sufficit to say, the rankings we see are voted on by the regional committees, but approved and changed if necessary by the national committee. (I have never heard of a national committee making whole-sale changes, by the way. Usually they are small ones or swapping two teams.) Thus, there is no way on a final regional ranking result that a team ranked behind another team will get to the table first.
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 12:20:59 PM
Don't compare how D1 FBS does post-season to how D3 does it. It is irrelevant and completely undermines your point. The AQs across all qualifying conferences exist in D3, something that demonstrates the divisions desire to be inclusive of champions. There are no AQs in D1. The SAA will be a qualifying conference next year. The fact that this year Centre won't get an AQ is a blip and one easily solved by the committees. Unfortunately, at least so far, they don't seem to want to rectify the problem, despite the general inclusiveness of the tournament in general.
So it is, indeed, the committees job to fix the conundrum that reality has presented.
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 12:20:59 PM
As for bending the rules. We aren't. You are incorrect. There is useful criteria and how the committee decides the weight of the criteria is the issue. That isn't bending or breaking rules or opening Pandora's box. A simple weighting on win percentage makes an excellent case for Centre versus TLU and Muhlenberg. A weighting of SOS works the other way. Both are valid criteria. But given the overall goal of the tournament, and the division in general through the use of AQs, the committee is being foolish.
Complete agreement, both are valid criteria. And it has been shown (before any of this even came to light) that the weighting of SoS is the preferred determinant. So, the committee should contradict themselves, solely to accomodate a reality that actually exists, but that we don't like.
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 12:30:21 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 12:20:59 PM
Don't compare how D1 FBS does post-season to how D3 does it. It is irrelevant and completely undermines your point. The AQs across all qualifying conferences exist in D3, something that demonstrates the divisions desire to be inclusive of champions. There are no AQs in D1. The SAA will be a qualifying conference next year. The fact that this year Centre won't get an AQ is a blip and one easily solved by the committees. Unfortunately, at least so far, they don't seem to want to rectify the problem, despite the general inclusiveness of the tournament in general.
So it is, indeed, the committees job to fix the conundrum that reality has presented.
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 12:20:59 PM
As for bending the rules. We aren't. You are incorrect. There is useful criteria and how the committee decides the weight of the criteria is the issue. That isn't bending or breaking rules or opening Pandora's box. A simple weighting on win percentage makes an excellent case for Centre versus TLU and Muhlenberg. A weighting of SOS works the other way. Both are valid criteria. But given the overall goal of the tournament, and the division in general through the use of AQs, the committee is being foolish.
Complete agreement, both are valid criteria. And it has been shown (before any of this even came to light) that the weighting of SoS is the preferred determinant. So, the committee should contradict themselves, solely to accomodate a reality that actually exists, but that we don't like.
It is the committee's job to create a tournament that represents the ideals of Division 3. The preference for conference champions to make the tournament is well established through the use of AQs. The fact that it is eminently justifiable to make this choice, through the use of primary selection criteria, should make it a simple issue.
The preference for SOS was shown last year. Prior to that we had seen a preference for winning percentage. This criteria has flip flopped at various years. Weighting SOS heavily last year contradicted what had been done in the past. It is not set in stone as you seem to believe.
If you stick around here a few years you will see all of this criteria debated endlessly and applied in endless different permutations by the various committees in football and other sports. Sticking around will help you to understand that your desire to be strict about certain criteria is not what actually happens in one sport let alone in the D3 universe as a whole.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2014, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2014, 11:10:58 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2014, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2014, 10:47:20 PM
Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.
Asked this question myself on the Pool B thread, haven't gotten an answer yet. Even K-Mack didn't know. I've been wondering this the last two or three years.
I know McHugh chimed in, but FWIW, I put a question out about this and about whether the national committee can disagree with the regional advisory committee (even if that would more or less defeat the purpose of having them).
I'll confirm/reply if/when I hear back.
They can certainly disagree with the regional committees and it is in the national committee's purview to then change the rankings accordingly. It actually happens more than people realize or know. The rankings we see published are not always the ones the regional committees decided on in their vote... they reflect any changes the national committee wanted to make (if they made any at all). This happened last season in basketball to much discussion when Cabrini was moved down to #2 in the Mid-Atlantic region in Week 2 and then ended up back at #1 the next week. The Week 2 move was made by the national committee.
Why would they make moves? The national committee wants all of it's regional committees to be on the same page. If they feel that a regional ranking from the regional committee doesn't reflect the common message, strategy, plan, whatever... they will make a change accordingly (rightly or wrongly). They will then usually converse with that regional committee (especially since members are on the national committee) to explain why they made the chance in an effort for the regional committee to understand the scope. This is also a stop-gap of either the old boy's network, a strategy to set up a team to make the tournament, or any other conspiracy people may think happens behind closed doors.
Sufficit to say, the rankings we see are voted on by the regional committees, but approved and changed if necessary by the national committee. (I have never heard of a national committee making whole-sale changes, by the way. Usually they are small ones or swapping two teams.) Thus, there is no way on a final regional ranking result that a team ranked behind another team will get to the table first.
Ahh, now THIS is fascinating.
Maybe the national committee is responsible for the chicanery of "ties" in the rankings (which makes no effing sense! What's the point of rankings then?).
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 12:38:42 PM
It is the committee's job to create a tournament that represents the ideals of Division 3. The preference for conference champions to make the tournament is well established through the use of AQs. The fact that it is eminently justifiable to make this choice, through the use of primary selection criteria, should make it a simple issue.
This is exactly where the rub lies. Maybe someone should tell the committee that, and not tell them to rank teams in their region.
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 12:38:42 PM
The preference for SOS was shown last year. Prior to that we had seen a preference for winning percentage. This criteria has flip flopped at various years. Weighting SOS heavily last year contradicted what had been done in the past. It is not set in stone as you seem to believe.
If you stick around here a few years you will see all of this criteria debated endlessly and applied in endless different permutations by the various committees in football and other sports. Sticking around will help you to understand that your desire to be strict about certain criteria is not what actually happens in one sport let alone in the D3 universe as a whole.
I'll take your word that this is true. You are right; I don't have the historical perspective year over year to make that judgement. But if the committee flip flops their stance SOLELY to get Centre on the table, is that what we really want? Ask regional committees to manipulate their rankings to get a desired team in (regardless of how just or unjust one regards that rationale for manipulation)? I don't know, maybe it is. I think it's the east region that is catching some flak right now for possibly doing exactly that, however.
Quote from: timtlu on November 13, 2014, 12:48:07 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 12:38:42 PM
The preference for SOS was shown last year. Prior to that we had seen a preference for winning percentage. This criteria has flip flopped at various years. Weighting SOS heavily last year contradicted what had been done in the past. It is not set in stone as you seem to believe.
If you stick around here a few years you will see all of this criteria debated endlessly and applied in endless different permutations by the various committees in football and other sports. Sticking around will help you to understand that your desire to be strict about certain criteria is not what actually happens in one sport let alone in the D3 universe as a whole.
I'll take your word that this is true. You are right; I don't have the historical perspective year over year to make that judgement. But if the committee flip flops their stance SOLELY to get Centre on the table, is that what we really want? Ask regional committees to manipulate their rankings to get a desired team in (regardless of how just or unjust one regards that rationale for manipulation)? I don't know, maybe it is. I think it's the east region that is catching some flak right now for possibly doing exactly that, however.
The criteria was flipped last year to get St. John Fischer into the tournament over probably Wabash and Thomas More College. We are only ever arguing about the last team or two into the tournament. Other than that, it is fairly cut and dry. We don't put 32 teams in based on the criteria. There are 8 teams subject to the criteria this year, 2 B and 6 C teams. Of those, 1 B is a given in Wesley, and at least 2 C teams are given in the UMU/JCU loser, the Widener/Del Val loser. So that leaves 5 spots somewhat up for grabs with a week of games left. That week of games will probably add a UWO/UWP winner (especially if UWP wins) and NCC or Wabash at least are likely. That leaves 3 spots.
Those are really the ONLY spots up for grabs at this point. One is a second Pool B, the other two are the final C. So however the criteria is structured, it is structured to ONLY benefit a couple teams. Whether it is Centre or TLU or Framingham or Bethel doesn't matter. With so little actually up for grabs the criteria pretty much always benefits SOLELY the winner in the end.
The idea that criteria is starting to be "flipped" to get certain teams in I think is a misnomer. Also, the idea that one criteria stands out from the rest is also a misnomer.
With every committee chair, members, regional committee member, etc. that I have personally talked with in several sports and the reports I hear from other sports (from those I trust), not one committee members says we rank the criteria and go from there. Not once has some said, for example, that WP%, then SOS, then vRRO, then etc., etc., etc. is the order we use to rank our teams. In fact, what I hear is that the primary criteria is put in front of them and they look at it all. If something is overwhelming while everything else is even, then that criteria mark is probably the deciding factor. If everything is even or evens itself out, then they look at the criteria even closer or go to secondary criteria if they have to.
Don't start thinking committees are just flipping things around just to get teams in and that one criteria matters more than another. If you read the handbooks carefully, you will see they are not listed in an order. The committees take everything into account and go from there. Thus, one team could be ranked above another because their SOS is better, another could get a jump because their vRRO is better, and another is better because WP% is more impressive. You can't have a cut and dry system in place because the criteria and the data reveal far too many variables.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2014, 01:10:02 PM
The idea that criteria is starting to be "flipped" to get certain teams in I think is a misnomer. Also, the idea that one criteria stands out from the rest is also a misnomer.
With every committee chair, members, regional committee member, etc. that I have personally talked with in several sports and the reports I hear from other sports (from those I trust), not one committee members says we rank the criteria and go from there. Not once has some said, for example, that WP%, then SOS, then vRRO, then etc., etc., etc. is the order we use to rank our teams. In fact, what I hear is that the primary criteria is put in front of them and they look at it all. If something is overwhelming while everything else is even, then that criteria mark is probably the deciding factor. If everything is even or evens itself out, then they look at the criteria even closer or go to secondary criteria if they have to.
Don't start thinking committees are just flipping things around just to get teams in and that one criteria matters more than another. If you read the handbooks carefully, you will see they are not listed in an order. The committees take everything into account and go from there. Thus, one team could be ranked above another because their SOS is better, another could get a jump because their vRRO is better, and another is better because WP% is more impressive. You can't have a cut and dry system in place because the criteria and the data reveal far too many variables.
Well said +K
Things I was reminded of or learned today in private conversations:
-- Pool B and C processes are indeed the same
-- The national committee reserves the right to fix the regional advisory committee's final rankings before proceeding with at-large selection.
-- The regional advisory committee members don't always agree with one another.
-- The RACs sometimes are suspected of weighting their rankings to get as many teams per region in; however, there's also discussion and/or division on the RACs about which conferences
-- Not everybody is married to the criteria or weights it the same.
Long story short, part of the national committee's job is to smooth out the rough edges from the various regional committees and make sure everything is being applied evenly and fairly before beginning the discussion about at-large spots.
Also, there's never been this much discussion necessary for Pool B before, so the entire process might take longer than it otherwise would have.
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?
Quote from: art76 on November 13, 2014, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2014, 01:10:02 PM
The idea that criteria is starting to be "flipped" to get certain teams in I think is a misnomer. Also, the idea that one criteria stands out from the rest is also a misnomer.
With every committee chair, members, regional committee member, etc. that I have personally talked with in several sports and the reports I hear from other sports (from those I trust), not one committee members says we rank the criteria and go from there. Not once has some said, for example, that WP%, then SOS, then vRRO, then etc., etc., etc. is the order we use to rank our teams. In fact, what I hear is that the primary criteria is put in front of them and they look at it all. If something is overwhelming while everything else is even, then that criteria mark is probably the deciding factor. If everything is even or evens itself out, then they look at the criteria even closer or go to secondary criteria if they have to.
Don't start thinking committees are just flipping things around just to get teams in and that one criteria matters more than another. If you read the handbooks carefully, you will see they are not listed in an order. The committees take everything into account and go from there. Thus, one team could be ranked above another because their SOS is better, another could get a jump because their vRRO is better, and another is better because WP% is more impressive. You can't have a cut and dry system in place because the criteria and the data reveal far too many variables.
Well said +K
I agree with all of this, and Wesley being ahead of UMHB is an example of what Dave is talking about (teams are even except SoS), with one small caveat.
No regional advisory committee is saying "we stack the deck to game the system." But members of RACs do suspect the inherent biases of other members of RACs come into play during the discussions, whether that means favoring certain conferences or regions.
In spite of JCU's low SoS they'd get a bump from playing UMU, plus they have a RRO with a W over Heidi (so 1-1 RRO). Could make it a close call w/ Wabash tho b/c the LG would be a 1-1 RRO like JCU and Bash has a better SoS.
Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?
Because if a 9-1 OAC team who lost to Mount Union is left out, the OAC might as well dissolve. And then, to paraphrase the great John Bender:
"How come the OAC gets to dissolve? If they dissolve, we'll all dissolve. It'll be anarchy!!!"
240 teams, no conferences! We'd never sort the playoff pool out! Pat's head would explode! Is that what you want???? Is it?
Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?
Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results
against common opponents.
John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams
SoS figure.
Since h2h and common opponents don't look like they'll come into play for JCU in Pool C, their profile, with a loss, would be:
9-1 (.900)
1-1 vs. MU & Heidelberg
SoS that will improve from .470 after MU game, but won't be great
You raise a valid point that they might not be a lock, but considering the discussion very quickly gets to considering two-loss teams, and the North Region has them at No. 2 going into this week, ahead of a team with a stronger profile like Wabash (.512, 1-1 vs. RRO), they're a safe bet to get in even with a loss.
Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
Building off this point: whether we like it or not, there's an undeniable time effect to this. We've perceived that the JCU/Mount and DelVal/Widener losers are a lock for Pool C, probably because they're all still undefeated (and thus sitting pretty at the top of the RR's). Wabash and other one-loss folks are perceived as on thin ice because they have a loss & we've already determined that some 2-loss teams are strong enough candidates to bump a couple of the 1-loss teams. But with the aforementioned teams are all sitting undefeated, they remain at the top of the RR's. If Widener and DelVal had played in week 4 (like, say, Johns Hopkins vs. Muhlenberg) would the loser still be given this high ranking and Pool-C-lock treatment? I doubt it. The MAC hasn't had much more recent playoff success than the Centennial, and neither DelVal nor Widener has a big SOS to boost them...and while both boast quality OOC wins against two of the three NJAC tri-champs (DVC over Montclair, Widener over Rowan), their overall resumes are certainly no stronger than Wabash's (once one of them takes a loss, that is) or several other one-loss candidates.
JCU/Mount is a little different because...Mount. As long as Mount is Mount, I can't ever see a one-loss OAC runnerup getting shunned because teams that lose to Mount and UWW are granted the "everyone would lose to them" rule (perception on these boards, anyway, not necessarily how the national committee would discuss it). Although, if the OAC runnerup keeps getting bounced in the playoffs, we might want to rethink this. If Mount beats JCU and JCU gets a Pool C, I think it's actually rather important for them to win a game because otherwise we might have to start waiving this unofficial rule.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 13, 2014, 01:26:32 PM
In spite of JCU's low SoS they'd get a bump from playing UMU, plus they have a RRO with a W over Heidi (so 1-1 RRO). Could make it a close call w/ Wabash tho b/c the LG would be a 1-1 RRO like JCU and Bash has a better SoS.
Concur. The RRO win (of which there are not many amongst the first teams in line for those Pool Cs right now) is huge. And if JCU remains first in line, they're a lock to get in because right off the bat, or soon thereafter, they'll be the only team on the board with a quality result. They could maybe slip behind Wabash in the North if they lose by a jillion, but I wouldn't count on that.
It's about position- being first in line is a big deal.
Let me provide some historical perspective. In 2011, a turning point occurred when the normal preference for winning percentage vs. regional opponents was slightly enhanced. Specifically, we saw SJF (2 losses) leapfrog an idle Endicott (1 loss) in the East Region Rankings -- we know this because SJF wouldn't have reached the Pool C board without having that happen. It was the first time in then-recent memory that the Committee identified a scenario by which a strong resume and SOS would be able to take precedence in ordering for seemingly comparable (teams from conferences with at least a modicum of respect) Pool C candidates. That said, 2011 was presumably still a time when winning percentage in region was the top criterion -- it just was identified as trumpable by some set of other criteria painting a certain picture of a team that should be considered beyond just their winning percentage.
Since 2011, it has happened again (see, for instance, SJF last year). However, we still saw some semblance of ordering based on W/L percentage (and now all D3 games are regional games -- so toss out 2014 regional distinction). This is the first year, though, that we've seen early rankings consistently flop team orderings despite W/L records (win percentages). What's more, it's being done in such an inconsistent fashion that we can't identify the level of resume strength necessary to create those flops. In other words, each region seems to be subjectively creating the scenarios by which win percentage is trumped, and that trumping seems to be generally, and in certain regions, happening with a lower bar set than what we saw in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
There are some minor exceptions to the above that we've seen, but I'm focusing especially on Pool B/C candidates and how things have panned out so far. I think this is what has caused consternation for Wally -- we can't identify what level of SOS or what type of RRO results is putting teams "over the top" in the regional rankings, especially when one region is lined up next to another. This is definitely a unique year, and perhaps another turning point in which we might see a reflex in the opposite direction back toward pre-2011 methodology if the Committee isn't careful here in ensuring a predictable and safe balance between objectivity and subjectivity. That's a major concern, and what happens this weekend will definitely be watched carefully by everyone involved since a lot remains at stake here.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2014, 01:30:05 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?
Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results against common opponents.
John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams
We've heard margin of victory mentioned before in the case of RRO result comparisons for two teams that are otherwise close in criteria. Therefore, it is indeed usable beyond just score comparisons vs. common opponents. As I've stated earlier, the use of the word "results" is not an accident. It means that going beyond the W/L record for RRO games is permitted. It's dependent on whether the Committee in any given year feels that's necessary or useful, but it's available to them without consultation with the Championships Committee.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 13, 2014, 01:32:32 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
JCU/Mount is a little different because...Mount. As long as Mount is Mount, I can't ever see a one-loss OAC runnerup getting shunned because teams that lose to Mount and UWW are granted the "everyone would lose to them" rule (perception on these boards, anyway, not necessarily how the national committee would discuss it).
Yeah I wondered about this myself. And when you factor in the fact that the OAC plays 9-game conference schedules, you have a situation where the other OAC teams are pretty much locked into a loss, and have less of a chance of getting an SOS mark much higher than .500, or getting multiple games against RRO.
I'm not saying it's unfair, per se, and as ETP points out, if these 9-1 OAC runner ups keep getting bounced early, we may need to re-evaluate things. But I do think the non-Mount OAC members have a tougher time proving things than others do.
Not sure how far this has been discussed because I'm not caught up, but there are two points I want to make:
1) The committees appear to be weighting SoS and RROs, which means rewarding stronger schedules as fans have long encouraged them to. Nobody thought it would ever result in a 10-0 team being left home, and I'm not convinced that is going to happen, but if it does, it's the SAA's fault for giving up its SCAC AQ.
If we were to give the selection committee a hard time for doing what we've always wanted them to do, we'd be hyporcrites.
2) They could be boned either way on TLU/Centre. Let's say they put Centre is as the second B alongside Wesley, and TLU gets left out via C (although that seems unlikely with TLU's current SoS and RRO numbers). This would be Texas Lutheran getting left out for a second consecutive year after finishing with one loss, despite upgrading its schedule in a way that Centre did not. (To be fair, Centre played who it always plays and a lot of them just had bad years, but that doesn't take away from the fact that TLU played UMHB when it probably could have gone undefeated with a lesser opponent in that spot)
It would basically mean TLU gets left out doing it both ways (easy schedule and much tougher one)
Keith -- While I don't like TLU being above an undefeated Centre I can live with that. There is decent support for it. What irritates the crud out of me was moving Muhlenberg above them. Who has Muhlenberg beaten? Ursinus? The CC isn't much stronger than the SAA, excluding JHU. And Muhlenberg lost to JHU, at home. I just don't get this action. What it boils down to is Centre is essentially blocked from the table despite doing everything right this season while Muhlenberg, who had a shot at getting in via the AQ, gets a front row seat at a second chance after blowing their AQ.
The big difference between these two teams is JHU is in Muhlenberg's conference while the SAA, W&L, Hanover, and Wash U are down this year. Heck of a reason to block out an undefeated team.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 01:37:14 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2014, 01:30:05 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?
Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results against common opponents.
John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams
We've heard margin of victory mentioned before in the case of RRO result comparisons for two teams that are otherwise close in criteria. Therefore, it is indeed usable beyond just score comparisons vs. common opponents. As I've stated earlier, the use of the word "results" is not an accident. It means that going beyond the W/L record for RRO games is permitted. It's dependent on whether the Committee in any given year feels that's necessary or useful, but it's available to them without consultation with the Championships Committee.
Here is an example of where that may be coming into play:
5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
6W Bethel (7-2, 0.625 SOS, 2-2 vs. RRO)
Platteville's RRO games are:
28-7 road loss to North #6 North Central
17-7 home loss to West #1 Whitewater
Bethel's RRO games are:
31-14 road loss to West #2 Wartburg
52-21 home win vs North #9 Chicago
35-24 home win vs West #9 St. Thomas
31-8 loss at West #2 St. Johns
There are no common opponents. The only way you can justify Platteville over Bethel is if you look at Platteville's result versus Whitewater more favorably than Bethel's body of work, which includes wins over lower-ranked RR teams and wider losses to the West's #2 and #3.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:41:43 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 12:38:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 12:20:16 AM
Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.
If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents." "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.
The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)
The committees never really tell us what's in the mixture they are baking until it's out of the oven...
I very much agree with what Frank is saying here about "results," and smed's donut remark.
I also think that's the correct interpretation. Even 0-1 vs. regionally ranked teams should be better than 0-0.
But it's best to be 1-0 or something because ...
(everybody take a sip)
It's not (just) who you lost to, it's who you beat.
Keith -
As I said below, the problem is not so much that they're weighting SOS and RRO results, it's that the weightings are occurring inconsistently from what we can tell. That means that a higher level of subjectivity than what the NCAA is comfortable with normally may be creeping into this system. The 2011 subjectivity was justifiable in most camps because of the giant SOS SJF had and the 0-2 RRO record against strong opponents. The bar has been lowered in certain regions this go-around, it appears. And that means a higher level of subjectivity is involved here. It also indicates that the National Committee is not presently smoothing out these differences or taking a stand on the acceptable level of subjectivity. I'm not sure if Saturday night, the National Committee will change course -- with four new members out of eight, I find it unlikely. So we're at risk for a little fairness debate exposure here unless someone steps up. We've seen different overall approaches by RACs in regional rankings before, but this year stacks up as plainly strange and is not really what people were advocating for. Transparency, predictability, and fairness are just as important. Right now, we're not there.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2014, 02:11:40 PM
(everybody take a sip)
It's not (just) who you lost to, it's who you beat.
Since it's TBT, "imma grip and sip"
We have to hope the national committee is looking at these things and fixing them on Saturday night.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 13, 2014, 01:55:06 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 13, 2014, 01:32:32 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
JCU/Mount is a little different because...Mount. As long as Mount is Mount, I can't ever see a one-loss OAC runnerup getting shunned because teams that lose to Mount and UWW are granted the "everyone would lose to them" rule (perception on these boards, anyway, not necessarily how the national committee would discuss it).
Yeah I wondered about this myself. And when you factor in the fact that the OAC plays 9-game conference schedules, you have a situation where the other OAC teams are pretty much locked into a loss, and have less of a chance of getting an SOS mark much higher than .500, or getting multiple games against RRO.
I'm not saying it's unfair, per se, and as ETP points out, if these 9-1 OAC runner ups keep getting bounced early, we may need to re-evaluate things. But I do think the non-Mount OAC members have a tougher time proving things than others do.
I know this is not how selection works, but for awhile I was pretty much on board with "any 9-1 OAC runnerup should be in, criteria be damned, because they have to play Mount" - in the early-mid 2000's when the OAC runnerup consistently won a playoff game and, at least 4 times, won two or even three before getting eliminated by Mount. Even when Capital was eliminated by UWW in 2007 first round, well, yeah, that's OK. But then Otterbein lost to Franklin in the 2008 first round, Ohio Northern beat Witt in 2010 then lost to North Central, Heidelberg lost to Witt in 2012, and John Carroll lost to SJF in 2013. That's four OAC runners-up in six years going a combined 1-4 getting bounced by non-Purple-Power teams. Now that we're on a long run of OAC runners-up getting dismissed by other "merely good" teams, I no longer think it's a grave injustice if they're left out
if that's what the criteria would dictate (i.e. if the last two teams at the table were 9-1 Wabash and 9-1 John Carroll - I know, they're in the same region, just humor me - and Wabash's criteria were better, I wouldn't invoke the "but John Carroll's loss is against Mount Union" rule).
*Clarification: this is not OAC-bashing or saying that the conference is terribly weak (although it certainly looks like a dumpster fire beneath the top 2 teams this year). Merely pointing out that the onetime status that the OAC runnerup was guaranteed to be a legitimate top-10 team is no longer a stone-cold lock, and that "9-1 OAC runnerup" should not be an automatic playoff ticket if there are other equally deserving candidates.
With "C"'s shrinking after this year no team is going to be a lock, be it a 9-1 OAC or WIAC team.
However, the fact that the committees seem to have placed Del Val / Widener and MTU / JCU very high in their regions say to me they are going to go in. They will be on the board, and they probably will be selected.
I think Del Val is in decent shape because Montclair will probably finish 8-2 and may sneak up in the rankings again. Widener has Rowan in its back pocket which may be ranked. It'll be interesting to see the East #9 or #10 (hah...)
Both OAC contenders played PAC schools (Bethany and St. Vincent). They MAY have an issue if Heidelberg loses to B-W, since the loser won't have a RR win (but they will have a result). Yet in that case ONU could be ranked at 7-3 to replace the 'Berg if they beat Otterbein. MSJ has a chance to be ranked at 8-2 though. The MIAA not have a ranked team if Trine beats Adrian, so that could open up a slot for an ONU if 'Berg should lose, or MSJ, or even DePauw when (!) they lose to Wabash. In fact, if there's an MIAA upset of Adrian, and DPU plays Wabash tough, then they could slip the New Tigers in at #10 at 7-3 anyway.
Intrigue and drama...
And if I were Centre I'd still write very strong letters...
After reading more of this above, I have a little faith that the National Committee will go "Oh! Hamburgers!" if they see Centre still being Muhlenberg-blocked and fix it. Hopefully.
That may reduce the chance of a two-loss team getting in (take your pick which one), but lets hope....
Montclair can't sneak in before Morrisville. The h2h is still the most powerful comparison between two teams with the same number of losses.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
Montclair can't sneak in before Morrisville. The h2h is still the most powerful comparison between two teams with the same number of losses.
Oh, yeah. But...if the East decides to bring both along depending on other results they could.
Man, I think the cold weather is affecting my brain. I'm not remembering things...
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 01:37:14 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2014, 01:30:05 PM
Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results against common opponents.
John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams
We've heard margin of victory mentioned before in the case of RRO result comparisons for two teams that are otherwise close in criteria. Therefore, it is indeed usable beyond just score comparisons vs. common opponents.
We don't disagree. I should have stopped writing at "results."
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
It was 2011, and 2013 was more, from how it was explained, a result of how the ordinal ranking portion of the selection of teams can affect the process (the concept of simply rolling teams up your ballot as teams above them get selected at a certain point). Granted, you still need a resume to generate the necessary level of interest for such a selection to occur, but the process itself can help dictate the way selections can occur.
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
I hope this is how the West rankings pan out but don't know that we can take it to the bank. As AO noted above, if shuffling at the bottom of the West rankings puts Concordia in the final super secret rankings, then Bethel's credentials improve as they now have three wins versus RRO and five results against them. Is that enough to pass a Platteville team that also took care of business? Dunno, but it certainly merits a second look given Bethel's advantage on several other criteria.
Centre I think stays put absent something weird happening as I don't see any dominoes that could spiral out from this Saturday's results that can cause things to shuffle in the South.
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 02:09:12 PM
Keith -- While I don't like TLU being above an undefeated Centre I can live with that. There is decent support for it. What irritates the crud out of me was moving Muhlenberg above them. Who has Muhlenberg beaten? Ursinus? The CC isn't much stronger than the SAA, excluding JHU. And Muhlenberg lost to JHU, at home. I just don't get this action. What it boils down to is Centre is essentially blocked from the table despite doing everything right this season while Muhlenberg, who had a shot at getting in via the AQ, gets a front row seat at a second chance after blowing their AQ.
The big difference between these two teams is JHU is in Muhlenberg's conference while the SAA, W&L, Hanover, and Wash U are down this year. Heck of a reason to block out an undefeated team.
All valid points, but what else can the committee do besides evaluate the info that exists?
A reasonable interpretation would be that 10-0 > 9-1.
A more nuanced interpretation would be that if Centre had played anyone as good as Johns Hopkins, they'd be 9-1 too, and you can evaluate the other criteria evenly from there.
I don't like the precedent it sets, leaving a 10-0 home. I think the national committee is going to make the decision there, and Centre might well go in as the second B based on win pct. After that though, it's an ugly profile.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 13, 2014, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....
Seriously. Bethel has FOUR results against regionally ranked opponents and the No. 2 SOS. They should be the first two-loss team in.
I know the West committee is closely watching the UW-P/UW-O game. But it would still leave them 1-2 vs. RROs at best.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 13, 2014, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....
I think USee had the Regional Rankings in mind while posting this...as UWP is ahead of Bethel. Even as a WIAC fan, I can't explain why that is.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2014, 03:32:05 PM
A reasonable interpretation would be that 10-0 > 9-1.
A more nuanced interpretation would be that if Centre had played anyone as good as Johns Hopkins, they'd be 9-1 too, and you can evaluate the other criteria evenly from there.
Why? There isn't any crossover. Centre might be as good as JHU. There is really only one tenuous connection. JHU beat RMC, Centre beat W&L who beat R-MC. R-MC and Centre both beat Sewanee. Centre beat Sewanee much worse than R-MC did. So Centre owns good secondary data over R-MC, and JHU owns better primary data over R-MC. But it's garbage data in comparing the two teams. So while it doesn't prove Centre would beat JHU, it also doesn't prove that they can't.
This is my problem. What it boils down to is Centre needs to play until someone beats them, otherwise you just never know. Of all the teams in D3 football, only the "B" teams really have this problem, and it has not come up in the AQ era. The tournament is inclusive of conference champions, Centre could be an undefeated conference champion from a qualifying conference that is one year away from an AQ. Leaving them out punishes the players in a ridiculous way.
Especially if you stack the rankings so that they can't even make it to the table to be discussed.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 13, 2014, 03:42:38 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 13, 2014, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....
I think USee had the Regional Rankings in mind while posting this...as UWP is ahead of Bethel. Even as a WIAC fan, I can't explain why that is.
Yes--I got that--I meant this week's rankings with Platteville ahead of Bethel (and even jumping over Chapman after being behind them last week while the only thing that really changed for those two teams is Chapman's SOS improving while Platteville's went down) don't make sense.
Quote from: kiko on November 13, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
Centre I think stays put absent something weird happening as I don't see any dominoes that could spiral out from this Saturday's results that can cause things to shuffle in the South.
Hardin-Simmons could lose. And if that happens, Texas Lutheran's #5 ranked profile goes up in flames because that house of cards is being propped up entirely by Hardin-Simmons counting as a RRO win. Without that, what you've got is an 8-1 team with a decent SOS, zero quality wins, and an RRO result of 72-16. And if that's the case, I no longer see a good reason for TLU to be ranked ahead of Centre (probably not Muhlenberg either) and evenif their ranking doesn't change if HSU drops out, in a pick 'em for that second Pool B, Framingham probably becomes the better option- which kicks TLU into Pool C. And they might still get in that route without a quality win, but that's a much tougher path.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 03:01:22 PM
After reading more of this above, I have a little faith that the National Committee will go "Oh! Hamburgers!" if they see Centre still being Muhlenberg-blocked and fix it. Hopefully.
That may reduce the chance of a two-loss team getting in (take your pick which one), but lets hope....
Me too.
Quote from: kiko on November 13, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
As AO noted above, if shuffling at the bottom of the West rankings puts Concordia in the final super secret rankings, then Bethel's credentials improve as they now have three wins versus RRO and five results against them. Is that enough to pass a Platteville team that also took care of business? Dunno, but it certainly merits a second look given Bethel's advantage on several other criteria.
I realize I'm biased, but Bethel has an advantage in all criteria except win percentage, where they are equal to UWP. We can debate whose RRO losses are better or worse, but Bethel still has 2 RRO W's that UWP doesn't have.
Add to that, if UWP beats UWO, they won't be 1-2, they'll still likely be 0-2, since 5-2 UWO is probably not going to stick around in the rankings.
The biggest thing is, the final weekend almost never breaks exactly how we expect. AKA, expect the unexpected. There are bound to be some weird results that shake things up. We just don't know yet what the final picture will look like. What if, say, Pacific beats Linfield?!? Where does a two loss Linfield get slotted in comparison to Bethel and UWO/UWP.
What we do know...it's a fun time of year to be a D3 football fan!
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2014, 04:08:53 PM
Quote from: kiko on November 13, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
Centre I think stays put absent something weird happening as I don't see any dominoes that could spiral out from this Saturday's results that can cause things to shuffle in the South.
Hardin-Simmons could lose. And if that happens, Texas Lutheran's #5 ranked profile goes up in flames because that house of cards is being propped up entirely by Hardin-Simmons counting as a RRO win. Without that, what you've got is an 8-1 team with a decent SOS, zero quality wins, and an RRO result of 72-16. And if that's the case, I no longer see a good reason for TLU to be ranked ahead of Centre (probably not Muhlenberg either) and evenif their ranking doesn't change if HSU drops out, in a pick 'em for that second Pool B, Framingham probably becomes the better option- which kicks TLU into Pool C. And they might still get in that route without a quality win, but that's a much tougher path.
TLU's SOS will take a dive when they play Southwestern. Southwestern's SOS is THE WORST, and their OWP is bad (it will improve with TLU, but playing Trinity and Austin twice dinged them) which affects TLUs OOWP along with their OWP. If H-S loses, that also hurts TLUs SOS and poof goes the RR win. So TLU really really needs Hardin-Simmons to win to be safe. They also really, really need Emory & Henry to lose to Guilford, because that win could put the Wasps in the rankings instead of H-S anyway (why not?)
It should also be noted the Muhlenberg has their rivalry game against Moravian, who has improved. I don't think that battle has the veritas of one of the BIG ones, but let's also not just put it in the "W" column for the Mules. Moravian probably really wants to win this one badly. They have 23 seniors who haven't beaten Muhlenberg.
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2014, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2014, 03:32:05 PM
A reasonable interpretation would be that 10-0 > 9-1.
A more nuanced interpretation would be that if Centre had played anyone as good as Johns Hopkins, they'd be 9-1 too, and you can evaluate the other criteria evenly from there.
Why? There isn't any crossover. Centre might be as good as JHU. There is really only one tenuous connection. JHU beat RMC, Centre beat W&L who beat R-MC. R-MC and Centre both beat Sewanee. Centre beat Sewanee much worse than R-MC did. So Centre owns good secondary data over R-MC, and JHU owns better primary data over R-MC. But it's garbage data in comparing the two teams. So while it doesn't prove Centre would beat JHU, it also doesn't prove that they can't.
