D3boards.com

Ok, let's try something new.  In a few weeks, we'll start talking about who might be going to be IN the tournament.  Between now and then, I thought it would be interesting to see who's already OUT of the tournament.  Some caveats:
- Basically all of these teams can still technically win their league and qualify through Pool A.  That's not what this is.  This is an at-large eliminator.  What I've tried to do here is identify teams that are out of consideration for Pools B and C. 
- My methodology here has tried to err on the side of inclusion, even if the odds for some of these teams putting together a Pool B/C profile are already very slim.  So you'll see some teams down here in green and say "come on...they aren't making it in".  You're probably right.  But we'll eliminate those teams as it happens. 
- There were plenty of teams riding the fence here and thumbs up/thumbs down broke different ways for different reasons.  I'll try to highlight some of them in a later post. 

Thanks to ExTartanPlayer and Bombers798891 for extra eyes on this and making sure I'm reasonably consistent.  That's a lot of teams and lot of leagues to sort through and this is probably a mess without the extra help.  And with that, I present the first Pool B/C Eliminator table, arranged by region and conference.  Teams that I believe are out of at-large contention are in red, teams that I believe are still alive are in green, and Pool B eligible teams are marked with an asterisk(*), all as of Week 4 results.

CCIW	HCAC	MIAA	NACC	NCAC	OAC
Carthage	Earlham	Hope	Cocnordia(Wis)	Allegheny	Muskingum
Augustana	Hanover	Alma	Aurora	Hiram	Marietta
North Park	Bluffton	Kalamazoo	Wis Lutheran	Wooster	Heidelberg
Millikin	Anderson	Adrian	Benedictine	Oberlin	Wilmington
North Central	Defiance	Trine	Lakeland	OWU	B-W
Elmhurst	MSJ	Olivet	CUC	Kenyon	Otterbein
Wheaton	Manchester	Albion	Rockford	Witt	Capital
IWU	Franklin			Denison	ONU
	RHIT			Wabash	Mount Union
				DePauw	John Carroll

---

IIAC	IND	MIAC	MWC	NWC	SCIAC	UMAC	WIAC
BVC	Finlandia*	St. Olaf	Lawrence	L&C	Redlands	IWC	Eau Claire
Dubuque	Maranatha*	Carleton	Macalester	Willamette	Chapman	Martin Luther	River Falls
Loras		Hamline	Carroll	PLU	Whittier	Greenville	La Crosse
Coe		Augsburg	Ripon	UPS	P-PC	Crown	Stout
Simpson		C-MC	Beloit	Pacific	CMS	MacMurray	SP
Luther		St. John's	Grinnell	George Fox	Laverne	Eureka	Oshkosh
Central		Bethel	Lake Forest	Whitworth	Occidental	Minn-Morris	Platteville
Wartburg		St. Thomas	IC	Linfield	Cal Lutheran	SSC	Whitewater
		Gustavus Adolphus	Cornell			Westminster
			Knox			Northwestern
			Monmouth
			St. Norbert

---

ASC	CC	ODAC	PAC	SAA	SCAC	USAC
LC*	McDaniel	Randolph-Macon	Grove City	Sewanee	Southwestern*	Averett
Bellhaven*	Juniata	Catholic	Thiel	Millsaps	Austin*	Ferrum
HPU*	Dickinson	E&H	Waynesburg	Hendrix	TLU*	NCWC
SRSU*	Ursinus	Bridgewater	CMU	Rhodes	Trinity*	LaGrange
McMurry*	Susquehenna	H-SC	Bethany	WashU		Greensboro
ETBU*	Muhlenberg	W&L	St. Vincent	B-SC		Huntingdon
UMHB*	Moravian	Shenandoah	Westminster	Centre		Methodist
H-SU*	Gettysburg	Guilford	Geneva	Berry		Maryville
	F&M		CWRU	Chicago
	Johns Hopkins		Thomas More
			W&J

---

ECFC	Empire 8	IND	LL	MAC	MASCAC	NEFC	NJAC
Mount Ida	Buffalo St.	Alfred St.*	Union	Misericordia	Worcester State	Curry	So Virginia
Anna Maria	Hartwick		St. Lawrence	Wilkes	Plymouth State	Nichols	TCNJ
Norwich	SJF		RPI	Leb Valley	Westfield State	Maine Maritime	Montclair St.
Gallaudet	Utica		USMMA	Lycoming	Bridgewater St.	Salve Regina	Salisbury
Husson	Morrisville St.		Springfield	King's	Western Conn.	MIT	WPU
Castleton	Brockport St.		WPI	FDU-F	Mass-Dartmouth	Endicott	CNU
Becker	Alfred		Hobart	Widener	Mass-Maritime	Coast Guard	Frostburg St.
SUNY-MC	Ithaca		Rochester	Del Valley	Framingham St.	Western NE	Rowan
	Cortland St.			Albright	Fitchburg State		Kean
				Stevenson			Wesley

This was a fun exercise. Two nuances worth pointing out:

1) As we reviewed this, I had to remind myself several times that the goal was figuring out who was eliminated from Pool C contention, not from playoff contention altogether.  I think Franklin is the best obvious example to cite here.  Franklin certainly could win out and make the playoffs at 8-2 as the HCAC Pool A, but they would have to lose another game to end up in Pool C and if they're 7-3 they probably are on the board behind a couple of 9-1 teams in the North with a h2h loss against possible fellow Pool C'er IWU.  Franklin might well get into the dance this year, but it won't be happening through Pool C.

2) On the flip side, consider a team like Hartwick.  They are 2-1 with a loss to Brockport State.  The odds of Hartwick making it are pretty darn long.  But, nonetheless, we kept them in the "maybe" column because they could (however improbable it is) finish 9-1 and not win the E8 depending on tiebreakers.  The odds of that happening are about 1,000,000 to 1.  But they technically still could have that occur.

The point is, this exercise reflects who can still qualify through Pool C as of today, not necessarily who has the best chance to make the playoffs.  It's not a projection or a ranking of who has the best chance.  Just a list of who is still alive for Pool C and who is AQ or bust at this point.

Is it not possible for North Central to at least be up for consideration for a C? Obviously they have 2 losses already and would have to pick up a 3rd... but if their losses are in OT to Platteville (who if they pull an upset this week and go unbeaten would definitely help NCC), 1 point to Wesley, and another tight game against say an unbeaten Wheaton and rack up convincing wins against IWU and Elmhurst... that would be an intriguing resume.
I don't see a lot of good C teams in the north right now... MIAA could beat each other out of contention, OAC could do the same. Depending on how the north committee ranks the teams, couldn't they could conceivably be 2nd or 3rd in line in the north and perhaps get to the discussion table?

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on September 29, 2015, 11:58:33 PM
Is it not possible for North Central to at least be up for consideration for a C? Obviously they have 2 losses already and would have to pick up a 3rd... but if their losses are in OT to Platteville (who if they pull an upset this week and go unbeaten would definitely help NCC), 1 point to Wesley, and another tight game against say an unbeaten Wheaton and rack up convincing wins against IWU and Elmhurst... that would be an intriguing resume.
I don't see a lot of good C teams in the north right now... MIAA could beat each other out of contention, OAC could do the same. Depending on how the north committee ranks the teams, couldn't they could conceivably be 2nd or 3rd in line in the north and perhaps get to the discussion table?

Whereas no 3-loss team has ever been selected (and I'm not even sure that we've had 3-loss teams as part of the first four out group), I'm saying that North Central is out of play for Pool C.  I'm not bold enough in this space to break a never-ever tendency.  That's the tough break for North Central.  If the Cardinals had managed to close just one of those two games that they led, they'd not only be in play still, but they'd probably look pretty good if they were to lose somewhere in the CCIW.  But they didn't and they don't.  It's Pool A or bust for NCC. 

The really interesting scenario crops up if IWU or Wheaton, DePauw, Wittenberg, and John Carroll all find a way to lose twice...would the committee make North Central the top ranked at-large team at 7-3?  And if they did would they picked?  I still say they wouldn't get picked (I think they'd run into blockage from whatever WIAC team is on the board...and heaven forbid Rowan wins the NJAC), but that would be an interesting scenario to try and play out.  But again, there's a LOT of stuff that needs to happen before we get to that point. 

Wally, I really appreciate all the hard work that you, ETP and Bombers put into this, and there's no doubt in my mind that you were all as objective as possible. I do have to ask, though, as someone who is red/green colorblind .... you couldn't have used other colors?  ;)

Just to reiterate what Wally said, no 7-3 team has ever made it.  That was the easy rationale to me.  Heck, it's been a pleasant surprise to most when the committee includes a tough-schedule 2-loss team.  2013 Thomas More stayed home with a competitive non-league loss to Wesley and a loss to W & J.  NCC's losses have been a little closer, but if you lose three times, I don't know if it matters that you lost to #1, #2, and #3 in the nation in overtime. 

The nearest comp for this scenario is probably 2011 Oshkosh, who lost a competitive-ish game to Mount Union, a 20-17 heartbreaker to Whitewater, and then 30-24 to...well, 3-7 La Crosse.

NCC's profile in this hypothetical would be a little bit different.  Instead of losing to national #1, national #2, and not-so-good...they could potentially be 7-3 with losses to three undefeated Pool A teams (although UWP may lose to UWW this week, we are working under the "best case" assumption for every team's Pool C chances, or at least the "best remotely possible case"). 

Let's suppose they lose to Wheaton in overtime but pound IWU.  Now here's another interesting question: would they be better off with IWU beating Wheaton (putting both of those teams at 9-1, say that Wheaton gets the Pool A via tiebreaker) because maybe that ensures IWU remains regionally ranked and gives them a nice RR win?  Would the committee be bold enough to rank 7-3 NCC ahead of 9-1 IWU because of the H2H result?  What about 8-2 IWU?  I think ultimately the best scenario for them is an OT loss to Wheaton, a blowout win of IWU, and Wheaton beating IWU...because I can see the committee maybe ranking 7-3 NCC ahead of 8-2 IWU with a h2h win, but I do not think it would override a 2-win gap.