This is my problem. What it boils down to is Centre needs to play until someone beats them, otherwise you just never know. Of all the teams in D3 football, only the "B" teams really have this problem, and it has not come up in the AQ era. The tournament is inclusive of conference champions, Centre could be an undefeated conference champion from a qualifying conference that is one year away from an AQ. Leaving them out punishes the players in a ridiculous way.
Especially if you stack the rankings so that they can't even make it to the table to be discussed.
I totally agree. Here's some more garbage data in relation to TLU and even UMHB:
Centre beat Rhodes 47-35. Rhodes beat Austin 34-13. TLU beat Austin 36-24.
Centre beat Hendrix 35-26, Hendrix beat Austin 38-28, TLU beat Austin 36-24.
Centre beat Millsaps 27-0. UMHB beat Millsaps 43-7. UMHB beat TLU 72-13.
As you said, it doesn't prove anything definitively. But the consistency is certainly in the positive direction.
"Stacked the deck" is completely accurate and, as you said, unfair to the players.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 04:41:29 PM
TLU's SOS will take a dive when they play Southwestern. Southwestern's SOS is THE WORST,
Let's just cut to the chase with regards to the criterion used to assist in comparing teams. When lacking common opponents SOS can be a great comparison metric. Agreed.
Just to compare TLU to Centre for a moment (though this also applies to Muhlenberg):
Currently TLU's NCAA SOS is about .1 higher than Centre's. After this week however, that gap will close significantly, just as @smedindy indicated. Here are this week's opponents:
TLU vs Southwestern 1-5 (1-7 overall) and .2308 OWP
Centre vs Birm-South 3-4 (3-6 overall) and .4444 OWP
By my calculations in Excel, the effect of this alone will narrow the difference to about .065. Still statistically significant. Of course this assumes that both teams' opponents will win/lose at the same percentage that they have all year. So this difference might be larger or smaller. (My estimation is that it will be smaller after looking at this weeks'games, but I'm certainly no expert on picking games.)
OK, so in the end I believe the SOS difference between these teams will be about .065.
Now I want to point something out that I'm sure you all already understand. This SOS statistic in reality is the
measure of the quality of the teams that you SCHEDULED (again providing a .065 difference)
Now I wouldn't have a hard time with this metric were both teams 9-1 with Centre losing to say, Mount Union instead of beating Hanover. Same record; similar losses. Then fine, use the SOS. But that isn't the scenario we're dealing with. Centre is unbeaten and TLU has a loss.
So wouldn't this metric be more realistic if it
measured the quality of the teams you BEAT? When removing the wins of UMHB from TLU's SOS, I calculate that TLU's SOS drops by .07. This would totally negate the SOS difference and actually put Centre ahead.
There's no crazy math involved here. No trickery. Just a little math, using the basics of the NCAA's criteria. I doubt anyone cares enough about this, but I'd be happy to throw my spreadsheet into a Google drive for anyone to check my math.
The bottom line is I just can't get past the "superior SOS" stat being thrown around, when I just don't see significant differences in the quality of the opponents that both teams beat- especially after the season is complete.
If RR wins is the stat that puts TLU over the top, then fine, despite the fact that Hardin-Simmons is on the bottom at #10 and Rhodes is barely removed from this list- likely between 11 & 13. (This could even change this week.) But again if that is what does it, so be it.
If this is truly about "who you beat" then fine. Forget that Centre was undefeated and the other teams had losses. Cast aside the anomaly of an undefeated Pool B team not being invited. Forget the revoked AQ. Remove the emotion and sympathy.
At the end of the season plug all the numbers into a spreadsheet, rank the 3 teams on SOS that reflects WHO THEY BEAT, regardless of who they lost to. Then appropriately weight D3 Record, "real" SOS & RR wins and call it a day.
I don't think that's unfair.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2014, 03:32:05 PM
I don't like the precedent it sets, leaving a 10-0 home. I think the national committee is going to make the decision there, and Centre might well go in as the second B based on win pct....
If Centre was playing a completely independent schedule, grabbed every startup team or 2nd-year program and went 10-0, there might be some argument.
But this is a team that is in a league, playing 6 conference games, including against schools that have been to the tournament in the last 6-8 years, at least one of them a couple times.
I don't know how the committee leaves out a 10-0 Pool B eligible team. And I don't see any reason that they should.
Your schedule strength is as much dependent on who you lose to as it is on who you beat. The requirement to beat a grand majority of teams is already covered in the win% criterion. Your methodology rewards a team that loses to an 0-10 team improperly.
It seems to me the thing that caught us all by surprise last year when STJ was picked over Wabash was the fact they picked a 2 loss team over a 1 loss team thereby making other criteria as much or more important than winning %. Is that accurate?
Also, the only rationale (and a bad one at that) that I have seen on here for Bethel being behind Platteville is Bethel's 2 losses are worse than Plattevilles 2 losses. The W-RAC obviously feels Platteville is a better team than Bethel. This seems like a poster-child case for the National committee to change.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2014, 05:26:47 PM
Your schedule strength is as much dependent on who you lose to as it is on who you beat. The requirement to beat a grand majority of teams is already covered in the win% criterion. Your methodology rewards a team that loses to an 0-10 team improperly.
Hi Frank. I think you're replying to my comment, so I'm going to counter:
That's a great point. However it's only relevant if both teams have losses. Here a team with a loss is touting an advantage with SOS over an undefeated team, when the advantage is ONLY gained by factoring in the stats of the team they lost to.
It's kind of like picking up a girl in a bar who was the least attractive of in a group that includes a bunch of supermodels ;D. Get her home, separate from the pack and with the lights on, and maybe she doesn't seem "the one" for you. :P
Just as guilt-by-association isn't enough to convict, success-by-association shouldn't be relevant to post season reward.
I received this response from JP Williams, NCAA Assistant Director of Championships and Alliances, regarding the confusion on Pool B and the RACs vs. National Committee ranking discretion. Keith and Dave were pretty much on point earlier:
"Pool B candidates are lined up in the same way as Pool C candidates if it is feasible, however, on any given year, one or more regions do not have any pool B's under consideration, or any at all, so many years it's a moot point.
As it relates to RAC votes, during Joy [Solomen's 2011] tenure as chair, the process called for final ranking decisions to come from the RACs. Since, the policy has changed through the DIII governing process and currently the national committee holds the final decision to ensure proper criteria is applied."
Hope that helps everyone.
Yes... they experimented a couple of years ago with the RACs giving their results and the national committee having little or no ability to adjust those rankings - especially during the period of time the public got to see them. It went horribly because they also introduced the computer voting for all RAC members - meaning instead of a consensus being determined on a conference call... now a conference call is had, but afterwards everyone goes and votes individually. RAC chairs were sometimes completely blindsided by the results. The idea is that those who haven't had the ability to give their say can vote how they wish... or at least keep from those who have strong opinions from running the rankings. As a result, RAC chairs were surprised by results and national committees couldn't adjust accordingly. The individual voting still exists, but RAC chairs (at least some I know) have asked for people to also send their reasoning for their vote so at least the chair has information to work with... AND national committees can go back and adjust when necessary if they don't think the criteria is being properly applied.
Pat,
How do I put this delicately? Do ANY of the committee members lurk here? If not, should they be invited to? Seems like they might take away some perspective they were not aware of. Or do you see that as a fly spoiling the ointment?
My wish list:
1. The committee's main goal in filling Pool B and C would be entirely focused on picking teams most likely to provide a competitive game.
2. The committee would factor if a team has been on the wrong end of a Double Monkey Stomp (or pick a number). TLU, you lost a game by 56 points, sorry.
3. Regionally Ranked teams are redefined. I struggle with Heidelberg benefitting JCU and Mt by being RR'd #8. Heidelberg- lost the games that matter by 27 and 41 points-I don't see how Heidelberg can be used as evidence of "strength of schedule" to benefit teams being considered per #1 above.
Emma,
Your solutions aren't fair, because teams like MIT, Chicago, Adrian, Rhodes, etc. don't have the opportunity to get pole-axed. They'd be unfairly upgraded in the regional rankings ahead of a TLU or 'Berg. There's few games like that going around, and sometimes good teams get thwacked because of reasons. You'd potentially disqualify an otherwise viable candidate just because they played Mt. Union when they were at their friskiest. Muhlenberg didn't have the luxury to lose by 56 to MHB, but they probably would have.
B is supposed to be an outlet for those teams not in an auto-bid league. It's different than C.
And who YOU think would be a competitive game would be different than who I think would be competitive. A few years ago, EVERYONE scoffed that Curry got a C. Guess what. THEY WON! The apoplectic haters were silenced, briefly
Quote from: art76 on November 13, 2014, 07:02:40 PM
Pat,
How do I put this delicately? Do ANY of the committee members lurk here? If not, should they be invited to? Seems like they might take away some perspective they were not aware of. Or do you see that as a fly spoiling the ointment?
I've been told both, that some influential D-III people lurk, and that some make a point not to at times like these.
With 40 pages of discussion, I think we've proved there's a lot to digest. Committee members have been giving an hour or more a week since early in the season, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was no time for lurking.
My issue with centre is not that they may not get selected. Reasonable people can disagree on that. But I think it's ridiculous that they may not get discussed. I mean, if we won't even consider them, what exactly was the point of their season?
I think what is clear from JP's response is that, indeed, Centre WILL BE DISCUSSED if they win Saturday. The National Committee will need to feel comfortable about the rankings when everything settled out. As such, a discussion will ensue since it's known that Centre is only entering the Tourney as an at-large pick if at all. It would be one thing if the Committee didn't have an opportunity to invert results if criteria weren't consistently applied. But JP's response confirms exactly what Centre needs to hope for Saturday night -- a real discussion about their positioning.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 07:08:59 PM
Emma,
Your solutions aren't fair, because teams like MIT, Chicago, Adrian, Rhodes, etc. don't have the opportunity to get pole-axed. They'd be unfairly upgraded in the regional rankings ahead of a TLU or 'Berg. There's few games like that going around, and sometimes good teams get thwacked because of reasons. You'd potentially disqualify an otherwise viable candidate just because they played Mt. Union when they were at their friskiest. Muhlenberg didn't have the luxury to lose by 56 to MHB, but they probably would have.
B is supposed to be an outlet for those teams not in an auto-bid league. It's different than C.
And who YOU think would be a competitive game would be different than who I think would be competitive. A few years ago, EVERYONE scoffed that Curry got a C. Guess what. THEY WON! The apoplectic haters were silenced, briefly
I see your point about some teams not having a "fair" opportunity to get shellacked, thus moving up in regional rankings. However I prefer to focus on point number one. The committee should select teams they feel would be most competitive.
I'm not as forgiving of a team that's been whooped by 40+ when considering Pool C entry.
I have a feeling we would actually have greater agreement on the teams we feel would most likely provide the most competitive game to a playoff opponent.
Surely we'd both take Bethel and NCC and SJF and UWP over teams like TLU or Muhl.
Wouldn't we?
Emma,
Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."
Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?
TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.
My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.
I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.
In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 13, 2014, 05:17:39 PM
I totally agree. Here's some more garbage data in relation to TLU and even UMHB:
Centre beat Rhodes 47-35. Rhodes beat Austin 34-13. TLU beat Austin 36-24.
Centre beat Hendrix 35-26, Hendrix beat Austin 38-28, TLU beat Austin 36-24.
Centre beat Millsaps 27-0. UMHB beat Millsaps 43-7. UMHB beat TLU 72-13.
As you said, it doesn't prove anything definitively. But the consistency is certainly in the positive direction.
"Stacked the deck" is completely accurate and, as you said, unfair to the players.
I hate crap like this. There's a website where you plug in two teams and they run results of games to show one is better than the other. Its stupid - and doesn't prove anything. I wouldn't even take consistency from that.
Just let the games play out on Saturday and we'll see. Keep in mind I definitely feel Centre should be ranked ahead of Muhlenberg and can see an argument for being ranked ahead of TLU (but not completely sold on it) so don't kill me here for being anti-Centre.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 08:38:41 PM
Emma,
Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."
Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?
TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.
My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.
I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.
In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.
Is there a full explanation of everything that goes into the Massey ratings somewhere? I see their website is kind of vague. I wonder how they calculate their "power ranking". Also, if I'm reading this right, do they really have Amherst as the #1 strength of schedule? Hopefully I missed interpreted that.
Massey is an epic fail on NESCAC teams. They either have to be the highest or lowest since there is no comparable data. Just ignore the NESCAC teams in his ratings as that is an example of GIGO.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 13, 2014, 10:30:06 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 08:38:41 PM
Emma,
Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."
Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?
TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.
My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.
I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.
In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.
Is there a full explanation of everything that goes into the Massey ratings somewhere? I see their website is kind of vague. I wonder how they calculate their "power ranking". Also, if I'm reading this right, do they really have Amherst as the #1 strength of schedule? Hopefully I missed interpreted that.
I believe there's an explanation on algorithm. It's pretty similar to the Sagarin ratings - same idea anyway. For basketball, I toy around with an amalgamation of Massey, Sagarin and Ken Pom once in a while.
What he does with the NESCAC is set the 'average' NESCAC team as the average of the entire College Football universe, which skews them up in the D3 universe as most of D3 normally is in the lower part behind D1 and D2. He used to put them in their own category, and I wish he would again. I know there are other models out there but I don't have the faith in them, really.
FOUND THIS: http://masseyratings.com/theory/index.htm
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
You are correct- last year I did pick Wabash as my last team in, but I couched that selection by saying that there were sound, criteria-based reasons to pick either team. It certainly wasn't an obvious choice and I don't have beef with that choice.
I know we've mentioned this a little bit earlier as we hypothesized about Wheaotn's chances to make the field as an at-large when their league didn't help them out with winning non-league games and/or getting a third team ranked. Sometimes you can be a good team that plays in a league like that (or any 10-team league really)...where you can be really good, lose to the one ranked team on your schedule, and get left out. The criteria don't do much for evaluating the quality of a team, only the quality of one or two wins/losses in a 10-game schedule. Muhlenberg,, Thomas More, Emory & Henry all fall into this category this year. Centre also, but they are a special case because they haven't lost at all.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2014, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results. I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.
All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?
You are correct- last year I did pick Wabash as my last team in, but I couched that selection by saying that there were sound, criteria-based reasons to pick either team. It certainly wasn't an obvious choice and I don't have beef with that choice.
I know we've mentioned this a little bit earlier as we hypothesized about Wheaotn's chances to make the field as an at-large when their league didn't help them out with winning non-league games and/or getting a third team ranked. Sometimes you can be a good team that plays in a league like that (or any 10-team league really)...where you can be really good, lose to the one ranked team on your schedule, and get left out. The criteria don't do much for evaluating the quality of a team, only the quality of one or two wins/losses in a 10-game schedule. Muhlenberg,, Thomas More, Emory & Henry all fall into this category this year. Centre also, but they are a special case because they haven't lost at all.
I wondering with the continue growth of DIII football teams, what do you think will be the next stage regarding DIII playoffs. Do we keep it simple and have just conference champions (assuming we get to 32 AQ conferences)? Or, do extend a weekend and have play-in games? As we all know, the best 32 teams never make the playoff.
I think 32 is the right number. I doubt if the powers that be will expand it past that unless the NAIA schools flee in droves.
It will remain at 32 ... because it would take a change in the Division III rules to grow any bigger. Football is capped at 32. And honestly... where in the world are you going to find another week to fit in an extra week of playoffs? And growth in Division III is actually slowing a bit, which isn't a bad thing to be honest.
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 14, 2014, 01:30:58 AM
I wondering with the continue growth of DIII football teams, what do you think will be the next stage regarding DIII playoffs. Do we keep it simple and have just conference champions (assuming we get to 32 AQ conferences)? Or, do extend a weekend and have play-in games? As we all know, the best 32 teams never make the playoff.
We do have play in games already. 11 weeks of them.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2014, 01:41:04 AM
It will remain at 32 ... because it would take a change in the Division III rules to grow any bigger. Football is capped at 32. And honestly... where in the world are you going to find another week to fit in an extra week of playoffs? And growth in Division III is actually slowing a bit, which isn't a bad thing to be honest.
To be honest, the growth is the thing that I think needs to be capped. If we are locked in at 32 teams, we should lock in the number of schools in D3. Just a thought...
And maybe send 2-4 (purple) teams up to D2 or 1AA ;)
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 13, 2014, 09:58:23 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 13, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
I hate crap like this. There's a website where you plug in two teams and they run results of games to show one is better than the other. Its stupid - and doesn't prove anything. I wouldn't even take consistency from that.
Just let the games play out on Saturday and we'll see. Keep in mind I definitely feel Centre should be ranked ahead of Muhlenberg and can see an argument for being ranked ahead of TLU (but not completely sold on it) so don't kill me here for being anti-Centre.
I don't totally disagree, SaintsFAN. That's why I said "here's more crap". So no offense taken at all. It ABSOLUTELY says nothing with regards to UMHB relative to Centre. And two-off comparisons, where you don't even have a common opponent are sketchy at best. Unfortunately those top two games are the closest you can find to comparing TLU and Centre.
BTW, I live in Cinti and was really hoping to see a Thomas More vs Centre 1st round game. I'd love to see our teams play each year- it's really about time, as they're consistently good programs. Incidentally I played at Centre ('88), as did my older brother ('81). My nephew is a junior WR there now, along with my daughter, a sophomore. So I guess I take a "little" interest in my Colonels. ;-)
But I've always pulled for local teams, including The Mount, Georgetown, etc. We've ALWAYS either played or scrimmages Hanover. Great campus to visit and it's so close to Danville- less than 2 hours. But I think it would be great to drop them and pickup TMore and start a great intrastate rivalry.
What do you think?
PM sent -- didn't want to bog down this thread with my reply :)
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 14, 2014, 08:44:13 AM
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 14, 2014, 01:30:58 AM
I wondering with the continue growth of DIII football teams, what do you think will be the next stage regarding DIII playoffs. Do we keep it simple and have just conference champions (assuming we get to 32 AQ conferences)? Or, do extend a weekend and have play-in games? As we all know, the best 32 teams never make the playoff.
We do have play in games already. 11 weeks of them.
Bingo.
Bitching about teams getting left out of the playoffs is dumb in the current format; there are plenty of Pool A's to go around. With rare exceptions like an undefeated Pool B team, everyone has a path to the dance when the first ball of the season is kicked off. Win'em all.
Not everyone gets a damn trophy. Deal with it.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 14, 2014, 09:06:13 AM
And maybe send 2-4 (purple) teams up to D2 or 1AA ;)
And to hell with the rest of their athletics program, or the mission and vision of the University and Athletics department?
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2014, 08:57:46 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2014, 01:41:04 AM
It will remain at 32 ... because it would take a change in the Division III rules to grow any bigger. Football is capped at 32. And honestly... where in the world are you going to find another week to fit in an extra week of playoffs? And growth in Division III is actually slowing a bit, which isn't a bad thing to be honest.
To be honest, the growth is the thing that I think needs to be capped. If we are locked in at 32 teams, we should lock in the number of schools in D3. Just a thought...
We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!
Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!
Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.
Except, "The playoffs will sort themselves out" doesn't actually solve the problem we could be facing. Just because you don't want to address the issue doesn't mean it just goes away or gets fixed.
Look, if we are going to keep the playoffs at 32 teams because we don't want to add another week to the season, that means we can't have more than 32 conferences, because then we're not giving auto-access through the AQ, which is a tenet of Division III athletics.
How do we add a "boatload" of teams while keeping the conference total under 32? Eventually, something has to change. You either have to cut off opportunity, or add another week. There's no way around it
If you reduce the length of the regular season by 1 week (10 weeks rather than 11) and thus eliminate bye weeks for everyone, you'd have an extra week for playoffs without changing the start or end dates. How feasible that is I don't know, but it'd be the only option without starting the season earlier or ending later.
Where are all of these extra conferences coming from?
It's not just adding a week to the season either (which the Division III president are never going to do)- who's paying for an entire extra round's worth of games?
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 14, 2014, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!
Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.
Except, "The playoffs will sort themselves out" doesn't actually solve the problem we could be facing. Just because you don't want to address the issue doesn't mean it just goes away or gets fixed.
Look, if we are going to keep the playoffs at 32 teams because we don't want to add another week to the season, that means we can't have more than 32 conferences, because then we're not giving auto-access through the AQ, which is a tenet of Division III athletics.
How do we add a "boatload" of teams while keeping the conference total under 32? Eventually, something has to change. You either have to cut off opportunity, or add another week. There's no way around it
32 AQs times 8 teams in a conference equals 256 teams
32 AQs times 9 teams in a conference equals 288 teams
32 AQs times 10 teams in a conference equals 320 teams
There are 244 teams this season minus the MESCAC that does not compete in the post season equals 234 teams right now.
So we have to wait at least until there are more than 22 new teams wanting to join D3 Football before we "start having problems" and as many as 86 more teams with a 32 field playoff schedule.
I think we have a few years to worry about it.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 14, 2014, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!
Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.
Except, "The playoffs will sort themselves out" doesn't actually solve the problem we could be facing. Just because you don't want to address the issue doesn't mean it just goes away or gets fixed.
Look, if we are going to keep the playoffs at 32 teams because we don't want to add another week to the season, that means we can't have more than 32 conferences, because then we're not giving auto-access through the AQ, which is a tenet of Division III athletics.
How do we add a "boatload" of teams while keeping the conference total under 32? Eventually, something has to change. You either have to cut off opportunity, or add another week. There's no way around it
Most all of those teams can't or won't support football. Some may, but many won't.
The point was that if an Oglethorpe or Calvin decided to add football, they should be allowed to easily without people getting their shorts in a knot.
You could also have a situation where if there were more than 32 AQ conferences force certain conference champions to play a "playoff" in the 11th week and the winners of these couple of games are in the 32 team field. Sort of like the play in games the NCAA D1 BB tourney has. The selection committee the year before selects the lowest ranked conferences for this "honor" Better yet the D3.com crew should be the selectors.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 14, 2014, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!
Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.
Except, "The playoffs will sort themselves out" doesn't actually solve the problem we could be facing. Just because you don't want to address the issue doesn't mean it just goes away or gets fixed.
Look, if we are going to keep the playoffs at 32 teams because we don't want to add another week to the season, that means we can't have more than 32 conferences, because then we're not giving auto-access through the AQ, which is a tenet of Division III athletics.
How do we add a "boatload" of teams while keeping the conference total under 32? Eventually, something has to change. You either have to cut off opportunity, or add another week. There's no way around it
Most all of those teams can't or won't support football. Some may, but many won't.
The point was that if an Oglethorpe or Calvin decided to add football, they should be allowed to easily without people getting their shorts in a knot.
I realize you were just using Oglethorpe as an example, smed, but just so you know, they're in the SAA. I'd also venture to guess that most other schools that would potentially add football also have current conference affiliations, though maybe not necessarily all in D3.
There really aren't that many independents, so I can't imagine how long it would take before 6 more entire conferences were formed. But if it were to get to that level of participation, I'd consider splitting D3 in half. Not sure how: regionally, school-size, haves/have-nots, alphabetically ;D, whatever. But perhaps that split would be so difficult to define that it wouldn't happen. Curious as to others' thoughts on how that split might be defined.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2014, 08:57:46 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2014, 01:41:04 AM
It will remain at 32 ... because it would take a change in the Division III rules to grow any bigger. Football is capped at 32. And honestly... where in the world are you going to find another week to fit in an extra week of playoffs? And growth in Division III is actually slowing a bit, which isn't a bad thing to be honest.
To be honest, the growth is the thing that I think needs to be capped. If we are locked in at 32 teams, we should lock in the number of schools in D3. Just a thought...
We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!
Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.
Of course, that objection is based on the assumption that I'm against
current D3 schools adding football. But, looking back, I seem to recall saying I was opposed to
adding schools to D3, until we're willing to deal with the playoffs and keeping the ratio in balance.
If Calvin wants to jump in, go for it (personally, I think it'd be great for them as a school)! And because schools like Pacific, George Fox or even Calvin are already D3 and part of auto bid conferences, it actually has little bearing on who gets into the playoffs.
At some point, adding schools to D3 (i.e. entire athletic departments that compete in the NAIA, etc.) does pinch on the playoffs. I'm not against equal access. But I think it works well because it's balanced by a degree of opportunity for good teams to get in via the at large arrangement.
I don't want a system where it's just the 'Top 32 teams' decided on by some committee or subjective standard. But neither do I want a system where there are 32 teams in the field, 20 of whom are weak sisters, while loads of 1 loss runners up, who would be great teams from a competitive standpoint are left home.
We don't have that right now. But we aren't far off from it. I'd like to see Pool C stay at 5 or 6 teams. If it gets to the point of 3 or less, I think we'll have greatly diminished the product in the field. The reason this is a concern...if we think finances are constrained in the NCAA Division 3 world, you should see how constrained they are in the NAIA world.
Thinking out loud. How hard would it be to say, you can't jump to D3 unless you jump to an auto-bid conference? If say, Northwestern (IA) wanted to go D3 (and I know they've batted it around) they can't just go independent. They'd have to join the IIAC. Or is there something to be said for raising the threshold for how many teams you need to have in your conference to gain an auto-bid (I'm actually not sure I like that idea though).
I knew Oglethorpe is in the SAA - I used them as an example just for this purpose.
Oh, they've already yapped a lot about "Division IV" or whatever...don't go there again.
There are 43 conferences in Men's Hoops right now. There are some football only leagues, too. But I don't think a lot of those conferences that don't have a football componement will want to sponsor football, or have the schools that can sponsor football that don't already. The Little East and NEWMAC have a lot of teams that have football, but they have football leagues for them already. Is there a rumbling for Emerson or Babson to add football?
It would help the ASC greatly in football to have some of their non-football schools play the sport. Can you see Texas-Dallas, College of the Ozarks, LeTourneau, or Concordia (TX) (to name some) adding it in the near future?
It would help the SCAC if Schreiner, Centenary or the University of Dallas would add football. But will they?
I think we'll need to address this when we have a couple more leagues form out of whole cloth and qualify. But after the SAA and MASCAC, are there any rumblings out there? The only really unwieldy league is the MWC but Carroll is jumping back to the CCIW. Then they'll have 11 teams with Macalester.
Hazzben,
We should encourage the growth of D3, not just in football, but in general. I say that because I think D3 is the superior model for small college athletics and we should encourage more to participate in it and emulate it.
And remember, D3 is NOT ALL about football. It's about ALL sports. We're just one piece of it, and we have to think what's good for the entire division...and the post season is just one sliver of it.
Would it be so bad if the GPAC as a whole abandoned NAIA and joined Nebraska Wesleyan in D3? I think the move to D3 has helped the HCAC (long ago they moved almost en masse, then Taylor backed out but Anderson, Hanover, Manchester and Frankin stuck around) and the NWC to name a couple that moved as a whole or mostly as a whole.
I really don't think we're going to see some sudden growth in the number of d3 college football teams or conferences but I think that over the long term the AQ leads to more parity. The lower conferences need to take some harsh losses in order to improve themselves. If you lower the bar for them and put them in another division or play in game against other bad teams there will be less motivation. Might also be a little harder to recruit kids to "power conference" teams who will see the playoffs less with fewer at-large bids.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 02:10:17 PM
Hazzben,
We should encourage the growth of D3, not just in football, but in general.
And remember, D3 is NOT ALL about football. It's about ALL sports. We're just one piece of it, and we have to think what's good for the entire division...and the post season is just one sliver of it.
Would it be so bad if the GPAC as a whole abandoned NAIA and joined Nebraska Wesleyan in D3? I think the move to D3 has helped the HCAC (long ago they moved almost en masse, then Taylor backed out but Anderson, Hanover, Manchester and Frankin stuck around) and the NWC to name a couple that moved as a whole or mostly as a whole.
Not necessarily. And if the entire GPAC jumped ship, I think we might start seeing the death rattle of NAIA (that'd be the loss of a lot of schools and a high caliber athletic conference - across all sports).
But is it in the best interest of D3 to simply continue growing? Serious question. Is bigger and bigger necessarily better and better? Especially if, across all sports, we're dipping into a diminishing pot of gold (i.e. the NCAA getting O'Bannoned). I'm not ready to agree that the bigger we get the better it is for our member institutions. I'm not advocating getting smaller either, just to be clear. Nor am I advocating a 'split' ... please no more division IV talks :P
That was a hypothetical, though as you know. And D2 may have more skin in the game if the NAIA starts going topsy-turvy.
Out here at CWU, our conference is trying to get Carroll (MT) to join and then try to get another school in so we can get a football AQ (of course). That may be the College of Idaho. It would almost make too much sense for the football NAIA schools to join D2 so that neither the Frontier or the GNAC (West Coast Version) would have to schedule teams a second time to fill out schedules. Silly me...
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2014, 08:38:41 PM
Emma,
Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."
Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?
TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.
My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.
I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.
In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.
Smed,
Yes, competitive is in the eye of the beholder, yet there is certainly a high degree of common sense that can be applied in the process. Criteria might suggest TLU or Muhl over a team like UWP or Bethel or SJF. However, I'm hopeful that if the majority of the D3 world was asked the following question: "How would you rank the strength of TLU, Muhl, UWP, Bethel and SJF (using likelihood to compete strongly with any team they are matched up with in the playoffs)"- the overwhelming majority would list Muhl and TLU in the last spots.
Is that necessarily "fair" from your perspective, maybe not. Yet, you state "To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE". That's right, and it applies to TLU and Muhl as well.
My whole point here is if we applied the question of "Which team is most likely to provide a competitive game against any playoff team they are matched up with" - I think the selection process would be a bit easier. And if Muhl got passed over for a UWP or a SJF, then you can tell Muhl- HEY WIN YOUR LEAGUE and then once Muhl follows that advice and performs well in the playoffs, they can prove they are worthy for the next year they are on the bubble.
As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason. What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall. As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2014, 04:25:24 PM
As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason. What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall. As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.
Muhlenberg's one loss is to Johns Hopkins who has played at least 11 games since 2008.
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2014, 04:25:24 PM
As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason. What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall. As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.
Muhlenberg lost to Johns Hopkins. They beat F&M 42-7. They've also had a five year record of 38-14. They wouldn't be competitive?
Massey uses comparative, real data that indicates the competitiveness of teams, not some janky eye test that's self-serving, selfish, and unscientific. Right now, there are enough games under everyone's belt to use it as a real measuring stick. So it SHOWS competitive-ness using real DATA, not some old wives tales.
So you're for the old guard ALWAYS getting playoff spots, no matter if they earn it or not? You don't care about the rest of the country and how competitive they can be? Never ever ever letting someone else in? How narrow minded. Good football is played outside of the Upper Midwest, you know. Good football exists in the South, the East and in the West. Teams YOU NEVER HEARD OF can be really good.
Again, what you say about Curry, of all teams, beating an E8 team as a "C". Under your thinking, they'd never get that chance, and only the fat cats would have that chance.
It's also blatantly against the ethos and mission of D3 to reserve playoff spots for the so-called elite, and those who have already had playoff success. The last part is total bollocks. Under your system, NO ONE else would get in, because they can't prove themselves, because they can't get in. Sorry TLU, sorry Thomas More, sorry Illinois College. You don't meet the criteria of a stacked deck.
It's not easy to make the field of 32. It's not supposed to be. Why throw more barriers at teams on the rise? Why do that?
Yes, WIN YOUR LEAGUE, failing that, LOSE ONCE with great criteria, or be at your peril. That applies to Bethel, UW-W, and St. John's as much as it does Moravian, McDaniel, or Sewanee.
All these projections are great and the reading is very interesting but we don't know what the last rankings are after this week because they are not published. Correct me if I am wrong Pat. So in the end these teams on the bubble so to speak may or may not be ranked regionally.
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2014, 04:50:41 PM
All these projections are great and the reading is very interesting but we don't know what the last rankings are after this week because they are not published. Correct me if I am wrong Pat. So in the end these teams on the bubble so to speak may or may not be ranked regionally.
We'll never know. Thanks NCAA...
Quote from: jknezek on November 14, 2014, 04:51:23 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2014, 04:50:41 PM
All these projections are great and the reading is very interesting but we don't know what the last rankings are after this week because they are not published. Correct me if I am wrong Pat. So in the end these teams on the bubble so to speak may or may not be ranked regionally.
We'll never know. Thanks NCAA...
It's the same in every sport. There's discussion on the Hoops B board about basketball wanting to have the final rankings released but no dice. Many of the other sports are against it.
I would guess that some teams that are not ranked and get in because of winning a conference could start a hailstorm. Then we would see some crazy posts from the people who are new to the playoff system
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2014, 02:20:12 PM
I really don't think we're going to see some sudden growth in the number of d3 college football teams or conferences but I think that over the long term the AQ leads to more parity. The lower conferences need to take some harsh losses in order to improve themselves.
Where exactly is the parity in this sport as we've expanded the playoffs to 32 and added Pool A bids? Mount Union's been obliterating the Division for 20 years now. Sure, a certain few teams get better (UMHB, UW-W) but they're the exception. And yeah, sometimes a team pokes it's head up, but the OAC is just as helpless against Mount as it's been for the last two decades.
Look, access for everyone is what D-III is about. And I've come around on that, pretty recently in fact, and am on board with the autobid AQ. But that doesn't change the fact that opening access to everyone can hurt the competitiveness of a playoff. There's simply too many D-III teams that not only can't compete with the big boys, but don't have a
desire to from a philosophical, institutional standpoint.
And again, that's okay. Do what's best for your institution, without hesitation. But when those dichotomies exist, and in such sharp contrast, well, you're going to be left with non-competitive playoff games and a lack or parity
In any playoff system that is reasonable, you're going to have blowouts. And in most leagues, the fat cats will grind the underlings bones to make their bread. It's the nature of the beast.
But 2013 Mount beat W&J by just 14, Wesley by just three and North Central by a solitary point.
Whitewater only beat Linfield by 11, and UMHB by one.
Sure, you're not going to see the UMAC champ stay within 30 or so, yet. But the second tier is closing the gap...
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 05:04:01 PM
Sure, you're not going to see the UMAC champ stay within 30 or so, yet. But the second tier is closing the gap...
The UMAC champ won't stay within 50 of their first round opponent (assuming they play a top 3 seed). And I'll be sure to tell the UMAC you've put them in the second tier, I'm sure they'll be overjoyed to hear about the promotion ;) ;D
On a serious note, who is CWU? Couldn't place the initials...I always had you pegged as a Wabash supporter.
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2014, 05:12:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 05:04:01 PM
Sure, you're not going to see the UMAC champ stay within 30 or so, yet. But the second tier is closing the gap...
The UMAC champ won't stay within 50 of their first round opponent (assuming they play a top 3 seed). And I'll be sure to tell the UMAC you've put them in the second tier, I'm sure they'll be overjoyed to hear about the promotion ;) ;D
On a serious note, who is CWU? Couldn't place the initials...I always had you pegged as a Wabash supporter.
Hah, bad juxtaposition!
CWU - Central Washington University - that's where I work now. Help out doing stats for volleyball, football and hoops as well as minding the p's and q's of the advancement operation.
Bad thing is if I want to catch a D-3 football game my choices are to head to Tacoma or Spokane. I'm smack in the middle!
Folks, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but there only two days left before some big decisions will be made. So I want to reiterate a few points and perhaps position the facts in a new light regarding the possible exclusion of an undefeated team from the tournament.
Again: if you remove UMHB from TLU's SOS calculation, Centre's SOS will end up slightly HIGHER than TLU's. TLU's SOS is being propped up by the wins of a team that BEAT them.
Why should TLU get an advantage over an undefeated team as a result of a stat that doesn't reflect WHO THEY BEAT, when Centre's SOS is propped up by nobody because they NEVER LOST? I thought "who you beat" is the generally prevailing thought as to what matters most.
My opinion is that Rhodes is better than Hardin-Simmons anyway. H-S's SOS might look good (ranked 48 to the 103 of Rhodes). But they only have six D3 games to go by so far. And here's the killer: if their game against Southwestern hadn't been cancelled (not sure why it was), their SOS would be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than Rhodes' SOS. They'd drop to the neighborhood of .481 -or 153rd place.
Then it should be extremely difficult to justify that #10 RR ranking by the RC (which includes TLU's coach). Next likely candidates for #10 would be Emory & Henry or Rhodes (a Centre opponent). And say goodbye to TLU's RR win. (Seemed like quite a sham to have a win over a RR#10, vs an estimated #11-13, that pushed an undefeated team out of the picture).
It just goes to show you how fragile these numbers are. They say "figures lie and liars figure", right? Then just let common sense prevail. What does the eyeball test tell you (as C.M. Newton used to say when heading the March Madness basketball committee)?
All these false numbers do is provide PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY of the "Texas politics" taking place on the South RC. Only a small regional sub-committee, containing members who are DIRECTLY impacted by all the nuances of where each team is ranked, would have the chutzpah to create this situation.
It's been pointed out a few times in these forums by D3 moderators that this is the only time EVER where an undefeated team might slip to Pool C. This may never happen again.
Allow me to put this in a very important and distinct light:
One of the primary comparison criteria, Strength of Schedule, HAS NEVER BEEN USED to compare a Pool C team that was undefeated with one that had losses. This sets a precedent that cannot be denied and SHOULD ALLOW either the RC or National Committee to then dissect the SOS calculation, while keeping true to it's spirit, but make it RELEVANT to this situation.
I only hope the NCAA National Committee demonstrates integrity in this process and right's the wrong of the Regional Committee. Said many times in these forums, this NCAA and it's tournament stand for INCLUSIVENESS. I hope that proves to be true for the young men who have walked off the field victors each and every time this year.
Decades of tradition will have the Praying Colonels together Sunday evening for milk and cookies. They'd break up into groups, talk and watch films during the season. This time they'll stay together as a team and watch as the tournament brackets are unveiled. What a shame it would be, for in this room, to have the season's only defeat- one in which the young men had absolutely no power to influence. In my heart I do not believe the NCAA wants or will allow this to happen.
Hardin Simmons' game against Southwestern was cancelled due to lightning. Unlike Chicago's against Pacific, which was called due to air traffic issues. At least no one in "C" contention played Maranatha.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 05:41:25 PM
Hardin Simmons' game against Southwestern was cancelled due to lightning. Unlike Chicago's against Pacific, which was called due to air traffic issues. At least no one in "C" contention played Maranatha.
Funny about Marantha. Sad about the other. So a lightning strike is the reason Hardin-Simmons has a #48 ranked SOS instead of one around #150.
Well, it wasn't just one strike. It was pervasive enough that they had to call it, and early enough in the game to call it 'no contest'. Kind of like what happened with Florida and Idaho (that was just a flood, basically, not lightning, but still...)
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 05:24:58 PM
CWU - Central Washington University - that's where I work now. Help out doing stats for volleyball, football and hoops as well as minding the p's and q's of the advancement operation.
Bad thing is if I want to catch a D-3 football game my choices are to head to Tacoma or Spokane. I'm smack in the middle!
We had some great battles in Ellensburg when I was an NAIA Lute.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 14, 2014, 04:59:41 PM
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2014, 02:20:12 PM
I really don't think we're going to see some sudden growth in the number of d3 college football teams or conferences but I think that over the long term the AQ leads to more parity. The lower conferences need to take some harsh losses in order to improve themselves.
Where exactly is the parity in this sport as we've expanded the playoffs to 32 and added Pool A bids? Mount Union's been obliterating the Division for 20 years now. Sure, a certain few teams get better (UMHB, UW-W) but they're the exception. And yeah, sometimes a team pokes it's head up, but the OAC is just as helpless against Mount as it's been for the last two decades.
Look, access for everyone is what D-III is about. And I've come around on that, pretty recently in fact, and am on board with the autobid AQ. But that doesn't change the fact that opening access to everyone can hurt the competitiveness of a playoff. There's simply too many D-III teams that not only can't compete with the big boys, but don't have a desire to from a philosophical, institutional standpoint.
And again, that's okay. Do what's best for your institution, without hesitation. But when those dichotomies exist, and in such sharp contrast, well, you're going to be left with non-competitive playoff games and a lack or parity
I'm saying there is more parity with AQs than there otherwise would be, not that there is a lot of parity now. Teams get better by playing superior competition. The OAC is still getting trampled by Mount but the other teams are still better because of it and that's with no help from the motivation of the AQ. The vast majority of colleges have philosophical goals well in line with championship football. The main difference between Mount/UWW and the rest is personnel, not philosophies that limit the football program.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 04:33:21 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2014, 04:25:24 PM
As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason. What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall. As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.
Muhlenberg lost to Johns Hopkins. They beat F&M 42-7. They've also had a five year record of 38-14. They wouldn't be competitive?
Massey uses comparative, real data that indicates the competitiveness of teams, not some janky eye test that's self-serving, selfish, and unscientific. Right now, there are enough games under everyone's belt to use it as a real measuring stick. So it SHOWS competitive-ness using real DATA, not some old wives tales.
So you're for the old guard ALWAYS getting playoff spots, no matter if they earn it or not? You don't care about the rest of the country and how competitive they can be? Never ever ever letting someone else in? How narrow minded. Good football is played outside of the Upper Midwest, you know. Good football exists in the South, the East and in the West. Teams YOU NEVER HEARD OF can be really good.
Again, what you say about Curry, of all teams, beating an E8 team as a "C". Under your thinking, they'd never get that chance, and only the fat cats would have that chance.
It's also blatantly against the ethos and mission of D3 to reserve playoff spots for the so-called elite, and those who have already had playoff success. The last part is total bollocks. Under your system, NO ONE else would get in, because they can't prove themselves, because they can't get in. Sorry TLU, sorry Thomas More, sorry Illinois College. You don't meet the criteria of a stacked deck.
It's not easy to make the field of 32. It's not supposed to be. Why throw more barriers at teams on the rise? Why do that?
Yes, WIN YOUR LEAGUE, failing that, LOSE ONCE with great criteria, or be at your peril. That applies to Bethel, UW-W, and St. John's as much as it does Moravian, McDaniel, or Sewanee.
Smed,
I find you to be a condescending guy, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be that way.
In any event, if it's ok with you, I'd prefer to describe myself rather than leave it to you, seeing as we've never met.
I love the fact that D3 provides a playoff system that allows all teams (except maybe Centre this year) the opportunity to earn its way in. Unfortunately, only 32 are allowed and IMO it should be the job of the committees to select the teams they feel would create the most competitive playoff field possible. I happen to believe that 8-2 Bethel, 8-2 SJF and 8-2 UWP (if all finish this way) are better playoff caliber teams than 9-1 TLU and 9-1 Muhl. Granted, Muhl isn't as easy a decision as TLU is for me, but neither their current schedule nor their recent history indicates they would create a more competitive playoff field than Bethel, UWP or SJF.
I don't rely on statistics over my eye for the game, so we won't reach an agreement on the value of Massey.
I truly do hope teams like TLU and Muhl and Moravian and all the other teams you mention will win their conferences soon and earn the AQ. To me, your position is a bit like people saying it's not fair that Mt never has to travel. Win the conference and go to the playoffs. Beat Mt and Mt will have to travel.
You came off as elitist, Emma about limiting "C" to your so-called elite list, and others have had discussion in the past about limiting playoff spots to 'proven quantities', even eliminating "A" bids. That makes me so irate. It's a rage against elitism, especially when it comes to D3. It's against the ethos of D3. You cannot leave even the "C" to so-called 'proven' teams because you will eliminate worthy teams of quality and distinction, unfairly AND unjustly.
How can you SEE how good Muhlenberg is unless you examine data? Old wives tales and the eye test and outdated perceptions only go so far. You thought they lost to team they rolled.
PS - the SOS calculated by Massey has Muhlenberg playing a tougher schedule than St. John's. The eye test fails there. That may seem odd, but St. John's schedule is quite bifurcated (hello St. Olaf and Hamline), while Muhlenberg hasn't played a lot of really bad teams, and has played one elite team. The body of work counts, for good, and bad. Muhlenberg hasn't played (except for JHU) the caliber of the BEST of St. John's schedule, but neither have they played the nadir.
Mind you, I think Muhlenberg should be behind Centre and TLU in the South, but they should be considered if they are on the board. The "C" isn't reserved for a NAME.
I never complain about Mt. Union not having to travel. Why would I? Maybe this year they will travel if they squeak by JCU or even lose...
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2014, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 14, 2014, 04:01:34 PM
Folks, I've made this point repeatedly in the Pool C thread (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8234.msg1626998#msg1626998), and I'll do so again: if you remove UMHB from TLU's SOS calculation, Centre's SOS will end up slightly HIGHER than TLU's. Their SOS is being propped up by the wins of a team that BEAT them.
You don't get to cherry pick which parts of the schedule count and which parts don't. That's not how the game is played.
With all due respect, Wally, I wouldn't classify this as cherry-picking in any way shape or form. The SOS metric as it stands, makes the most sense when comparing apples to apples, or teams that have losses. In this case, we're comparing an apple to an orange- a team that is undefeated.
The standard SOS metric ONLY (ONLY) measures strength of the teams
scheduled. So I ask you to do this, remove all memory of the current formulas please. I want to work backwards for a second.
Remove UHMB from TLU's SOS. And calculate it as I have proposed. First question: does this now accurately provide a relative comparison of the
strength of the teams beaten?
Now add the UHMB game back into equation- so exactly as it's calculated now. Did adding that game reveal ANYTHING positive or negative about how TLU
performed this year? If not, then why use it? Aren't we looking for the spirit of an accurate comparison of the strength of teams.
You could think me a homer who is just trying to change an agreed upon metric used for years to benefit my team. "We can't just change a metric to suit one team in one particular circumstance because several will be asking the same each year." I expect some will think that.
But I honestly think this situation is an anomaly (undefeated team in Pool C), is a precedent, is extraordinarily unlikely to happen again, and would call for deeper inspection to get as accurate a comparison as possible.
Flip it just a bit: both teams have 1 loss. Centre loses to Mount Union, but TLU loses to Southwestern. TLU has a slightly higher SOS using standard formula. At stake is the last playoff spot. My thoughts then? I'd be ticked about the result, as a Centre alum. But in no way could I in good faith ask for modified metrics. One might be Sour Green and the other Granny, but they're still apples.
Again, I believe the circumstance we have here is highly unusual and calls for whatever modifications necessary to get an accurate comparison.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2014, 04:40:01 PM
I'm interested in that math. I'm not sure that's right....I don't think Southwestern alone can scrub over 0.06 points out of HSUs SOS. You are right though in the abstract- that not playing Southwestern helps HSU's SOS. It's not a good metric, no doubt.
You can see my spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWJMgmokJaEu-HtqDwpT7tNn1OSNraqnlZe4Agmk4e0/edit?usp=sharing
The numbers in blue are from the most recent SOS list: http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template
In the top schedule ("Hardin-Simmons w/out Southwestern") you'll notice the OOWP I calculated is accurate enough (.521 vs .522) but OWP I calculated (.521) is slightly lower than the published one (.548). I did this for 6 teams and my OOP was slightly lower each time.
BUT the important thing isn't that those numbers are exact, but rather to note the delta- the change- in the "NCAA" SOS. Now you should see what a dramatic change results from adding of the worst D3 teams on your schedule- especially since there are only 6 other D3 teams on there.
Hope it makes sense. If not I can attach as a spreadsheet.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2014, 04:40:01 PM
This is where I think there is an interesting conversation to be had. Why HSU and not E&H or Rhodes? I looked for common opponents and there aren't any, so that's not it. I don't see a lot about Hardin-Simmons that makes them stand out from Rhodes or E&H aside from those SOS figures that are accepted without context. The one thing I admittedly don't know anything about are the two non-division opponents that HSU played. If those are quality teams, then HSU may have scored some points in the secondary criteria.
I think I know why HSU.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2014, 04:40:01 PM
And then this thing goes off the rails a bit. Just a couple of more thoughts on this:
- Centre hasn't slipped to Pool C and Centre hasn't been left out of the tournament yet. Centre also isn't 10-0 yet. The way things got ordered this week maybe sets the table for some precedent-making things, but we should probably let the thing play out before going this kind of bonkers.
I agree with you Wally. But pointing these things out late Sunday night will be too late and would serve no purpose. My comments may not serve any purpose anyway, but on the off-chance anyone from the-powers-that-be would read this, it's now or never to bring these thoughts to light.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2014, 04:40:01 PM
- Juicy as the Great Texas Playoff Conspiracy is, I think you do the folks who work on these committees a pretty severe disservice by accusing them of stacking the deck. It's one thing for us to look at those rankings and disagree or even say "hey, I think they got this wrong". It's another to say they rigged it. That kind of thing probably needs proof.
Ultimately here, I agree with you. Centre (and anybody else who runs the table) deserves to keep playing until they lose. I think it would be a shame if they didn't get that chance. But I'm still hopeful, maybe even a little optimistic, that they will.
I can totally see your point of view, Wally. This is where I most look like an emotional homer, I understand. But in my heart I still believe that a few committee members are not voting objectively- especially after seeing Centre not only not pull ahead of TLU after winning fairly convincingly last week, not stay tied, not just fall back one spot, but fall back two spots which, as it would stand, would eliminate them from contention if all results Saturday dictate that. I was certainly leery after seeing them tied after the first week. But I just can't wrap my head around last week's downward movement.
I'm biased. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
One thing I know for a fact, when the SAA members bolted, it left major scheduling, and other, issues for for the remaining teams. I believe they did the right thing. Travelling all those miles in all those sports is unbelievably expensive AND terribly disruptive to the ability to maintain any semblance of study time for the student athletes.
Is there still a little bitterness remaining? Possibly. But is there a huge conflict of interest for a bubble team's HC to sit in influence on the committee? You bet there is.
Anyone can take metrics that can be interpreted and twist them to say whatever you want, I understand (again "...liars figure"). But the movement on the ranking was unexplainable to me.
SORRY to seem like I only care about one result. But I wouldn't want to see this happen to any kids.
Wally- you do a great job on here. I've learned so much from yours and others perspectives. Thank you very much for tolerating me and my long-windedness.
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2014, 07:29:34 PM
Smed,
I find you to be a condescending guy, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be that way.
In any event, if it's ok with you, I'd prefer to describe myself rather than leave it to you, seeing as we've never met.
No disrespect intended emma. But smed is one of the most nicest, most educated people in any of these forums and has shown himself to be not only tolerant of others but quick to provide help and input.
Please keep an open mind and give him a chance and I'm confident you'll think the same. :)
You can't unring the SOS bell. I don't think anyone likes this formula; it's better than the old QoW index (shudder). It's what we got until there's some SOS that uses more of an RPI feeling (without giving teams an incentive to go all Mt. Union on everyone (Mt. Union really does try to temper its score against Muskingum, et. al. It's just really hard to tell the 4th stringer not to score)). It also works better in hoops when there are more games and more non-conference games (though some leagues, like the MIAC and ASC play a metric ton of conference games).
Your logic will give teams a disincentive to schedule a Whitewater, Mt. Union, UMHB, or Wesley, even because it won't count...
We DON'T want that...we REALLY don't want that. Teams should be encouraged to play those guys. It's really helped Franklin improve, for one. Don't put up artificial barriers, please.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 14, 2014, 08:16:23 PM
quote author=emma17 link=topic=8234.msg1627495#msg1627495 date=1416011374]
smed is one of the most nicest, most educated ..
Lol...I didn't sound so educated right there...
Could there be a situation where the OAC and MAC runners-up could sweat this out? I think Rowan will still be ranked since they're winning as I type this, so Widener is probably good with a RR win. But if Del Val gets whacked a good one they only have one RR result and it'll be ugly. Their SOS will improve but not my much since they're a 10-team league. (The East could wiggle Lycoming into the rankings at 8-2 though to help, if they ever so wanted to do something like that). Then their profile is kind of like TLU's.
Same with the OAC runner-up, IF Heidelberg loses and falls out of the RRs, the game is a blowout, and the North decides to not rank ONU and instead opts for MSJ or DePauw. Their profile has a meh SOS and an 0-1 RR result then.
I think Wally hinted at this a ways back. Not that these worst cases could happen, but youneverknow.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 08:21:40 PM
Your logic will give teams a disincentive to schedule a Whitewater, Mt. Union, UMHB, or Wesley, even because it won't count...
We DON'T want that...we REALLY don't want that. Teams should be encouraged to play those guys. It's really helped Franklin improve, for one. Don't put up artificial barriers, please.
Smed- I was only advocating an attempt to get an accurate look at two Pool C teams where one was undefeated (the orange) and one was not (the apple). Wasn't pushing for a wholesale change.
Again this would give a more accurate look, in the specific situation of Centre to TLU and Muhlenberg, at a collective "who you beat". The undefeated team shouldn't suffer when being compared to a team that lost to a 10-0 squad. Because nothing was "earned" by losing.
Hopefully you understand, if not agree, what I'm trying to say.
I disagree. You play the schedule. In ANY SOS calculation, the schedule is what it is and you count it all. You can't cherry pick. That's why they do W/L, as well, and the SOS also factors in the OOWP as well. It's a true look at what they were doing, or trying to do. SOS is just A factor, it's not THE factor.
You can't discount a result you don't like, win or lose, playing a cupcake or playing UMHB. Again, that would discourage teams from playing an elite team, because it wouldn't count in some circumstances.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 14, 2014, 09:21:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 08:21:40 PM
Your logic will give teams a disincentive to schedule a Whitewater, Mt. Union, UMHB, or Wesley, even because it won't count...
We DON'T want that...we REALLY don't want that. Teams should be encouraged to play those guys. It's really helped Franklin improve, for one. Don't put up artificial barriers, please.
Smed- I was only advocating an attempt to get an accurate look at two Pool C teams where one was undefeated (the orange) and one was not (the apple). Wasn't pushing for a wholesale change.
Again this would give a more accurate look, in the specific situation of Centre to TLU and Muhlenberg, at a collective "who you beat". The undefeated team shouldn't suffer when being compared to a team that lost to a 10-0 squad. Because nothing was "earned" by losing.
Hopefully you understand, if not agree, what I'm trying to say.
if nothing was earned by losing to a 10-0, then surely nothing was lost? Can't discount the SOS without changing the w/l
Smed, OK so it seems that, to you, the current SOS is the "least worst" metric that has been used so far- perhaps not perfect, but better than anything used in the past. I understand what you're saying and respect that you want to encourage teams to schedule competitive games.
I know you're interest and involvement in sports, D3 football and these boards is long and full. So I appreciate your opinion.
You're looking at this from the vantage point of scheduling. You like the SOS metric that gives a numerical value to the strength of the teams that you scheduled. If, in your experience, that has lead to more competitive and interesting matchups, then I'll defer to you because I respect your experienced opinion. My experience in D3 football is with one or two trees; yours is the forest.
I'm looking at it from the vantage point of an accurate strength measure from the collection of "who you beat". But, again, I was referring to a specific instance when comparing apples to oranges. And all my suggestion would do in that instance was remove the scheduling bonus from the
You may not like my suggestion and you can call it cherry-picking. I'm fine with that, though I'll disagree. So let's just forget that I've called this a "change to the SOS formula". I'll call it SOW (Strength of Wins). Make it another criteria and use it when appropriate for apples and oranges comparisons.
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2014, 09:47:26 PM
if nothing was earned by losing to a 10-0, then surely nothing was lost? Can't discount the SOS without changing the w/l
Why is it that it' necessary to get any credit for a loss in any statistical category?
How exactly is taking the rules of a game that everyone agrees to at the onset, and changing them with 5 seconds left on the clock fair to anyone?
Quote from: timtlu on November 14, 2014, 10:44:29 PM
How exactly is taking the rules of a game that everyone agrees to at the onset, and changing them with 5 seconds left on the clock fair to anyone?
Great question for the South Regional Committee board members, tim. Why don't you ask your coach after the game tomorrow?
If you will enlighten me to what rule he has changed, I will try and find a way to do that.
;)
I understand why you want to pick apart the SOS. It's a horrible metric and can be downright unfair if people put too much emphasis on it (not unlike the days when the NCAA basketball committee was using RPI as the end-all). The way the SOS works right now, you can absolutely have a really, really good football team that for whatever reason winds up with a schedule composed largely of duds. It just happened to Centre. The folly comes in when we use that SOS algorithm and then use it to determine the quality or the strength of a particular team- something like "bad SOS equals bad football team". It's a tremendously unfair application of the criteria. I'm all for a conversation about how we can alter the metric or refine its application in a way that doesn't dismiss a team's quality because the teams they happened to play in any given year weren't great.
However, SOS is what we have and SOS is a primary criteria. We don't get to hypothesize about what if Team A didn't play UMHB or what if Team B did and then recalculate. That's not really allowed.
I'll say this- (and thanks for sharing your math...I didn't realize that Southwestern's contribution to OOWP would have that much impact but it definitely does) when TLU plays Southwestern tomorrow, their SOS is going to get trashed in the same way HSU's SOS would have. With the South RACs willingness to shuffle things around with very little changes last Saturday, that game with Southwestern may completely alter the way they view and rank TLU after tomorrow. Perhaps enough to rethink how much Centre's 1.000 win percentage ought to contribute to their ranking vis a vis TLU. And if not the South RAC, it may be enough for the national committee to make their own adjustment.
I think the SOS is good to encourage teams to try and schedule better. Of course, you can't really project how good a team will be in a few years, and it takes two to schedule. But we don't want quality teams just picking on out of conference weaklings all the time. A knock on Heidelberg was that they've faced Alma in non-conference and just crushed them the past couple of years. They've played them five years in a row, and when they first scheduled them 'Berg wasn't that good and Alma was coming off of 5-5. I don't know how long of a contract they signed at first but it seemed like a reasonable matchup in year one and two, not now.
I did mention TLU's big hit by Southwestern earlier by both counts but hadn't done the math. Of course other games will affect TLU'S OOWP.
I think also lost in all of this is that Hardin / Simmons IS a pretty good team. We're kind of trashing them a bit, wondering why they're ranked and not Emory & Henry. They hung with UMHB. I wouldn't say their outstanding, but they're not weaklings. At the #10 spot in the South, they probably had a choice of E&H, H/S, Guilford or Christopher Newport. If H/S loses, I think the E&H / Guilford winner will get #10.
I dont' see how SOS has any impact on how a team should schedule. Bethel isn't real happy with their rannking right now despite the 2nd best SOS in the land. They are hurt by scheduling Wartburg. If they beat up on Luther instead they have no worries right now. North Central may be on the fence in terms of scheduling. They got hurt again this year by losing to UWSP, but they benefit by beating UWP.
Wheaton's SOS this year is atrocious because the CCIW did poorly out of conference and the teams they played (Kalamazoo, Coe, and UWEC) were bad teams. But somehow, in 2010 they beat a 5-5 Albion team, a 5-5 Plattevlille team and an 0-10 Olivet team and had an SOS that was in the top 5 in the country. Makes no sense to me. This years Wheaton's team is decidedly better than 2010 but if this years team was 9-1 they are likely on the bubble with no RRO wins and a weak SOS.
I think scheduling is relative depending on the conference you play in. It shouldn't be, but I think it is. Bethel didn't need to schedule Wartburg but Centre might have.
Smed, you say scheduling helped Franklin improve? How is that? for a year or two? They lost to IWU this year and were not competitive with UWW. How did scheduling make them better? If they played Alma instead of IWU they may be ranked higher and looking at a home playoff game instead of a 1st round road game.
I don't like teams that schedule soft but I know it happens. The system still rewards it. SOS doesn't appear to matter.
Can someone help me out on OWP? I'm apparently doing something wrong. Does it simply take into account a team's (ie. Southwestern) cumulative opponent's record like this:
SRSU 1-8
ETBU 4-5
AC 5-4
TU 3-6
AC 5-4
TU 3-6
Total 21-33
Or does it take into account a team's cumulative opponent's record only against Division III teams like this:
SRSU 0-7
ETBU 4-4
AC 4-4
TU 3-6
AC 4-4
TU 3-6
Total 18-31
Or is it something different entirely?
It's the D-III record, but you take out the game that team played against them. So since Southwestern beat Sul Ross, you take out that loss and use 0-6 for Sul Ross in the calculation.
Different entirely, for the win. Thanks Pat.
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2014, 11:46:24 PM
I dont' see how SOS has any impact on how a team should schedule. Bethel isn't real happy with their rannking right now despite the 2nd best SOS in the land. They are hurt by scheduling Wartburg. If they beat up on Luther instead they have no worries right now. North Central may be on the fence in terms of scheduling. They got hurt again this year by losing to UWSP, but they benefit by beating UWP.
Wheaton's SOS this year is atrocious because the CCIW did poorly out of conference and the teams they played (Kalamazoo, Coe, and UWEC) were bad teams. But somehow, in 2010 they beat a 5-5 Albion team, a 5-5 Plattevlille team and an 0-10 Olivet team and had an SOS that was in the top 5 in the country. Makes no sense to me. This years Wheaton's team is decidedly better than 2010 but if this years team was 9-1 they are likely on the bubble with no RRO wins and a weak SOS.
I think scheduling is relative depending on the conference you play in. It shouldn't be, but I think it is. Bethel didn't need to schedule Wartburg but Centre might have.
Smed, you say scheduling helped Franklin improve? How is that? for a year or two? They lost to IWU this year and were not competitive with UWW. How did scheduling make them better? If they played Alma instead of IWU they may be ranked higher and looking at a home playoff game instead of a 1st round road game.
I don't like teams that schedule soft but I know it happens. The system still rewards it. SOS doesn't appear to matter.
A. You MUST think over the long haul for a team like Franklin. Scheduling has made the PROGRAM better, over the long haul. They now know what they need to do to make the promised land. It's not a one or two year view, it's a long term view. This is what Franklin does to get better and attract better players.
B. You bring up Bethel. SOS is the ONLY reason they're in the spot they are. If they played Luther, they'd lose a RR result, they'd lose a TON of SOS and they may be very much on the cusp of making it or not. PLUS, playing Luther does Bethel no good in ANY front. None. Zero. Zip. Bethel is not of the level of Mt. Union. They can get games. They can't afford to dodge teams, if not for "C" criteria, but for seeding (or bracket placement).
C. Wabash, 2013 should be the poster child for SOS and a lack of a RR result killing a team in the playoff chances. You HAVE to have that. It DOES matter. If it didn't, Wabash would have made the playoffs last year and SJF would not have. Plus, the head of the committee said teams need to schedule up.
D. In 2010, Wheaton was 16th in the country in SOS. They were 26th in OWP and had a very good OOWP. In SOS terms, Albion was 5-3 (one loss was to a non-D3 team), Platteville would have been 5-4 with WIAC and IIAC opponents helping OOWP. Olivet played Wittenberg that year so that OOWP helped. AND, the CCIW lost TWO non-conference games total. That helps anyone's OWP and OOWP. It's NO mystery why Wheaton was great in SOS that year.
E. Yes, conference means a lot, but you have those non-conference games to help. In basketball, the NESCAC is picked on for cherry picking the better teams of weaker NE conferences to boost their SOS, but they can do that because they only play a single-round robin (there was a HUGE row about this last year, and the math proved that the single round helped them greatly, but that's another issue). For a team that wants to get a seat at the "C" table, you gotta make those games count by playing good teams and then hoping your conference mates win their smartly scheduled games. It makes no sense for Wittenberg to schedule Muskingum or Marietta. It makes sense for Kenyon to do so.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 14, 2014, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!
Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.
Except, "The playoffs will sort themselves out" doesn't actually solve the problem we could be facing. Just because you don't want to address the issue doesn't mean it just goes away or gets fixed.
Look, if we are going to keep the playoffs at 32 teams because we don't want to add another week to the season, that means we can't have more than 32 conferences, because then we're not giving auto-access through the AQ, which is a tenet of Division III athletics.
How do we add a "boatload" of teams while keeping the conference total under 32? Eventually, something has to change. You either have to cut off opportunity, or add another week. There's no way around it
Most all of those teams can't or won't support football. Some may, but many won't.
The point was that if an Oglethorpe or Calvin decided to add football, they should be allowed to easily without people getting their shorts in a knot.
Oglethorpe and Calvin are not the problem. They have a ready made home.
As I try to find where the next Pool A bid might go (after the MASCAC and SAA), I think that it might go to the SCAC, with Centenary and/or UDallas and/or Schreiner adding football, and maybe stealing a "football newbie" like Concordia-Texas from the ASC.
For our discussion, which other non-football conference adds the sport?
Capital AC and that pushes the NJAC into the Bumblies? But that does not increase the Pool A bids.
Thanks to my colleagues for the chance to provoke thought.
Just catching up on the posts that I overlooked. +1! to smedindy in post #618 for covering this point.
Do you think those teams will add football, Ralph?
Ralph - the CAC isn't going to add football. I think they made a play at it on paper, but then screwed up with the addition of Harrisburg to the conference. They had a chance, but didn't get the right ducks aligned. I also think the Landmark may have made a play (even though, several I have talked with in the conference disagree with me - I don't think they are telling me the whole story), but the got caught up in the Mid-Atlantic shuffle that the CAC made the play recently with. I don't see any conference in this area adding football unless another conference (or more) are blown up - and that won't change the AQ situation.
Also... Division III growth has slowed as, I would say, has the growth of football. I think there are legitimate reasons to add the sport and/or join the division... but they have slowed down in recent years.
Is there any possibility that the MWC keeps growing then one day splits into two conferences?
The MWC is losing Carroll. That puts them back to 10, plus Macalester. There's the UMAC and the NACC. I think the movement, if any, would be between those two conferences. The MWC seems like a really good fit for all of its institutions. I think the NACC has to worry about Rockford. I know a few years ago their situation wasn't so good, financial wise.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 12:07:49 AM
Quote from: USee on November 14, 2014, 11:46:24 PM
I dont' see how SOS has any impact on how a team should schedule. Bethel isn't real happy with their rannking right now despite the 2nd best SOS in the land. They are hurt by scheduling Wartburg. If they beat up on Luther instead they have no worries right now. North Central may be on the fence in terms of scheduling. They got hurt again this year by losing to UWSP, but they benefit by beating UWP.
Wheaton's SOS this year is atrocious because the CCIW did poorly out of conference and the teams they played (Kalamazoo, Coe, and UWEC) were bad teams. But somehow, in 2010 they beat a 5-5 Albion team, a 5-5 Plattevlille team and an 0-10 Olivet team and had an SOS that was in the top 5 in the country. Makes no sense to me. This years Wheaton's team is decidedly better than 2010 but if this years team was 9-1 they are likely on the bubble with no RRO wins and a weak SOS.
I think scheduling is relative depending on the conference you play in. It shouldn't be, but I think it is. Bethel didn't need to schedule Wartburg but Centre might have.
Smed, you say scheduling helped Franklin improve? How is that? for a year or two? They lost to IWU this year and were not competitive with UWW. How did scheduling make them better? If they played Alma instead of IWU they may be ranked higher and looking at a home playoff game instead of a 1st round road game.
I don't like teams that schedule soft but I know it happens. The system still rewards it. SOS doesn't appear to matter.
A. You MUST think over the long haul for a team like Franklin. Scheduling has made the PROGRAM better, over the long haul. They now know what they need to do to make the promised land. It's not a one or two year view, it's a long term view. This is what Franklin does to get better and attract better players.
There is no evidence they are any better off for having gotten beaten by Mt Union and UWW in the preseason. None. It's a perception they may become better but it hasn't worked yet.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 12:07:49 AMB. You bring up Bethel. SOS is the ONLY reason they're in the spot they are. If they played Luther, they'd lose a RR result, they'd lose a TON of SOS and they may be very much on the cusp of making it or not. PLUS, playing Luther does Bethel no good in ANY front. None. Zero. Zip. Bethel is not of the level of Mt. Union. They can get games. They can't afford to dodge teams, if not for "C" criteria, but for seeding (or bracket placement).
Where they are? They are on the cusp of NOT MAKING IT NOW???? If they beat Luther instead of losing to Wartburg you really think they are ranked lower as a 9-1 team? I think not.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 12:07:49 AMC. Wabash, 2013 should be the poster child for SOS and a lack of a RR result killing a team in the playoff chances. You HAVE to have that. It DOES matter. If it didn't, Wabash would have made the playoffs last year and SJF would not have. Plus, the head of the committee said teams need to schedule up.
Agreed but that has more to do with the bottom half of the NCAC than it does scheduling up. Wabash is an example of a team that is nationally strong in a weaker conference (but clearly improving) and it makes more sense for them to schedule up to make sure they get that RRO outside of Witt.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 12:07:49 AM
D. In 2010, Wheaton was 16th in the country in SOS. They were 26th in OWP and had a very good OOWP. In SOS terms, Albion was 5-3 (one loss was to a non-D3 team), Platteville would have been 5-4 with WIAC and IIAC opponents helping OOWP. Olivet played Wittenberg that year so that OOWP helped. AND, the CCIW lost TWO non-conference games total. That helps anyone's OWP and OOWP. It's NO mystery why Wheaton was great in SOS that year.
You made my point. Their SOS was great that year but their team was worse than this years version. Those teams they played that year were were marginally better than the teams they played this year. Mike Swider is notorious for scheduling middle of the pack teams in the non conference because he knows 9-1 gets him in. There is no incentive for him to schedule top teams when he has 1-3 RRO teams sitting in the CCIW each year. With the reduction of Pool C teams that strategy may well come back to bite him one day (and it almost did this year) but it has paid off big time in the last 12 years. 6 playoff appearances and 4 of them via Pool C. And not scheduling up didn't hurt them in the playoffs either as their pool C teams included 2 quarterfinal and 1 semifinal team. Before they lost to Bethel in the 2nd round in 2010 they had never lost a playoff game to a team not named Mt Union (including beating the OAC #2 team in 2003)
It HAS worked, dude. Franklin is a yearly contender for the playoffs and is a lot more highly regarded than they were. More kids WANT TO GO THERE to play football! They're RRd every year, WIN playoff games and are now a force in the Midwest. How has it NOT worked? Not every team lives in a high and mighty ivory tower like Wheaton, where they just roll out and are a playoff contender. Jeez.
As for Bethel is probably in at 8-2 with those RR results, a rare one at 8-2. At 9-1 with a lower SOS and a lesser schedule, and an unco-operative MIAC and WIAC (sometimes they cannibalize and don't have RR possibilities, you don't know year over year) they may not be so early off the board in the West. Nobody knew that going into it that Wartburg was Wartburg and that the MIAC was going to really be ultra-loaded. Plus, Wartburg is a good fit for them and they've played them three years in a row. Why wouldn't they play each other if there's a fit. When these teams started playing Wartburg wasn't THIS Wartburg. They were good but not great. Luther, on the other hand, was horrid. No help. At all.
Scheduling isn't just about gaming the system - it's facing off teams that fit your own. Not everything thing is a zero sum game about playoffs. It's making your team better, not just as players, either.