Now let's look elsewhere around the North.  What else would have to happen to get NCC far enough up the totem pole?  I honestly cannot imagine that they would be ranked ahead of a 9-1 team in the RR's, so let's see if we can concoct a scenario where everyone else ends up with two losses.

- all OAC teams would have to lose 2 or more times.  Certainly possible - John Carroll has been uninspiring to date.

- all MIAA teams but the league champion would have to lose 2 or more times.  This seems likely with the way the last few seasons have gone in the MIAA; only Olivet and Albion got through non-league play unscathed so as long as one of them loses to someone else in the league there should be no 9-1 runnerup.

- all NCAC teams but the league champion would have to lose 2 or more times.  Suppose Wabash runs the table and wins the league.  This means DePauw has to beat Denison, Denison has to beat Wittenberg, and Wittenberg has to beat DePauw (or something similar) to make sure no one ends up 9-1 from that group.

- all NACC teams but the league champion would have to lose 2 or more times.  This will happen.

- RHIT has to beat Franklin for the HCAC title, or if Franklin beats RHIT, then RHIT has to lose to someone else.  Both of these are probably plausible.

Now even if all of that happens and nobody in the North Region Pool C field is 9-1, the regional committee has to look at that and decide to rank NCC ahead of all of the 8-2 teams on the board.  I think they would have to be on the board first because in the hypothetical where literally all of those teams end up 8-2 or worse, would any of them go into the field in the first few rounds of discussion?  NCC cannot get in if they're not on the board.  So let's assume that JCU drops a game to, uh, Wilmington, the NCAC teams all beat each other and then OWU steps in and beats them all too, the MIAA cannibalizes itself, RHIT beats Franklin 61-0, and NCC ends up beating out 8-2 IWU with a h2h win to get first on the board from the North.

Now let's consider (not in that level of granularity) the other regions.  There would have to be an extreme paucity of 1-loss teams (and quality 2-loss) from around the country, too.  Here, I'm not sure if NCC should be hoping for 1-loss runners-up and then a big dropoff or a bunch of 2-loss teams from some of the tough leagues.  Take the MIAC.  Are they better off if St. John's and St. Thomas beat everyone and everyone else beats each other and they only have to deal with 9-1 SJU in the at-large pool?  (basically, trading off the fact that they will not be ahead of the first MIAC team on the board for a guarantee that they wouldn't lose out to 2 of them)  Or are they better off if SJU loses again and there's possibly 8-2 SJU and 8-2 Gustavus Adolphus both on the board, hoping to leapfrog both of them?  Same with the WIAC (although for the purposes of our hypothetical, we should give them the best case scenario, which is UWP winning the league), so maybe they want UWP to win the league, 9-1 UWW, and everyone else to lose three or more games.

If we work really hard, we might be able to concoct a scenario that's still in play where 7-3 North Central gets in.  Incidentally, that North Region armageddon above probably isn't that far-fetched.  The question then becomes would the committee actually put 7-3 NCC on the board ahead of all of those 8-2 teams.  I don't think they would have a chance unless they're the first North team on the table.

Thanx Wally, ExTartan and Bombers for going through this exercise. It'll be interesting to see how the teams turn from green to red (or some other colors) as the weeks unfold.

Quote from: HSCTiger74 on September 30, 2015, 12:40:43 AM
Wally, I really appreciate all the hard work that you, ETP and Bombers put into this, and there's no doubt in my mind that you were all as objective as possible. I do have to ask, though, as someone who is red/green colorblind .... you couldn't have used other colors?  ;)

Oof.  I'll update that table tonight with some additional formatting (probably bold the teams still alive).  Sorry about that!

Quote from: art76 on September 30, 2015, 07:56:40 AM
It'll be interesting to see how the teams turn from green to red (or some other colors) as the weeks unfold.

I think that's why wally got the idea, or at least why it appealed to me.  The day the season kicks off, all 247 teams (theoretically) have a path to the playoffs through Pool A, B, and C. 

Interestingly enough, Pool A remains open for awhile for everyone because even if you lose your first 2 league games, you can still come into play if your conference has a lot of internal strife and you rip off a winning streak.

However, we know that pretty much just by the law of "someone has to win games" across the nation, Pool C teams are almost all going to be 9-1 conference runners-up or 8-2 teams with some extra punch, like a big OOC win or a couple of good results against RRO's (the aforementioned potentially 7-3 NCC being one very-very-very-very-very long shot at bucking this trend).  So we can look at a team like Alma, who is 2-1 but still alive for the MIAA title, and say that they're probably out because they would be an 8-2 runner-up with a weak SOS and no quality wins.  If you have multiple losses, who have to have one of those things.  Alma is out as a Pool C candidate.

So while it's hard to pin down who is eliminated from the playoffs altogether (and conversely, the number of teams "still alive") until we have moved into conference play, we probably do have a decent idea of who is still alive for a Pool C bid because they probably have to fit that profile of "9-1 or 8-2 with a good result and/or tough schedule" and we know that a team like Franklin or NCC can't get there because if they are in Pool C they would be 7-3, a team like Alma probably doesn't have enough oomph to make it at 8-2, while everyone in green still at least has a theoretical path to that minimum bar of "9-1 league runner-up" or "8-2 with an extra line on the resume."

Breaking down the number of teams still alive by region:
North - 12
West - 15
South - 27
East - 28

So after three games for most, four for some, we've eliminated 2/3 of the division from Pools B/C.  That's interesting to me. 

One more follow up on North Central- you saw the gymnastics ETP had to do just to get North Central near the top of the North region queue.  You'd have to see similar armageddon scenarios in every other region to clear a path for North Central to have a shot.  It really isn't feasible. 

For this reason I would also doubt the regional committee would rank NCC #1 as a 3 loss team if there are other 2 loss teams available simply because they would effectively block all north teams from getting in. Great analysis here.

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 30, 2015, 09:44:04 AM
One more follow up on North Central- you saw the gymnastics ETP had to do just to get North Central near the top of the North region queue.  You'd have to see similar armageddon scenarios in every other region to clear a path for North Central to have a shot.  It really isn't feasible.

I guess that's one caveat we should acknowledge up front - no matter what we do here there's some sort of imaginary line about what's feasible and what's not.  Somehow I view it as different with a not-very-good team that could still end up 9-1 (like Hartwick) because however unlikely it seems to us that they will actually go 9-1, they control their own destiny, for now.  The path is simpler - win the rest and they can at least lay claim to a spot on the board at 9-1, no dependency on contingency scenarios around the region, much less the country.

If NCC ends up 7-3 in Pool C, they will need, like, hundreds of games for the rest of the season around the nation to fall into place.  We have to construct a scenario where everyone in the North Pool C ends up 8-2 (maybe 1 team at 9-1), and where the regional committee puts NCC atop that heap (even with four "results" against RRO's, they will have only one win against an RRO), and where every other region has a similar path that results in a complete dearth of 9-1 Pool C's (what's the lowest number of 1-loss teams eligible for Pool C in recent history?  There have been at least 5 every year, right?  Maybe some years as many as 10?) and then a dearth of quality 8-2 Pool C's, to the point where a three-loss team would jump all of them.  Just can't see it.

If you are following this postseason thread now (its still September for #!@&#$ sake) then you won't want to miss perusing the erudite prose that is the NCAA prechampionship manual for 2015 (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Prechamps_DIII_Football_2015.pdf). At least the intern assigned to fat finger the manual this year knew enough to leave the NESCAC out of Pool A.  We also get our official confirmation of 25 in Pool A, 1 in Pool B, and 6 in Pool C.

The other highlight from the manual is the names on the regional advisory committees and national selection committee who each promise, cross their heart and hope to die, in no way shape or form to crib off of Wally Wabash's work on this board and pinkie swears to not sandbag the selection process by giving weaker teams a higher regional ranking and further promise to consider each round of the Pool C selection independently of the previous ones, even if 4 north region teams in a row get bids.

Those in bold are the national selection committee members

EAST REGION
John Marzka, Albright
Jack McKiernon, Kean
Mike Licthen, Becker
Chad Martinovich, MIT
Mark Raymond, St. Lawrence
Mark Ross, Misericordia
Norm Kieffer, St. John Fisher
Tom Kelley, Framingham State
Dan Garrett, Kean

NORTH REGION
Erik Raeburn, Wabash
Chris Martin, CCIW
Patrick Etherton, Millikin
Mike Leonard, Franklin
Greg Pscodna, Alma
Jack Hatem, Denison
Rick Ponx, Aurora
John Snell, Baldwin Wallace

SOUTH REGION
Darla Kirby, Mary Hardin-Baylor
Jack Leipheimer, Thiel
Dennis Dunn, Louisiana College
Steve Ulrich, Centennial Conference
Dave Dunn, Catholic
Danny Padron, Texas Lutheran
Kurt Reiser, Thiel
Tommy Laurendine, University of the South (Sewanee)
Dave Harper, Ferrum

WEST REGION
Duey Naatz, Wisconsin-Stout
Rodney Sandberg, Whitworth
Chuck Yrigoyen, Iowa Intercollegiate Conf.
Glen Caruso, St. Thomas (MN)
Jim Cantanzaro, Lake Forest
Chris Casey, George Fox
Kyle Sweeney, Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
Clayt Birmingham, Wisconsin-Stout
Kirk Talley, Northwestern-St. Paul

Thank you for posting a link to the handbook, wabndy.  I'm glad that it finally puts to rest the question regarding the regionality of the teams that did some conference relocating. 

Other than that I didn't see any real changes to the selection criteria on my first pass through.  I'll go through it again later with a closer eye though. 

Quote from: wabndy on September 30, 2015, 10:29:42 AM
At least the intern assigned to fat finger the manual this year knew enough to leave the NESCAC out of Pool A.

Good to see that Nebraska Wesleyan is still listed, though :)

The Island west teams could have TWO teams this year ?   :o Linfiled 9-0 .  Whitworth 9-1,   :-*

Excellent work!