As for Wheaton, you asked about the SOS, not the quality of the team. I made the point, you ignored it. You said it made no sense their SOS was so high. Well, it wasn't in the Top 5 as you said but it was good. and it made sense why The CCIW this year is an example of not counting your RR and OOWP chickens before they hatch. A 9-1 Wheaton may not have made it because of their schedule, and the coach was warned about that last year thanks to Wabash's fate.
You MUST remember the committee for these past years has said SCHEDULE UP! To everyone. It is hard to predict how good a team will be in a few years, but the message is clear to make an effort at least.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2014, 11:19:55 PM
I'll say this- (and thanks for sharing your math...I didn't realize that Southwestern's contribution to OOWP would have that much impact but it definitely does) when TLU plays Southwestern tomorrow, their SOS is going to get trashed in the same way HSU's SOS would have. With the South RACs willingness to shuffle things around with very little changes last Saturday, that game with Southwestern may completely alter the way they view and rank TLU after tomorrow. Perhaps enough to rethink how much Centre's 1.000 win percentage ought to contribute to their ranking vis a vis TLU. And if not the South RAC, it may be enough for the national committee to make their own adjustment.
You're welcome Wally. Amazing to think that the most influential team for playoff berths in the South this year is probably Southwestern. Were it not for that lightning storm, H-S very possibly wouldn't be ranked, meaning TLU wouldn't have a RR victory.
Southwestern's effect would have been slightly greater on H-S's SOS than that of TLU, however. I calculate a net drop to TLU of a 0.0429. This assumes that TLU's opponents win % this week follows their season average.
Here's that spreadsheet (TLU's SOS): http://goo.gl/KSeVrj
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2014, 11:56:26 PM
It's the D-III record, but you take out the game that team played against them. So since Southwestern beat Sul Ross, you take out that loss and use 0-6 for Sul Ross in the calculation.
Ooohhh...Thanks Pat. I was wondering why my spreadsheet was slightly off for each team I tried to plug in. ;) I appreciate the explanation.
Let me put my Nostradamus hat on real quick.
Each team's DIII record along with what game they have remaining:
TLU OWP
SRSU 0-6 HPU
HSU 4-1 LC
LC 4-2 HSU
HPU 2-4 SRSU
ETBU 4-3 UMHB
UMHB 8-0 ETBU
TU 3-5 AC
AC 4-3 TU
29-24 .547 (current)
This weekend projections: (This value is actually exact given the way it plays out. Unless TLU loses. In which case, again I've wasted alot of time)
1-1 SRSU/HPU
1-1 HSU/LC
1-1 ETBU/UMHB
1-1 TU/AC
1-5 SW
5-9
34-33 .507 (projected OWP)
.539 OOWP current (if you think I'm trying to figure this out, you're crazy)
34-33 .507 x .66 = .3349
19-35 .539 x.33 = .178
.5127 (92) <--Ranking based on this weeks SoS standings
Same song, different verse:
Centre OWP
Hanover 2-6 Frank
Defiance 3-5 Bluff
W&L 1-7 Shen
Wash U 4-4 Carn Mel
Berry 2-6 None
Sewanee 2-6 Hendrix
Rhodes 7-1 Millsaps
Hendrix 4-3 Sewan
Millsaps 3-4 Rhodes
28-42 .400 (current)
Centre's opponents' results aren't as cut and dry. I'm not about evaluating all these teams, so I just assumed better record wins.
0-1 Hanover
0-1 Defiance
0-1 W&L
1-0 Wash U
1-1 Sewanee/Hendrix
1-1 Rhodes/Millsaps
3-4 Birm South
6-9
34-51 .4 (projected OWP)
.5403 OOWP current
34-53 .4 * .66 = .264
37-32 .540 * .33 = .178
.442 (208)
I understand OOWP will be affected by OOOWP and so forth and so forth. The OWP carries the most weight by the formula, though, so the other change should be much less in comparison, and this would be a pretty accurate view of SoS comparisons
This week Next week
TLU .554 (33) .513 (92)
Centre .443 (206) .442 (208)
TLU takes a big hit, now sitting in the 39th percentile, having a slightly/moderately (you choose how you want to define that) above average SoS against 232 teams.
Centre falls negligibly, now sitting in the 90th percentile, having one of the least rigorous SoS compared against 232 teams.
You think it has worked for Franklin and I see no evidence of it. They made the playoffs in 2007(OWU, Wabash and Tri State), 2008 (BaldwinWally, Butler, Trine) and 2010(Carthage and Valpo). They played UWW/Mt Union in the preseason starting in 2011. They are a yearly contender for the playoffs because they stole Mike Leonard from Hanover and he is a good coach so they stopped having losing records (1999-2005) and started winning games. You keep wanting to defend your point, go for it. I am actually in favor of scheduling up. I am making the point that it hasn't proved effective and many coaches don't do it because they don't need to. I think they will have to with less Pool C bids. My point about Wheaton in 2010 was always the fact their SOS happened to be strong that year and happens to be weak this year. There is relatively little difference in the quality of their opponents that year vs this year in my opinion. The irony is they are a better team this year. The SOS was higher because their conference did better in the non-con games and this year they did worse. It was random as the scheduling across the conference was relatively similar.
DUDE. Why do you have such an attitude when someone counters your arguments? You have to cut down another school because why? It makes you feel better? What did I say negatively about another school? I disagree that the system rewards those who schedule up. I am sorry if that bothers you.
I wouldn't be so sure about H/S not being ranked with the storm. It's another win for them. It may lower their SOS but they'd still have a higher SOS than Emory & Henry. Their SOS is a drag on them...
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 01:32:40 AM
I wouldn't be so sure about H/S not being ranked with the storm. It's another win for them. It may lower their SOS but they'd still have a higher SOS than Emory & Henry. Their SOS is a drag on them...
Plus, it would further enhance TLU's SoS by increasing their OWP. You're grasping at straws on the HSU front Parent. Everything validates them against the other possible #10 candidates. A case can be made for the others as well, but you can't make a case against them. I know you desarately want your conspiracy theory to be true, but let's be rationale here.
The only way I see things getting dicey for TLU over Centre, Muhlenberg is if HSU loses. Then everything is back on much more even footing between the three. TLU and Muhlenburg would both have one loss, albeit both to RRO, with a significantly higher SoS than Centre. Centre would have the edge in win % by virtue of not playing a RRO, with one of the worst SoS in division III. I don't think any of the three could argue at that point. A fairly even case could be made for all.
In the past the system didn't reward the scheduling up but it does now and it was very clear in 2013.
Franklin's whole idea is to schedule those games after they got to the playoffs. They've WON playoff games after they did and haven't been one-year playoff wonders. They've built a sustaining program and challenged themselves. That scheduling isn't about the wins and losses to that team. It's about wins and losses in November. It's paid off, period.
How did I denigrate? Bethel scheduling Luther does Bethel no good. St. Olaf scheduling Luther, if they would do that, helps both St. Olaf and Bethel because it's a winnable game for St. Olaf. I'm speaking the truth that it does no good for top caliber teams to schedule duds knowingly.
I'm just don't cotton to non-sensical logic or goal-post moving. The teams Wheaton played in 2010 were better across the board. Their OWP this year is garbage. In 2010 it was near the top. The CCIW was a beast in 2010 and can't get out of its own way now. That 2010 league helps a great deal. Plus, I'd say that Albion and Platteville in 2010 were better than Coe and Eau Claire (by miles in Eau Claire's case) and you get what you pay for when you schedule a bottom rung MIAA team. You also need to give your coach some slack. Coe is down this year. Eau Claire is down. Coe made the playoffs in 2012 and were 7-3 last year. It seemed like a good move to schedule them. Scheduling a WIAC team could always pay off, especially in the OOWP factor. It just came up snake eyes this year for Wheaton.
I'm firmly convinced now that a 10-0 Centre will not stay home.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 01:15:39 AM
I calculate a net drop to TLU of a 0.0429. This assumes that TLU's opponents win % this week follows their season average.
Here's that spreadsheet (TLU's SOS): http://goo.gl/KSeVrj
Correction: After Pat Coleman set me straight on how to determine win/loss record. Spreadsheet is now accurate and Net drop after Southwestern is likely to be about .0375.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 01:48:38 AM
I'm firmly convinced now that a 10-0 Centre will not stay home.
Why is that smed?
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 01:48:38 AM
I'm firmly convinced now that a 10-0 Centre will not stay home.
Care to explain?
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 01:49:39 AM
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 01:15:39 AM
I calculate a net drop to TLU of a 0.0429. This assumes that TLU's opponents win % this week follows their season average.
Here's that spreadsheet (TLU's SOS): http://goo.gl/KSeVrj
Correction: After Pat Coleman set me straight on how to determine win/loss record. Spreadsheet is now accurate and Net drop after Southwestern is likely to be about .0375.
You've got to add in the result this week for the other 8 DIII teams TLU has played as well. They all play each other, so by default that average will be .500 and raise this back up again negligibly. I've put together results for both TLU and Centre on the last page.
Also, just FYI, you've got UMHB at 9-0, should be 8-0. For at least 14 more hours.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 14, 2014, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2014, 05:41:25 PM
Hardin Simmons' game against Southwestern was cancelled due to lightning. Unlike Chicago's against Pacific, which was called due to air traffic issues. At least no one in "C" contention played Maranatha.
Funny about Marantha. Sad about the other. So a lightning strike is the reason Hardin-Simmons has a #48 ranked SOS instead of one around #150.
In Abilene, there are a lot of people who think God likes the Baptists best. ;-)
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 01:50:24 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 01:48:38 AM
I'm firmly convinced now that a 10-0 Centre will not stay home.
Why is that smed?
The National Committee will see a team, through no fault of it's own, go undefeated against a honest-to-god Division 3 schedule, and not have access to an automatic bid. Yes, their schedule looks poor, but as we've said it was a historical confluence of stink for their opponents. 10-0 is 10-0, and only a few teams each year accomplish it.
The South may have been trying to edge Muhlenberg up to get on the board KNOWING the national committee would manuever Centre into the "B", and then getting TLU on the board first as a "C" with decent credentials if H/S wins and stays ranked. They'll have an edge against Framingham and decent credentials against other "C" teams as long as Hardin / Simmons stays ranked. This is all political back room stuff. The East seemingly have been masters at it (we really don't know, but we can hazard a guess).
I do think Bethel probably goes as a 2-loss team, but I'm not so sure about a Platteville or a North Central (assuming the West fixes their rankings).
Of course this all goes poof if they lose to Birmingham Southern...
Franklin first made the playoffs in 2007 after 7 years of losing records. They made the playoffs 3 times (07,08, 2010) and went 2-3. They first played UWW at the start of the season in 2011, then Mt union in 2012/13 and UWW again this year. In those years they are 3-4 in the playoffs, making it 3 times. Mike Leonard is what turned that program around, not scheduling top teams. And winning their conference allows them to make the playoffs, which they would do anyway. Does playing UWW and Mt Union prepare them for the playoffs? Apparently not any more than playing Carthage, OWU and Trine.
I am in favor of scheduling up, I think there are benefits. Franklin isn't any better as a result from what I can see. And scheduling up doesn't pay off for most teams. Bethel at 9-1 has no worries about the playoffs, they are in. Right now at 8-2 (after tomorrow) they may not be (but probably are). SOS is s two edged sword.
Mike Leonard is the one who wants to schedule those teams. The top of HCAC is getting more competitive. They keep on top by getting ready to beat MSJ and RHIT. There's more good it does to schedule them than facing off against Wilmington or Kenyon. They already play Earlham. Why play another one? You get better as a team by playing the best. W/L records may not reflect it. But it's building a team AND building young men.
Another wild card is what happens if Oshkosh beats Platteville. Think this through, assuming all "C" contenders win, Linfield beats Pacific and Del Val and JCU are in "C" and Bethel assumes their logical spot in the West rankings.
The picks go in no order: JCU, Del Val, Wabash, TLU/Centre (I'm guessing there). This assumes H/S beats Louisiana College and stays ranked.
Bethel vs. Framingham vs. Muhlenberg vs. North Central - Bethel (even at two losses vs. Framingham - going on Wally's earlier logic regarding Framingham).
So now spot six:
Oshkosh vs. Framingham vs. Muhlenberg vs. North Central - North Central probaly lost their RR win by Platteville going poof unless the committe is nice to them, but still that win becomes less shiny. Framingham beats Muhlenberg on credentials. So it comes to Oshkosh vs. Framingham. SOS to Framingham. Maybe Oshkosh is 1-1 in RR. Hmmm...
Quote from: timtlu on November 15, 2014, 01:44:43 AM
The only way I see things getting dicey for TLU over Centre, Muhlenberg is if HSU loses. Then everything is back on much more even footing between the three. TLU and Muhlenburg would both have one loss, albeit both to RRO, with a significantly higher SoS than Centre. Centre would have the edge in win % by virtue of not playing a RRO, with one of the worst SoS in division III. I don't think any of the three could argue at that point. A fairly even case could be made for all.
I'll ignore you're provocations, timmy, because I don't feel like arguing with you. Let's call a spade a spade here. Whether anyone, everyone, noone wants to analyze the strength of the opponents you beat or not, the fact remains: TLU's SOS is propped up by LOSING to a 10-0 (Likely) team. Take that game out and compare ONLY games you won and TLU's SOS sits at 0.456, good for 195th place on this week's list. I'm projecting Centre's to be about 0.464.
So you can sit there and downgrade Centre's schedule all night long, but the fact is that TLU beat nobody. If H-S loses, welcome to Pool C and good luck.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 12:28:00 AM
Do you think those teams will add football, Ralph?
UT-Tyler would require a vote by the student body to increase the activities fee by several hundred dollars and then require some major capital investment in facilities. Probably not!
LeTourneau -- not likely.
Concordia TX -- Interesting. Their academic profile is as close to the SCAC as it is to the ASC. It would make for an interesting move to add football if you did not have to play UMHB.
UT-Dallas -- I haven't heard. That is more of an urban school. UT-Arlington only recently resumed football. The Dallas Cowboys smother a lot of interest and UT, OU, A&M Texas Tech Okie State and now TCU and Baylor have large followings among those that do.
University of the Ozarks -- very small campus and very isolated. Travel would be a real stretch on the budget.
Belhaven and McMurry are coming on-line so that takes a little of the pressure off in the ASC.
As for the SCAC...
Schreiner played football as a JUCO long ago.
UDallas failed in the early 2000's to add football.
Centenary -- I thought that Centenary would when they hired McMurry's VP for admissions (Dave Voskuil). (Then Dave went to Southwestern and now he is at E&H with President Jake Shrum, Southwestern's former president. Dave Voskuil is excellent. E&H has a great one!) As for Centenary, not yet.
Colorado College -- they will probably vote out Marijuana in Colorado before CC resumes football.
Quote from: timtlu on November 15, 2014, 01:55:02 AM
You've got to add in the result this week for the other 8 DIII teams TLU has played as well. They all play each other, so by default that average will be .500 and raise this back up again negligibly. I've put together results for both TLU and Centre on the last page.
Also, just FYI, you've got UMHB at 9-0, should be 8-0. For at least 14 more hours.
I actually didn't intend to put all tomorrow's games in, but I can. All this damned math is killing me. I want to go back to questioning the offensive coordinator's play calling, where I'm batting 1.000%.
I saw that you had UMHB w/8 games and assumed that was taking out Southwestern Assemblies. I only kept the # at 9 because that's what the NCAA SOS said. But I'm sure you're right. I'll change that to 8.
...wonder if that extra victory on the NCAA's site is added to all UMHB's opponents and their opponents opponents....this would overly inflate some teams numbers...hmmm ???...must be a TLU grad working at the NCAA... :P ;D
Not provoking anything, those are facts. The regional ranking committees take record against RRO into account. It's right there in black and white in the FAQ.
Also, FWIW, someone with authority....the current SoS are ever so slightly off. The Rhodes/Millsaps game for some reason on their schedules is already complete, with last year's result. That result is factored into the current SoS model, slightly altering everyone who played them and everyone who played someone who played them.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 15, 2014, 12:35:11 AM
Ralph - the CAC isn't going to add football. I think they made a play at it on paper, but then screwed up with the addition of Harrisburg to the conference. They had a chance, but didn't get the right ducks aligned. I also think the Landmark may have made a play (even though, several I have talked with in the conference disagree with me - I don't think they are telling me the whole story), but the got caught up in the Mid-Atlantic shuffle that the CAC made the play recently with. I don't see any conference in this area adding football unless another conference (or more) are blown up - and that won't change the AQ situation.
Also... Division III growth has slowed as, I would say, has the growth of football. I think there are legitimate reasons to add the sport and/or join the division... but they have slowed down in recent years.
Thanks Dave! I don't see where a "brand new conference" would come from to "steal" another Pool A bid.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 02:26:37 AM
must be a TLU grad working at the NCAA... :P ;D
UMHB didn't play SWAGU. Their game against TLU gets removed take it from 9-0 to 8-0.
Also, it turns out the NCAA could (and will) use the help of a TLU grad given their attention to Millsaps/Rhodes. ;D
Quote from: timtlu on November 15, 2014, 02:30:16 AM
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 02:26:37 AM
must be a TLU grad working at the NCAA... :P ;D
Turns out the NCAA could (and will) use the help of a TLU grad given their attention to Millsaps/Rhodes. ;D
Well done, Timmy, my boy! ;D
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2014, 02:25:46 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 12:28:00 AM
Do you think those teams will add football, Ralph?
UT-Tyler would require a vote by the student body to increase the activities fee by several hundred dollars and then require some major capital investment in facilities. Probably not!
LeTourneau -- not likely.
Concordia TX -- Interesting. Their academic profile is as close to the SCAC as it is to the ASC. It would make for an interesting move to add football if you did not have to play UMHB.
UT-Dallas -- I haven't heard. That is more of an urban school. UT-Arlington only recently resumed football. The Dallas Cowboys smother a lot of interest and UT, OU, A&M Texas Tech Okie State and now TCU and Baylor have large followings among those that do.
University of the Ozarks -- very small campus and very isolated. Travel would be a real stretch on the budget.
Belhaven and McMurry are coming on-line so that takes a little of the pressure off in the ASC.
As for the SCAC...
Schreiner played football as a JUCO long ago.
UDallas failed in the early 2000's to add football.
Centenary -- I thought that Centenary would when they hired McMurry's VP for admissions (Dave Voskuil). (Then Dave went to Southwestern and now he is at E&H with President Jake Shrum, Southwestern's former president. Dave Voskuil is excellent. E&H has a great one!) As for Centenary, not yet.
Colorado College -- they will probably vote out Marijuana in Colorado before CC resumes football.
Good info, Ralph. Forgot about Bellhaven and McMurry. The SCAC may be our lone wolf conference out there without a bid and no one likely to poach.
Here's a link to a spreadsheet with both Centre's and TLU's SOS. I estimated the past opponents for both teams win at a .500 percentage.
I'll update as the scores come in, but either way the the difference should drop from 0.098 to about 0.055.
http://goo.gl/KSeVrj
Parent - the one very predictable thing you've failed to account for is that SW's OWP will rise significantly adding in TLU's 8-1 record just as (even moreso statistically) TLU's will fall adding in SW's 1-6 record. That affect will be minimized based on the multiplier, but will then be passed on to TLU's OOWP.
Really interesting conversation. I am not a numbers person so all the SOS stuff is blah to me. I just find it hard to believe that a 10-0 team will not be in the playoffs. I get all the criteria and stuff, but it just seems wrong to me.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 15, 2014, 09:38:11 AM
Really interesting conversation. I am not a numbers person so all the SOS stuff is blah to me. I just find it hard to believe that a 10-0 team will not be in the playoffs. I get all the criteria and stuff, but it just seems wrong to me.
It wouldn't be the end of the D3 regular season/playoff selection weekend without a few things being wrong..... :-\
Sorry I was monopolizing things - girlfriend is out of town and I was waiting for exports to keep running at work.
It's time to let this play out! The games are afoot!
Quote from: timtlu on November 15, 2014, 08:48:23 AM
Parent - the one very predictable thing you've failed to account for is that SW's OWP will rise significantly adding in TLU's 8-1 record just as (even moreso statistically) TLU's will fall adding in SW's 1-6 record. That affect will be minimized based on the multiplier, but will then be passed on to TLU's OOWP.
"Very predictable"? I think you're overestimating me... ;)
Great observation Tim. And the effect to SW's SOS will be even greater since there were only 6 games on the schedule that made up that number.
In turn Centre's SOS will be higher than I calculated since B-S's SOS will also rise.
The net effect of all this week raise both TLU's & Centre's SOS a bit but the difference between the 2 numbers should be about the same- perhaps growing ever so slightly.
I'll plug in the #s when I get to my PC then will send an update.
Question: Why are some supporting Emory & Henry as a potential Regional Ranked team, yet I don't know that I've heard anyone mention Rhodes?
E&H: 8-1, SOS.478 (#161), 0-1 vs RR. Best win probably Bridgewater.
Rhodes: 7-2, SOS .508 (#100), 0-2 vs RR. They were beating Chicago w/5 mins to play & lost on FG w/12 secs left. Best win probably Hendrix
Not looking to argue. Just want to know other peoples' opinions on why Rhodes is getting no love. ;)
9-1 in the ODAC, traditionally a good conference, and win over Guilford will help SOS.
Of course, they'd HAVE to win over Guilford, and they won't now. Alas.
Perfect storm may have relocated to Seguin. TLU handles its business, but so do Centre and Muhlenburg. Hardin-Simmons, Emory and Henry loses and Rhodes wins. Who is the 10? Things are about to get very interesting.
Well, you can take Bethel off the list of the Pool C hopefuls... They lose to 62-61 to a 4-6 Augsburg team in OT today.
Anybody know the final in Birmingham? It's been stuck on 45-7 with 14:10 left in the 4th for about two hours now.
I'd wager Guilford and Rhodes enter the South rankings, replacing H/S and HSC.
I think Bethel and Pacific are out in the West. Ithaca may be out in the East rankings. Shufflin' around.
And NOW! Oshkosh beats Platteville in triple OT. The West rankings may get really *fun*.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 05:54:13 PM
I'd wager Guilford and Rhodes enter the South rankings, replacing H/S and HSC.
I think Bethel and Pacific are out in the West. Ithaca may be out in the East rankings. Shufflin' around.
I don't know if Bethel falls all the way out of the RRs, but their Pool C hopes are surely done.
Oshkosh beats Platteville 30-27 in 3OT. This will also shuffle the West RRs.
Be interested to see Wally's next projections.... Gotta think UWO did enough to earn a Pool C bid today, especially with Bethel losing.
If nothing else, they should get to the table earlier and would seem to have to get in before North Central.
Concordia - Moorhead may get in the West Rankings.
Macalester at 9-1? Central at 8-2?
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 05:54:13 PM
I'd wager Guilford and Rhodes enter the South rankings, replacing H/S and HSC.
Can't imagine leaving Rhodes out of the top 10 at this point.
On the off chance that TLU somehow doesn't make it... would it be out of the question to have a pod of Husson @ UMHB and Chapman @ Linfield? I know Chapman and Linfield already played, but it seems like the best fit rather than sending Chapman to UMHB and someone out to Linfield. And in this scenario you'd have to have 2 flights anyways so why not send the isolated low seed to one of the top seeds.
I was just thinking the same thing. TLU losing that RR win will hurt. Chicago may now have a RR win if Rhodes replaces H-S and / or HSC. Then Centre may have a RR win and probably cements the "B" there.
The undercards troday were just as impactful as the main events.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 15, 2014, 07:16:35 PM
On the off chance that TLU somehow doesn't make it... would it be out of the question to have a pod of Husson @ UMHB and Chapman @ Linfield? I know Chapman and Linfield already played, but it seems like the best fit rather than sending Chapman to UMHB and someone out to Linfield. And in this scenario you'd have to have 2 flights anyways so why not send the isolated low seed to one of the top seeds.
Why not Husson to Linfield then?
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 15, 2014, 07:30:55 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 15, 2014, 07:16:35 PM
On the off chance that TLU somehow doesn't make it... would it be out of the question to have a pod of Husson @ UMHB and Chapman @ Linfield? I know Chapman and Linfield already played, but it seems like the best fit rather than sending Chapman to UMHB and someone out to Linfield. And in this scenario you'd have to have 2 flights anyways so why not send the isolated low seed to one of the top seeds.
Why not Husson to Linfield then?
I don't think Linfield will be a top seed, though. Those will probably be Mt. Union, Wesley, Whitewater and UMHB.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 07:33:00 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 15, 2014, 07:30:55 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 15, 2014, 07:16:35 PM
On the off chance that TLU somehow doesn't make it... would it be out of the question to have a pod of Husson @ UMHB and Chapman @ Linfield? I know Chapman and Linfield already played, but it seems like the best fit rather than sending Chapman to UMHB and someone out to Linfield. And in this scenario you'd have to have 2 flights anyways so why not send the isolated low seed to one of the top seeds.
Why not Husson to Linfield then?
I don't think Linfield will be a top seed, though. Those will probably be Mt. Union, Wesley, Whitewater and UMHB.
yeah if they actually wanted to sede things then that would be an issue...but as Linfield fan we've seen many years where we were a #1 or 2 and got stuck an unreasonably high first round sede because of geography.
Quote from: timtlu on November 15, 2014, 05:40:36 PM
Perfect storm may have relocated to Seguin. TLU handles its business, but so do Centre and Muhlenburg. Hardin-Simmons, Emory and Henry loses and Rhodes wins. Who is the 10? Things are about to get very interesting.
HSU dropping out makes TLU's selection a referendum on scheduling UMHB more or less, since they likely could have gone 10-0 by finding a more beatable school to play.
I'm firmly in the TLU camp on this.
Definitely not liking that with Wally on as official prognosticator, I can no longer come here and see if he's seeing what I'm seeing.
I haven't put together my final six yet, and it's a lot easier when someone else does 9/10ths of the regional rankings for you ;D
Choose your adventure:
Assuming Centre will be the "B" now at 10-0 and with TLU probably losing their one RR (and Centre mayyyybe picking it up with Rhodes).
Candidates:
Ranked one-loss teams:
Framingham
Del Val
JCU
Wabash
TLU
Muhlenberg
Oshkosh
Chicago
Ranked two-loss teams:
North Central
SJF
Thomas More
St. Lawrence
St. Thomas
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2014, 08:38:17 PM
I haven't put together my final six yet, and it's a lot easier when someone else does 9/10ths of the regional rankings for you ;D
Oh, so much this. Why couldn't everybody just play nice in week 11? :)
So that's eight for six spots in C before you even get to the two-loss teams.
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2014, 08:46:44 PM
Choose your adventure:
Assuming Centre will be the "B" now at 10-0 and with TLU probably losing their one RR (and Centre mayyyybe picking it up with Rhodes).
Candidates:
Ranked one-loss teams:
Framingham
Del Val
JCU
Wabash
TLU
Muhlenberg
Oshkosh
Chicago
Ranked two-loss teams:
North Central
SJF
Thomas More
St. Lawrence
St. Thomas
Looking at sos only
No loss teams
Centre. 213. 0.440
Ranked one-loss teams:
Framingham 44. 0.532
Wabash. 66. 0.520
Del Val. 73. 0.519
Oshkosh. 77. 0.517
JCU 90. 0.511
TLU. 96. 0.510
Muhlenberg. 122. 0.500
Chicago 155. 0.485
Ranked two-loss teams:
SJF. 19. 0.558
North Central 29. 0.540
St. Lawrence. 42. 0.535
St. Thomas. 115. 0.502
Thomas More 162. 0.481
Where would you draw a number to say a higher sos overcomes an extra loss? A spread of 0.030?
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2014, 08:38:17 PM
HSU dropping out makes TLU's selection a referendum on scheduling UMHB more or less, since they likely could have gone 10-0 by finding a more beatable school to play.
I agree with you on this Keith- in a way. (But first a quick disclaimer: I'm 100% confident that Centre will be invited to play now. And I believe that's true regardless of whether Rhodes becomes RR'd. So my thoughts have nothing to do with them. Here's my running SOS comparison of Centre & TLU: http://goo.gl/KSeVrj)
First an observation:
It seems to me that there is a small pool of mostly Texas schools (including the SCAC) that all play each other and with very little competition outside of their group. (Sul Ross St., Howard Payne, East Texas Baptist, Southwestern U, Trinity, TLU, Hardin-Simmons). It's like a little conference, of sorts.
But the "OOC" games they're scheduling include the likes of Wayland Baptist, Langston, Southwestern Assemblies, Bacone, Okla. Baptist, Okla. Panhandle & more. The net of this is that you're only seeing 6,7,8 D3 games listed on their SOS. It's like a little island of football. So their SOS #s end up a little skewed.
Proof of what I'm saying: when looking at your final SOS (http://goo.gl/KSeVrj) and total number of wins and losses of your opponents, the max you can get is 100 (ten teams, ten games). Centre had 95, while TLU had 77. It makes the comparisons of SOS less statistically relevant. It's also subject to large fluctuations. Even in the final week, if you add great opponent (UMHB) or a bad opponent (Southwestern) to a teams SOS, it can fluctuate enough to move a team up/down 50 spots if there are only 5/6 other games on
D3 Schedule. The numbers are fragile.
And then it's difficult to compare one of these schools to schools outside of their own little group. Trust me, as I tried hard to find common opponents for TLU, H-S, Rhodes and Centre. There were less degrees of separation with my good friend Kevin Bacon. And we're not talking about east coast vs west coast conferences. The SAA borders Texas.
Now my point re: TLU:
If TLU gets in the tournament, it will
primarily because they scheduled Mary-Hardin Baylor. The total D3 record of their opponents other than UHMB is
25-33. It took UMHB to get them one game over .500. Heck, it took UMHB on the schedule to prop their final SOS to where it will be
almost in the top 100.
If TLU does not get in the tournament, it's because they
didn't schedule anyone else. Maybe all those team I mentioned above are traditional opponents and they want to keep up the rivalries. Fine. In no way did TLU suffer because of this loss. Just don't schedule Southwestern Assemblies.
What RR opponent would they stack up well against? Despite 9 wins, their D gave up over 30 points per game and average margin of victory against that bad schedule was only 10. (Yeah Centre's schedule was untraditionally weak, but at least they took care of business winning by 25.6ppg. Again, not that this is a comparison).
Hardin-Simmons should never have been RR'd, in my opinion, anyway. No good wins but a decent SOS from a schedule of weak teams. I felt very strongly H-S was going to lose today. Paper lion going against a good team in Louisiana College.
One thing I didn't understand: Austin's coach sits on the South RC. They played TLU (RR#5) and lost by 12. Played Rhodes (No RR) and lost by 21. Heck I'm 1000 miles away and can draw conclusions from reading the scores on the internet. He had first hand knowledge, yet Rhodes got no love. Why is that?
To sum up: It doesn't take a perfect storm to blow down a house with fragile supports. The house of cards that put TLU at RR#5 has lost two of it's walls. The next South Region Committee conference call will be interesting. I foresee a
major sales job on the merits of Louisiana College as a RR team. Feel free to read between those lines.
Quote from: wabndy on November 15, 2014, 10:34:53 PM
Looking at sos only
No loss teams
Centre. 213. 0.440
Ranked one-loss teams:
Framingham 44. 0.532
Wabash. 66. 0.520
Del Val. 73. 0.519
Oshkosh. 77. 0.517
JCU 90. 0.511
TLU. 96. 0.510
Muhlenberg. 122. 0.500
Chicago 155. 0.485
Ranked two-loss teams:
SJF. 19. 0.558
North Central 29. 0.540
St. Lawrence. 42. 0.535
St. Thomas. 115. 0.502
Thomas More 162. 0.481
Where would you draw a number to say a higher sos overcomes an extra loss? A spread of 0.030?
I have Centre at .4471 and TLU at .5076 http://goo.gl/KSeVrj
Quote from: wabndy on November 15, 2014, 10:34:53 PM
Looking at sos only
No loss teams
Centre. 213. 0.440
Ranked one-loss teams:
Framingham 44. 0.532
Wabash. 66. 0.520
Del Val. 73. 0.519
Oshkosh. 77. 0.517
JCU 90. 0.511
TLU. 96. 0.510
Muhlenberg. 122. 0.500
Chicago 155. 0.485
Ranked two-loss teams:
SJF. 19. 0.558
North Central 29. 0.540
St. Lawrence. 42. 0.535
St. Thomas. 115. 0.502
Thomas More 162. 0.481
Where would you draw a number to say a higher sos overcomes an extra loss? A spread of 0.030?
Who knows. Although of the 1 loss teams Oshkosh really doesn't fit with the rest win percentage wise at ~0.85.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 10:55:54 PM
It seems to me that there is a small pool of mostly Texas schools (including the SCAC) that all play each other and with very little competition outside of their group. (Sul Ross St., Howard Payne, East Texas Baptist, Southwestern U, Trinity, TLU, Hardin-Simmons). It's like a little conference, of sorts.
But the "OOC" games they're scheduling include the likes of Wayland Baptist, Langston, Southwestern Assemblies, Bacone, Okla. Baptist, Okla. Panhandle & more. The net of this is that you're only seeing 6,7,8 D3 games listed on their SOS. It's like a little, inbred island of football. So their SOS #s end up a little skewed.
This is a huge generalization and not necessarily a valid observation. Trinity played Chicago, Willamette, and Pacific Lutheran this year alone in addition to their SCAC foes and three ASC teams. Who else do you want them to play?
I was actually referring to Hardin-Simmons and TLU specifically. Trinity scheduled very well.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 11:53:45 PM
I was actually referring to Hardin-Simmons and TLU specifically. Trinity scheduled very well.
Scheduling is not a one way street. It takes two teams to agree. In 2012 and 2013 Hardin Simmons played Linfield and Willamette. In 2011 and 2012 they played Coe and Willamette. Take a look at Louisiana College's schedule. UMHB scheduled Kean, Redlands, Millsaps and LaCrosse. Austin College played Occidental this year. The schools in Texas will schedule anyone anywhere if they can someone else to agree.
D3 Sports guys picked the following as Pool C bids:
1. John Carroll
2. Centre
3. Wabash
4. Delaware Valley
5. Framingham State
6. North Central
Oshkosh at table from the start and never gets selected. Muhlenberg and St. John Fisher also left at table.
D3AlumniParent,
Texas schools find games ANYWHERE they can get them. DO NOT denigrate their schedule out of conference. It's tough to get games there because of travel. That's just petty sniping. Any long time D3 guys knows that the NWC, SCIAC and Texas teams have it rough in finding out of league games.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 12:54:46 AM
D3AlumniParent,
Texas schools find games ANYWHERE they can get them. DO NOT denigrate their schedule out of conference. It's tough to get games there because of travel. That's just petty sniping. Any long time D3 guys knows that the NWC, SCIAC and Texas teams have it rough in finding out of league games.
You could also add top WIAC teams to that list... Just look at Oshkosh's NC schedule the last few seasons. Might cost them a Pool C bid this year!!!
Quote from: cubs on November 16, 2014, 01:04:10 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 12:54:46 AM
D3AlumniParent,
Texas schools find games ANYWHERE they can get them. DO NOT denigrate their schedule out of conference. It's tough to get games there because of travel. That's just petty sniping. Any long time D3 guys knows that the NWC, SCIAC and Texas teams have it rough in finding out of league games.
You could also add top WIAC teams to that list... Just look at Oshkosh's NC schedule the last few seasons. Might cost them a Pool C bid this year!!!
The WIAC has nearby D3 teams, though. There's another reason for their scheduling issues. (Not really blaming the WIAC here, but Texas and the West Coast are islands...)
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 12:54:46 AM
D3AlumniParent,
Texas schools find games ANYWHERE they can get them. DO NOT denigrate their schedule out of conference. It's tough to get games there because of travel. That's just petty sniping. Any long time D3 guys knows that the NWC, SCIAC and Texas teams have it rough in finding out of league games.
I appreciate that its hard. And I believe that to be true. But I CAN and I WILL denigrate TLU's schedule, pardner. One of TLU's cheerleaders has repeatedly lambasted other teams' schedules, when the exact same thing could be said about them. Southwestern Assemblies?
Yet I watched the South RC slide consecutive teams in at #10RR in to help one of those members get in. Turnabout is fair play smed. And I'm just calling a spade a spade. But I thank you for your considered opinion. ;)
They couldn't find anyone else. Back off. I've seen this for year in D3. Next year, McMurry comes back into D3 and that will help a little bit. You get the games you can find in Texas.
Southwestern Assemblies didn't count for TLU in any way shape or form. In D3 parlance, it's a nothing burger except for secondary criteria. Same with Oshkosh's 3 non_D3 games.
As for the ranking, they didn't SLIDE anyone in. H-S is as good as any team in the South. So is LC. The choices were Guilford, LC, or maybe Ursinus. Pick your poison. Three definitely non-South guys picked LC as #10 in the South in the podcast just now.
I've semi-joked about the East sliding teams around to get a team or two in the past, but this is NO conspiracy theory against Centre. Yeesh.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 01:30:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 12:54:46 AM
D3AlumniParent,
Texas schools find games ANYWHERE they can get them. DO NOT denigrate their schedule out of conference. It's tough to get games there because of travel. That's just petty sniping. Any long time D3 guys knows that the NWC, SCIAC and Texas teams have it rough in finding out of league games.
I appreciate that its hard. And I believe that to be true. But I CAN and I WILL denigrate TLU's schedule, pardner. They played nobody. One of TLU's cheerleaders has repeatedly lambasted other teams' schedules, when the exact same thing could be said about them. Southwestern Assemblies?
Yet I watched the South RC slide consecutive teams in at #10RR in to help one of those members get in. Turnabout is fair play smed. And I'm just calling a spade a spade. But I thank you for your considered opinion. ;)
Just out of curiosity who would you have them play? Since they literally played every D3 team in the state and 1 out, it seems a little harsh to act like they have bad motives. Every other D3 team would require a plane to get to Seguin if the NCAA was picking up the tab.
I defended Centre's schedule as a confluence of stink by their opponents through no fault of their own. Cut TLU the same slack in being creative to get a full schedule.
It's also hard to schedule the other 'island' at times because the SCIAC and NWC teams normally just schedule nine-game seasons, by choice. A few go 10 on occasion, but not often. This year Whitworth played 10, and Pacific would have if the game of Chicago went on. No SCIAC team played 10.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 01:30:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 12:54:46 AM
D3AlumniParent,
Texas schools find games ANYWHERE they can get them. DO NOT denigrate their schedule out of conference. It's tough to get games there because of travel. That's just petty sniping. Any long time D3 guys knows that the NWC, SCIAC and Texas teams have it rough in finding out of league games.
I appreciate that its hard. And I believe that to be true. But I CAN and I WILL denigrate TLU's schedule, pardner. They played nobody. One of TLU's cheerleaders has repeatedly lambasted other teams' schedules, when the exact same thing could be said about them. Southwestern Assemblies?
Yet I watched the South RC slide consecutive teams in at #10RR in to help one of those members get in. Turnabout is fair play smed. And I'm just calling a spade a spade. But I thank you for your considered opinion. ;)
Slow down, take a breath and read my post on the SAC board. I once made some outlandish posts when I was a newbie on the board. Some older and wiser board members told me to back off and do some research on D3 criteria and history and I am much the wiser for it. Everyone has opinions, some are just based on facts.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 01:47:15 AM
I defended Centre's schedule as a confluence of stink by their opponents through no fault of their own. Cut TLU the same slack in being creative to get a full schedule.
It's also hard to schedule the other 'island' at times because the SCIAC and NWC teams normally just schedule nine-game seasons, by choice. A few go 10 on occasion, but not often. This year Whitworth played 10, and Pacific would have if the game of Chicago went on. No SCIAC team played 10.
OK, I've taken 10 deep breaths. I didn't realize it's that hard to schedule games for those Texas teams. Explains why my observation was accurate about their recurrence on each other's schedules. Some schools (UMHB & LC), at least this year, do a much better job than others (Austin, TLU) though.
SW Assemblies DID go 4-6 this year. They were 0-3 against D3!
Austin plays SW Assemblies every year. TLU started in 2012. Last year's was cancelled due to lightning.
Also, it's like "What's our open date? Who has open dates that week around us?" "SW Assemblies? Call them..."
As a follower for the poster child of "who can we find to play us?" it is as Smed said, who has an open date and will they say yes. Wesley has had to do that for several years now and ended up playing anyone that would say yes this year. Roo is also correct, they have to say yes even if they have an open date. Wesley also has several schools back out of the 2nd year of 2 year contracts. As has been stated the Cali and Texas schools only have so many choices and with money being an issue at times you do what you can. Also, if you are trying to grow and improve you are not going to go out and schedule stud schools until you are ready to challenge them. I am on record as feeling that it would be a shame if Centre at 10-0 does not get in, but I am not sure if it would be TLU's fault if the committee chose them instead. How would they compare out if TLU had played someone else, say a .500 team and went 10-0. Who looks better then?
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 02:00:01 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 01:47:15 AM
I defended Centre's schedule as a confluence of stink by their opponents through no fault of their own. Cut TLU the same slack in being creative to get a full schedule.
It's also hard to schedule the other 'island' at times because the SCIAC and NWC teams normally just schedule nine-game seasons, by choice. A few go 10 on occasion, but not often. This year Whitworth played 10, and Pacific would have if the game of Chicago went on. No SCIAC team played 10.
OK, I've taken 10 deep breaths. I didn't realize it's that hard to schedule games for those Texas teams. Explains why my observation was accurate about their recurrence on each other's schedules. Some schools (UMHB & LC), at least this year, do a much better job than others (Austin, TLU) though.
Let's be clear: calling the Texas teams a "little inbred island of football" is a bit more than an 'observation'. As are the continued accusations of shenanigans because the TLU coach somehow can force the South Region advisory committee to bend to his will. You've made this accusation several times; saying something over and over doesn't necessarily make it true.
Centre has a great case for both Pool B and, if needed, Pool C berths. Their credentials aren't flawless, and neither are TLUs. (And by the way - if TLU makes the tournament field, the primary reason will be because they won nine games, not because they scheduled UMHB.)
I realize you're passionate about your team's chances, but this isn't exactly as black-and-white as you are trying to will it to be, and as others have detailed, the scheduling situation in the geographies that are D3 islands is as much about what you can do as it is about what you'd like to do.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 02:15:42 AM
I am not sure if it would be TLU's fault if the committee chose them instead. How would they compare out if TLU had played someone else, say a .500 team and went 10-0. Who looks better then?
OK. That's easy to answer. Put Wash U (4-5 D3 record) on TLU's schedule. For the sake of this example I'll assume TLU wins. TLU's SOS goes to .4605 to Centre's .4471. Centre beat Wash U 50-20. Wash U likely scores more points. With common opponents it would become clear that Centre is a better team.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 02:27:03 AM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 02:15:42 AM
I am not sure if it would be TLU's fault if the committee chose them instead. How would they compare out if TLU had played someone else, say a .500 team and went 10-0. Who looks better then?
OK. That's easy to answer. Put Wash U (4-5 D3 record) on TLU's schedule. For the sake of this example I'll assume TLU wins. TLU's SOS goes to .4605 to Centre's .4471. Centre beat Wash U 50-20. Wash U likely scores more points. With common opponents it would become clear that Centre is a better team.
Put Rhodes on TLU's schedule and they have another loss. It shouldn't have taken H-S to lose for Rhodes to get regionally ranked.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 02:27:03 AM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 02:15:42 AM
I am not sure if it would be TLU's fault if the committee chose them instead. How would they compare out if TLU had played someone else, say a .500 team and went 10-0. Who looks better then?
OK. That's easy to answer. Put Wash U 94-5 D3 record) on TLU's schedule. For the sake of this example I'll assume TLU wins. TLU's SOS goes to .4605 to Centre's .4471. Centre beat Wash U 50-20. Wash U likely scores more points. With common opponents it would become clear that Centre is a better team.
You can't assume that!
Massey has TLU ahead of Centre (before todays games). Rhodes is far south of both of them in Massey. Beating Birmingham Southern by just 10 and Hendrix by only 4 hurts Rhodes' power rankings.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 02:27:03 AM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 02:15:42 AM
I am not sure if it would be TLU's fault if the committee chose them instead. How would they compare out if TLU had played someone else, say a .500 team and went 10-0. Who looks better then?
OK. That's easy to answer. Put Wash U (4-5 D3 record) on TLU's schedule. For the sake of this example I'll assume TLU wins. TLU's SOS goes to .4605 to Centre's .4471. Centre beat Wash U 50-20. Wash U likely scores more points. With common opponents it would become clear that Centre is a better team.
They look pretty even to me, both 10-0 and TLU has slightly higher SOS. You can't assume how much Wash U would score against TLU, but I figure you went with season numbers to predict that. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I hope both get in before any 2 loss team does.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 02:31:18 AM
You can't assume that!
Massey has TLU ahead of Centre (before todays games).
I'm not assuming anything, Smed. I'm giving my opinion of what would happen. Until today Austin's largest margin loss was to Rhodes- 21 points- vs a 12 point loss to TLU.
That's as close as you can get to playing- a single common opponent. Look, I realize things happen- some kid is hurt, a young QB was still learning the offense, whatever. There are always variables in play.
But I don't just work backwards from a desired result then formulate opinions that support it.
TLU beat only two decent teams, LC being the best. I thought LC was better than HC 2 days ago- based on the results I saw. And I was right. Maybe I guessed right.
Rhodes has lost 2 games to RR teams and almost (should have) won one of those.
But Rhodes almost lost to two poor teams. That works against them, especially in statistical algorithms. Austin improved as they year went along. Rhodes lost their mojo after Centre.
I trust Massey when there's not true common opponents.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 02:36:40 AM
They look pretty even to me, both 10-0 and TLU has slightly higher SOS. You can't assume how much Wash U would score against TLU, but I figure you went with season numbers to predict that. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I hope both get in before any 2 loss team does.
No way they look even. With a common opponent (WashU in my example) their SOS would be virtually identical- within 0.0134. But Centre pummelled their schedule- winning by an average score of 25.6 points. Once you get over 3 touchdowns you're talking backups time.
TLU's won by 10.9 ppg.
And again, who did they play?
Please understand the points I was trying to make regarding the Texas schools. I shouldn't have taken a shot at them, I admit. But I've been analyzing for many hours this week and trying to figure out why TLU's SOS was so much higher despite not seeing any good teams on the schedule. I just see their SOS as false-positive.
I'm not going to argue the use of SOS as a metric- I'm done. But here you are, Wesley Dad, you look at two schools and all you see is 10-0/.460/RR win and 10-0/.447/RR win, and think "looks even".
I don't believe that at all so I tried to identify why. I'm not out to convince any voters. Centre has played their way in- it's going to happen.
I just want to rationalize why these look the same and I have some answers. I identified what a 9-0 record for one of your opponents does to your SOS- jacks it up. I identified what cancelling a game against a 1-8 team does to your SOS- keeps it from falling significantly. Both of those facts are made possible- the larger fluctuations- when there aren't many D3 teams on your schedule, which is something I identified with several of the Texas teams I mentioned. Though I was, of course, most focused on TLU and H-S.
My method of delivery may have been lacking poise :-[ but my observations were neither poorly reasoned nor based on emotion.
Hey- I'm a fan for sure. But I was just trying to figure out why numbers weren't showing what I thought to be true. That's it.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 02:50:00 AM
But Rhodes almost lost to two poor teams. That works against them, especially in statistical algorithms. Austin improved as they year went along. Rhodes lost their mojo after Centre.
I trust Massey when there's not true common opponents.
Smed, now you're talking like a football fan that goes by what he sees. I love it. That's the way I am too. But this is the Pool C forum where all that matters, as has been pointed out (sometimes rudely), are the criteria.
There's no stat for "almost lost" in the NCAA's criteria. ;) In fact I almost cringed expecting to be roasted when I mentioned "scoring margin" because it was irrelevant to Pool C.
But I'll take your comment as an invitation to delve further into my opinions then. I think 2-8 W&L would compete favorably with 90% of TLU's schedule. I'd give them even odds to go at 5-4 against that schedule (not including UMHB, of course)- and possibly higher.
They lost 5 games by a total of 17 points. They were not a bad team at all.
Those are gut feelings, but also based on the fact that I saw them play and have studied these schedules and results and looked for patterns. But my gut feeling means nothing to a stranger from the North Region...ha.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 02:31:18 AM
Beating Birmingham Southern by just 10 and Hendrix by only 4 hurts Rhodes' power rankings.
Agree re: Birmingham Southern. They're just bad. Not sure what happened there. But Hendrix is not a bad team. (5-4 D3). In fact in the last four games, they played pretty well. Had a couple players come back from injury and started hitting their stride. They'll be even more competitive next year.
Pat Coleman was at the Centre-Hendrix game. Probably too busy with the brackets to give an opinion, though.
As discussed on the Bracketology show last night unless the national committee chooses to adjust the South regional rankings (unlikely) Centre has no shot at a Pool B bid because they are ranked behind TLU. This ranking was based primarily on Centre's poor SOS. While I agree an undefeated Centre team deserves to be in the tournament , I don't believe denigrating a TLU team because of their schedule has any merit. TLU would love to play SAA teams on a regular basis but the SAA teams have been reluctant . This probably has a lot to do with why they left the SCAC to begin with. By the way TLU , Centre and Framingham St. all made the field in the show last night.
Fantastic listen last night Pat, Frank and Wally!
It was interesting to listen to the rationale regarding each pick.
A few questions though. Is the Alfred State game going to hurt Fisher in the selection process, would an 8-2 vs 7-2 record vs D3 teams look better?
Also is there any chance a team like Buff St or Utica sneak up into the RRs to give SJF a better resume or is the prevailing thought that the East committee ranks their AQs no matter what going to squash that?
Lastly, the voting for that final pool C bid was very close. Any chance it goes Fishers way?
Quote from: Upstate on November 16, 2014, 10:00:24 AM
Fantastic listen last night Pat, Frank and Wally!
It was interesting to listen to the rationale regarding each pick.
I concur. (It must be admitted that I forced my family to eat more ice-cream and brownies with Hershey's syrup while visiting my daughter and her husband last night while listening in - as it went longer than I thought it would). It really is interesting to see how first Oshkosh and then Bethel blocks the next best team in the West, regardless of who it is. Can the West Regional Committee "re-stack" the order to better serve their interests in getting another at-large bid, or would that not fly so well knowing where the teams were previously ranked. I was really surprised to hear your reasons why Bethel stays in with 3 losses - I was sure they'd be out of the picture. That still doesn't help that much with Oshkosh blocking. Thoughts anyone?
The voting for the final spot was a virtual coin flip. It certainly could go either way. One point I would make is Rod Sandberg, head coach at Whitworth, is on the national committee. He was the defensive coordinator for 10+years at Wheaton until this year. He has alo of insight into teams like North Central and Wabash. That may work for or against NCC (depending on his feelings toward them! ;) ) and I only say that because committee member out west aren't typically as informed about teams out of their region.
The guys did a great job last night. It was fun to listen to. My only disappointment is we didn't get to see Wally's written analysis on here since Pat poached him for the broadcast. Makes for a more boring day until 6pm!
Quote from: Upstate on November 16, 2014, 10:00:24 AM
Fantastic listen last night Pat, Frank and Wally!
It was interesting to listen to the rationale regarding each pick.
A few questions though. Is the Alfred State game going to hurt Fisher in the selection process, would an 8-2 vs 7-2 record vs D3 teams look better?
Also is there any chance a team like Buff St or Utica sneak up into the RRs to give SJF a better resume or is the prevailing thought that the East committee ranks their AQs no matter what going to squash that?
Lastly, the voting for that final pool C bid was very close. Any chance it goes Fishers way?
Thanks for the listen, Upstate. First, SJF should be thankful that Alfred State doesn't count for SOS purposes since that's the one part of the SJF résumé that buoys it. The negligible winning percentage difference doesn't really factor in.
As Pat pointed out in his writeup, the East rankings seem to indicate the past couple weeks the preference of the East RAC to rank all AQs. Maybe that changed last night, as Lycoming and Morrisville would've been better suited in that final slot, and Ithaca's existence would've been questionable after the Cortaca loss. Tough call, but we think the RAC was trying to clue us in on their plan the last couple weeks.
As for SJF, I really think it's a question of when SJF hits the board, if at all. If it happens in the 6th Round like we encountered, then the chances are very low. In reality, since JCU, Centre, and the two East teams would go first, there is no way SJF gets on the board earlier than the 5th Round. As I said on the show, maybe the remaining Committee members have good memories of SJF from last year as a two-loss team? But it'll be tough to see enough members from non-East schools roll SJF quick enough to get them the 6th bid. Impossible? No. But I'd say you're looking at a 30% chance currently. That's definitely enough to justify watching the 6pm show later today!
Planned on it Frank!
I don't have my hopes up for Fisher though. It's so weird that since 2010 Fishers best two teams ('10 & '14) don't get in but their ok teams ('11 & '13) get in and win a couple games on the road vs four teams that had one regular season loss between the four of them.
Man I, just like everyone else, would love to see the final rankings!
got to listen to the show this morning. excellent job by all 3, Pat, Frank, and Wally. The final regional rankings will play a big part in who gets in at the end. If some of the teams the panel projects are not in the final rankings then things may change a little bit. The brackets are nice to look at because there are some real good second round game possibilities if the seedings hold in round 1. It will be interesting to see who the National Committee chooses. I am likely going to be at a fine local establishment watching the Eagles/Packers game so I am not sure when I will check out if I dont watch it on my phone during the game.
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 15, 2014, 11:14:03 PM
Quote from: wabndy on November 15, 2014, 10:34:53 PM
Looking at sos only
No loss teams
Centre. 213. 0.440
Ranked one-loss teams:
Framingham 44. 0.532
Wabash. 66. 0.520
Del Val. 73. 0.519
Oshkosh. 77. 0.517
JCU 90. 0.511
TLU. 96. 0.510
Muhlenberg. 122. 0.500
Chicago 155. 0.485
Ranked two-loss teams:
SJF. 19. 0.558
North Central 29. 0.540
St. Lawrence. 42. 0.535
St. Thomas. 115. 0.502
Thomas More 162. 0.481
Where would you draw a number to say a higher sos overcomes an extra loss? A spread of 0.030?
I have Centre at .4471 and TLU at .5076 http://goo.gl/KSeVrj
I stick with Pat's calculator. I reposted it here to make it easier to compare:
http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template
We'll have Chairman Naatz on around 7:45 pm to discuss the playoff brackets, who's in and who's out and more. Tune in to www.inthehuddlle.com and Tweet us @ITHuddLLe with any questions for Duey and make sure to use #d3fb32
Undefeated is undefeated. You still have to play the games. And speaking from almost twenty years of Wesley scheduling difficulties , sometimes the other teams schedules and sometimes teams just wont play you.
Student, teacher, ethicist, homer,and now rude cheerleader. Seems I wear many hats. However the truth of the matter is I've been objective the entire time, both when it benefits TLU and when it harms them. Two weeks ago I even questioned whether their SoS was artificially inflated by virtue of not playing Austin College or Southwestern yet. And here we are with the adjustments and they still rank considerably higher than Centre and marginally higher than Muhlenberg. Put the conspiracy theories to rest already. The complaint against HSU now seems to be they were exposed by a very good LC team. Yet if that same very good LC team who played arguably the toughest schedule in the land makes a regional ranking its just further proof of Texasgate. The doublespeak and crazy allegations undermine the valid point that these three teams in the south now sit much closer together when parsing their virtues. Any of them will probably be disappointed if they don't get in, but none of them can make a great argument they were slighted.
Specifically pertaining to TLU, if they don't get in what is the incentive to ever schedule UMHB again? The SCAC isn't getting an AQ in the foreseeable future, and both the precedent and the likelihood of going 10-0 and getting in vs lesser competition as opposed to going 9-1 against greater competition and being left home will have been set.
Thanks for the posts. (This is my worst weekend to be on the road, so I haven't been able to post.)
Thanks to Wally! Great job! +1!
I don't think TLU nor Centre are staying home, so the majority of posturing and ham-fisted reasoning on this board will be for naught.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 01:51:56 PM
I don't think TLU nor Centre are staying home, so the majority of posturing and ham-fisted reasoning on this board will be for naught.
Agreed--I'd also add that it would be for naught either way ;D
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 01:51:56 PM
I don't think TLU nor Centre are staying home, so the majority of posturing and ham-fisted reasoning on this board will be for naught.
I don't either, but I know only one of them will get a Pool B birth. And the one of them that does will have gained it by merit, not by virtue of dim lit, smoke filled room.
I'm also not sure where this ham-fisted reasoning comes in. Unless you're talking about Parent, then I agree. ;D (Take a joke, man). Were my name LarryLinfield with 2,000 posts, not timtlu and new to the board, I think you might see it very differently. I think you made an assumption on my homerism or specific disdain for Centre, because our first positions on one issue didn't jive, though in the bigger picture it looks like we actually think very similarly on a number of fronts. I won't waste any more time of the board arguing that point, though.
Well, there's the faulty logic and application of the data early on, then there's the defensiveness about it all. And the fact you denigrated D3 athletes on another board. D3 are not the LEFTOVERS.
And believe me, we don't care if someone has two posts or 20,000 - if they're being illogical I'll call them out on it and everyone here will too.
But you all continued to hammer at the same points over and over and over again. You brought in new wrinkles of the same argument, and you couldn't just take "they're probably getting in and so is Centre..." for an answer.
Quote from: timtlu on November 16, 2014, 02:06:17 PM
I'm also not sure where this ham-fisted reasoning comes in. Unless you're talking about Parent, then I agree. ;D ....
... in the bigger picture it looks like we actually think very similarly on a number of fronts.
Love you tim. :-* Life is good.
I wish you good luck. I'd love to see a team newer to these playoffs take out one of the established veterans. And I honestly do think its unfair that if you're the second Texas team, then UMHB is immediately scheduled. But I guess money talks.
Sorry for being so negative. ;)
Frankly the whole AQ/B/C concept needs to be adjusted. A team should have to be ranked in the Top 25 to receive an AQ not simply win its conference. I believe this was a measure that existed in NAIA football (at least my senior year at Linfield which was 1993). There are many AQ teams that are not competitive which you can tell by the results from the first two rounds of every year.
If we took away the AQ it would force several conferences to schedule tougher non league games and also improve their football programs. We all know who are these conferences.
SOS doesn't mean much when the best programs can't find anyone willing to play them in non conference games.
Disagree totally. Polls are unscientific, and many times voters aren't as familiar with teams out of its region. The Top 25 here is good, but the difference between team 20 and team 30 is small, at times random, and not representative. So you would exclude Franklin (29th last week) who won it's league, for NO GOOD REASON except that they didn't get quite enough votes in a poll?
We've been there when teams were 10-0 and NOT in the playoffs. Everyone hated that. It doesn't happen anymore (Centre will get in).
Also, how can you get 32 spots in a field by limiting to the Top25?
The ethos and philosophy of D3 is for inclusion. In fact, most every NCAA championship reserves spots for all of its qualifying conference champions. It would be unfair and unjust for a team to win its league and then not be in the post-season simply because of some random vote, or a lack of playoff results when they never had a chance to prove themselves in the first place. It becomes circular logic. Yes there are first round blowouts but in most every tourney in the college level there are, no matter what the size.
And it would deny the kids who put in all of the hard work and WON THEIR LEAGUE a chance for some recognition nationally. You go tell the kids at St. Scholastica, or Husson that. I'll wait...
Plus, there are very limited opportunities to schedule non-conference in many sports. Some leagues (OAC, NCAC, MAC, UMAC) have just one non-conference game. Many others have two. Teams like Muskingum and Kenyon need non-conference games just like Mt. Union and Whitewater. The SOS for Mt. Union is low-ish because they play a total round robin. Yes, some teams don't like to play Wesley or Mary Hardin-Baylor. If you're a young team with a limited roster, it would be very foolish. Oberlin would be totally foolish to schedule them. To get better, Oberlin should schedule winnable games against OAC, MIAA, PAC or HCAC teams that provide a test yet not decimate them. Crown shouldn't schedule a WIAC team for the same reason. They should find a MIAC, IIAC or MWC team they can compete with.
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
Frankly the whole AQ/B/C concept needs to be adjusted. A team should have to be ranked in the Top 25 to receive an AQ not simply win its conference. I believe this was a measure that existed in NAIA football (at least my senior year at Linfield which was 1993).
This is exactly why Division III is not the NAIA. The NCAA, across levels and sports, has automatic bids. This is what we do. It gives everyone a chance to play for something.
This is baked into the Division III philosophy. It's not going away.
Based on what i've seen from Wesley this year,(and that includes yesterdays performance against D1-FCS Charlotte) I believe they are the team to beat if they end up on the Mount Union side of the bracket. Last year Wesley did not quite have the same caliber of team that they have had in some previous years, specifically their defense was not as good. Still though, they took Mount Union to the wire but lost 59-62. This year will be different, Wesley's defense has improved TREMENDOUSLY from what I've seen and the offense is excellent as always.
I hope I don't upset any Mount Union fans but if the bracket works out the way that D3football.com predicted it to be, Wesley may be the Stagg bowl representative against UWW(or hopefully UMHB ;D this year).
I would honestly prefer it to be Mount Union especially if UMHB goes all the way this year, but I just don't know if Mount can take down the wolverines this year.
Cru,
We've had some folks on other boards wondering (in so many words) if mount could take down John Carroll this year (arguably they would have been but for the idiotic "not ball spike under 3 seconds" new rule). The only team I've seen take down mount with any degree of consistency is, well, you know who. Until that happens, I'm still (fake) betting all my chips on an all purple stagg bowl. Again.
Thank you to everybody who listened! A few thoughts/things I learned last night:
- It's a whole lot easier putting together a projection when I've got Saturday night through Wednesday afternoon/evening to let the week's game results marinate. Having to digest all of it in 4-5 hours bumps the degree of difficulty up by about a thousand.
- I know the sexy part of the show is who gets picked, but the regional rankings are really, really important and they really provide the roadmap for the selections. They are also really, really hard to put together. Those regional advisory committees get a ton of flack (from myself sometimes!), but that's the yeomen's work that has to be done to decide how the at-large teams line up and ultimately who has the right of way as it were when we get to the selection rounds.
- There are a lot of different ways to put together the last few spots in the South and West regional rankings. I think we did a good job emulating the preferences of those committees in the ranking lists we mocked up last night, but it's not out of question to see teams like Platteville or Rhodes or Louisiana College not be ranked which would have a big impact on those selections- the last couple of selections in particular.
- Oshkosh is a giant question mark. I could see them being selected early as a single-loss WIAC runner up or I could see them not being selected at all because at the end of the day they have a 6-4 record and in tight votes where they aren't clearly the best option, that secondary criteria really hurts them (fairly or unfairly).
- Bracketing is really, really hard without either maps or an encyclopedic knowledge of the D3 map (which Pat fortunately has). The real committee will spend a LOT longer creating the matchups than we did last night.
We're under an hour to go until we find out how this all shakes out. With so much uncertainty there at the bottom of a couple of those rankings sets, I think we're going to have a lot to talk about after the field is announced.
Playoffs should be about placing the best 32 teams in the field. It isn't fair to teams that have 2 losses to have their season end when teams that they would easily beat make the playoffs simply because they won their conference. There seem to be more AQs each year which leave fewer at large bids for teams that are much more competitive/deserving of a playoff spot. We will look back on the first two rounds of the upcoming playoffs and see at least 5-10 conference champions get soundly beaten if not destroyed. I realize that this isn't going to change but it would be nice if each conference was deserving of an AQ for some other reason than having 7 football playing members.
Do you think the East could go 'against form' and NOT rank Husson, for example?
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Playoffs should be about placing the best 32 teams in the field. It isn't fair to teams that have 2 losses to have their season end when teams that they would easily beat make the playoffs simply because they won their conference. There seem to be more AQs each year which leave fewer at large bids for teams that are much more competitive/deserving of a playoff spot. We will look back on the first two rounds of the upcoming playoffs and see at least 5-10 conference champions get soundly beaten if not destroyed. I realize that this isn't going to change but it would be nice if each conference was deserving of an AQ for some other reason than having 7 football playing members.
WIN YOUR LEAGUE! LEAVE NO DOUBT!
You unfairly leave out teams that did NOTHING wrong except win the games on their schedule. Look them in the eye and say they're not good enough.
Again, we were there before in D3. It STUNK, and left a lot more questions than answers about the entire process.
So again, WIN YOUR LEAGUE!
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Playoffs should be about placing the best 32 teams in the field. It isn't fair to teams that have 2 losses to have their season end when teams that they would easily beat make the playoffs simply because they won their conference. There seem to be more AQs each year which leave fewer at large bids for teams that are much more competitive/deserving of a playoff spot. We will look back on the first two rounds of the upcoming playoffs and see at least 5-10 conference champions get soundly beaten if not destroyed. I realize that this isn't going to change but it would be nice if each conference was deserving of an AQ for some other reason than having 7 football playing members.
Please let's not go back to the dark ages. The AQ has been the best thing that has happened for D3 sports. The less "arbitrary" we have, the better... We don't need the best 32 teams. We need to figure out who the best team is. Odds the best team has 2 losses and gets left out? Ridiculously small. Making the playoffs accessible has made the sport much more attractive for the fans D3 does attract, and not just in football.
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Playoffs should be about placing the best 32 teams in the field. It isn't fair to teams that have 2 losses to have their season end when teams that they would easily beat make the playoffs simply because they won their conference. There seem to be more AQs each year which leave fewer at large bids for teams that are much more competitive/deserving of a playoff spot. We will look back on the first two rounds of the upcoming playoffs and see at least 5-10 conference champions get soundly beaten if not destroyed. I realize that this isn't going to change but it would be nice if each conference was deserving of an AQ for some other reason than having 7 football playing members.
I used to feel the same way, but I've decided you just can't shout at the rain. This is just how playoffs work. Look at the NFL. The Falcons are 4-6, and in first place. The entire AFC North is 6-4. This is just how it is.
Sports aren't really about finding the "best" team. It's about crowning a champion. Sometimes, these two things work out, sometimes they don't.
Is this where I need to be to see the selection live? http://www.ncaa.com/live/player?vid=2012/602&date=2012/11/11
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 05:39:39 PM
WIN YOUR LEAGUE! LEAVE NO DOUBT!
You unfairly leave out teams that did NOTHING wrong except win the games on their schedule. Look them in the eye and say they're not good enough.
Again, we were there before in D3. It STUNK, and left a lot more questions than answers about the entire process.
So again, WIN YOUR LEAGUE!
I was going to disagree with you, but then I re-read your post, and the all caps really persuaded me
D2 just released its football playoffs. I know of two teams that won their league and are good teams that were left out. There are no auto bids in D2. We don't want that. Indianapolis and Azusa Pacific aren't rummy teams.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 16, 2014, 05:45:04 PM
I was going to disagree with you, but then I re-read your post, and the all caps really persuaded me
Same arguments every year. It cheeses me off. There's only one way not to complain....
Muhlenberg and St. Thomas make the field.
Framingham, North Central and Oshkosh left at the altar.
Wow. Some serious surprises in the bracket. St Thomas? No one saw that coming. Muhlenberg? Interesting
I generally like this bracket, with a few dissensions.
St. Thomas?? NCC and probably SJF would kill them, and Bethel already did.
MIT AT Husson?? In which parallel universe did that occur?
(8-2) Adrian at UMU rather than (6-4) Bendictine - WHY??
Also would have voted for TLU over Muhlenberg, but no biggie.
Three losses was a deal breaker I guess....it didn't matter that bethel already best St. Thomas.
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2014, 06:15:20 PM
Wow. Some serious surprises in the bracket. St Thomas? No one saw that coming. Muhlenberg? Interesting
Muhlenberg I don't really get at all. St. Thomas I can buy if they took Platteville out of the rankings (which hurts both Oshkosh and North Central) and placed C-M in. But then there's the whole Bethel situation who beat St. Thomas h2h (which is why our mock West rankings last night still had Bethel ahead of St. Thomas).
I believe the West committee ranked Concorida - Moorhead, giving St. Thomas a RR win. That's a legit ranking, too, after what happened to Platteville and Pacific. I think they viewed St. Thomas as better than Oshkosh.
So Muhlenberg? Well, um, if the South ranked Ursinus #10, that's a RR win, something Framingham doesn't have. That also may be why St. Thomas got in. Framingham's SOS was very nice. Muhlenberg and St. Thomas not so much.
Oshkosh? Well, I'm sorry. The secondary criteria had to kick in, and that means those three losses are germaine. Had to be that. Either that or they didn't get on the board and St. Thomas was the last pick.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2014, 06:34:28 PM
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2014, 06:15:20 PM
Wow. Some serious surprises in the bracket. St Thomas? No one saw that coming. Muhlenberg? Interesting
Muhlenberg I don't really get at all. St. Thomas I can buy if they took Platteville out of the rankings (which hurts both Oshkosh and North Central) and placed C-M in. But then there's the whole Bethel situation who beat St. Thomas h2h (which is why our mock West rankings last night still had Bethel ahead of St. Thomas).
This may be a case where H2H doesn't trump three losses, especially one to a pedestrian Augsburg team.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
I generally like this bracket, with a few dissensions.
St. Thomas?? NCC and probably SJF would kill them, and Bethel already did.
OR. They wouldn't since they beat Augsburg and Bethel did not.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
I generally like this bracket, with a few dissensions.
St. Thomas?? NCC and probably SJF would kill them, and Bethel already did.
MIT AT Husson?? In which parallel universe did that occur?
(8-2) Adrian at UMU rather than (6-4) Bendictine - WHY??
Also would have voted for TLU over Muhlenberg, but no biggie.
MIT not hosting has to be a paperwork thing, right? I'm sure that can be sniffed out.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 06:36:44 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
I generally like this bracket, with a few dissensions.
St. Thomas?? NCC and probably SJF would kill them, and Bethel already did.
OR. They wouldn't since they beat Augsburg and Bethel did not.
Yeah they probably got sniped by the three headed loss monster. Tough to understand
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2014, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
I generally like this bracket, with a few dissensions.
St. Thomas?? NCC and probably SJF would kill them, and Bethel already did.
MIT AT Husson?? In which parallel universe did that occur?
(8-2) Adrian at UMU rather than (6-4) Bendictine - WHY??
Also would have voted for TLU over Muhlenberg, but no biggie.
MIT not hosting has to be a paperwork thing, right? I'm sure that can be sniffed out.
You'd think a bunch of smart guys would know what the deadline for filing is, right?
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2014, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
I generally like this bracket, with a few dissensions.
St. Thomas?? NCC and probably SJF would kill them, and Bethel already did.
MIT AT Husson?? In which parallel universe did that occur?
(8-2) Adrian at UMU rather than (6-4) Bendictine - WHY??
Also would have voted for TLU over Muhlenberg, but no biggie.
MIT not hosting has to be a paperwork thing, right? I'm sure that can be sniffed out.
You'd think a bunch of smart guys would know what the deadline for filing is, right?