One suggestion: consider placing an asterisk by the teams that can also get in through Pool B.  If I am reading the handbook correctly, this would be the three independents (Finlandia, Maranatha, and Alfred State), and the teams in the ASC and SCAC.  Currently there are 5 teams remaining out of this Pool B bunch (in no particular order):

1. UMHB
2. H-SC
3. Austin
4. TLU
5. Trinity

Quote from: Schwami on September 30, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
Excellent work!

One suggestion: consider placing an asterisk by the teams that can also get in through Pool B.  If I am reading the handbook correctly, this would be the three independents (Finlandia, Maranatha, and Alfred State), and the teams in the ASC and SCAC.  Currently there are 5 teams remaining out of this Pool B bunch (in no particular order):

1. UMHB
2. H-SC
3. Austin
4. TLU
5. Trinity

I'll add that to the list of table maintenance to be done later tonight.   :)

Regarding Pool B, I think it's basically a de facto AQ for the ASC champion, however, Trinity makes it interesting if they run the table here and something nutty happens like TLU beats UMHB who beats Hardin-Simmons.  This is a scenario that the rest of the Pool C teams don't want happening.  An undefeated Trinity plus single loss UMHB and single loss Hardin-Simmons could very reasonably (and justifiably) consume three of the seven available at-large bids. 

Quote from: desertcat1 on September 30, 2015, 11:00:11 AM
The Island west teams could have TWO teams this year ?   :o Linfiled 9-0 .  Whitworth 9-1,   :-*

Happened a couple of years ago when Pacific Lutheran played at Linfield in the first round.

Quote from: cawcdad on September 30, 2015, 01:04:28 PM

Quote from: desertcat1 on September 30, 2015, 11:00:11 AM
The Island west teams could have TWO teams this year ?   :o Linfiled 9-0 .  Whitworth 9-1,   :-*

Happened a couple of years ago when Pacific Lutheran played at Linfield in the first round.

Of all the dynamics and back and forth of the D-III playoffs, this is my least favorite i believe. The whole "who gets in Pool C" debate is one thing.  Two teams being matched up for financial reasons when they  both should have had more favorable draws is just plain irritating.

Here's a list of Week 5 games that I think are most likely to impact the Pool B/C situation (not necessarily de facto elimination games between teams still alive):

Adrian @ Olivet
Denison @ OWU
ONU @ John Carroll
Central @ Wartburg
Bethel @ Concordia-Moorhead
UW-Platteville @ UW-Whitewater
Hardin-Simmons @ Trinity(TX)
W&J @ Thomas More
WashU @ Berry
Chicago @ Birmingham-Southern
Hendrix @ Centre
Methodist @ Maryville
All things E8.
WPI @ Hobart
Rochester @ St. Lawrence
Delaware Valley @ FDU-Florham
William Patterson @ Montclair State
Rowan @ Christopher Newport
Kean @ Frostburg State

Quote from: bleedpurple on September 30, 2015, 02:47:08 PM

Quote from: cawcdad on September 30, 2015, 01:04:28 PM

Quote from: desertcat1 on September 30, 2015, 11:00:11 AM
The Island west teams could have TWO teams this year ?   :o Linfiled 9-0 .  Whitworth 9-1,   :-*

Happened a couple of years ago when Pacific Lutheran played at Linfield in the first round.

Of all the dynamics and back and forth of the D-III playoffs, this is my least favorite i believe. The whole "who gets in Pool C" debate is one thing.  Two teams being matched up for financial reasons when they  both should have had more favorable draws is just plain irritating.

Especially when you get Husson-MIT matchups on the other end

Quote from: bleedpurple on September 30, 2015, 02:47:08 PM
Of all the dynamics and back and forth of the D-III playoffs, this is my least favorite i believe. The whole "who gets in Pool C" debate is one thing.  Two teams being matched up for financial reasons when they  both should have had more favorable draws is just plain irritating.

Fair gripe to a degree but I think we have this discussion every year.  I think the NCAA could choose to structure top seed against bottom seed.  If they did - we'd be at a 24 or 16 team bracket with lots of plane flights crisscrossing the country and we'd still identify a true national champion that no one could dispute.  You'd also get undefeated teams sitting on the couch watching the Stagg Bowl.  I think the NCAA came to the right conclusion that each of the 247 D3 football teams should control their own destiny at the start of the season.  That means a 32 team field.  To pay for a 32 team field  - that means a 2 seed somewhere may have to play a 4 seed in the opening round. 

Alright, I've updated the Pool B/C eliminator table (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8234.msg1684081#msg1684081) to bold the teams still alive and asterisks for Pool B eligible teams.  I hope that helps!

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 30, 2015, 07:41:29 PM
Alright, I've updated the Pool B/C eliminator table (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8234.msg1684081#msg1684081) to bold the teams still alive and asterisks for Pool B eligible teams.  I hope that helps!

    Thanks Wally. Given that I asked someone when I was a kid why a team called the Red Tornados wore green jerseys, that will be a big help.

Anyone else find it strange UW-Stout has two reps on the West Region committee, including the chair.  :o

That just seems highly irregular to me. Better Stout, a team that's already not gonna be on the table, than at team like UWP. Still though  :-\ (and that's not me questioning the integrity of these guys, but it is recognizing we all have natural bias)

Quote from: hazzben on October 01, 2015, 12:52:18 PM
Anyone else find it strange UW-Stout has two reps on the West Region committee, including the chair.  :o

That just seems highly irregular to me. Better Stout, a team that's already not gonna be on the table, than at team like UWP. Still though  :-\ (and that's not me questioning the integrity of these guys, but it is recognizing we all have natural bias)

No.  Someone has to help me argue on behalf of a 6-1 WIAC team like UWO last year.  ;D

Quote from: emma17 on October 02, 2015, 12:31:28 PM
No.  Someone has to help me argue on behalf of a 6-1 WIAC team like UWO last year.  ;D

+K for a little humor on this drab Alabama morning

Quote from: emma17 on October 02, 2015, 12:31:28 PM

Quote from: hazzben on October 01, 2015, 12:52:18 PM
Anyone else find it strange UW-Stout has two reps on the West Region committee, including the chair.  :o

That just seems highly irregular to me. Better Stout, a team that's already not gonna be on the table, than at team like UWP. Still though  :-\ (and that's not me questioning the integrity of these guys, but it is recognizing we all have natural bias)

No.  Someone has to help me argue on behalf of a 6-1 WIAC team like UWO last year.  ;D

6-4.  All the games matter. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 02, 2015, 12:51:14 PM

Quote from: emma17 on October 02, 2015, 12:31:28 PM

Quote from: hazzben on October 01, 2015, 12:52:18 PM
Anyone else find it strange UW-Stout has two reps on the West Region committee, including the chair.  :o

That just seems highly irregular to me. Better Stout, a team that's already not gonna be on the table, than at team like UWP. Still though  :-\ (and that's not me questioning the integrity of these guys, but it is recognizing we all have natural bias)

No.  Someone has to help me argue on behalf of a 6-1 WIAC team like UWO last year.  ;D

6-4.  All the games matter.

Quit confusing me.

I'm going to update this list with the winners in bold:

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 30, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
Here's a list of Week 5 games that I think are most likely to impact the Pool B/C situation (not necessarily de facto elimination games between teams still alive):

Adrian @ Olivet
Denison @ OWU
ONU @ John Carroll
Central @ Wartburg
Bethel @ Concordia-Moorhead
UW-Platteville @ UW-Whitewater
Hardin-Simmons @ Trinity(TX)
W&J @ Thomas More
WashU @ Berry
Chicago @ Birmingham-Southern
Hendrix @ Centre
Methodist @ Maryville
All things E8. (Buff State, Alfred, Utica, Cortland State, Brockport State are winners)
WPI @ Hobart
Rochester @ St. Lawrence
Delaware Valley @ FDU-Florham
William Patterson @ Montclair State
Rowan @ Christopher Newport
Kean @ Frostburg State

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 04, 2015, 11:43:15 AM
I'm going to update this list with the winners in bold:

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 30, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
Here's a list of Week 5 games that I think are most likely to impact the Pool B/C situation (not necessarily de facto elimination games between teams still alive):

Adrian @ Olivet
Denison @ OWU
ONU @ John Carroll
Central @ Wartburg
Bethel @ Concordia-Moorhead
UW-Platteville @ UW-Whitewater
Hardin-Simmons @ Trinity(TX)
W&J @ Thomas More
WashU @ Berry
Chicago @ Birmingham-Southern
Hendrix @ Centre
Methodist @ Maryville
All things E8. (Buff State, Alfred, Utica, Cortland State, Brockport State are winners)
WPI @ Hobart
Rochester @ St. Lawrence
Delaware Valley @ FDU-Florham
William Patterson @ Montclair State
Rowan @ Christopher Newport
Kean @ Frostburg State

what about the island boys out west?  :o Linfield, Whitworth, pacific? nobody from so cal.  :-*

Linfield played L&C, not a factor in Pool B/C. Pacific played PLU, who is not a factor either. Whitworth played George Fox, who is not a factor in Pool B/C. It was a list of games between teams still alive for at-large bids.

 Pat, so you are saying NWC  only gets one team this year again.  :o  Linfield , Whitwworth and Pacific are all undefeated and still in the running for a Poll C BID was my point .    8-) 
not the bottom feeders. :-*

this weeks game  will  drop the DOGS (pacific ) ..

go
cats
GO BIG D

No, he is saying the list of games above were relevant to Pool C this past weekend. None of those included NWC teams. That list will change in the coming weeks. It was not a statement on who will/won't get Pool C, merely a statement of fact that those were the relevant games that week.

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 05, 2015, 10:21:42 AM
Pat, so you are saying NWC  only gets one team this year again.  :o  Linfield , Whitwworth and Pacific are all undefeated and still in the running for a Poll C BID was my point .    8-) 
not the bottom feeders. :-*

this weeks game  will  drop the DOGS (pacific ) ..

go
cats
GO BIG D

Yeah, this is going to be a week to week thing (probably for a couple of more weeks before I start projecting who might get those at-large teams) and last week there weren't games out of the NWC or SCIAC that were really important here.  CLU, Linfield, Pacific, and Whitworth all played teams that were probably going to be easy wins.  Fear not, I'll have a NWC game on the watch list this week.   :)

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 05, 2015, 11:07:04 AM

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 05, 2015, 10:21:42 AM
Pat, so you are saying NWC  only gets one team this year again.  :o  Linfield , Whitwworth and Pacific are all undefeated and still in the running for a Poll C BID was my point .    8-) 
not the bottom feeders. :-*

this weeks game  will  drop the DOGS (pacific ) ..

go
cats
GO BIG D

Yeah, this is going to be a week to week thing (probably for a couple of more weeks before I start projecting who might get those at-large teams) and last week there weren't games out of the NWC or SCIAC that were really important here.  CLU, Linfield, Pacific, and Whitworth all played teams that were probably going to be easy wins.  Fear not, I'll have a NWC game on the watch list this week.   :)

stir the pot  ;D :-*

I know how you EAST coast boys think ?  THANKS  :o

[quote author=Pat Coleman link=topi ;Dl B/C. Pacific played PLU, who is not a factor either. Whitworth played George Fox, who is not a factor in Pool B/C. It was a list of games between teams still alive for at-large bids.
[/quote]


Pat,  don't forget to feed the monkey and get some good ice cream while in Mcminnville.  8-) Maybe you will get your name on the board again?  :-* Are you paying or are we paying ?  :)

Go Cats
GO BIG D

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 05, 2015, 11:42:21 AM
I know how you EAST coast boys think ?  THANKS  :o

Hey now- I'm an Oregonian who just happened upon a Midwest school that I couldn't say no to.  :)

DC1: I believe you have the connections to get your question answered without me, but no. Nobody has ever paid for me to come to Oregon (though WC11 was kind enough to offer me a room in the past). You volunteering? :)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
DC1: I believe you have the connections to get your question answered without me, but no. Nobody has ever paid for me to come to Oregon (though WC11 was kind enough to offer me a room in the past). You volunteering? :)

Pat, I would be happy to put you up in the catmobile but,  i will be out of town with the twins. 8-)  Someone owns me a refund ?  (plane ticket maybe)  :o
I am sure i can find you a place if you need one.  :-*

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 05, 2015, 11:54:10 AM

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 05, 2015, 11:42:21 AM
I know how you EAST coast boys think ?  THANKS  :o

Hey now- I'm an Oregonian who just happened upon a Midwest school that I couldn't say no to.  :)

I knew their was something about you i liked.. ;D :-*

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 05, 2015, 12:09:57 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
DC1: I believe you have the connections to get your question answered without me, but no. Nobody has ever paid for me to come to Oregon (though WC11 was kind enough to offer me a room in the past). You volunteering? :)

Pat, I would be happy to put you up in the catmobile but,  i will be out of town with the twins. 8-)  Someone owns me a refund ?  (plane ticket maybe)  :o
I am sure i can find you a place if you need one.  :-*

No I'm good -- WC11 offered a room this time as well but I'll be recording the podcast and such that night so better off in a hotel.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2015, 12:16:57 PM

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 05, 2015, 12:09:57 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
DC1: I believe you have the connections to get your question answered without me, but no. Nobody has ever paid for me to come to Oregon (though WC11 was kind enough to offer me a room in the past). You volunteering? :)

Pat, I would be happy to put you up in the catmobile but,  i will be out of town with the twins. 8-)  Someone owns me a refund ?  (plane ticket maybe)  :o
I am sure i can find you a place if you need one.  :-*

Best chowder in  Oregon  ... And now at PDX  "  Bread bowl"   AT MO"S.... a must,, 8-)

Pat, Best Steak  is at the RINGSIDE in   portland.

Have a safe trip and enjoy the game  it should be a real DOG N CAT fight.  :-*

The Week 5 update to the B/C Eliminator table.  Here is a peek at the logic we are trying to apply as we go through this week to week:

1. Two-loss teams can make the tournament as Pool Cs
2. Three-loss teams never have
3. The last-time we had a conference get three teams in, the 3rd best team was the Pool A.

And with those three main points in mind:

- Three loss teams are automatically out.
- Two-loss teams are still in, unless those teams are already behind a pair of zero or one-loss teams in their own conference.  I think we're pretty close to adhering to this absolutely, but there may be a case here and there where we've knocked out a two-loss team that isn't going accumulate other useful criteria such as high SOS or wins vs. RROs. 

Thanks again to ExTartanPlayer and Bombers798891 for working through this with me.  Teams that we believe are out of at-large contention are in red, teams that I believe are still alive are in green, and Pool B eligible teams are marked with an asterisk(*), all as of Week 5 results.  And this week I've italicized teams that were newly eliminated.

CCIW	HCAC	MIAA	NACC	NCAC	OAC
Carthage	Earlham	Hope	Cocnordia(Wis)	Allegheny	Muskingum
Augustana	Hanover	Alma	Aurora	Hiram	Marietta
North Park	Bluffton	Kalamazoo	Wis Lutheran	Wooster	Heidelberg
Millikin	Anderson	Adrian	Benedictine	Oberlin	Wilmington
North Central	Defiance	Trine	Lakeland	OWU	B-W
Elmhurst	MSJ	Olivet	CUC	Kenyon	Otterbein
Wheaton	Manchester	Albion	Rockford	Witt	Capital
IWU	Franklin			Denison	ONU
	RHIT			Wabash	Mount Union
				DePauw	John Carroll

---

IIAC	IND	MIAC	MWC	NWC	SCIAC	UMAC	WIAC
BVC	Finlandia*	St. Olaf	Lawrence	L&C	Redlands	IWC	Eau Claire
Dubuque	Maranatha*	Carleton	Macalester	Willamette	Chapman	Martin Luther	River Falls
Loras		Hamline	Carroll	PLU	Whittier	Greenville	La Crosse
Coe		Augsburg	Ripon	UPS	P-PC	Crown	Stout
Simpson		C-MC	Beloit	Pacific	CMS	MacMurray	SP
Luther		St. John's	Grinnell	George Fox	Laverne	Eureka	Oshkosh
Central		Bethel	Lake Forest	Whitworth	Occidental	Minn-Morris	Platteville
Wartburg		St. Thomas	IC	Linfield	Cal Lutheran	SSC	Whitewater
		Gustavus Adolphus	Cornell			Westminster
			Knox			Northwestern
			Monmouth
			St. Norbert

---

ASC	CC	ODAC	PAC	SAA	SCAC	USAC
LC*	McDaniel	Randolph-Macon	Grove City	Sewanee	Southwestern*	Averett
Bellhaven*	Juniata	Catholic	Thiel	Millsaps	Austin*	Ferrum
HPU*	Dickinson	E&H	Waynesburg	Hendrix	TLU*	NCWC
SRSU*	Ursinus	Bridgewater	CMU	Rhodes	Trinity*	LaGrange
McMurry*	Susquehenna	H-SC	Bethany	WashU		Greensboro
ETBU*	Muhlenberg	W&L	St. Vincent	B-SC		Huntingdon
UMHB*	Moravian	Shenandoah	Westminster	Centre		Methodist
H-SU*	Gettysburg	Guilford	Geneva	Berry		Maryville
	F&M		CWRU	Chicago
	Johns Hopkins		Thomas More
			W&J

---

ECFC	Empire 8	IND	LL	MAC	MASCAC	NEFC	NJAC
Mount Ida	Buffalo St.	Alfred St.*	Union	Misericordia	Worcester State	Curry	So Virginia
Anna Maria	Hartwick		St. Lawrence	Wilkes	Plymouth State	Nichols	TCNJ
Norwich	SJF		RPI	Leb Valley	Westfield State	Maine Maritime	Montclair St.
Gallaudet	Utica		USMMA	Lycoming	Bridgewater St.	Salve Regina	Salisbury
Husson	Morrisville St.		Springfield	King's	Western Conn.	MIT	WPU
Castleton	Brockport St.		WPI	FDU-F	Mass-Dartmouth	Endicott	CNU
Becker	Alfred		Hobart	Widener	Mass-Maritime	Coast Guard	Frostburg St.
SUNY-MC	Ithaca		Rochester	Del Valley	Framingham St.	Western NE	Rowan
	Cortland St.			Albright	Fitchburg State		Kean
				Stevenson			Wesley

This week's eliminations:
WashU
Centre
Birmingham-Southern
Methodist
Hartwick
St. John Fisher
Merchant Marine
Worcester Poly
FDU-Florham
William Patterson
Christopher Newport

And then there's Ohio Northern who we moved back into the "still alive" group.  After further review, ONU is a team that can finish 8-2 and possibly have two wins over RROs (Utica, JCU) and that's plenty to be still in play.  My bad on knocking ONU last week.  That was hasty. 

All told we've still got 72 teams in play for those 7 at-large bids.  The regional breakdown is:
North - 13
West - 15
South - 23
East 21

McMurry is Re-classifying and Belhaven is Provisional.  They are not eligible.  Thanks.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2015, 08:35:12 PM
McMurry is Re-classifying and Belhaven is Provisional.  They are not eligible.  Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification, Ralph.  I presume Finlandia is also not eligible as long as we're tidying up those loose ends.  Either way, those teams aren't playing the postseason so for this exercise, we're all good. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 07, 2015, 09:00:01 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2015, 08:35:12 PM
McMurry is Re-classifying and Belhaven is Provisional.  They are not eligible.  Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification, Ralph.  I presume Finlandia is also not eligible as long as we're tidying up those loose ends.  Either way, those teams aren't playing the postseason so for this exercise, we're all good.

Finlandia isn't reclassifying... they're already a full fledged D3 school so I think they should be eligible. We had this discussion over on the basketball boards I believe last year.

Finlandia is eligible.

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 07, 2015, 10:40:51 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 07, 2015, 09:00:01 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2015, 08:35:12 PM
McMurry is Re-classifying and Belhaven is Provisional.  They are not eligible.  Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification, Ralph.  I presume Finlandia is also not eligible as long as we're tidying up those loose ends.  Either way, those teams aren't playing the postseason so for this exercise, we're all good.

Finlandia isn't reclassifying... they're already a full fledged D3 school so I think they should be eligible. We had this discussion over on the basketball boards I believe last year.