If it was an electronic form, yes. But what if it was actually paper you had to fill out and sign? That makes it a toss up.
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2014, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 06:36:44 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
I generally like this bracket, with a few dissensions.
St. Thomas?? NCC and probably SJF would kill them, and Bethel already did.
OR. They wouldn't since they beat Augsburg and Bethel did not.
Yeah they probably got sniped by the three headed loss monster. Tough to understand
Not really. Bethel beats Augsburg, they're probably in and not St. Thomas. St. Thomas had three things happen in their favor yesterday, losses by Bethel, Platteville and Pacific. That opened up slots in the West for a regional win AND cleared their path to be on the board.
Well, good news for Centre. There were definitely some surprises tonight, but I'm glad the committee at least got this one right.
I don't think MIT meets the criteria to host. Husson probably does.
Suprised Muhlenberg got in over Framingham. Even with a regionally ranked win over a #10 seed (which is what we have to assume), I thought Framingham's SOS being significantly higher would get them over the hump. Shocked St. Thomas got in... I don't care if Bethel just lost to Augsburg, H2H has to mean more.
After I posted I noticed that TLU DID make the field.
I have heard rumors that MIT has a facilities problem for hosting. I have no idea what the requirements are for football, but I know that schools are sometimes disqualified in basketball.
They had 1100 at their field against Coast Guard. But, who knows.
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 16, 2014, 06:46:36 PM
I don't think MIT meets the criteria to host. Husson probably does.
Suprised Muhlenberg got in over Framingham. Even with a regionally ranked win over a #10 seed (which is what we have to assume), I thought Framingham's SOS being significantly higher would get them over the hump. Shocked St. Thomas got in... I don't care if Bethel just lost to Augsburg, H2H has to mean more.
Not when the full H2H results are contradictory, like they are here. You beat a team, then you lose to a team the other team beat to me negates the H2H.
The lesson? Don't lose to Augsburg in Week 11.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2014, 06:47:16 PM
After I posted I noticed that TLU DID make the field.
I have heard rumors that MIT has a facilities problem for hosting. I have no idea what the requirements are for football, but I know that schools are sometimes disqualified in basketball.
no direct knowledge of the MIT situation but I know there are requirments to host--a few years ago Cal Lu beat Linfield at the start of the season by got shipped up to Linfield in the playoffs because Cal Lu's stadium (at that time--before they build the new one) did not have 'adequate security' (or so I was told) to host---I think there was not really a fence around the stadium which meant they couldn't really charge people admission......
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 06:49:53 PM
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 16, 2014, 06:46:36 PM
I don't think MIT meets the criteria to host. Husson probably does.
Suprised Muhlenberg got in over Framingham. Even with a regionally ranked win over a #10 seed (which is what we have to assume), I thought Framingham's SOS being significantly higher would get them over the hump. Shocked St. Thomas got in... I don't care if Bethel just lost to Augsburg, H2H has to mean more.
Not when the full H2H results are contradictory, like they are here. You beat a team, then you lose to a team the other team beat to me negates the H2H.
The lesson? Don't lose to Augsburg in Week 11.
I get that. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I'm just under the train of thought if two teams are going up against each other for the final spot in a playoff field, H2H should be the determining factor. Well in this case the final seat at the discussion table.
They weren't going up against each other at all. Bethel fell out of the rankings with that third loss or at least way down to #10 (though I think C-M got a slot too). St. Thomas moved ahead of them in the West Rankings and on the west board, they were no doubt behind St. Thomas and Oshkosh. Bethel was never going to get on the board, ever, as I see the West Rankings now that St. Thomas was selected.
Especially since Bethel lost to a team that the week before lost to Hamline, of all teams.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 07:04:59 PM
They weren't going up against each other at all. Bethel fell out of the rankings with that third loss or at least way down to #10 (though I think C-M got a slot too). St. Thomas moved ahead of them in the West Rankings and on the west board, they were no doubt behind St. Thomas and Oshkosh. Bethel was never going to get on the board, ever.
Exactly...like I just posted one page ago. H2H matchup went out the door as soon as bethel lost its third game.
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 16, 2014, 06:46:36 PM
I don't think MIT meets the criteria to host. Husson probably does.
Suprised Muhlenberg got in over Framingham. Even with a regionally ranked win over a #10 seed (which is what we have to assume), I thought Framingham's SOS being significantly higher would get them over the hump. Shocked St. Thomas got in... I don't care if Bethel just lost to Augsburg, H2H has to mean more.
I don't assume Ursinus got ranked at all. There's no reason at all to do so with other three loss teams out there that are better (Hampden Sydney, CNU, Louisiana College to name a few) plus a bunch of 2-loss teams that are also pretty clearly better choices (Rhodes, E&H, Guilford, Waynesburg-especially Waynesburg- to name a few of those).
Muhlenberg fits a profile that last year's committee didn't like very much. This year's committee with four new members may have been more amenable to the 9-1, .500-ish SOS, 0-1 vs RRO profile than last year. But even then, I don't know why you would get Muhlenberg instead of Framingham. Unless DelVal was ahead of Framingham and Muhlenberg went in before DelVal (which would also not be correct in my mind).
But, and here's an important thing that really came to light for me during the mock show last night- There doesn't have to be a consensus on which of the four teams is the best one. And it's not out of the question for Muhlenberg to have not been the top team on any of those ballots, but had enough 2nd/3rd place votes to wind up being the selection.
Muhlenberg is loved by Massey (12th when you remove the NESCAC teams). That's no doubt because the Centennial had a bunch of okay teams (only McDaniel was bad, Susquehanna gave both Muhlenberg and JHU a game) and they did OK in their loss to Johns Hopkins. They're a good team. But Massey's not in the criteria. And I think for limited data on 10-teams league one result can skew you about 15 rating points depending on how your league does in their lone non-conference game. The CC was 7-3 in non-conference.
Is Muhlenberg a better football team than Framinham? Maybe. It may be close. Should they have leapt Framingham in the selection, though? I dunno about that.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2014, 07:18:12 PM
Muhlenberg fits a profile that last year's committee didn't like very much. This year's committee with four new members may have been more amenable to the 9-1, .500-ish SOS, 0-1 vs RRO profile than last year. But even then, I don't know why you would get Muhlenberg instead of Framingham. Unless DelVal was ahead of Framingham and Muhlenberg went in before DelVal (which would also not be correct in my mind).
Unless Muhlenberg was still ranked ahead of Centre, and the committee was determined to get Centre in?
Muhlenberg always struck me as the team with the profile most comparable to a certain team that got left out last year.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2014, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Boxer7806 on November 16, 2014, 06:46:36 PM
I don't think MIT meets the criteria to host. Husson probably does.
Suprised Muhlenberg got in over Framingham. Even with a regionally ranked win over a #10 seed (which is what we have to assume), I thought Framingham's SOS being significantly higher would get them over the hump. Shocked St. Thomas got in... I don't care if Bethel just lost to Augsburg, H2H has to mean more.
I don't assume Ursinus got ranked at all. There's no reason at all to do so with other three loss teams out there that are better (Hampden Sydney, CNU, Louisiana College to name a few) plus a bunch of 2-loss teams that are also pretty clearly better choices (Rhodes, E&H, Guilford, Waynesburg-especially Waynesburg- to name a few of those).
Muhlenberg fits a profile that last year's committee didn't like very much. This year's committee with four new members may have been more amenable to the 9-1, .500-ish SOS, 0-1 vs RRO profile than last year. But even then, I don't know why you would get Muhlenberg instead of Framingham. Unless DelVal was ahead of Framingham and Muhlenberg went in before DelVal (which would also not be correct in my mind).
But, and here's an important thing that really came to light for me during the mock show last night- There doesn't have to be a consensus on which of the four teams is the best one. And it's not out of the question for Muhlenberg to have not been the top team on any of those ballots, but had enough 2nd/3rd place votes to wind up being the selection.
Does that mean Muhlenberg passed the "eye test" over Framingham? Looking at both the resumes based on criteria, Framingham's looks better. Or are they valuing Muhlenberg's loss to John Hopkins more than Framingham's to Rowan? Or did Ursinius made the secret ranking at 10? I'm assuming from the bold/italic statement, that Ursinius did not make the rankings which I believe points to the committee valuing Muhlenberg's RR result more than Framingham's. If thats the case, I don't like it, but at least I can understand it.
They do have that right. Muhlenberg was competitive in a loss to the #3 team in the South. Framingham lost to Rowan, who may have been 8th or 9th in the East.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2014, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
Frankly the whole AQ/B/C concept needs to be adjusted. A team should have to be ranked in the Top 25 to receive an AQ not simply win its conference. I believe this was a measure that existed in NAIA football (at least my senior year at Linfield which was 1993).
This is exactly why Division III is not the NAIA. The NCAA, across levels and sports, has automatic bids. This is what we do. It gives everyone a chance to play for something.
This is baked into the Division III philosophy. It's not going away.
It's actually baked into all sports but FCS football which actually doesn't reward an NCAA trophy. ALL sports and championships in ALL divisions of the NCAA have autobids and polls mean nothing in terms of criteria.
Quote from: GillCJ1 on November 16, 2014, 06:45:04 PM
Well, good news for Centre. There were definitely some surprises tonight, but I'm glad the committee at least got this one right.
Thank you!!!! I just spoke to my son, who is a Sr at Centre, and they are VERY pleased to be in the playoffs.
If the decision to choose Muhlenberg over Framingham is the RR loss then I am ok with it. Rowan is not very good. Johns Hopkins would crush them IMO. Who wins if they play, I don't know but if the records are the same and the SOS is not crazy different then Muhlenberg gets in. As far as Bethel, no team with 3 losses should be complaining about anything.
Quote from: GillCJ1 on November 16, 2014, 06:45:04 PM
Well, good news for Centre. There were definitely some surprises tonight, but I'm glad the committee at least got this one right.
Thanks Gill. We're all pretty happy. Playing with house money now! ;D Life is good.
Good luck to you.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 08:11:38 PM
If the decision to choose Muhlenberg over Framingham is the RR loss then I am ok with it. Rowan is not very good. Johns Hopkins would crush them IMO. Who wins if they play, I don't know but if the records are the same and the SOS is not crazy different then Muhlenberg gets in. As far as Bethel, no team with 3 losses should be complaining about anything.
This is a really good point and a perfectly reasonable way to apply the criteria. I would have leaned toward FSU, but I can see this angle.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 08:11:38 PM
As far as Bethel, no team with 3 losses should be complaining about anything.
I am pretty sure no Bethel fans are complaining on this board, nor the MIAC board. What's this about?
Quote from: art76 on November 16, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 16, 2014, 08:11:38 PM
As far as Bethel, no team with 3 losses should be complaining about anything.
I am pretty sure no Bethel fans are complaining on this board, nor the MIAC board. What's this about?
Sorry, did not state clearly. Some posts were questioning St. Thomas over Bethel despite H2H result. I have not read any specific Bethel folk complaining, just that once you get to 3 losses there is no chance you get in.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2014, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2014, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
Frankly the whole AQ/B/C concept needs to be adjusted. A team should have to be ranked in the Top 25 to receive an AQ not simply win its conference. I believe this was a measure that existed in NAIA football (at least my senior year at Linfield which was 1993).
This is exactly why Division III is not the NAIA. The NCAA, across levels and sports, has automatic bids. This is what we do. It gives everyone a chance to play for something.
This is baked into the Division III philosophy. It's not going away.
It's actually baked into all sports but FCS football which actually doesn't reward an NCAA trophy. ALL sports and championships in ALL divisions of the NCAA have autobids and polls mean nothing in terms of criteria.
I just read that D2 football does not. On the site I read at the NCAA it says the 24 teams were chosen by committee. League champs Indianapolis and Azusa Pacific were out, though I don't think the GNAC (D2 style) has enough teams anyway.
Dave:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/football-postseason-fcs-division-ii-and-division-iii
"Division II — The Division II Football Championship consists of a 24-team playoff field. All teams are selected by the Division II Football Committee. The game is played annually at Braly Municipal Stadium near the campus of the University of North Alabama in Florence, Ala."
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2014, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2014, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
Frankly the whole AQ/B/C concept needs to be adjusted. A team should have to be ranked in the Top 25 to receive an AQ not simply win its conference. I believe this was a measure that existed in NAIA football (at least my senior year at Linfield which was 1993).
This is exactly why Division III is not the NAIA. The NCAA, across levels and sports, has automatic bids. This is what we do. It gives everyone a chance to play for something.
This is baked into the Division III philosophy. It's not going away.
It's actually baked into all sports but FCS football which actually doesn't reward an NCAA trophy. ALL sports and championships in ALL divisions of the NCAA have autobids and polls mean nothing in terms of criteria.
FBS, FCS has the auto bids and the trophy. Go Bison! 4-peat upcoming.
Here's to hoping TLU and Muhlenberg face off in the quarters (so we can see where the game is hosted), and then TLU sees Centre in Salem so this can all be settled once and for all. ;D
I have mis-typed FCS several times tonight... I have meant FBS in my comments. Sorry for the confusion.
And I apologize for the DII confusion, I accidentally read the D1 rules (not sure how I clicked on the wrong manual...). But when I did find the D2 rules, they have a whole different scenario:
QuoteNo conference will receive automatic qualification for the 2014 NCAA Division II Football Championship. Earned access to the playoffs can be gained by a conference if a conference representative finishes in the top eight of the final super regional rankings on Selection Sunday. The conferences with earned access are:
● Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
● Great American Conference
● Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
● Great Lakes Valley Conference
● Gulf South Conference
● Lone Star Conference
● Mid-American Intercollegiate Athletic Association
● Northeast-10 Conference
● Northern Sun Conference
● Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference
● Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference
● South Atlantic Conference
● Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
After that... they have at-large selections, it appears.
QuoteAll teams will be eligible for the Division II championship in the selection region (super regional) in which they are located geographically. There will be six teams selected per super regional to make up the field of 24 teams. The teams selected within each super regional will play each other in the first, second and quarterfinal rounds, with the super regional winners playing in the semifinals.
Quote from: timtlu on November 16, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
Here's to hoping TLU and Muhlenberg face off in the quarters (so we can see where the game is hosted), and then TLU sees Centre in Salem so this can all be settled once and for all. ;D
Dude...that is so funny! I love it!
Then maybe we can both go to the game, sit next to each other, phones in hand and text insults back and forth. Sounds like a plan.
Watching Sunday Night Football with my son tonight. Player introductions come on. One of the Colts is from UMHB, another from Wheaton and a Patriot is from Condordia MN.
Funny I didn't know they played football at those schools. ???
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 11:43:50 PM
Watching Sunday Night Football with my son tonight. Player introductions come on. One of the Colts is from UMHB, another from Wheaton and a Patriot is from Condordia MN.
Funny I didn't know they played football at those schools. ???
The concordia mn is the d2 St. Paul version.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2014, 10:49:50 PM
I have mis-typed FCS several times tonight... I have meant FBS in my comments. Sorry for the confusion.
And I apologize for the DII confusion, I accidentally read the D1 rules (not sure how I clicked on the wrong manual...). But when I did find the D2 rules, they have a whole different scenario:
QuoteNo conference will receive automatic qualification for the 2014 NCAA Division II Football Championship. Earned access to the playoffs can be gained by a conference if a conference representative finishes in the top eight of the final super regional rankings on Selection Sunday. The conferences with earned access are:
● Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
● Great American Conference
● Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
● Great Lakes Valley Conference
● Gulf South Conference
● Lone Star Conference
● Mid-American Intercollegiate Athletic Association
● Northeast-10 Conference
● Northern Sun Conference
● Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference
● Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference
● South Atlantic Conference
● Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
After that... they have at-large selections, it appears.
QuoteAll teams will be eligible for the Division II championship in the selection region (super regional) in which they are located geographically. There will be six teams selected per super regional to make up the field of 24 teams. The teams selected within each super regional will play each other in the first, second and quarterfinal rounds, with the super regional winners playing in the semifinals.
The earned access model is the one I recommend for Division III as we get too large to accommodate all the automatic bids.
Quote from: AO on November 17, 2014, 12:41:59 AM
Quote from: D3AlumniParent on November 16, 2014, 11:43:50 PM
Watching Sunday Night Football with my son tonight. Player introductions come on. One of the Colts is from UMHB, another from Wheaton and a Patriot is from Condordia MN.
Funny I didn't know they played football at those schools. ???
The concordia mn is the d2 St. Paul version.
Oops. Sorry.
ICYMI - here's our interview with Selection Chair Duey Naatz:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Quote from: ITH radio on November 17, 2014, 10:24:46 AM
ICYMI - here's our interview with Selection Chair Duey Naatz:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show)
At approximately the 30:00 mark. MIT didn't submit the paperwork to host. Oops.
Quote from: wabndy on November 17, 2014, 11:11:00 AM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 17, 2014, 10:24:46 AM
ICYMI - here's our interview with Selection Chair Duey Naatz:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show)
At approximately the 30:00 mark. MIT didn't submit the paperwork to host. Oops.
Figured that's what it had to be when it was shown to be @Husson.
Quote from: wabndy on November 17, 2014, 11:11:00 AM
At approximately the 30:00 mark. MIT didn't submit the paperwork to host. Oops.
Wasn't this one of the proposed reasons why the final regional rankings are kept confidential? To protect schools from this type of exposure?
It may not be an "Oops". MIT very well may have punted on filing the forms for some reason. I don't think it's fair to assume they messed this up.
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2014, 12:29:13 PM
It may not be an "Oops". MIT very well may have punted on filing the forms for some reason. I don't think it's fair to assume they messed this up.
From the NEFC board. . .
Quote from: wcrosby on November 17, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 17, 2014, 10:22:13 AM
We confirmed with Duey Naatz that MIT didn't file to host, hence they are on the road and they matched up these teams b/c of geo proximity.
www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show)
FF to 30 mins and you'll hear this ? answered
Well, I talked to the Athletic Director, and they did file. But Husson's facilities were considered superior.
Aah . . . Selection Monday.
Now we have a real controversy!
Very little to almost no griping this year. Hats off to the committee for doing a good job.
Maybe the filed to the wrong address? MIT still have the Overland Park address in the database?
Quote from: jknezek on November 17, 2014, 01:03:42 PM
Very little to almost no griping this year. Hats off to the committee for doing a good job.
don't look at twitter
Quote from: AO on November 17, 2014, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 17, 2014, 01:03:42 PM
Very little to almost no griping this year. Hats off to the committee for doing a good job.
don't look at twitter
I have never once looked at Twitter for any purpose.
Quote from: jknezek on November 17, 2014, 01:39:44 PM
Quote from: AO on November 17, 2014, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 17, 2014, 01:03:42 PM
Very little to almost no griping this year. Hats off to the committee for doing a good job.
don't look at twitter
I have never once looked at Twitter for any purpose.
+K Hear, here!
Quote from: wabndy on November 17, 2014, 11:11:00 AM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 17, 2014, 10:24:46 AM
ICYMI - here's our interview with Selection Chair Duey Naatz:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show)
At approximately the 30:00 mark. MIT didn't submit the paperwork to host. Oops.
Actually they did, so Duey got that one wrong. Frank asked the MIT AD and she responded that MIT did apply to host. Apparently their seating area while older, has been "grandfathered in" with regards to NCAA / standard expectations for hosting.
Interesting.
Someone on Twitter was complaining about Guilford.
Guilford?
I think the blog posting has some complaints from two-loss teams.
Framingham and Oshkosh are the two fan bases that have the skin in the game and have beefs and gripes (legit or not). Some Oshkosh supporters are angry on Twitter, but not realizing Top 25 is not congruent to the way the NCAA selects teams.
Overall, kinda quiet. Surprised some Oshkoshians haven't found their way here.
Guilford was probably the best playing team at the end of the ODAC season. They lost in OT to H-SC at H-SC second to last week. Took an ugly mid-season loss to Shenandoah. Killed a pretty good E&H team in the last game. I don't really think they have cause to complain, but over a four year period they have gone from ODAC doormat to the team that will most likely be pre-season ODAC #1 next year. That might breed some overzealous fans.
The ODAC ended in a 4 way 5-2 conference tie which H-SC "won" on the tie-breaker. Year in and out, the ODAC is one of the most competitive conferences in D3. That doesn't tend to get you a lot of 10-0 type teams, let alone the 9-1 types needed for a "C" bid.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 17, 2014, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: wabndy on November 17, 2014, 11:11:00 AM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 17, 2014, 10:24:46 AM
ICYMI - here's our interview with Selection Chair Duey Naatz:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2014/11/17/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show)
At approximately the 30:00 mark. MIT didn't submit the paperwork to host. Oops.
Actually they did, so Duey got that one wrong. Frank asked the MIT AD and she responded that MIT did apply to host. Apparently their seating area while older, has been "grandfathered in" with regards to NCAA / standard expectations for hosting.
Interesting.
UNFAIR!!!! just because Husson has such a huge endowment so they can afford modern bleachers.....
K+
Posted the MIT AD's full response on the NEFC boards in the ERPP if anyone cares to check it out.
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
I think the blog posting has some complaints from two-loss teams.
I didn't really look at that until now...wow. Je-sus Christ. I'll stay in here.
My favorite is actually the clowns complaining that the NCAA should put Mount and UWW in the same side of the bracket "because it would be a great semifinal" and other excuses to basically "let" someone else make the Stagg Bowl. I'm pretty sure UMHB and Wesley want to earn their way to the Stagg Bowl by
beating one of the giants, not because of a gift from the NCAA.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2014, 05:33:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
I think the blog posting has some complaints from two-loss teams.
I didn't really look at that until now...wow. Je-sus Christ. I'll stay in here.
My favorite is actually the clowns complaining that the NCAA should put Mount and UWW in the same side of the bracket "because it would be a great semifinal" and other excuses to basically "let" someone else make the Stagg Bowl. I'm pretty sure UMHB and Wesley want to earn their way to the Stagg Bowl by beating one of the giants, not because of a gift from the NCAA.
I know I don't speak for my school's players or other fans, but as far as I'm concerned you're dang right we want to earn it. What's the point in showing off a championship otherwise? No one will respect you for it. You need to earn it. And right now, the only way to do that is to beat either UWW or UMU. Hope the Cru can pull it off this year.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2014, 05:33:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
I think the blog posting has some complaints from two-loss teams.
I didn't really look at that until now...wow. Je-sus Christ. I'll stay in here.
My favorite is actually the clowns complaining that the NCAA should put Mount and UWW in the same side of the bracket "because it would be a great semifinal" and other excuses to basically "let" someone else make the Stagg Bowl. I'm pretty sure UMHB and Wesley want to earn their way to the Stagg Bowl by beating one of the giants, not because of a gift from the NCAA.
I read some of that on Sunday night -- there are some people on there who need to be educated on how things work in Division Three Football.
My personal favorite was either the person who was saying they"couldn't wait until the NCAA goes down and loses money once the athletes are allowed to profit from their own likeness" or the moron who said that he wouldn't care if his team wasn't involved this season after he griped about Mount Union and Whitewater not being on the same side of the bracket. His team was Muhlenberg, so he won't have to care too long.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2014, 05:33:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
I think the blog posting has some complaints from two-loss teams.
I didn't really look at that until now...wow. Je-sus Christ. I'll stay in here.
My favorite is actually the clowns complaining that the NCAA should put Mount and UWW in the same side of the bracket "because it would be a great semifinal" and other excuses to basically "let" someone else make the Stagg Bowl. I'm pretty sure UMHB and Wesley want to earn their way to the Stagg Bowl by beating one of the giants, not because of a gift from the NCAA.
I fully concur. Parity comes from the competition, not an artificial seeding that allows another team into the final. That simply results in an embarrassing and boring Stagg Bowl.....
-Ski
I really hate carping about seeding (this goes for any tournament). If you're worried about who you'll play in the first and second round, then you're not really in the tourney to win it.
I'm sure Macalester is giddy about being in the playoffs, but for a lot of teams, they want to be THE team that beats a Purple, and whether that's playing them in Round 2 or the Stagg Bowl. Win your upcoming game. It will take care of itself.
(I'm also sure Macalester's players and coaches are going to try to win on Saturday, BTW...)
I wonder how they did come up with WWW and MU in separate brackets? I honestly don't care but wouldn't the most logical way of looking at it as Wesley #4 and MU #1 which leaves us with WWW and MHB #2 and # 3. I would be surprised if WWW wasn't the #1. So ..draw your own conclusions. Like I said I don't care because all that matters in the end is that you win your last game!! ;D
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 18, 2014, 08:18:15 PM
I wonder how they did come up with WWW and MU in separate brackets? I honestly don't care but wouldn't the most logical way of looking at it as Wesley #4 and MU #1 which leaves us with WWW and MHB #2 and # 3. I would be surprised if WWW wasn't the #1. So ..draw your own conclusions. Like I said I don't care because all that matters in the end is that you win your last game!! ;D
Pa, I am figuring it was UWW 1 Mount 2 Wesley 3 and UMHB 4 since Wesley was ranked higher in the regional rankings as of last week.
I forgot about that. I thought the loss would switch them. Just on record alone!
The loss wasn't to a Division III school... in the grand scheme of things, the committee probably didn't even consider the loss.
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 18, 2014, 08:18:15 PM
I wonder how they did come up with WWW and MU in separate brackets? I honestly don't care but wouldn't the most logical way of looking at it as Wesley #4 and MU #1 which leaves us with WWW and MHB #2 and # 3. I would be surprised if WWW wasn't the #1. So ..draw your own conclusions. Like I said I don't care because all that matters in the end is that you win your last game!! ;D
Based on the performance in the previous year's championship criteria, it's pretty easy to make UWW 1 and UMU 2 overall. There would have to be some pretty significant differences in the other primary criteria to order UWW and UMU anything other than 1 and 2 as long as they have 10-0 seasons and kick in that previous year's championship performance criterion.
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 18, 2014, 08:18:15 PM
I wonder how they did come up with WWW and MU in separate brackets? I honestly don't care but wouldn't the most logical way of looking at it as Wesley #4 and MU #1 which leaves us with WWW and MHB #2 and # 3. I would be surprised if WWW wasn't the #1. So ..draw your own conclusions. Like I said I don't care because all that matters in the end is that you win your last game!! ;D
They came up with it because the committee aren't a bunch of fools. Nobody is going to dog mount Union or whitewater on strength of schedule or comparison RRO wins when they've earned the top two seeds year in and year out. Remember that results in last year's championship is the final tie breaking factor, so we don't need to get all conspiratorial about this. The committee is allowed to use their expertise to weigh different factors within several objective criteria. They and umhb were undefeated in their conference and against whoever was brave and foolish enough to schedule them, which at their level is not an easy calendar to fill. Until somebody beats the two headed purple monster, they own the 1 and 2 seeds.
I doubt if there is even any real need to differentiate between #1 and #2, assuming they are going to get put on opposite sides of the bracket. There is a slightly more interesting question to figure out who is #3 and who is #4 - except that Wesley is within a bus ride of Alliance - as is every other likely contender in the wesley bracket. It is just a better fit to put those two brackets on the same side. Assuming we get an all chalk semifinal round, we will just have to see if Whitewater or UMHB get picked to travel. Even there - I would wonder if UMHB's best-in-class facilities and warmer climate make it a better choice to host the semifinal round anyway - just like last year.
Yes... consider one major thing here: Dover, Delaware to Alliance, Ohio is less than 500 miles (405 per the NCAA mileage site). I am pretty sure the NCAA was not going to approve two flights in the semifinals (remember, charter flights) when they had a guaranteed bus trip should it be UWW, UMU, UMHB, and Wesley in the semis. Any other version of those four mixed and matched... is two flights (UWW to Mount Union is 507 - even if the travel team wants to bus, the NCAA can't bet on that decision).
Back to the AQ/B/C model that Division 3 uses. Thank to some great research by others on this board we learned that the D2 model for playoff selection doesn't award automatic bids.
"No conference will receive automatic qualification for the 2014 NCAA Division II Football Championship. Earned access to the playoffs can be gained by a conference if a conference representative finishes in the top eight of the final super regional rankings on Selection Sunday."
After that... they have at-large selections, it appears.
"All teams will be eligible for the Division II championship in the selection region (super regional) in which they are located geographically. There will be six teams selected per super regional to make up the field of 24 teams. The teams selected within each super regional will play each other in the first, second and quarterfinal rounds, with the super regional winners playing in the semifinal."
Then Pat Coleman said "The earned access model is the one I recommend for Division III as we get too large to accommodate all the automatic bids."
If by "earned access" Pat is referring to a model similar to D2 then I agree with him. There are too many conferences in D3 that are simply not competitive in the playoffs. Winning a conference shouldn't be an automatic bid if that conference champ wouldn't have been competitive in a bunch of other leagues.
Having to win your conference to leave no doubt about getting into the playoffs isn't fair to teams that finish in 2nd or 3rd place and get left out just so some AQ conference winner can get destroyed in Round 1.
The MIAC had 3-4 teams that would have won the conference titles in many other conferences. Yet only 2 teams get in.
The WIAC had 3 teams that would have done the same yet only 1 team gets in.
The NWC had 3 teams that would have done the same yet only 1 gets in.
I'm sure that there are a couple of other conferences with similar strength.
As D3 grows we are going to run out of C/at large bids because of the number of AQ's. We'll have.. what.. 26 AQs next year.
I'd have no problem telling teams that they get to stay home for the playoffs. We do that already with deserving teams being left out just so some AQ teams can have the privilege of getting stomped on in the Round 1.
Something tells me you wouldn't be so happy about the rest of the D2 playoff structure. Read closely. Each region gets 6 teams. So you'll still have a lot of teams from weaker regions getting in above stronger conference winners from deeper regions. Then, to make it worse, the regional teams all square off AGAINST EACH OTHER ONLY. So the final four would consist of one west team, one north, one east, and one south regardless of where the best teams are. I can hear the carping now about weak regions getting free passes while all those strong west teams eliminate each other.
So let me guess, when applying this to D3, you don't want each region to get equal number of representatives and you don't want purely regional brackets. But you do want other regions to have fewer teams so we can get more West teams in the tournament?
D3 playoffs, and we've said this many times in many places, is not about the best 32 teams. It's about access. We still get the best champion, as we have for many, many years, but we also get exposure for other teams.
Yes -- I've talked about how I think earned access can help relieve the pressure in the D-III football bracket, but basically it works like this in D-II:
There are a number of conferences that have automatic bids IF they finish in the top eight of the regional rankings. If one of them finished 7 or 8 they would knock out a No. 6-ranked team.
Now, this being Division III and championship access being paramount, I would be much more lenient and perhaps consider Top 15 or Top 20 as the cutoff point. This year that may have only excluded Benedictine, and I'm fine with that. Conferences and teams need something to play for and something to aspire to, and the NCAA playoffs are the ultimate carrot. I would never advocate eliminating anyone's bid entirely.
I've written more at length on this previously on the boards and will have to write more formally on the site at some point.
Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 19, 2014, 02:21:47 PM
As D3 grows we are going to run out of C/at large bids because of the number of AQ's. We'll have.. what.. 26 AQs next year.
And no Pool B bids, so the number of Pool C's will be the same.
A few quick thoughts (though, I think this topic is certainly worth discussing in Division III)... to change the model it might not be able to change in just football. I know the DII model allows for different set-ups and thus in basketball there are AQs and in football there are not. However, Division III has had a strong mentality that if one thing changes for one sport, then it changes for all sports. While men's basketball uses multipliers for home and away games and other sports do not, the change in how the OWP, OOWP, and thus the SOS was calculated was across the board for all sports. Also, I am not sure you can "unring" the bell, as it where. It would be a very difficult thing to do in swaying the presidents, ADs, etc. of schools in weaker conferences who have an AQ that doing away with the AQ in football would be a good thing - they would probably see it as a way for the top to get more and the bottom to get less (why risk losing a guaranteed spot via AQ). Division III prides itself on the AQ system (which is actually used throughout the NCAA)... so convincing people to go the other way would be interesting to see play out. It would have to be voted on at the convention, I am sure, and that vote could be contentious.
Also... let's keep something in mind: Division III is growing slower than expected. Yes, there will be two more AQs next year, but after that there are none on the horizon for football. Those new AQs actually have nothing to do with growth, but more realigning of teams and conferences.
Per the regionalism of it, by the way, that is how Division III USED to be. It was horrible and teams got in that had no business being involved in tournaments. Do we want to go backward in that department?
Also to the Top 15/20 idea - Pat are you referring to the national polls? Because that would be a major thing to convince the NCAA of since no national polls are used in any other sport or any other division that I am aware of.
d-mac, I'm pretty sure Pat was referring to the regional rankings, not national poll.
I totally disagree with any change to automatic bids. What does it HURT to have a team from a lower conference at 10-0 make the playoffs. The teams with two losses HAD THEIR CHANCE!
You get into a paradox, if a team can't make the playoffs because of this rule, and the reason why that there is NO playoff record for them, it's self fulfilling. It's wrong. It's horrible. It's AGAINST the spirit and ethos of D3.
The strong should not get more teams in because of who they are; the so-called elite should not remain in perpetuity. They need to earn it. Earn it by winning a conference title. Not 2-losses.
I agree with smedindy. Keep the current AQ system.
When I asked our posters where they thought another conference might arise for the AQ from 7 schools of same mission and vision.
Dave McHugh doubted the Capital AQ which leaves the current NJAC affiliation of the CAC football playing members.
The SCAC would take quite a bit of work to get the next 3 football playing members.
The 4 UAA schools have affiliated with the Pres AC and the SAA.
The Empire 8 has become a nice "Upstate New York" conference with its SUNYAC affiliates.
The UMAC and the SLIAC affiliates have settled on an arrangement, after the SLIAC failed its Pool A attempt.
The NESCAC will continue to play their own brand of ball.
I don't see where we have any change
The East Region football schools seem to have maximized their options in the MASCAC, the NEFC and the ECFC.
Thanks but I still see at least 5 Pool C bids for the rest of the decade.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2014, 03:14:19 PM
I agree with smedindy. Keep the current AQ system.
When I asked our posters where they thought another conference might arise for the AQ from 7 schools of same mission and vision.
Dave McHugh doubted the Capital AQ which leaves the current NJAC affiliation of the CAC football playing members.
The SCAC would take quite a bit of work to get the next 3 football playing members.
The 4 UAA schools have affiliated with the Pres AC and the SAA.
The Empire 8 has become a nice "Upstate New York" conference with its SUNYAC affiliates.
The UMAC and the SLIAC affiliates have settled on an arrangement, after the SLIAC failed its Pool A attempt.
The NESCAC will continue to play their own brand of ball.
I don't see where we have any change
The East Region football schools seem to have maximized their options in the MASCAC, the NEFC and the ECFC.
Thanks but I still see at least 5 Pool C bids for the rest of the decade.
Yes, thank you Ralph. I've seen this conversation about what are we to do when we have more leagues than spots in the tournament a few times and I just don't understand where all of these extra leagues are coming from that create this deficit of available slots in the tournament.
There are 43 hoops playing leagues, but there's no way a lot of those leagues will ever sponsor football. I can't see the AMCC ever; the schools just won't support the sport.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 19, 2014, 02:38:54 PM
A few quick thoughts (though, I think this topic is certainly worth discussing in Division III)... to change the model it might not be able to change in just football. I know the DII model allows for different set-ups and thus in basketball there are AQs and in football there are not. However, Division III has had a strong mentality that if one thing changes for one sport, then it changes for all sports.
Agreed. However, in football I think you would agree that we have a specifically different sports in that 81% of the field is taken up by AQs and we cannot expand the field. That's a double whammy that no other D-III sport has. (Ice hockey is also very AQ drive but has room to expand and fill out its bracket as more teams add the sport.)