Yep.  And (although I doubt it had any effect) I'm proud of my efforts to get them reclassified as West Region.  They have numerous West region opponents far closer than their nearest Central (or North or Great Lakes, depending on sport) opponent, Alma, who is WAY over 300 miles (including the Mackinac Bridge, which can be very treacherous during basketball season).  And a HUGE salute to Suomi College (Finlandia, for those who refuse to acknowledge history :o - all stamp collectors should be aware that Suomi is Finnish for Finland) for winning in only the fifth game of their history.

Some key week 6 games in the at-large universe to keep an eye on:

Wittenberg @ DePauw
Ohio Northern @ Mount Union
UW-Whitewater @ UW-Oshkosh
UW-Stevens Point @ UW-Platteville
Berry @ Chicago
Shenandoah @ Guilford
Bridgewater @ Emory & Henry
Washington & Lee @ Hampden-Sydney
Rhodes @ WashU
TLU @ ETBU
Rowan @ Salisbury
Hobart @ Springfield
Stevenson @ Delaware Valley
And the dc1 West Coast Special™: Pacific @ Linfield  :)

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 08, 2015, 09:33:24 AM
Some key week 6 games in the at-large universe to keep an eye on:

Wittenberg @ DePauw
Ohio Northern @ Mount Union
UW-Whitewater @ UW-Oshkosh
UW-Stevens Point @ UW-Platteville
Berry @ Chicago
Shenandoah @ Guilford
Bridgewater @ Emory & Henry
Washington & Lee @ Hampden-Sydney
Rhodes @ WashU
TLU @ ETBU
Rowan @ Salisbury
Hobart @ Springfield
Stevenson @ Delaware Valley
And the dc1 West Coast Special™: Pacific @ Linfield  :)

u'da   man wally, :)

it should be a real DOG N CAT fight.  8-)
Go Cats
Go BIG D

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 08, 2015, 09:33:24 AM
Some key week 6 games in the at-large universe to keep an eye on:

Wittenberg @ DePauw
Ohio Northern @ Mount Union
UW-Whitewater @ UW-Oshkosh  but not UWW, yet.
UW-Stevens Point @ UW-Platteville
Berry @ Chicago  not yet
Shenandoah @ Guilford
Bridgewater @ Emory & Henry
Washington & Lee @ Hampden-Sydney  (Wow!)
Rhodes @ WashU
TLU @ ETBU
Rowan @ Salisbury  not yet
Hobart @ Springfield
Stevenson @ Delaware Valley
And the dc1 West Coast Special™: Pacific @ Linfield  :)

So far....
(+1 Wally)

Some other important results from Saturday:
Carthage 31, Elmhurst 17
Buffalo State 29, Cortland State 21
Springfield 35, Hobart 13
Southwestern 35, Austin 28
NC Wesleyan 24, Maryville 7 (!!)
SJF 34, Morrisville St. 29
Utica 22, Brockport St. 19

Quote from: Schwami on September 30, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
Excellent work!

One suggestion: consider placing an asterisk by the teams that can also get in through Pool B.  If I am reading the handbook correctly, this would be the three independents (Finlandia, Maranatha, and Alfred State), and the teams in the ASC and SCAC.  Currently there are 5 teams remaining out of this Pool B bunch (in no particular order):

1. UMHB
2. H-SC
3. Austin
4. TLU
5. Trinity

Can you share the URL to the 2015 D-3 Football Handbook?

Thanks.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 13, 2015, 04:19:02 PM

Quote from: Schwami on September 30, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
Excellent work!

One suggestion: consider placing an asterisk by the teams that can also get in through Pool B.  If I am reading the handbook correctly, this would be the three independents (Finlandia, Maranatha, and Alfred State), and the teams in the ASC and SCAC.  Currently there are 5 teams remaining out of this Pool B bunch (in no particular order):

1. UMHB
2. H-SC
3. Austin
4. TLU
5. Trinity

Can you share the URL to the 2015 D-3 Football Handbook?

Thanks.

Ralph-

Here you go.  (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Prechamps_DIII_Football_2015.pdf) 

Wally, anything of importance to report here this week?

Absolutely!  I'll be pushing an update to the Eliminator table this evening. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 13, 2015, 04:41:12 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 13, 2015, 04:19:02 PM

Quote from: Schwami on September 30, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
Excellent work!

One suggestion: consider placing an asterisk by the teams that can also get in through Pool B.  If I am reading the handbook correctly, this would be the three independents (Finlandia, Maranatha, and Alfred State), and the teams in the ASC and SCAC.  Currently there are 5 teams remaining out of this Pool B bunch (in no particular order):

1. UMHB
2. H-SC
3. Austin
4. TLU
5. Trinity

Can you share the URL to the 2015 D-3 Football Handbook?

Thanks.

Ralph-

Here you go.  (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Prechamps_DIII_Football_2015.pdf)

Thanks, Wally.  I count 12 Pool B schools.

Nebraska Wesleyan is Independent and not declaring this year.

The Week 6 update to the B/C Eliminator table.  Here is a peek at the logic we are trying to apply as we go through this week to week:

1. Two-loss teams can make the tournament as Pool Cs
2. Three-loss teams never have
3. The last-time we had a conference get three teams in, the 3rd best team was the Pool A.

And with those three main points in mind:

- Three loss teams are automatically out.
- Two-loss teams are still in, unless those teams are already behind a pair of zero or one-loss teams in their own conference.  I think we're pretty close to adhering to this absolutely, but there may be a case here and there where we've knocked out a two-loss team that isn't going accumulate other useful criteria such as high SOS or wins vs. RROs. 

Thanks again to ExTartanPlayer and Bombers798891 for working through this with me.  Teams that we believe are out of at-large contention are in red, teams that I believe are still alive are in green, and Pool B eligible teams are marked with an asterisk(*), all as of Week 6 results.  And this week I've italicized teams that were newly eliminated.

CCIW	HCAC	MIAA	NACC	NCAC	OAC
Carthage	Earlham	Hope	Cocnordia(Wis)	Allegheny	Muskingum
Augustana	Hanover	Alma	Aurora	Hiram	Marietta
North Park	Bluffton	Kalamazoo	Wis Lutheran	Wooster	Heidelberg
Millikin	Anderson	Adrian	Benedictine	Oberlin	Wilmington
North Central	Defiance	Trine	Lakeland	OWU	B-W
Elmhurst	MSJ	Olivet	CUC	Kenyon	Otterbein
Wheaton	Manchester	Albion	Rockford	Witt	Capital
IWU	Franklin			Denison	ONU
	RHIT			Wabash	Mount Union
				DePauw	John Carroll

---

IIAC	IND	MIAC	MWC	NWC	SCIAC	UMAC	WIAC
BVC	Finlandia*	St. Olaf	Lawrence	L&C	Redlands	IWC	Eau Claire
Dubuque	Maranatha*	Carleton	Macalester	Willamette	Chapman	Martin Luther	River Falls
Loras		Hamline	Carroll	PLU	Whittier	Greenville	La Crosse
Coe		Augsburg	Ripon	UPS	P-PC	Crown	Stout
Simpson		C-MC	Beloit	Pacific	CMS	MacMurray	SP
Luther		St. John's	Grinnell	George Fox	Laverne	Eureka	Oshkosh
Central		Bethel	Lake Forest	Whitworth	Occidental	Minn-Morris	Platteville
Wartburg		St. Thomas	IC	Linfield	Cal Lutheran	SSC	Whitewater
		Gustavus Adolphus	Cornell			Westminster
			Knox			Northwestern
			Monmouth
			St. Norbert

---

ASC	CC	ODAC	PAC	SAA	SCAC	USAC
LC*	McDaniel	Randolph-Macon	Grove City	Sewanee	Southwestern*	Averett
Bellhaven*	Juniata	Catholic	Thiel	Millsaps	Austin*	Ferrum
HPU*	Dickinson	E&H	Waynesburg	Hendrix	TLU*	NCWC
SRSU*	Ursinus	Bridgewater	CMU	Rhodes	Trinity*	LaGrange
McMurry*	Susquehenna	H-SC	Bethany	WashU		Greensboro
ETBU*	Muhlenberg	W&L	St. Vincent	B-SC		Huntingdon
UMHB*	Moravian	Shenandoah	Westminster	Centre		Methodist
H-SU*	Gettysburg	Guilford	Geneva	Berry		Maryville
	F&M		CWRU	Chicago
	Johns Hopkins		Thomas More
			W&J

---

ECFC	Empire 8	IND	LL	MAC	MASCAC	NEFC	NJAC
Mount Ida	Buffalo St.	Alfred St.*	Union	Misericordia	Worcester State	Curry	So Virginia
Anna Maria	Hartwick		St. Lawrence	Wilkes	Plymouth State	Nichols	TCNJ
Norwich	SJF		RPI	Leb Valley	Westfield State	Maine Maritime	Montclair St.
Gallaudet	Utica		USMMA	Lycoming	Bridgewater St.	Salve Regina	Salisbury
Husson	Morrisville St.		Springfield	King's	Western Conn.	MIT	WPU
Castleton	Brockport St.		WPI	FDU-F	Mass-Dartmouth	Endicott	CNU
Becker	Alfred		Hobart	Widener	Mass-Maritime	Coast Guard	Frostburg St.
SUNY-MC	Ithaca		Rochester	Del Valley	Framingham St.	Western NE	Rowan
	Cortland St.			Albright	Fitchburg State		Kean
				Stevenson			Wesley

This week's eliminations:
Wittenberg
Austin
Shenandoah
Hampden-Sydney
Morrisville State
Rhodes
Monmouth


Plenty more that are now on life support.  Elmhurst, Brockport State, Hobart, UW-Stevens Point, and Maryville specifically. 

Special note on Monmouth- they probably could have been eliminated last week or the week prior.  An MWC team hasn't been regionally ranked since Illinois College was ranked in the first ranking of 2013.  They had to be 8-0 to get there.  With the abundance of quality teams in the West region (and their h2h loss to Central being problematic as well), Monmouth cannot reasonably lose a second time and be ranked.  And if they don't lose a second time, they'll win an AQ. 