Agreed also that the rate of football growth appears to be slowing, and Ralph ran down a long list of for-now settled situations. However, if enough schools add football, we could see another reshuffling of teams, and the return of the single-sport conference AQ makes new alignments easier to create. What if the UMAC adds Finlandia in all sports (possible) and the Midwest Conference invites Macalester to find a new home? The shuffling doesn't have to stop just because the Maryland 2 moved again.
My proposal was always in the mind-set of mitigating the loss of at-large bids. As long as we still have six, we're probably OK. Five will be tight. Four would be flirting with disaster, in my opinion.
If the UMAC adds Finlandia, would they boot out the SLIAC group? How would Macalester affect this; would that mitigate dominoes to find another home?
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:00:05 PM
I totally disagree with any change to automatic bids. What does it HURT to have a team from a lower conference at 10-0 make the playoffs. The teams with two losses HAD THEIR CHANCE!
You get into a paradox, if a team can't make the playoffs because of this rule, and the reason why that there is NO playoff record for them, it's self fulfilling. It's wrong. It's horrible. It's AGAINST the spirit and ethos of D3.
The strong should not get more teams in because of who they are; the so-called elite should not remain in perpetuity. They need to earn it. Earn it by winning a conference title. Not 2-losses.
The model being proposed wouldn't keep those 10-0 teams out. But if a conference champ was 6-4, 7-3 or even 8-2 from, say the UMAC, what have they really 'earned' in terms of being invited?
I like
a lot about the AQ system, and I wouldn't want a situation where a team that goes 9-1 or 10-0 and wins their league gets left out (even if its MAC and they're getting that A bid because they ran away from their real conference :P). But is it such a bad thing to say a team also needs to have a semblance of respectability to their resume to make the playoffs as well?
Personally, I think Top 20 in regional rankings is also way too generous. You potentially be inviting the 80th best team in D3 to the playoffs. Top 15 doesn't seem to onerous IMO. Even with as stacked a the West is, I think MAC and St. Scholastica would have both made the Top 15 ranking. And I think most committees would feel inclined to slot weak teams from weak conferences into that Top 15 to ensure they got in. But they'd also have the freedom to leave out 6-4 team or a 7-3 team with a weak SoS and 0-0 v. RRO.
By the way, this has nothing to do with Bethel not making the playoffs this year. At 7-3, even under the earned access model, I'm sure NCC, UWO and other schools would have gotten in before us. I've been in favor of this type of system before and posted about it.
But you could get in a self-fulfilling prophecy situation where a league never gets in, because they don't get respect, because they have no playoff results, because they never get in.
Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.
And, also, if a team with a couple or three non-conference games schedules up, loses them, and then goes 7-3, why keep them out?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2014, 03:44:30 PM
My proposal was always in the mind-set of mitigating the loss of at-large bids. As long as we still have six, we're probably OK. Five will be tight. Four would be flirting with disaster, in my opinion.
I'm curious: why is this so?
Because "deserving" teams will get left out of the tournament? That already happens sometimes. We all know that the last team or two left out of Pool C is often a threat to win a few games with the right draw, and can point to examples where one of the last teams in did so. But, still, as long as there's AQ access for all, every team still has a chance to play their way in from the season's first kickoff.
Dropping from six at-larges to four isn't something anyone wants to see, but I don't see losing an at-large or two as a "disastrous" outcome.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
But you could get in a self-fulfilling prophecy situation where a league never gets in, because they don't get respect, because they have no playoff results, because they never get in.
Not in the tweak I would propose, no. I'll dig out the full explanation which I wrote elsewhere so people aren't dismissing it based on assumptions.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 19, 2014, 02:38:54 PM
While men's basketball uses multipliers for home and away games and other sports do not, the change in how the OWP, OOWP, and thus the SOS was calculated was across the board for all sports.
Goodness gracious I hope they don't add the multiplier to the football SOS.
From your talks with Men's basketball coaches do they understand how the NCAA calculates the multiplier? You're penalized heavily for road games against poor opponents and it doesn't really matter whether you play a .500 teams on the road vs. home.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
But you could get in a self-fulfilling prophecy situation where a league never gets in, because they don't get respect, because they have no playoff results, because they never get in.
No, I don't think that's what we're describing at all. Almost
every league putting forward 9-1 or 10-0 champs are getting their teams in. The regional committees aren't keeping MAC out of the Top 15. Even at 8-2, all but the very worst leagues are very likely to get in.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.
What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
And, also, if a team with a couple or three non-conference games schedules up, loses them, and then goes 7-3, why keep them out?
Who's saying they get left out. Let's say North Central went 7-3, with OOC losses to Wartburg, Wabash and UWO. Given their navigation of the CCIW, it's possible they already picked up a RRO W, so maybe they're 1-3 v. RRO or even 1-2. But a 7-3 North Central that's a
CCIW champ is
very likely to get ranked in the
top 15 of the North Region. If for no other reason, the fact they 'scheduled up' is going to give them a nice SoS boost.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 09, 2014, 11:03:02 AM
My take on this is that we need to adopt Division II's policy of "earned access" for Division III football. In D-II, the top six teams in each region get playoff bids, but teams ranked No. 7 or No. 8 can steal one of those bids from a conference runner-up if they are a conference champion.
Here's how I would modify this and make it more in line with the Division III philosophy -- primarily by making the bar higher for exclusion. I really just want to reclaim one or two bids per year. So I would say that in order to get a playoff bid, you must win your conference and be in the top 15 in the regional ranking. If not, that bid reverts to at-large.
For example, last year we may have lost St. Norbert from that field. In 2012, Mount Ida, St. Scholastica and Christopher Newport.
We could write in safeguards that say no conference will lose its AQ in more than two consecutive years, ensuring every graduating class has a chance to play for an NCAA bid.
This year Benedictine.
Quote from: hazzben on November 19, 2014, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
But you could get in a self-fulfilling prophecy situation where a league never gets in, because they don't get respect, because they have no playoff results, because they never get in.
No, I don't think that's what we're describing at all. Almost every league putting forward 9-1 or 10-0 champs are getting their teams in. The regional committees aren't keeping MAC out of the Top 15. Even at 8-2, all but the very worst leagues are very likely to get in.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.
What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
And, also, if a team with a couple or three non-conference games schedules up, loses them, and then goes 7-3, why keep them out?
Who's saying they get left out. Let's say North Central went 7-3, with OOC losses to Wartburg, Wabash and UWO. Given their navigation of the CCIW, it's possible they already picked up a RRO W, so maybe they're 1-3 v. RRO or even 1-2. But a 7-3 North Central that's a CCIW champ is very likely to get ranked in the top 15 of the North Region. If for no other reason, the fact they 'scheduled up' is going to give them a nice SoS boost.
The UMAC could get a lot better but still not do well enough in their one non-conference game to boost the SOS to get in the regional rankings. A 7-3 St. Scholastica in 2017 might be a lot better than the 10-0 Scholastica in 2014 but the SOS and vs RRO might look very similar.
Quote from: hazzben on November 19, 2014, 04:05:41 PM
Who's saying they get left out. Let's say North Central went 7-3, with OOC losses to Wartburg, Wabash and UWO. Given their navigation of the CCIW, it's possible they already picked up a RRO W, so maybe they're 1-3 v. RRO or even 1-2. But a 7-3 North Central that's a CCIW champ is very likely to get ranked in the top 15 of the North Region. If for no other reason, the fact they 'scheduled up' is going to give them a nice SoS boost.
They could. Not North Central, but a MIAA team that scheduled up.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2014, 04:15:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 09, 2014, 11:03:02 AM
My take on this is that we need to adopt Division II's policy of "earned access" for Division III football. In D-II, the top six teams in each region get playoff bids, but teams ranked No. 7 or No. 8 can steal one of those bids from a conference runner-up if they are a conference champion.
Here's how I would modify this and make it more in line with the Division III philosophy -- primarily by making the bar higher for exclusion. I really just want to reclaim one or two bids per year. So I would say that in order to get a playoff bid, you must win your conference and be in the top 15 in the regional ranking. If not, that bid reverts to at-large.
For example, last year we may have lost St. Norbert from that field. In 2012, Mount Ida, St. Scholastica and Christopher Newport.
We could write in safeguards that say no conference will lose its AQ in more than two consecutive years, ensuring every graduating class has a chance to play for an NCAA bid.
This year Benedictine.
Still don't like it. At. All. Because of politics or shenanigans. Or a team that schedules up, loses three in a row, then wins their league and gets better.
Putting ANY restrictions where someone may have to vote if a conference champ gets in or not can lead us back into a bad place.
Quote from: hazzben on November 19, 2014, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.
What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.
A 9-1 UMAC team may not get the votes. And that's not fair or right or just for them.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 04:21:43 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 19, 2014, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.
What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.
A 9-1 UMAC team may not get the votes. And that's not fair or right or just for them.
or just?? Didn't realize who made the playoffs was a justice issue ;) :)
I happen to agree with smedindy here. I'd rather keep all conference champs getting AQ's with no subjectivity from the RR's. If that means your occasional 5-5 St. Lawrence or 6-4 Benedictine gets into the field, so be it. Under Pat's suggestion, it looks like there'd be 1-2 teams per year (and with the rule that your conference can't lose the AQ two years in a row, some of those wouldn't happen) who would fail to earn the AQ despite winning their conference. Is this kind of hand-wringing really worth it for one extra at-large bid a year?
Quote from: hazzben on November 19, 2014, 05:43:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 04:21:43 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 19, 2014, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.
What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.
A 9-1 UMAC team may not get the votes. And that's not fair or right or just for them.
or just?? Didn't realize who made the playoffs was a justice issue ;) :)
It's rather an injustice if a qualified team is excluded because of elitism. Not on a civil or human rights scale, of course, but the little guys deserve it as much as the so-called elites.
That's fine for the foreseeable future; as Ralph noted, we should remain at 6 Cs for a while. But D3 IS still growing (albeit more slowly than before) and schools ARE still taking up football. At some point in the future AQs will reach or even exceed 32.
May as well discuss options for when that day arrives. I like Pat's plan (or something very similar), especially with the proviso that no conference can lose their AQ for more than two consecutive years. Another possibility to delay the inevitable is to raise the AQ minimum from 7 to 8 or 9.
Pat
If it comes down to eliminating whole conferences because of strength, wont that bring discussions back of dividing DIII into a fourth division?
I took a few moments this morning to look at the bracket a little more closely and have a couple of tidbits to share. As in years past I have assigned D3's latest top 25 rankings to the entire field, including down through all the teams that received votes. Teams that received no votes got a placement of 42 attached to them, as Rowan got the last vote at placement number 41. (Yes, I know this is not very scientific, just something to consider.) So what does that get us? Well, the thinking is that the tougher bracket would have the fewer points. So here are those results:
UW-Whitewater bracket = 166 points
Mary Hardin-Baylor bracket = 147 points
Wesley bracket = 210 points
Mount Union bracket = 150
As you can see, three of the brackets are close enough to one another and one has a disproportionate number of lower ranked teams. We can all thank the 500 mile travel restriction for this.
Further, for others that might want to know, just what ranks are playing one another?
UW-Whitewater bracket we have:
1 vs. 42
14 vs. 29
13 vs. 42
5 vs. 20
Mary-Hardin-Baylor bracket we have:
11 vs. 25
16 vs. 42
10 vs. 17
2 vs. 24
Wesley bracket we have:
4 vs. 38
36 vs. 42
7 vs. 41
9 vs. 33
Mount Union bracket we have:
8 vs. 42
6 vs. 18
12 vs. 19
3 vs. 42
More cooler talk cannon fodder...
And a reminder/disclainer - this is according to the D3 Top 25 - it is NOT what the NCAA uses to set up the brackets.
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 19, 2014, 06:12:46 PM
Pat
If it comes down to eliminating whole conferences because of strength, wont that bring discussions back of dividing DIII into a fourth division?
I wonder if there is more interest in subdividing Division III football more than it already is. (You know, into D-III playoff teams and NESCAC teams.)
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2014, 06:34:28 PM
St. Thomas I can buy if they took Platteville out of the rankings (which hurts both Oshkosh and North Central) and placed C-M in.
Can I revisit something? Specifically, the secret final West rankings which must have put UST ahead of UWO.
Here are the last West rankings that were released:
1 UW-Whitewater 8-0 9-0
2 Wartburg 9-0 9-0
3 St. John's 8-1 8-1
4 Linfield 7-1 7-1
5 UW-Platteville 7-2 7-2
T6 Bethel 7-2 7-2
T6 Chapman 7-1 7-1
8 UW-Oshkosh 5-1 5-4
9 St. Thomas 7-2 7-2
10 Pacific 6-1 6-2
Week 11 results
#8 UW-Oshkosh beat #5 UW-Platteville.
#9 St. Thomas beat unranked Gustavus Adolphus.
Now this is where I get really confused. How in the world do they justify moving the #9 team ahead of the #8 team on the same day that #8 beat #5 head-to-head? Wally has postulated that perhaps UWP fell all the way out of the rankings and Concordia-Moorhead entered, which seems patently absurd in retrospect (if they were going to put C-M into the rankings ahead of someone, wouldn't it be #6 Bethel, who just lost to an unranked team, instead of #5 UWP, who lost to a ranked team in three overtimes?)
This also highlights the issue with "regionally ranked" wins against the teams hovering near the bottom as a big criteria point. Maybe the MIAC ended up with Bethel and C-M both sitting there at #9 and #10 in the rankings and suddenly UST has a couple of RR results on the resume, while UWP drops out (although I don't see why they'd suddenly end up behind Bethel, given that they were in front before) and now UWO loses their RR win.
Put another way: using the week 10 rankings
UWO had a win over #5 and a loss against #1.
UST had a loss against #3, loss against #6, and zero ranked wins.
So now, with UWO beating UWP, somehow that results in UWP dropping from #5 all the way out of the rankings and Concordia coming in to give UST the bonus RR result.
Looking back, that seems very poorly executed. UST leapfrogging UWO in these rankings, with this set of results, seems pretty atrocious. Yuck. UWO, you may re-commence complaing. You got jobbed.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2014, 12:43:03 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2014, 06:34:28 PM
St. Thomas I can buy if they took Platteville out of the rankings (which hurts both Oshkosh and North Central) and placed C-M in.
Can I revisit something? Specifically, the secret final West rankings which must have put UST ahead of UWO.
Here are the last West rankings that were released:
1 UW-Whitewater 8-0 9-0
2 Wartburg 9-0 9-0
3 St. John's 8-1 8-1
4 Linfield 7-1 7-1
5 UW-Platteville 7-2 7-2
T6 Bethel 7-2 7-2
T6 Chapman 7-1 7-1
8 UW-Oshkosh 5-1 5-4
9 St. Thomas 7-2 7-2
10 Pacific 6-1 6-2
Week 11 results
#8 UW-Oshkosh beat #5 UW-Platteville.
#9 St. Thomas beat unranked Gustavus Adolphus.
Now this is where I get really confused. How in the world do they justify moving the #9 team ahead of the #8 team on the same day that #8 beat #5 head-to-head? Wally has postulated that perhaps UWP fell all the way out of the rankings and Concordia-Moorhead entered, which seems patently absurd in retrospect (if they were going to put C-M into the rankings ahead of someone, wouldn't it be #6 Bethel, who just lost to an unranked team, instead of #5 UWP, who lost to a ranked team in three overtimes?)
This also highlights the issue with "regionally ranked" wins against the teams hovering near the bottom as a big criteria point. Maybe the MIAC ended up with Bethel and C-M both sitting there at #9 and #10 in the rankings and suddenly UST has a couple of RR results on the resume, while UWP drops out (although I don't see why they'd suddenly end up behind Bethel, given that they were in front before) and now UWO loses their RR win.
Put another way: using the week 10 rankings
UWO had a win over #5 and a loss against #1.
UST had a loss against #3, loss against #6, and zero ranked wins.
So now, with UWO beating UWP, somehow that results in UWP dropping from #5 all the way out of the rankings and Concordia coming in to give UST the bonus RR result.
Looking back, that seems very poorly executed. UST leapfrogging UWO in these rankings, with this set of results, seems pretty atrocious. Yuck. UWO, you may re-commence complaing. You got jobbed.
This is obviously a head-scratcher but maybe for the right reasons. Hopefully they threw out the previous regional rankings and corrected a few of the blunders such as Platteville ahead of Bethel and Pacific ahead of Concordia.
The national committee could have overruled the regional committee here -- I know Duey Naatz implied otherwise, but that doesn't mean that's true.
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 19, 2014, 06:12:46 PM
Pat
If it comes down to eliminating whole conferences because of strength, wont that bring discussions back of dividing DIII into a fourth division?
Two questions: 1) Why? 2) Where do you draw the line?
Would dividing draw down more money for tournaments from the NCAA? I'll go out on a limb and say no. More opportunities for winning a national championship? Meeh.
Lets say you divided based on school size. Mount Union enrolls 2200 undergrads. Whitewater enrolls over 10,000 (so sayeth wikipedia!). You could logically see that in a size division, the purple powers would still be in the driver seat of their respective size class.
Perhaps you could try to divide on overall academic ranking, but that opens up an entirely different can of worms. Besides, many conferences are drawn up with the academic stature of their member institutions in mind. Example (http://northcoast.org/inside_ncac/about).
The real question here is do we really need to entirely scrap the current organization of D3 athletics because, at least for in football, we don't have enough Pool C bids for every "worthy" team. Even if money were no object, I don't see "greater playoff access" as being a major motivator for a majority of current D3 schools to want to push to split further.
Division III isn't likely to break up based on size in such a binary way. But if there were a III-AA for football I could see a lot of small school conference and academic elite conferences opting to go there.
Interestingly, the FT undergrad enrollment size of this playoff field is much larger than typical: 3,043. That's not because of Whitewater since the Warhawks are basically always here, but because of schools that are large for their conferences getting bids this year: MIT, Chapman are newcomers and Ithaca and Benedictine and Christopher Newport and St. Thomas and Johns Hopkins are regulars that are all larger than the typical school in their conference. (Plus there's Rowan, which doesn't fit either of my other classifications.)
Cue the gnashing of teeth.
The average FT undergrad enrollment for a Division III school with football is 2,499.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2014, 12:43:03 PM
while UWP drops out (although I don't see why they'd suddenly end up behind Bethel, given that they were in front before)
Here's the thing. Bethel SHOULD HAVE BEEN ahead of Platteville before then. The West committee made a HUGE error.
They had a better SOS AND RR results.
It really should have been
5. Bethel
6. UW - Platteville
7. Chapman
8. Oshkosh
9. St. Thomas
10. Pacific
Bethel loses, now has three losses but great RR results. Platteville looks shaky and is 0-2 vs RR.
With Pacific's loss, that opens up a slot at the least. Who's the best team for that slot? Macalester, Central, Monmouth, Redlands, or C-M? C-M has the best criteria. In fact C-M probably has the claim to be as high up as #8 thanks to their results.
So now I think we have in raw rankings
5. Chapman
6. Oshkosh
7. St. Thomas
8. C-M
9. Platteville / Bethel / Macalester / Central / Redlands / Monmouth
10. Platteville / Bethel / Macalester / Central / Redlands / Monmouth
The fact that:
A. Bethel has a higher SOS
B. Bethel has more RR results (3-2 vs. RRs).
That will lead me to think that the committee could legitimately boost up St. Thomas over Oshkosh as Bethel should be ranked, and Platteville may not have been.
^ My personal West Region fan poll ballot looked similar. C-M is the new team in (replacing Pacific). UW-P and Bethel hang in at the bottom spots. PLU is number 11 (for me) ahead of those other four candidates you list.
Good replies, folks. I can see that Bethel should have been ahead of UWP in the week 10 rankings, my brain-fart on that.
There's just something weird about a team ranked #8 in the RR's beating a team ranked ahead of them (whether #5 or #6) and still getting jumped by someone else. Imagine the furor that will ensue in the CFP rankings if (hypothetical) #5 Auburn beat #2 Alabama in the Iron Bowl and got jumped in the rankings by previously #6 TCU, and that was what kept #5 Auburn outside-looking-in for the playoffs.
I know why it happens w/re-evaluation of SOS and RR wins each week. Just seems odd that UST jumps ahead of UWO in a week where UWO beats a team ranked even higher in the RR's and nothing really favorable happens for UST's profile other than random blips around the bottom of the rankings resulting in one team floating into the #9/10 slot. C-M might have been able to slide into the bottom of the RR's, but not because of some new data that shows the MIAC is any more beastly than we already knew, right?
smedindy, that is a good breakdown. Thanks. FWIW, it's hard to imagine that any of those teams (Mac, Central, Monmouth) would have been RR'd ahead of either Bethel or UWP, so let's assume that they remain in slots 9 and 10. Let's also assume that UWO/UST are in the debate for the 6th/7th slot. Now UST has a win against #8 C-M and losses against #3 and #9, while UWO has a loss against #1 and win against #10. I can see how it's hard to pick between those two, sure, but it still seems like an oddball thing for UST to jump UWO on that basis.
I guess my whole deal (which isn't how the rankings work) is that, maybe UST is/was a better choice by the criteria, but if they were it seems like they should have been ahead of UWO before the week 11 results. The week 11 results themselves did not support changing the ranking, IMO.
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 12:50:42 PM
Hopefully they threw out the previous regional rankings and corrected a few of the blunders such as Platteville ahead of Bethel and Pacific ahead of Concordia.
That wasn't a 'blunder'
until their Week 11 loss to Linfield (and I'm sure it was corrected then).
Quote from: d-train on November 20, 2014, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 12:50:42 PM
Hopefully they threw out the previous regional rankings and corrected a few of the blunders such as Platteville ahead of Bethel and Pacific ahead of Concordia.
That wasn't a 'blunder' until their Week 11 loss to Linfield (and I'm sure it was corrected then).
Not egregious, but Concordia had major criteria advantages with the win over St. John's and much better SOS.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2014, 01:54:25 PM
I guess my whole deal (which isn't how the rankings work) is that, maybe UST is/was a better choice by the criteria, but if they were it seems like they should have been ahead of UWO before the week 11 results. The week 11 results themselves did not support changing the ranking, IMO.
I don't think they WERE until you rank C-M. Then, they are ahead of UWO. It's incestuous, I know...
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 20, 2014, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 12:50:42 PM
Hopefully they threw out the previous regional rankings and corrected a few of the blunders such as Platteville ahead of Bethel and Pacific ahead of Concordia.
That wasn't a 'blunder' until their Week 11 loss to Linfield (and I'm sure it was corrected then).
Not egregious, but Concordia had major criteria advantages with the win over St. John's and much better SOS.
...and the Cobbers had one more D3 loss than Pacific (at that time). Yes - Pacific lacked the win over a RR - but their wins over PLU and Willamette (who beat Linfield) looked pretty good after Week 10.
Could it just be that the committee looked at the 4 losses, 3 outside of D3, and decided as Pat stated that they could not get a 4 loss team into the field so they figured to put up the next best team which as you all have shown was St. Thomas. Low and behold they get in. It does look totally absurd, but may have been a simple as that.
Quote from: d-train on November 20, 2014, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: d-train on November 20, 2014, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 12:50:42 PM
Hopefully they threw out the previous regional rankings and corrected a few of the blunders such as Platteville ahead of Bethel and Pacific ahead of Concordia.
That wasn't a 'blunder' until their Week 11 loss to Linfield (and I'm sure it was corrected then).
Not egregious, but Concordia had major criteria advantages with the win over St. John's and much better SOS.
...and the Cobbers had one more D3 loss than Pacific (at that time). Yes - Pacific lacked the win over a RR - but their wins over PLU and Willamette (who beat Linfield) looked pretty good after Week 10.
No the wins over PLU and Willamette did not "look good" except for their effect on SOS. Concordia's losses to Bethel and St. Thomas were also not of the "bad" variety that the Dubuque loss was.
Okay...I'm not really in the mood for a pointless debate. In my opinion, Pacific over C-M after Week 10 made sense and was not a 'blunder'. It doesn't make a bit of difference now.
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 02:56:47 PM
No the wins over PLU and Willamette did not "look good" except for their effect on SOS.
I know you think that nobody plays good football outside the MIAC and the Purple Powers, but this statement is ridiculous. Like, really ridiculous.
As of week 10 - which is the statement here - Willamette was 5-3 with a win over Linfield. You know, the Linfield team that's been in the quarterfinals the last two years and owns a H2H win over the SCIAC champion this year? Beating the team that just beat them "looks good" at that time.
As of week 10 - PLU was 6-2, only losses to Linfield and Pacific. Combining the last two years, Pacific is the only team to beat PLU other than Linfield.
If those wins don't "look good" to you, it's because nothing short of a win against a MIAC opponent will please you (which is probably about where you're coming from, anyway). But, dude, they play football in other parts of the country, too.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2014, 03:12:33 PM
Quote from: AO on November 20, 2014, 02:56:47 PM
No the wins over PLU and Willamette did not "look good" except for their effect on SOS.
I know you think that nobody plays good football outside the MIAC and the Purple Powers, but this statement is ridiculous. Like, really ridiculous.
As of week 10 - which is the statement here - Willamette was 5-3 with a win over Linfield. You know, the Linfield team that's been in the quarterfinals the last two years and owns a H2H win over the SCIAC champion this year? Beating the team that just beat them "looks good" at that time.
As of week 10 - PLU was 6-2, only losses to Linfield and Pacific. Combining the last two years, Pacific is the only team to beat PLU other than Linfield.
If those wins don't "look good" to you, it's because nothing short of a win against a MIAC opponent will please you (which is probably about where you're coming from, anyway). But, dude, they play football in other parts of the country, too.
That's great for the fan poll but they're not regionally ranked. I've advocated many times to rank all the teams in a region so that wins against #10 don't look so much better than wins against #11, but under the current criteria they do. The only benefit you get is possible common opponent results and SOS boost.
I believe our mock West ranking at the bottom was UWO/Bethel/St. Thomas/UW-P. That order makes some sense. Now, if the West committee dumped UW-P completely and placed C-M (completely defensible position, btw), then you can start to shuffle some of the other things like St. Thomas and UWO. I'm about 98% sure that's how that happened.
Who vaulted in to replace Pacific, though?
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2014, 05:05:57 PM
Who vaulted in to replace Pacific, though?
C-M (I think). And to Wally above, they don't have to dump UW-P completely to have C-M there. This site's mock west rankings (on Sat. night) appeared to include Redlands at #9...but I'm not sure I'd include them. I'd place them closer to #12, but probably haven't looked closely enough at the SOS numbers.
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/final-playoff-projection
Wally said they could have dumped UW-P for C-M, so i think C-M wasn't in their mocks. Maybe I misread it.
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2014, 05:31:46 PM
Wally said they could have dumped UW-P for C-M, so i think C-M wasn't in their mocks. Maybe I misread it.
Ah, so you are asking about this site's mock rankings (Wally helped on those?)? If so, those had Redlands (9), UW-P (10), and
no C-M. I'd say Redlands would be the 'vaulter' in that scenario.
My personal rankings would have C-M
and UW-P above Redlands. But I see now that's not what you were asking...and (of course) we don't know exactly what the West or national commitee did.
Oh, he didn't mention Redlands in his post up there.
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2014, 05:46:25 PM
Oh, he didn't mention Redlands in his post up there.
They are listed here:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/final-playoff-projection
AQ/B/C
I like Pat's proposal of using and expanded Regional Rankings but I'd limit it to 12-15 at most. Somehow the AQ conferences that are not competitive in the playoffs need to improve their on-field product or risk not being invited. The conference AD's can get together and make a decision to work towards becoming more competitive in football on a national level. Or run the risk of having their conference champ not be invited to the postseason.
I'll revisit this after this weekend's results. I'll look at the last 5 years of playoff results plus this year. My guess is that we'll have more fuel for limiting the number of AQs to conferences that put competitive products on the field.
I was glad to read that of the 32 available spots there are looking to be 6 at large bids each year for at least the next few years. IMO the #2 teams from the MIAC, WIAC, and NWC are usually deserving of an at large bid. I'm sure there are others conferences as well but am not familiar with them.
You know, maybe these schools are happy where they are athletically and academically and are not going to spend money to try to be a Whitewater. Or they don't have the budget; many state schools in the East do not and can't travel much because of budget issues. Or they need to focus on the 15+ OTHER sports they have programs for. The world does not revolve around football. Yet they want to be part of a playoff process because that's what D3 is.
We should never put an artificial limit on AQs, lest we return to the 90's where teams were left out for purely political reasons and undefeated teams were left home. That cannot and should not happen again. PERIOD.
Smed, I think your equating having 24 or 25 or so conference champions in the field with the previous playoff system is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. This isn't some slippery slope.
Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 12:12:30 AM
Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.
This is rather uncalled for. Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.
+1 Ron
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2014, 09:28:22 PM
You know, maybe these schools are happy where they are athletically and academically and are not going to spend money to try to be a Whitewater. Or they don't have the budget; many state schools in the East do not and can't travel much because of budget issues. Or they need to focus on the 15+ OTHER sports they have programs for. The world does not revolve around football. Yet they want to be part of a playoff process because that's what D3 is.
We should never put an artificial limit on AQs, lest we return to the 90's where teams were left out for purely political reasons and undefeated teams were left home. That cannot and should not happen again. PERIOD.
WHAT?!? Guess I need to rethink some things. ;D
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 21, 2014, 12:51:49 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 12:12:30 AM
Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.
This is rather uncalled for. Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.
Yes I agree, Smed's a well-known poster.
My point remains, the discussion on this topic is best had with open minds.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 21, 2014, 12:51:49 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 12:12:30 AM
Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.
This is rather uncalled for. Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.
LOL -- this is completely true, emma and your post is off base.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 21, 2014, 10:09:45 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 21, 2014, 12:51:49 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 12:12:30 AM
Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.
This is rather uncalled for. Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.
LOL -- this is completely true, emma and your post is off base.
I understand my post isn't popular and I'm open for criticism, all I ask is you criticize for my intent and not an assumption:
It's not my intent to discredit Smed's opinion or credibility in any way. I value his depth of knowledge and his willingness to voice his opinions. I believe Smed represents one end of the spectrum on the playoff debate and his opinion is critical to a comprehensive discussion on the topic.
I also happen to think the discussion would be more productive if all posters keep an open mind while also demonstrating a willingness to dialogue on differing opinions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGd0gD0QNE
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2014, 11:25:48 PM
Smed, I think your equating having 24 or 25 or so conference champions in the field with the previous playoff system is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. This isn't some slippery slope.
I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.
I think where a lot of this comes from are the yakkers and mediots who only want to reserve chances for at-large bids in other sports to 'big names', and thus denying the little guys with better credentials a shot. George Mason would have never happened a few years ago if bloviating elitists got their way.
That's why I'm passionate about it. All deserve a chance and they get their chance by winning their league. Then, the best credentialed teams no matter what league they are in get the at larges.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 12:31:41 PM
I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.
Well, under my proposal, no team will always be on the outside looking in.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2014, 11:25:48 PM
Smed, I think your equating having 24 or 25 or so conference champions in the field with the previous playoff system is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. This isn't some slippery slope.
I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.
I think where a lot of this comes from are the yakkers and mediots who only want to reserve chances for at-large bids in other sports to 'big names', and thus denying the little guys with better credentials a shot. George Mason would have never happened a few years ago if bloviating elitists got their way.
That's why I'm passionate about it. All deserve a chance and they get their chance by winning their league. Then, the best credentialed teams no matter what league they are in get the at larges.
I agree with Smed here. If you win your league you should be in the tournament. If we get to point where there are more leagues than spots, I agree with Pat. No one should be out based on perceived level of play.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 21, 2014, 12:37:01 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 12:31:41 PM
I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.
Well, under my proposal, no team will always be on the outside looking in.
Macalester hadn't won a conference championship since 1947, could they be counted on to win it 2 years in a row if they don't qualify the year they finally win it? Maybe in hoops you could at least point to multiple non-conference games where it was clear that your team was not playing at the same level as their perhaps more playoff worthy at-large candidates.
I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here.
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):
-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?
A scenario may help.
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game. Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4. Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place.
Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 21, 2014, 12:37:01 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 12:31:41 PM
I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.
Well, under my proposal, no team will always be on the outside looking in.
They could be. Playoff caliber teams don't roll around for every program every year. It would be a shame if a great senior class for Greenville or Aurora were denied a chance for the post-season because of this rule.
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 01:54:08 PM
I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here.
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):
-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?
A scenario may help.
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game. Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4. Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place.
Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.
Benedictine won their league. SJF did not. Winning the league is paramount.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 01:56:24 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 01:54:08 PM
I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here.
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):
-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?
A scenario may help.
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game. Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4. Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place.
Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.
Benedictine won their league. SJF did not. Winning the league is paramount.
I appreciate your consistency. I want to ask you a question without you taking offense.
Would you consider me an elitist if I felt SJF should have playoff priority in the scenario presented?
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 01:56:24 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 01:54:08 PM
I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here.
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):
-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?
A scenario may help.
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game. Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4. Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place.
Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.
Benedictine won their league. SJF did not. Winning the league is paramount.
I appreciate your consistency. I want to ask you a question without you taking offense.
Would you consider me an elitist if I felt SJF should have playoff priority in the scenario presented?
In your scenario, Concordia-Moorhead would get the bid. the EAST IS WEAK!!!! the West is ELITE
The little guy who plays by the rules, and gets quashed, won't get in under your proposal. That's unfair.
Many teams lose non-conference games to non-playoff teams and get in the playoffs anyway. Because they win their league. Everyone knows what they have to do to secure a spot. Why is that so contentious, unless you don't want the little guys a chance to get in there to allow the fat-cats a third chance even though they lost twice.
The stories of these smaller teams are compelling, and without them we lose some of the fabric of what makes D3 great!
Here are the teams who did things the right way (won their league) and also lost to a non-playoff team:
Husson (lost to Alfred)
Adrian (lost to Wisconsin Lutheran)
Franklin (lost to Illinois Wesleyan)
Christopher Newport (lost to Salisbury)
Maclaester (lost to Hamline)
Benedictine (lost to Central and Carroll)
All of these teams but Adrian lost in game one or two to these non-conference non-playoff teams. They regrouped and won their league.
The tournament is richer because of the stories of Macalester and Husson, and I'd argue even a Benedictine. It's a great story, it celebrates the spirit of athletics and D3. Let's not lose that.
Again, why is it contentious for a team that wins its league NOT qualify, while a team that fails to do so gets in. They had their chance.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 03:08:34 PM
The little guy who plays by the rules, and gets quashed, won't get in under your proposal. That's unfair.
Many teams lose non-conference games to non-playoff teams and get in the playoffs anyway. Because they win their league. Everyone knows what they have to do to secure a spot. Why is that so contentious, unless you don't want the little guys a chance to get in there to allow the fat-cats a third chance even though they lost twice.
The stories of these smaller teams are compelling, and without them we lose some of the fabric of what makes D3 great!
Here are the teams who did things the right way (won their league) and also lost to a non-playoff team:
Husson (lost to Alfred)
Adrian (lost to Wisconsin Lutheran)
Franklin (lost to Illinois Wesleyan)
Christopher Newport (lost to Salisbury)
Maclaester (lost to Hamline)
Benedictine (lost to Central and Carroll)
All of these teams but Adrian lost in game one or two to these non-conference non-playoff teams. They regrouped and won their league.
The tournament is richer because of the stories of Macalester and Husson, and I'd argue even a Benedictine. It's a great story, it celebrates the spirit of athletics and D3. Let's not lose that.