We've still got 65 teams in play for those 7 at-large bids.  The regional breakdown is:
North - 12
West - 14
South - 19
East 20

Wally, thanx for all the work - truly mind boggling.  Trying to keep it all straight is not a task for the timid.

I think you missed a team that is still a mathematical possibility for at least another week: UW River Falls, as they only have one loss to an NCAA opponent and one to an NAIA opponent. But maybe I missed another criteria you guys used earlier on that eliminated them already.

I think River Falls falls into the cross section of teams that are either going to win their league or lose again and be out.  I don't think there's a reasonable scenario where River Falls can have that loss to Simpson (and whatever the regional committee wants to do with the non-D3 loss), a second loss in the league and be ranked high enough to be selected.   It's just going to be really, really hard for any West team to carry a non-league D3 loss and be in play.  I think Bethel is the only one in the West that we have still alive that fits that criteria. 

wally, a minor quibble - I'm not sure Bellhaven and McMurry should even be on your chart, since their ineligibility for the postseason is WHY the ASC is in Pool B.  And I think the same thing is true of Alfred State.  But since none of those teams would be going anywhere near the postseason anyway ...

BTW (and I know this is the C board, not the B) for this year is it 6 Cs and 1 B?

Yes 1 B and 6 Cs this year.

Noted RE: the reclassifying ASC teams. No harm, no foul since they aren't in play even if they were eligible.  :)

Spotlighted Pool B/C games for this weekend.  Not all of these teams are still alive, but generally pose a legitimate threat to those teams that are still alive.  I've bolded the teams here still alive in the Eliminator Table.

Elmhurst @ North Park
Adrian @ Albion
Denison @ Wittenberg
Gustavus Adolphus @ St. John's
UW-Stevens Point @ UW-Oshkosh
Muhlenberg @ Gettysburg
Hampden-Sydney @ Emory & Henry
Guilford @ Bridgewater
Hendrix @ Berry
Chicago @ Rhodes
Austin @ Trinity(TX)
Huntingdon @ LaGrange
Brockport State @ Ithaca
Alfred @ Cortland State
Kean @ Wesley
Pacific Lutheran @ Whitworth (dc1 West Coast Special™)

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 15, 2015, 11:30:36 AM
Spotlighted Pool B/C games for this weekend.  Not all of these teams are still alive, but generally pose a legitimate threat to those teams that are still alive.  I've bolded the teams here still alive in the Eliminator Table.

Elmhurst @ North Park
Adrian @ Albion
Denison @ Wittenberg
Gustavus Adolphus @ St. John's
UW-Stevens Point @ UW-Oshkosh
Muhlenberg @ Gettysburg
Hampden-Sydney @ Emory & Henry
Guilford @ Bridgewater
Hendrix @ Berry
Chicago @ Rhodes
Austin @ Trinity(TX)
Huntingdon @ LaGrange
Brockport State @ Ithaca
Alfred @ Cortland State
Kean @ Wesley
Pacific Lutheran @ Whitworth (dc1 West Coast Special™) 8-)

u da man wally  :-*  thanks :)

FYI gang, I think I'm targeting my first Pool B/C projection for after the Week 8 games.  Will give everybody 7 games in.  I can do one after this week's games if people want, but I thought I'd go with the Eliminator for one more week before getting into at large projections.  Let's do this: RT for a week 7 projection, FAV for week 8.  Did I do that right? 

Save your energy unless you have a boatload of free time and cannot sleep some night.

As we (CruFootball, Gray Fox and I) were going thru the games for the ASC pick'em contest, we found these national games of interest.  Almost everyone eliminates one of the teams.

Whitworth at Linfield         
Rowan at Wesley                             
UW Oshkosh at UW Platteville         
North Central at Wheaton                       
W&J at Case Western Reserve             
Bethel at St. Thomas                         
Del Val and Albright         
Frank Marshall  and Moravian.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2015, 08:11:42 PM
Save your energy unless you have a boatload of free time and cannot sleep some night.

As we (CruFootball, Gray Fox and I) were going thru the games for the ASC pick'em contest, we found these national games of interest.  Almost everyone eliminates one of the teams.

Whitworth at Linfield         
Rowan at Wesley                             
UW Oshkosh at UW Platteville         
North Central at Wheaton                       
W&J at Case Western Reserve             
Bethel at St. Thomas                         
Del Val and Albright         
Frank Marshall  and Moravian.

For Pool C, NCC is already eliminated (since unless they get a third loss they will be Pool A).  And Wheaton would not be eliminated with their first loss.

And the game is in Naperville, not Wheaton

Quote from: USee on October 18, 2015, 09:46:03 PM
And the game is in Naperville, not Wheaton

Good catch - I missed that.  But shouldn't that be 'Napperville'? ;D

Quote from: USee on October 18, 2015, 09:46:03 PM
And the game is in Naperville, not Wheaton

Thanks and +1!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2015, 08:11:42 PM
Save your energy unless you have a boatload of free time and cannot sleep some night.

As we (CruFootball, Gray Fox and I) were going thru the games for the ASC pick'em contest, we found these national games of interest.  Almost everyone eliminates one of the teams.

Whitworth at Linfield         
Rowan at Wesley                             
UW Oshkosh at UW Platteville         
North Central at Wheaton                       
W&J at Case Western Reserve             
Bethel at St. Thomas                         
Del Val and Albright         
Frank Marshall  and Moravian.

ralph.   both of these ("west coast specials"}  are undefeated  6-0, 5-0, so after the game  won't the one loss team  still be in the running  for a pool c and the winner gets the aq if they win out?   what did i miss?  ;D

I think you guys are misunderstanding Ralph's list a little bit. 

It was a list of national games of interest where he said almost every one eliminates one of the teams.  Not that every loser  is eliminated.

You guys have been correct that the Whitworth/Linfield loser is not "eliminated" nor would Wheaton be "eliminated" with a loss to North Central. 

Maybe he should have called it a list of "games that involve teams who might ultimately end up in the Pool C picture" - would that be better?

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2015, 11:13:16 AM
I think you guys are misunderstanding Ralph's list a little bit. 

It was a list of national games of interest where he said almost every one eliminates one of the teams.  Not that every loser  is eliminated.

You guys have been correct that the Whitworth/Linfield loser is not "eliminated" nor would Wheaton be "eliminated" with a loss to North Central. 

Maybe he should have called it a list of "games that involve teams who might ultimately end up in the Pool C picture" - would that be better?

Missed the almost from law school ? ;D got a keep that "west coast special"  alive. :-*  when you live on an island . :-* 1st round match up. :o

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 19, 2015, 11:38:03 AM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2015, 11:13:16 AM
I think you guys are misunderstanding Ralph's list a little bit. 

It was a list of national games of interest where he said almost every one eliminates one of the teams.  Not that every loser  is eliminated.

You guys have been correct that the Whitworth/Linfield loser is not "eliminated" nor would Wheaton be "eliminated" with a loss to North Central. 

Maybe he should have called it a list of "games that involve teams who might ultimately end up in the Pool C picture" - would that be better?

Missed the almost from law school ? ;D got a keep that "west coast special"  alive. :-*  when you live on an island . :-* 1st round match up. :o

Kinda like the "Texas Sub-bracket"?   ;)

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 19, 2015, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: desertcat1 on October 19, 2015, 11:38:03 AM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2015, 11:13:16 AM
I think you guys are misunderstanding Ralph's list a little bit. 

It was a list of national games of interest where he said almost every one eliminates one of the teams.  Not that every loser  is eliminated.

You guys have been correct that the Whitworth/Linfield loser is not "eliminated" nor would Wheaton be "eliminated" with a loss to North Central. 

Maybe he should have called it a list of "games that involve teams who might ultimately end up in the Pool C picture" - would that be better?

Missed the almost from law school ? ;D got a keep that "west coast special"  alive. :-*  when you live on an island . :-* 1st round match up. :o

Kinda like the "Texas Sub-bracket"?   ;)

Yes it is. ;)
We could see UMHB at Catdome too ? ;D 

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2015, 11:13:16 AM
I think you guys are misunderstanding Ralph's list a little bit. 

It was a list of national games of interest where he said almost every one eliminates one of the teams.  Not that every loser  is eliminated.

You guys have been correct that the Whitworth/Linfield loser is not "eliminated" nor would Wheaton be "eliminated" with a loss to North Central. 

Maybe he should have called it a list of "games that involve teams who might ultimately end up in the Pool C picture" - would that be better?

I agree with one exception.  Wheaton @Naperville doesn't fit under "almost" or "every" since Wheaton is not eliminated no matter the result and the Pile of Suck from the South has already been eliminated.

Quote from: USee on October 19, 2015, 03:59:00 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2015, 11:13:16 AM
I think you guys are misunderstanding Ralph's list a little bit. 

It was a list of national games of interest where he said almost every one eliminates one of the teams.  Not that every loser  is eliminated.

You guys have been correct that the Whitworth/Linfield loser is not "eliminated" nor would Wheaton be "eliminated" with a loss to North Central. 

Maybe he should have called it a list of "games that involve teams who might ultimately end up in the Pool C picture" - would that be better?

I agree with one exception.  Wheaton @Naperville doesn't fit under "almost" or "every" since Wheaton is not eliminated no matter the result and the Pile of Suck from the South has already been eliminated.

A Wheaton loss to NCC won't eliminate them, but a loss to both NCC and IWU will.   ;)

CCIW is very strong this year. NCC is the best 2 loss team in the country. I could imagine NCC going 7-3 this year with all three losses coming to teams in the Semi-Finals!

I can't speak for Ralph (he does more than fine on his own), but just so you guys know where I'm coming from when I list the spotlight games each week here, I'm not necessarily looking strictly at games where the loser will be eliminated (although those are the most fun..and we'll get more of those as the season's end gets closer).  There are plenty of games where the loser isn't immediately eliminated, but the result will play a part in the Pool B/C discussion to come.  Wheaton/North Central is a prime example. 