Again, why is it contentious for a team that wins its league NOT qualify, while a team that fails to do so gets in. They had their chance.
A fair question.
Let me first say I've not made up my mind that that I'm in favor of changing the AQ part of the system, I see a lot of merit in your position. I also haven't decided whether I'm an Option 1, 2 or 3 guy (in terms of the primary mission of the playoffs)- I want to hear support for the different options like you just provided.
As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently. There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3. I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist".
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team.
Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game. Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet. Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.
So why is there contention? Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified. Benedictine cannot say the same.
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 03:48:45 PM
As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently. There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3. I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist".
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team.
Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game. Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet. Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.
So why is there contention? Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified. Benedictine cannot say the same.
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
People feel that way about any tournament. They complain about the MEAC and SWAC in the NCAA hoops tournament, and it's shame they jettison those teams to the 'first round' when they won their league, and blah teams do not have to do that. The fact is that you exclude MORE qualified teams by putting an arbitrary factor in, and you exclude teams that haven't had that chance to 'prove' themselves against some arbitrary standard . It chooses the perceived 'strong' over the perceived 'weak. Thus, it IS elitist.
You also need more nuance. An E8 or OAC runner up with one loss, thanks to their leagues, will get in. JCU did even though they had an 0-1 record against RR opponents and a blah SOS thanks to their one non conference loss to St. Vincent. So your scenario isn't likely. If JCU lost twice, and finished second, then it's their own fault they lost to a 7-3 or 6-4 or 5-5 team as well as Mt. Union.
4
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 03:48:45 PM
As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently. There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3. I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist".
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team.
Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game. Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet. Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.
So why is there contention? Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified. Benedictine cannot say the same.
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
Wally, that's an impossible question to answer. But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year.
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? I'd imagine your answer is yes. Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have.
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games. I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 03:48:45 PM
As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently. There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3. I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist".
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team.
Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game. Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet. Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.
So why is there contention? Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified. Benedictine cannot say the same.
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
Wally, that's an impossible question to answer. But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year.
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? I'd imagine your answer is yes. Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have.
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games. I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.
I am not certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW. I am certain that UWW beat UWO.
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2014, 09:28:22 PM
You know, maybe these schools are happy where they are athletically and academically and are not going to spend money to try to be a Whitewater. Or they don't have the budget; many state schools in the East do not and can't travel much because of budget issues. Or they need to focus on the 15+ OTHER sports they have programs for. The world does not revolve around football. Yet they want to be part of a playoff process because that's what D3 is.
I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 01:55:31 PM
They could be. Playoffs don't roll around for every program every year.
I think this is a very important point that should not be overlooked.
With 244 schools represented, this is a huge division. And there is great disparity among the football playing schools with regard to school enrollments, athletic/football budgets and just where football "fits" in the hierarchy of priorities for each institution - where it fits in relation to their mission.
To some it may seem that D3 football is a sort of catch-all of teams that chose not to participate in D1 & D2. But there is a defined purpose of Division III athletics, as reflected in its mission statement:
http://www.ncaa.org/governance/division-iii-philosophy-statement
I just want to point out a few of these:
2. Place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators and place greater emphasis on the internal constituency (e.g., students, alumni, institutional personnel) than on the general public and its entertainment needs;
17. Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and
18. Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.
Until there comes a time when there are more AQs than currently available tournament spots (32), then the discontent with an AQ-driven tournament primarily comes from the camps of teams that lost games and did not win their conference title. My argument is that at least those results were decided on the field and not by some subjective criteria, as well-thought out as it may have been.
Win your conference (#17) and you are in. If the tournament isn't "competitive enough" in the opinions of some, then refer to #2 (entertainment) or #18 -"may include" (not will include) and..."all teams". To leave out a conference champ, like an Adrian or Husson or Benedictine, because they weren't deemed competitive enough, would go against the mission statement. The NCAA is probably not going to change or stray from the current mission statement of Division III.
I realize most people rationalizing a scenario where an AQ team was left home are doing so under the future hypothetical time when D3 football has more AQ conferences than available tournament spots. My knowledge is limited here, but I'd still guess that time is a long way off. The fact that there are still eight Pool B/C opportunities I see as a huge bonus. If it were only four, I'd look at it the same way.
I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence or diminish opinions of anyone disagreeing with my viewpoint. This is, by far, the most well-intentioned, open-minded rational group of sports enthusiasts that I've encountered on the web or elsewhere. I'm blown away at how many years this community has been together.
And I appreciate how enthusiastic everyone is with regards to the best sport ever created, football, and with regards to the improvement of the football championship tournament. That said, I look forward to continuing my education here and hearing any alternate viewpoints. I just think it's important to keep remembering that D3 is different. And that's a good thing.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 04:23:49 PM
People feel that way about any tournament. They complain about the MEAC and SWAC in the NCAA hoops tournament, and it's shame they jettison those teams to the 'first round' when they won their league, and blah teams do not have to do that. The fact is that you exclude MORE qualified teams by putting an arbitrary factor in, and you exclude teams that haven't had that chance to 'prove' themselves against some arbitrary standard . It chooses the perceived 'strong' over the perceived 'weak. Thus, it IS elitist.
You also need more nuance. An E8 or OAC runner up with one loss, thanks to their leagues, will get in. JCU did even though they had an 0-1 record against RR opponents and a blah SOS thanks to their one non conference loss to St. Vincent. So your scenario isn't likely. If JCU lost twice, and finished second, then it's their own fault they lost to a 7-3 or 6-4 or 5-5 team as well as Mt. Union.
4
You almost got through the post without print screaming ;D
I agree that people feel that way about nearly every tournament- it doesn't mean you shouldn't look to improve.
I don't agree that I need more nuance. Replace UWO for SJF and JCU, it's the same story. In fact UWO is an even better story. The whole WIAC story is a better story. UWO didn't get in, they only lost one game. And pleassssseeee people, don't use the non conf record as support. If you do, then please be prepared to explain why Wesley is the number one seed.
Like I said, I'm not certain which way I'll go on this AQ thing, but there is nothing elitist about the philosophy of a playoffs consisting of the most capable teams.
In fact, you can look at all kinds of sports, and I imagine walks of life, where there are plenty of examples of a filtering process that allows only the best to compete.
I'm no golfer, but as I understand it, a person with a great handicap isn't getting into a big time tourney unless he earned it on USGA high rated courses.
I'm no gymnast, but I know there are all kinds of Levels within girl's gymnastics. A level 5 girl won't be competing with a level 10 girl in a tournament.
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 03:48:45 PM
As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently. There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3. I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist".
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team.
Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game. Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet. Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.
So why is there contention? Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified. Benedictine cannot say the same.
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
Wally, that's an impossible question to answer. But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year.
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? I'd imagine your answer is yes. Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have.
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games. I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.
I'll rephrase- has any tournament since 1999 left the Division III community feeling like the best team didn't win? I don't think I can say that. Maybe there are people that can chime in that think otherwise. But mostly, and by a wide, wide margin, I think most people are going to feel like the Division III tournament, as constructed currently, produces a champion that we can generally agree is the best team.
Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow. I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me. I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time. I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion.
Re: UWO, UWW, and Benedictine (those poor guys)- No, I don't think Benedictine would beat UWW, but that would make one helluva story for the Stagg Bowl. :) I don't disagree that UWO could probably have more "impact" on the tournament (they could also lose their first game just like Benedictine), but if we're saying that UWO not being included is a bad thing, I'm not guying. UWO got their shot at the king and they missed. Had they been invited, then they get a second chance and more power to the Titans. That they didn't get in doesn't really bother me or doesn't make me feel like the field is tainted.
And FWIW, I voted for UWO as the last team in during our mock selection last weekend, but UWO got outvoted by NCC by our mini-committee. It was really, really close. And there are a couple of really, really good teams that got left out. You could make good cases for UWO, NCC, SJF, Framingham State, Thomas More...there was a lot of quality sitting just outside of the hot tub last weekend.
Quote from: AO on November 21, 2014, 04:47:01 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 03:48:45 PM
As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently. There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3. I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist".
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team.
Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game. Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet. Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.
So why is there contention? Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified. Benedictine cannot say the same.
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
Wally, that's an impossible question to answer. But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year.
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? I'd imagine your answer is yes. Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have.
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games. I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.
I am not certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW. I am certain that UWW beat UWO.
That goes nowhere AO. We already established in the original scenario that SJF beat Benedictine. In this scenario, Smed is of the mindset that Benedictine should get into the tourney ahead of SJF.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 03:08:34 PM
The little guy who plays by the rules, and gets quashed, won't get in under your proposal. That's unfair.
The tournament is richer because of the stories of Macalester and Husson, and I'd argue even a Benedictine. It's a great story, it celebrates the spirit of athletics and D3. Let's not lose that.
Again, why is it contentious for a team that wins its league NOT qualify, while a team that fails to do so gets in. They had their chance.
Yes. Yes. And Yes.
D3 athletics does not equal D1 athletics, only played by slightly smaller, slower, less athletic competitors. The mission statement is different.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:58:11 PM
Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow. I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me. I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time. I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion.
This. I hated it when Alabama got the second-chance-against-LSU national title.
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 04:59:09 PM
Quote from: AO on November 21, 2014, 04:47:01 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 03:48:45 PM
As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently. There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3. I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist".
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team.
Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game. Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet. Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.
So why is there contention? Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified. Benedictine cannot say the same.
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
Wally, that's an impossible question to answer. But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year.
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year? I'd imagine your answer is yes. Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have.
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games. I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.
I am not certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW. I am certain that UWW beat UWO.
That goes nowhere AO. We already established in the original scenario that SJF beat Benedictine. In this scenario, Smed is of the mindset that Benedictine should get into the tourney ahead of SJF.
Maybe SJF should pull a Macalester and join a lesser conference if they're upset about not getting 2nd and 3rd chances.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 21, 2014, 05:07:40 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:58:11 PM
Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow. I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me. I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time. I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion.
This. I hated it when Alabama got the second-chance-against-LSU national title.
Interesting. I think you're the third poster to state that you don't like the second chance to win idea. I get that. But that is kind of a different discussion as it's a Pool C thing. In reality I think all Pool C teams get a second chance, right? I mean, maybe we should open up the topic of Eliminating Pool C. That way we won't have to worry again about a team getting a second chance. We won't have any JCU's and SJF's and St Thomas' and TLU's (thankfully) and all those others that didn't win their conference.
I think the main discussion is the whole AQ thing, well really, it's the whole mission of the D3 tournament thing.
As D3 parent provided, the current mission is pretty clearly stated and in line with Option 1.
To this point on the board, it seems the current AQ system is favored over an Option 2 approach.
You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position. I've come to the following two conclusions:
1. Keep the AQ system: Are we always getting the "best" teams in the playoffs? Probably not. But so what? Not everything should be about figuring out the best teams, and honestly, no playoff system will ever determine who the best team is anyway, simply the team that won whatever system they were put in. The concept of best is one we attach after the fact. If Whitewater wins the Stagg Bowl, we say that they're "better" than Mary-Hardin Baylor, even though the two teams never played each other.
There are other things that are more important to Division III than determining who the best is, access being one of them. I kind of think that's refreshing.
2. I really wonder though, if Division III football needs to split up. Pat (among others) often says that the other 240 teams in D-III football need to get better if we want to see change at the top. But, not only do I think it's essentially impossible for many schools to raise their game to that level, I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to. I mean, I went to a college with a fantastic football history, and recently they had a President who could not have cared less about athletics. It just wasn't a big deal.
One of the reasons I think we get so many blowouts of the 70-0 variety at this level is because while in theory, all 242 schools are competing for the same thing, in practice, there are simply schools for whom losing 70-0 to Mount Union or whoever just doesn't matter to enough people to impact change. Coaches and players? Sure. But institutionally? Not at all. So what's gained by having them compete directly?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
There have been some very close calls, though. PLU was a conference runner-up and #7 seed in a 28 team field in 1999. They won four playoff games on the road and the Stagg Bowl. SJU was the West #7 the next year and gave Mount all it could handle in the Stagg. Who's to say that one of those teams just outside the cut couldn't have done the same? So in theory you don't 'know' for sure.
That said, I mostly support the current system. I fully support the Saints and Scots being in, even if they end up losing by 40. But I'd have some type of 3rd or 4th loss clause, that would affect Benedictine. If you win a conference (with an AQ) but have 3+ D3 losses - you are evaluated against the other at-large (Pool C) teams for that bid. I know that not everyone supports the idea (and I understand why). And of course a 4th loss policy is easier to take than a 3rd loss one.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 21, 2014, 05:28:37 PM
You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position. I've come to the following two conclusions:
1. Keep the AQ system: Are we always getting the "best" teams in the playoffs? Probably not. But so what? Not everything should be about figuring out the best teams, and honestly, no playoff system will ever determine who the best team is anyway, simply the team that won whatever system they were put in. The concept of best is one we attach after the fact. If Whitewater wins the Stagg Bowl, we say that they're "better" than Mary-Hardin Baylor, even though the two teams never played each other.
There are other things that are more important to Division III than determining who the best is, access being one of them. I kind of think that's refreshing.
2. I really wonder though, if Division III football needs to split up. Pat (among others) often says that the other 240 teams in D-III football need to get better if we want to see change at the top. But, not only do I think it's essentially impossible for many schools to raise their game to that level, I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to. I mean, I went to a college with a fantastic football history, and recently they had a President who could not have cared less about athletics. It just wasn't a big deal.
One of the reasons I think we get so many blowouts of the 70-0 variety at this level is because while in theory, all 242 schools are competing for the same thing, in practice, there are simply schools for whom losing 70-0 to Mount Union or whoever just doesn't matter to enough people to impact change. Coaches and players? Sure. But institutionally? Not at all. So what's gained by having them compete directly?
What changes would this football minded president make? It's not like Mount Union has a 20,000 seat stadium or spends D-1 money on recruiting budgets.
St. Thomas traveled all of 200 miles total for their games. No need to fly to far away destinations to entice recruits or find better competition to improve themselves.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 21, 2014, 05:28:37 PM
You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position. I've come to the following two conclusions:
1. Keep the AQ system: Are we always getting the "best" teams in the playoffs? Probably not. But so what? Not everything should be about figuring out the best teams, and honestly, no playoff system will ever determine who the best team is anyway, simply the team that won whatever system they were put in. The concept of best is one we attach after the fact. If Whitewater wins the Stagg Bowl, we say that they're "better" than Mary-Hardin Baylor, even though the two teams never played each other.
There are other things that are more important to Division III than determining who the best is, access being one of them. I kind of think that's refreshing.
2. I really wonder though, if Division III football needs to split up. Pat (among others) often says that the other 240 teams in D-III football need to get better if we want to see change at the top. But, not only do I think it's essentially impossible for many schools to raise their game to that level, I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to. I mean, I went to a college with a fantastic football history, and recently they had a President who could not have cared less about athletics. It just wasn't a big deal.
One of the reasons I think we get so many blowouts of the 70-0 variety at this level is because while in theory, all 242 schools are competing for the same thing, in practice, there are simply schools for whom losing 70-0 to Mount Union or whoever just doesn't matter to enough people to impact change. Coaches and players? Sure. But institutionally? Not at all. So what's gained by having them compete directly?
I find myself drifting toward this idea as well. However, there would probably have to be some sort of easy way to move to and fro the "competitive" division simply because of institutional change. UWW's Chancellor just announced his retirement. Who knows what philosophy his replacement will have, or what philosophy the UW system will have.
Quote from: AO on November 21, 2014, 05:39:56 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 21, 2014, 05:28:37 PM
You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position. I've come to the following two conclusions:
1. Keep the AQ system: Are we always getting the "best" teams in the playoffs? Probably not. But so what? Not everything should be about figuring out the best teams, and honestly, no playoff system will ever determine who the best team is anyway, simply the team that won whatever system they were put in. The concept of best is one we attach after the fact. If Whitewater wins the Stagg Bowl, we say that they're "better" than Mary-Hardin Baylor, even though the two teams never played each other.
There are other things that are more important to Division III than determining who the best is, access being one of them. I kind of think that's refreshing.
2. I really wonder though, if Division III football needs to split up. Pat (among others) often says that the other 240 teams in D-III football need to get better if we want to see change at the top. But, not only do I think it's essentially impossible for many schools to raise their game to that level, I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to. I mean, I went to a college with a fantastic football history, and recently they had a President who could not have cared less about athletics. It just wasn't a big deal.
One of the reasons I think we get so many blowouts of the 70-0 variety at this level is because while in theory, all 242 schools are competing for the same thing, in practice, there are simply schools for whom losing 70-0 to Mount Union or whoever just doesn't matter to enough people to impact change. Coaches and players? Sure. But institutionally? Not at all. So what's gained by having them compete directly?
What changes would this football minded president make? It's not like Mount Union has a 20,000 seat stadium or spends D-1 money on recruiting budgets.
St. Thomas traveled all of 200 miles total for their games. No need to fly to far away destinations to entice recruits or find better competition to improve themselves.
It's not like a school would automatically be a national power with a "Pro Athletics" President, but it does help.
St. John Fisher went from an upstate NY doormat to one of the easts best team after they got funds funneled into the athletics department. Yes this included getting a deal with the Bills to host their training camp but the emphasis out on a competitive athletic department and improved facilities made the road easier for St. John Fisher to attract better players.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 21, 2014, 05:28:37 PM
You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position.
I love that you said that. Says that you're open minded. ;)
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 21, 2014, 05:28:37 PM
2. I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to.
Maybe it just says that they're only willing to allocate resources up to a certain point to be competitive on a national level. The President and Board of Trustees likely see D3 athletics as complementary to academics and the overall education of their student athletes. And they likely see that the increased media exposure gained with successful athletics helps with two constant and important objectives: raising money from alumni and attracting new students.
But each set (Pres and Board) must determine their threshold of financial commitment, after which the law of diminishing returns sets in.
Quote from: AO on November 21, 2014, 05:39:56 PM
What changes would this football minded president make?
One area of change would be the budget for coaches. Here's just a small sampling:
Berry College- 7 coaches
Hendrix - 7 coaches + 4 student assts
Centre College - 9 coaches
Rhodes - 9 coaches
Mount Union - 14 coaches & 2 student assts.
Wittenberg - 12 coaches
UMHB - 11 coaches, 5 graduate assts & 6 students assistants
UWW - 14 coaches
And some schools pay their coaches better, which generally leads to more stability. I was absolutely shocked to learn what one assistant was paid in another sport where they were the only asst. (Let's just say it was well below poverty level).
More coaches should result in a better prepared team. And recruiting could improve quite a bit with all these coaches able to "touch" the prospects.
Quote from: AO on November 21, 2014, 05:39:56 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 21, 2014, 05:28:37 PM
You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position. I've come to the following two conclusions:
1. Keep the AQ system: Are we always getting the "best" teams in the playoffs? Probably not. But so what? Not everything should be about figuring out the best teams, and honestly, no playoff system will ever determine who the best team is anyway, simply the team that won whatever system they were put in. The concept of best is one we attach after the fact. If Whitewater wins the Stagg Bowl, we say that they're "better" than Mary-Hardin Baylor, even though the two teams never played each other.
There are other things that are more important to Division III than determining who the best is, access being one of them. I kind of think that's refreshing.
2. I really wonder though, if Division III football needs to split up. Pat (among others) often says that the other 240 teams in D-III football need to get better if we want to see change at the top. But, not only do I think it's essentially impossible for many schools to raise their game to that level, I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to. I mean, I went to a college with a fantastic football history, and recently they had a President who could not have cared less about athletics. It just wasn't a big deal.
One of the reasons I think we get so many blowouts of the 70-0 variety at this level is because while in theory, all 242 schools are competing for the same thing, in practice, there are simply schools for whom losing 70-0 to Mount Union or whoever just doesn't matter to enough people to impact change. Coaches and players? Sure. But institutionally? Not at all. So what's gained by having them compete directly?
What changes would this football minded president make? It's not like Mount Union has a 20,000 seat stadium or spends D-1 money on recruiting budgets.
St. Thomas traveled all of 200 miles total for their games. No need to fly to far away destinations to entice recruits or find better competition to improve themselves.
I don't know. Maybe it's a change in financial aid packages, or admission requirements. Maybe it's increased financial support for facilities, recruiting, or staff retention. But it happens. In talking to people at Ithaca, I know the institutional focus on athletics has changed drastically.
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 05:18:10 PM
Interesting. I think you're the third poster to state that you don't like the second chance to win idea. I get that. But that is kind of a different discussion as it's a Pool C thing. In reality I think all Pool C teams get a second chance, right? I mean, maybe we should open up the topic of Eliminating Pool C. That way we won't have to worry again about a team getting a second chance. We won't have any JCU's and SJF's and St Thomas' and TLU's (thankfully) and all those others that didn't win their conference.
I think the main discussion is the whole AQ thing, well really, it's the whole mission of the D3 tournament thing.
As D3 parent provided, the current mission is pretty clearly stated and in line with Option 1.
To this point on the board, it seems the current AQ system is favored over an Option 2 approach.
Isn't this what started the whole conversation? That we were in danger of filling out the tournament field with only AQs and that runners up in our favored conferences don't get to play in week 12?
Some teams have people listed as assistants that don't get paid - or don't get paid to coach (they have another on-campus job).
Schools have added football or made sure their teams stay on the field for male enrollment. However, even if they throw more money at it, some schools can't or won't be playoff contenders just because of who they are.
Examples in the NCAC:
Oberlin - they've improved a great deal over the bad old days. But they don't attract a mass of the typical football player types very often. It's a special kind of kid that wants to go there AND play sports, for good or bad. They will always have small-ish rosters which will preclude them from competing for titles in the NCAC. But they are competitive (as Wabash found a couple of years ago) and will play their guts out. It's just hard to win when sometimes you have 50 on the roster.
Kenyon - Swimming is king there, of course. Football fortunes change with the winds. They get some good classes and then those cycle through and they go through some rough stretches. The administration at times has looked at football as a nuisance but now seem to be committed for it to stick around. Sometimes they have small rosters, too.
Hiram - Again, the type of school it is, and the seeming lack of prior commitment to football means that it's struggled. (Their academic program is kind of unique). Football is important to keep males coming there, but they do have some roster churn. Finishing 5-5 this year was a great feat, but it's going to be a while before they get their entire program together.
These three schools are valuable members of the NCAC. They add character to the league. They're not going to compete for football glory as long as Witt and Wabash maintain their level, and DPU, OWU and Wooster are lurking around (though those 3 programs have struggled some too at times). There's only so much athletics budget around, and so much you can do if you want to fit in the right kind of student athlete into your program.
emma, I think the reason for smed's capitalization is that it's the only way to emphasize in print. Words, and phrases take on slightly different meaning when one word is emphasized, as opposed to when it is not. I find that when I read his posts, I can actually hear a voice speaking the words, which lends to my better understanding what he's ACTUALLY ( ;D) saying.
Also, I've tried to get this across before, but I'll try again. OWO's losses to non D III competition just restricts what we know about them as a team. If they had played an all D III schedule, it would give us more upon which to evaluate them. Or, in the same vein, if other D III teams had played the same opponent, it might also tell us more. As it is, it's a big nothing burger. Maybe they are better than teams that made it, but, there's no way to tell.
Just as an example, though St John's beat River Falls by a greater margin than did UWW, it doesn't tell us that the Johnnies are a better team than UWW, but it does tell us that they are somewhere in the vicinity. But just that without the results against Bethel, St Thomas and Gustavus and Augsburg, would tell us a whole lot less.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 07:32:07 PM
Some teams have people listed as assistants that don't get paid - or don't get paid to coach (they have another on-campus job).
Agreed. And this can be true of any of the schools.
Maybe Oshkosh would have been 9-1. Maybe 8-2. Maybe 7-3. It all depends on who they could have slotted in there. If they played a non-conference slate like Bethel they may have gone 7-3. If they beat up on the MWC and NAC and MIAA they may have gone 9-1. They almost lost to LAX, who wasn't setting everything on fire this year. Almost loss isn't the same as losing, but still...
I looked up the Massey ratings for those three teams. Obviously South Dakota St is far superior to anyone in D3, and I hope the check cleared. Bob Morris is rated around Platteville's neighborhood, and Marian is rated right with John Carroll.
I think the dagger for them was Platteville probably falling out of the ratings (we'll never know). No RR win, unlike St. Thomas. Just six wins. Danger, high voltage.
As for splitting D3, gawd NO!
We've had that talk before. Remember we're not just dealing with football, but over 400+ institutions, 40+ conferences, and all kinds of stuff. I'll go back to Kenyon. D3 football, not so much. D3 swimming, hell yeah. You gonna move them around in divisions based on how good they are in one sport or another?
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 07:51:56 PM
As for splitting D3, gawd NO!
We've had that talk before. Remember we're not just dealing with football, but over 400+ institutions, 40+ conferences, and all kinds of stuff. I'll go back to Kenyon. D3 football, not so much. D3 swimming, hell yeah. You gonna move them around in divisions based on how good they are in one sport or another?
Would it be possible to split only football into two championships, D3 Large and D3 Small?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 21, 2014, 05:18:10 PM
Interesting. I think you're the third poster to state that you don't like the second chance to win idea. I get that. But that is kind of a different discussion as it's a Pool C thing. In reality I think all Pool C teams get a second chance, right? I mean, maybe we should open up the topic of Eliminating Pool C. That way we won't have to worry again about a team getting a second chance. We won't have any JCU's and SJF's and St Thomas' and TLU's (thankfully) and all those others that didn't win their conference.
I think the main discussion is the whole AQ thing, well really, it's the whole mission of the D3 tournament thing.
As D3 parent provided, the current mission is pretty clearly stated and in line with Option 1.
To this point on the board, it seems the current AQ system is favored over an Option 2 approach.
Isn't this what started the whole conversation? That we were in danger of filling out the tournament field with only AQs and that runners up in our favored conferences don't get to play in week 12?
Favored? Try better. Look, you can disagree with eliminating the AQ. As I said, I'd prefer we keep it. But don't misconstrue the debate
No, favored. Remember, Curry won a game as a "C" and some don't want that conference even to get an auto bid.
Saying a "C" can only come from 'better' conferences means the others have no chance, even if they do things right (win their non-cons and they scheduled up, and lose one game)
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 08:56:27 PM
No, favored. Remember, Curry won a game as a "C" and some don't want that conference even to get an auto bid.
Saying a "C" can only come from 'better' conferences means the others have no chance, even if they do things right (win their non-cons and they scheduled up, and lose one game)
Smed- If your position isn't strong enough to stand on the facts, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
1. Using the exception as the rule. How many times have you pointed to Curry as your example? They are the exception to the rule. Shall we count the number of Pool C games lost by teams like Curry or the number of Pool C teams won by teams that aren't like Curry?
2. Word play. I don't recall anybody saying Pool C teams can "only" come from the better conferences. Each candidate should be evaluated based on its merits. Yes, teams from stronger conferences will have an advantage for obvious reasons, but that doesn't equate to "only" teams from better conferences should qualify as Pool C.
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2014, 07:50:25 PM
Maybe Oshkosh would have been 9-1. Maybe 8-2. Maybe 7-3. It all depends on who they could have slotted in there. If they played a non-conference slate like Bethel they may have gone 7-3. If they beat up on the MWC and NAC and MIAA they may have gone 9-1. They almost lost to LAX, who wasn't setting everything on fire this year. Almost loss isn't the same as losing, but still...
I looked up the Massey ratings for those three teams. Obviously South Dakota St is far superior to anyone in D3, and I hope the check cleared. Bob Morris is rated around Platteville's neighborhood, and Marian is rated right with John Carroll.
I think the dagger for them was Platteville probably falling out of the ratings (we'll never know). No RR win, unlike St. Thomas. Just six wins. Danger, high voltage.
I don't want to drag the UWO debate on any longer. They lost 1 D3 game and it was to the defending national champion.
The main point is that the committee clearly uses subjective measures in their selections as evidenced by Wesley being given the number one seed in their bracket despite a non D 3 loss.
Quote from: retagent on November 21, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
emma, I think the reason for smed's capitalization is that it's the only way to emphasize in print. Words, and phrases take on slightly different meaning when one word is emphasized, as opposed to when it is not. I find that when I read his posts, I can actually hear a voice speaking the words, which lends to my better understanding what he's ACTUALLY ( ;D) saying.
Also, I've tried to get this across before, but I'll try again. OWO's losses to non D III competition just restricts what we know about them as a team. If they had played an all D III schedule, it would give us more upon which to evaluate them. Or, in the same vein, if other D III teams had played the same opponent, it might also tell us more. As it is, it's a big nothing burger. Maybe they are better than teams that made it, but, there's no way to tell.
Just as an example, though St John's beat River Falls by a greater margin than did UWW, it doesn't tell us that the Johnnies are a better team than UWW, but it does tell us that they are somewhere in the vicinity. But just that without the results against Bethel, St Thomas and Gustavus and Augsburg, would tell us a whole lot less.
Thanks Ret, but I'll respectfully disagree.
Adding Emphasis Without Shouting
By Miss eM@nners
In my view, there is no place for typing in all caps or using formatting to reflect emphasis in business emails. There is always an alternative in your choice of verbiage that can get your point across with the intended importance. Using all caps is perceived by many as yelling or shouting and certainly is not a professional way to communicate.
You mean like Wesley?
I'll reiterate, my main complaint with Pool C isn't that UWO didn't get in (although I think they were the obvious choice), it's that TLU was given the Pool B, which automatically resulted in one less Pool C since Centre was getting in with certainty.
TLU should have been put up against all the other Pool C candidates.
We don't want to lose the chance that another Curry could happen. It did. It's inconvenient and it did. Big time conferences lay a lot of eggs as "C"s. (John Carroll last year, for example). Others carped last year about "Northeast conferences stealing our bids". I remember those debates well. The fact is that some want to restrict "A" bids and "C" bids to 'favored' conferences.
Favored IS accurate. Because people say they're better, they FAVOR them.
TLU probably would have been the "C", anyway. They had the SOS chops that was very close to Oshkosh and nine wins. If Muhlenberg got in, TLU definitely would have been chosen as a "C".
People lose sight that St. Thomas was ahead of Oshkosh. Oshkosh was not on the board. I believe St. Thomas was the final "C" choice. If it wasn't St. Thomas, it was Muhlenberg. 9-1 is better than 6-1. Same record vs. RR (assuming Platteville got the ziggy). The quibble is with the ranking of Oshkosh behind St. Thomas, NOT with the selection of Muhlenberg or TLU. Can't get selected if you don't get to the board.
Personally, Framingham has a much bigger beef with the selection if Muhlenberg or St. Thomas than Oshkosh does being blocked by St. Thomas.
BTW, Wesley had one non D-3 loss, Oshkosh had three. Wesley also played Charlotte, whose overall athletics program is much stronger and more well financed that SD State. Charlotte is moving to D-1A in 2015 and will be bowl eligible in 2016. Maybe instead of Bob Morris, Oshkosh could have scheduled Wesley?
Looks like Muhlenberg proved their playoff mettle, despite the nay-sayers. Took Widener down to the last seconds before losing.
Centre got rolled by JCU, but John Carroll is playing at a very elite level so I think most every D3 team would have gotten jacked up by them today.
Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2014, 02:52:20 PM
Looks like Muhlenberg proved their playoff mettle, despite the nay-sayers. Took Widener down to the last seconds before losing.
Centre got rolled by JCU, but John Carroll is playing at a very elite level so I think most every D3 team would have gotten jacked up by them today.
JC is a very good team. Most impressed by: 3) overall team speed, 2) defensive line- big, athletic and disruptive, and 1) the QB- that guy is on a different level than anyone on the field. He is truly a defensive back's nightmare because he makes great, accurate throws into tight coverage. Very, very impressed with him.
I'll probably watch JCU's games the rest of the way. If they continue to play like this, it's going to take a excellent effort by an elite team to beat them.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 21, 2014, 05:07:40 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:58:11 PM
Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow. I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me. I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time. I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion.
This. I hated it when Alabama got the second-chance-against-LSU national title.
Yes, but with a 4-team or 8-team playoff in D1FBS that may be more common.
Quote from: d-train on November 21, 2014, 05:38:41 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 21, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?
There have been some very close calls, though. PLU was a conference runner-up and #7 seed in a 28 team field in 1999. They won four playoff games on the road and the Stagg Bowl. SJU was the West #7 the next year and gave Mount all it could handle in the Stagg. Who's to say that one of those teams just outside the cut couldn't have done the same? So in theory you don't 'know' for sure.
That said, I mostly support the current system. I fully support the Saints and Scots being in, even if they end up losing by 40. But I'd have some type of 3rd or 4th loss clause, that would affect Benedictine. If you win a conference (with an AQ) but have 3+ D3 losses - you are evaluated against the other at-large (Pool C) teams for that bid. I know that not everyone supports the idea (and I understand why). And of course a 4th loss policy is easier to take than a 3rd loss one.
Pool C 2004 Stagg Bowl UMHB.
Quote2004 UMHB -- (13-2) ...[w]as a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3 Pool C bids. Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road. Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.
And yes, 1999 Pac Lutheran, a Pool C pick to Willamette probably being a Pool B, that first year.
We have had several pages of debate since I posted this. We are at 24-2-6 for this year. We will probably be 26-0-6 in 2015. The MASCAC and the SAA take away the Pool B bids. (I count only 5 potential Pool B teams in 2015, the SCAC-4 and Maranatha Baptist.)
In 2016 & 2017, I believe that the ASC-6 plus the SAA-4 and Maranatha Baptist will compete for 1 Pool B bid. (In the ASC, McMurry and Belhaven don't count. (Which active member will be fielding a team that year who is not in a conference? Finlandia?) That makes for 26-1-5.
In 2018, we are back to 27-0-5.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2014, 03:14:19 PM
I agree with smedindy. Keep the current AQ system.
When I asked our posters where they thought another conference might arise for the AQ from 7 schools of same mission and vision.
Dave McHugh doubted the Capital AQ which leaves the current NJAC affiliation of the CAC football playing members.
The SCAC would take quite a bit of work to get the next 3 football playing members.
The 4 UAA schools have affiliated with the Pres AC and the SAA.
The Empire 8 has become a nice "Upstate New York" conference with its SUNYAC affiliates.
The UMAC and the SLIAC affiliates have settled on an arrangement, after the SLIAC failed its Pool A attempt.
The NESCAC will continue to play their own brand of ball.
I don't see where we have any change
The East Region football schools seem to have maximized their options in the MASCAC, the NEFC and the ECFC.
Thanks but I still see at least 5 Pool C bids for the rest of the decade.
Can anyone else seriously propose a Conference seeking AQ status in football?
When the ASC loses it's grandfathered bid, it's 25-1-6 in 2016 and 2017, and 26-0-6 in 2018 right since it will be back to the SCAC + Maranatha. Is Finlandia joining the UMAC?
Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2014, 06:32:22 PM
When the ASC loses it's grandfathered bid, it's 25-1-7 in 2016 and 2017, and 26-0-6 in 2018 right?
The math doesn't work - 25 + 1 + 7 = 33.
Quote from: art76 on November 22, 2014, 06:34:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2014, 06:32:22 PM
When the ASC loses it's grandfathered bid, it's 25-1-7 in 2016 and 2017, and 26-0-6 in 2018 right?
The math doesn't work - 25 + 1 + 7 = 33.
Derp, fixed.
I just couldn't get to 27 auto bids. The ASC loses one, then gets it back when McMurry and Bellhaven come fully on board.
Wesley, championship contenders of course, carry Pool B's banner.
JCU carries the torch for "C" against Mt. Union.