Updated with winners bolded:

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 15, 2015, 11:30:36 AM
Spotlighted Pool B/C games for this weekend.  Not all of these teams are still alive, but generally pose a legitimate threat to those teams that are still alive.  I've bolded the teams here still alive in the Eliminator Table.

Elmhurst  @ North Park
Adrian @ Albion
Denison  @ Wittenberg
Gustavus Adolphus @ St. John's
UW-Stevens Point @ UW-Oshkosh
Muhlenberg @ Gettysburg
Hampden-Sydney @ Emory & Henry
Guilford  @ Bridgewater
Hendrix @ Berry
Chicago  @ Rhodes
Austin @ Trinity(TX)
Huntingdon  @ LaGrange
Brockport State @ Ithaca
Alfred  @ Cortland State
Kean  @ Wesley
Pacific Lutheran @ Whitworth  (dc1 West Coast Special™)

And a couple of other important results that were not spotlighted:
Utica @ SJF
Springfield @ USMMA
Rochester @ RPI
Fitchburg State @ Western Connecticut
Wartburg @ Dubuque

Lots of action in the Eliminator table this week.  Full update coming this evening. 

Also, next week we'll add in the first Pool B/C projection.  I'm going to shoot for a Tuesday post of the Eliminator (fewer teams to watch means it's getting a little easier to sift through every week) and a Wednesday post for the projections. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 20, 2015, 09:46:39 AM
I can't speak for Ralph (he does more than fine on his own), but just so you guys know where I'm coming from when I list the spotlight games each week here, I'm not necessarily looking strictly at games where the loser will be eliminated (although those are the most fun..and we'll get more of those as the season's end gets closer).  There are plenty of games where the loser isn't immediately eliminated, but the result will play a part in the Pool B/C discussion to come.  Wheaton/North Central is a prime example.

+1!    :)

The Week 7 update to the B/C Eliminator table.  Here is a peek at the logic we are trying to apply as we go through this week to week:

1. Two-loss teams can make the tournament as Pool Cs
2. Three-loss teams never have
3. The last-time we had a conference get three teams in, the 3rd best team was the Pool A.

And with those three main points in mind:

- Three loss teams are automatically out.
- Two-loss teams are still in, unless those teams are already behind a pair of zero or one-loss teams in their own conference.  I think we're pretty close to adhering to this absolutely, but there may be a case here and there where we've knocked out a two-loss team that isn't going accumulate other useful criteria such as high SOS or wins vs. RROs. 

Thanks again to ExTartanPlayer and Bombers798891 for working through this with me.  Teams that we believe are out of at-large contention are in red, teams that I believe are still alive are in green, and Pool B eligible teams are marked with an asterisk(*), all as of Week 7 results.  And this week I've italicized teams that were newly eliminated.

CCIW	HCAC	MIAA	NACC	NCAC	OAC
Carthage	Earlham	Hope	Cocnordia(Wis)	Allegheny	Muskingum
Augustana	Hanover	Alma	Aurora	Hiram	Marietta
North Park	Bluffton	Kalamazoo	Wis Lutheran	Wooster	Heidelberg
Millikin	Anderson	Adrian	Benedictine	Oberlin	Wilmington
North Central	Defiance	Trine	Lakeland	OWU	B-W
Elmhurst	MSJ	Olivet	CUC	Kenyon	Otterbein
Wheaton	Manchester	Albion	Rockford	Witt	Capital
IWU	Franklin			Denison	ONU
	RHIT			Wabash	Mount Union
				DePauw	John Carroll

---

IIAC	IND	MIAC	MWC	NWC	SCIAC	UMAC	WIAC
BVC	Finlandia*	St. Olaf	Lawrence	L&C	Redlands	IWC	Eau Claire
Dubuque	Maranatha*	Carleton	Macalester	Willamette	Chapman	Martin Luther	River Falls
Loras		Hamline	Carroll	PLU	Whittier	Greenville	La Crosse
Coe		Augsburg	Ripon	UPS	P-PC	Crown	Stout
Simpson		C-MC	Beloit	Pacific	CMS	MacMurray	SP
Luther		St. John's	Grinnell	George Fox	Laverne	Eureka	Oshkosh
Central		Bethel	Lake Forest	Whitworth	Occidental	Minn-Morris	Platteville
Wartburg		St. Thomas	IC	Linfield	Cal Lutheran	SSC	Whitewater
		Gustavus Adolphus	Cornell			Westminster
			Knox			Northwestern
			Monmouth
			St. Norbert

---

ASC	CC	ODAC	PAC	SAA	SCAC	USAC
LC*	McDaniel	Randolph-Macon	Grove City	Sewanee	Southwestern*	Averett
Bellhaven**	Juniata	Catholic	Thiel	Millsaps	Austin*	Ferrum
HPU*	Dickinson	E&H	Waynesburg	Hendrix	TLU*	NCWC
SRSU*	Ursinus	Bridgewater	CMU	Rhodes	Trinity*	LaGrange
McMurry***	Susquehenna	H-SC	Bethany	WashU		Greensboro
ETBU*	Muhlenberg	W&L	St. Vincent	B-SC		Huntingdon
UMHB*	Moravian	Shenandoah	Westminster	Centre		Methodist
H-SU*	Gettysburg	Guilford	Geneva	Berry		Maryville
	F&M		CWRU	Chicago
	Johns Hopkins		Thomas More
			W&J

---

ECFC	Empire 8	IND	LL	MAC	MASCAC	NEFC	NJAC
Mount Ida	Buffalo St.	Alfred St.**	Union	Misericordia	Worcester State	Curry	So Virginia
Anna Maria	Hartwick		St. Lawrence	Wilkes	Plymouth State	Nichols	TCNJ
Norwich	SJF		RPI	Leb Valley	Westfield State	Maine Maritime	Montclair St.
Gallaudet	Utica		USMMA	Lycoming	Bridgewater St.	Salve Regina	Salisbury
Husson	Morrisville St.		Springfield	King's	Western Conn.	MIT	WPU
Castleton	Brockport St.		WPI	FDU-F	Mass-Dartmouth	Endicott	CNU
Becker	Alfred		Hobart	Widener	Mass-Maritime	Coast Guard	Frostburg St.
SUNY-MC	Ithaca		Rochester	Del Valley	Framingham St.	Western NE	Rowan
	Cortland St.			Albright	Fitchburg State		Kean
				Stevenson			Wesley

** Provisional, ineligible for postseason
*** Reclassifying, ineligible for postseason

This week's eliminations:
Elmhurst
Denison
UW-Stevens Point
Bridgewater
Emory & Henry
Utica
Springfield
Rochester
Fitchburg State


Gettysburg survives for just a moment.  We'll see what happens with their game vs. Hopkins this weekend.  Kean is also on life support.  And one really interesting team that is now in a very precarious position- Wartburg.  Wartburg has some really difficult common opponent situations (Dubuque/St. John's, Dubuque/Platteville) and if Bethel doesn't make the rankings at the end, they'll be without a quality win.  Not a great place to be with what may well be the pair of single loss WIAC runners up and the possibility of one or two really strong at large profiles from the MIAC as well.  Wartburg may well need Dubuque to lose twice over the next four weeks to make the field. 

Also, an Empire 8 note.  It looks increasingly likely that none of these teams will be Pool C viable in another month, but for right now, we can't knock them out.  They'll do that on their own here soon. 

That leaves 56 teams in play for those 7 at-large bids.  The regional breakdown is:
North - 10
West - 13
South - 17
East - 16

Wally, what was you rationale for eliminating Denison with their FIRST loss?  (I think they got exposed and have zero chance of a C, but they don't seem to be eliminated by your criteria).

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2015, 08:15:03 PM
Wally, what was you rationale for eliminating Denison with their FIRST loss?  (I think they got exposed and have zero chance of a C, but they don't seem to be eliminated by your criteria).

Denison doesn't project as a team that can handle a second loss.  If they don't pick up that second loss, they'll have beaten DePauw and Wabash and won the league.  If they do lose a second game, they'd have that second loss and they'd be stuck behind whoever loses the Monon Bell Classic...and that's before we even start talking about the rest of the North region and then the remaining three regions.   That loss to a team that won't win the league was a killer for the Big Red.   They're in the Monmouth zone.

That's the key thing to remember - the first loss doesn't eliminate Denison from the playoffs entirely, but if they win out and go 9-1 they will win the league (and therefore will not be in Pool C).  If they lose to either Wabash or DePauw and finish 8-2, they'll find themselves in a bad place, probably tied with Wittenberg at 8-2 overall with a h2h Wittenberg loss that probably puts them behind Wittenberg in the North's Pool C queue.  To make the field as an 8-2 Pool C you need something extra - a win over an RRO, a big SOS number.  8-2 Denison will not have those things, and will stack up as the third or fourth best team in the NCAC.  Pigs will fly before the lowbrow NCAC gets three teams into the tournament.  I don't think conference affiliations should matter in this, but they do.  I know the Empire 8 got three teams in once - has any other league ever gotten three teams in under the current format?

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 21, 2015, 10:15:21 PM
That's the key thing to remember - the first loss doesn't eliminate Denison from the playoffs entirely, but if they win out and go 9-1 they will win the league (and therefore will not be in Pool C).  If they lose to either Wabash or DePauw and finish 8-2, they'll find themselves in a bad place, probably tied with Wittenberg at 8-2 overall with a h2h Wittenberg loss that probably puts them behind Wittenberg in the North's Pool C queue.  To make the field as an 8-2 Pool C you need something extra - a win over an RRO, a big SOS number.  8-2 Denison will not have those things, and will stack up as the third or fourth best team in the NCAC.  Pigs will fly before the lowbrow NCAC gets three teams into the tournament.  I don't think conference affiliations should matter in this, but they do.  I know the Empire 8 got three teams in once - has any other league ever gotten three teams in under the current format?

Not that I think it'll happen but if Denison finishes 8-2 that means they'd have a win over either Wabash or DePauw

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 21, 2015, 10:15:21 PM
That's the key thing to remember - the first loss doesn't eliminate Denison from the playoffs entirely, but if they win out and go 9-1 they will win the league (and therefore will not be in Pool C).  If they lose to either Wabash or DePauw and finish 8-2, they'll find themselves in a bad place, probably tied with Wittenberg at 8-2 overall with a h2h Wittenberg loss that probably puts them behind Wittenberg in the North's Pool C queue.  To make the field as an 8-2 Pool C you need something extra - a win over an RRO, a big SOS number.  8-2 Denison will not have those things, and will stack up as the third or fourth best team in the NCAC.  Pigs will fly before the lowbrow NCAC gets three teams into the tournament.  I don't think conference affiliations should matter in this, but they do.  I know the Empire 8 got three teams in once - has any other league ever gotten three teams in under the current format?

Don't know, but the WIAC certainly has a chance this year.  (And the CCIW IF Wheaton, NCC, and IWU all go 1-1 on h-t-h and NCC wins the tie-break (with Wheaton and IWU both going 9-1 - a doubtful scenario, but it COULD happen).

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2015, 11:24:18 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 21, 2015, 10:15:21 PM
That's the key thing to remember - the first loss doesn't eliminate Denison from the playoffs entirely, but if they win out and go 9-1 they will win the league (and therefore will not be in Pool C).  If they lose to either Wabash or DePauw and finish 8-2, they'll find themselves in a bad place, probably tied with Wittenberg at 8-2 overall with a h2h Wittenberg loss that probably puts them behind Wittenberg in the North's Pool C queue.  To make the field as an 8-2 Pool C you need something extra - a win over an RRO, a big SOS number.  8-2 Denison will not have those things, and will stack up as the third or fourth best team in the NCAC.  Pigs will fly before the lowbrow NCAC gets three teams into the tournament.  I don't think conference affiliations should matter in this, but they do.  I know the Empire 8 got three teams in once - has any other league ever gotten three teams in under the current format?

Don't know, but the WIAC certainly has a chance this year.  (And the CCIW IF Wheaton, NCC, and IWU all go 1-1 on h-t-h and NCC wins the tie-break (with Wheaton and IWU both going 9-1 - a doubtful scenario, but it COULD happen).

In the MIAC, if Concordia-Moorhead could upset St. Thomas when they meet, and these two teams and St. John's win out, there could also be a three way tie at the top of the conference at 9 and 1.

And if all three of those scenarios (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW) happen this year, we will have a serious issue in Pool C. The odds of that happening are better than the odds of the final play of Michigan v Michigan State.

Quote from: USee on October 22, 2015, 09:07:17 AM
And if all three of those scenarios (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW) happen this year, we will have a serious issue in Pool C. The odds of that happening are better than the odds of the final play of Michigan v Michigan State.

Exactly.  This is starting to remind me of those "What if" scenarios that emerge in D1 every year (including this one) right around now when people look at the long list of 6-0 and 5-1 teams and wonder "What happens if all five major conference champs end up undefeated?" or "What if the committee has to decide between four one-loss teams for the last playoff spot?"

Re: the WIAC...I'm not sure I actually see a (realistic) path for them to get 3.  Does anyone know the tiebreaker?  If UWP beats UWO this week and all finish with 1 league loss, who gets the Pool A?  Regardless of what you think of the actual quality of the respective teams and the difficulty in non-conference scheduling, UWP would have the strongest Pool C case thanks to the North Central and Dubuque wins (assuming that DBQ keeps some momentum after beating Wartburg, that is) because UWW and UWO (through no fault of their own) do not have the primo non-conference win.  So if you're rooting for the WIAC to get multiple C's this year, I think the scenario that has to happen is UWP beating UWO this week, but UWO still getting the AQ bid (Oshkosh would have the weakest Pool C case of the three with two unhelpful OOC wins and a non-division loss), UWP getting in at 9-1 with wins over CCIW champion North Central and IIAC champion Dubuque (note: one of the things I like best about wally's Pool C proposal in the WIAC board is adding a criteria for "win over a team that's already in the field"), and UWW getting in at 9-1 under the unofficial "defending national champion with strong record should not be left out of the field, official criteria be damned" clause.

But...history suggests we probably aren't going to get all the way there.  Because one of those teams is probably going to lose another game, one that we don't necessarily see coming.  I remember getting all excited about 2011 Oshkosh's Pool C chances after they played a close one with UWW (8-2 with losses to Mount and UWW! They have to be in!) and then they went out and lost again the next week.  Somebody is going to get picked off again.  Maybe it will be UWW this week against Stevens Point.  Maybe La Crosse is going to pick off Platteville or Oshkosh. 

The MIAC is even less likely to flesh out in the "three 9-1 teams" scenario.  Too many good teams in that league.  Bethel still has cracks at St. John's and St. Thomas.  Gustavus Adolphus still has Concordia-Moorhead and St. Thomas.  Way too much potential for carnage there.

TBQH, one reason why I wanted to wait one more week to do a B/C projection is because this week helps firm up some of these what if scenarios.  Oshkosh/Platteville is going to help us figure out if we've got a clear WIAC leader or if we have to account for it getting weird.  Wheaton/NCC helps as well.  The MIAC doesn't help much this week- how is it that 5/9 of that league is awesome and they only ever stage one really good matchup per week?  Doesn't seem mathematically possible. 

To that end, here are some Week 8 games to keep an eye on for Pool B/C purposes.  LOT of important action this weekend. 
Note: updated to bold teams still alive in the at-large pools and to identify games that I see as loser out games.

Wheaton @ North Central
Franklin @ Rose-Hulman
Bethel @ St. Thomas
UW-Oshkosh @ UW-Platteville
TLU @ UMHB
Johns Hopkins @ Gettysburg
F&M @ Moravian [elimination game]
W&J @ CWRU [elimination game]
Brockport St. @ Cortland St.
RPI @ Hobart
Widener @ Stevenson [elimination game]
Delaware Valley @ Albright
Salisbury @ Kean
Rowan @ Wesley
The dc1 West Coast Special™: Whitworth @ Linfield

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 22, 2015, 09:45:02 AM
The MIAC is even less likely to flesh out in the "three 9-1 teams" scenario.  Too many good teams in that league.  Bethel still has cracks at St. John's and St. Thomas.  Gustavus Adolphus still has Concordia-Moorhead and St. Thomas.  Way too much potential for carnage there.

Gustavus and Bethel are going to be double digit underdogs in those games, but certainly they could find a way to win 1 of those 4.

As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 23, 2015, 04:48:57 PM
As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

(https://nikkinicole36.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/charlie-murphy-hates-your-web-host.jpg?w=600)

I mean, if you're salty that Linfield gets a tough draw, you're picking on the wrong thing.  Linfield gets a tough draw because of geography and Division III is, relatively speaking, cheap.  Being fair to Linfield or UMHB or whoever else is orphaned geographically doesn't trump expense.  It's the economics you're upset about, not the selection process. 

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 23, 2015, 04:48:57 PM
As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 21, 2015, 06:28:23 PM
This week's eliminations:
Elmhurst
Denison
UW-Stevens Point
Bridgewater
Emory & Henry
Utica
Springfield
Rochester
Fitchburg State


Gettysburg survives for just a moment.  We'll see what happens with their game vs. Hopkins this weekend.  Kean is also on life support.  And one really interesting team that is now in a very precarious position- Wartburg.  Wartburg has some really difficult common opponent situations (Dubuque/St. John's, Dubuque/Platteville) and if Bethel doesn't make the rankings at the end, they'll be without a quality win.  Not a great place to be with what may well be the pair of single loss WIAC runners up and the possibility of one or two really strong at large profiles from the MIAC as well.  Wartburg may well need Dubuque to lose twice over the next four weeks to make the field. 

Also, an Empire 8 note.  It looks increasingly likely that none of these teams will be Pool C viable in another month, but for right now, we can't knock them out.  They'll do that on their own here soon. 

That leaves 56 teams in play for those 7 at-large bids.  The regional breakdown is:
North - 10
West - 13
South - 17
East - 16

I sure hope that 2/3 of our E8 teams prove you wrong!! ;)

Winners from the spotlight games bolded:

Wheaton @ North Central
Franklin @ Rose-Hulman
Bethel @ St. Thomas
UW-Oshkosh @ UW-Platteville
TLU @ UMHB
Johns Hopkins @ Gettysburg
F&M @ Moravian
W&J @ CWRU
Brockport St. @ Cortland St.
RPI @ Hobart
Widener @ Stevenson
Delaware Valley @ Albright
Salisbury @ Kean
Rowan @ Wesley
The dc1 West Coast Special™: Whitworth @ Linfield

And some other important results:
Trine @ Albion
DePauw @ Ohio Wesleyan
Cal Lutheran @ Chapman
Hendrix @ Chicago
Ithaca @ Morrisville State

I know that we're still a week or two away from full clarity here and wally's first attempt at a Pool C exercise, but as a complimentary piece of information here, I think I'm going to run through all of the conferences right now, list the current leader, and identify any key games yet to determine the league title.  It's not Pool C per se, but as we all know, Pool A must be filled before we can actually swim around in Pool C.

Will come back and post the Pool A picks/candidates this afternoon.

So here's a look at where all of the conference races stand.  I have tried to list all teams that are leading the league along with any others who are still alive (in realistic scenarios) and subsequent matchups between teams that are still vying for the respective titles.  For clarity, when I refer to a "one-loss team" in this post, I am referring to the number of LEAGUE losses, since I am writing this in the prism of "Who still can win the conference title?" 

This is long and I may have missed something, so apologies in advance for any oversights, typos, etc.
----------------------------------------
Centennial Conference:

Leader: Johns Hopkins.  The Jays have already beaten second-place Moravian head-to-head so they have an effective two-game lead on the field.  I'm calling this one about 98% sewn up with the way JHU has owned this league over the last decade.
----------------------------------------
CCIW:

Leaders: Wheaton, Illinois Wesleyan.  There are still two legs to go in this title race: first, Illinois Wesleyan must beat North Central this coming Saturday.  If they accomplish that, the following week Wheaton and Illinois Wesleyan will play for control of the CCIW title picture outright.  If North Central beats IWU next week, the calculus changes and IWU will need to beat Wheaton to create a three-way tie.  Both Wheaton and IWU control their destinies at the moment.  North Central is still alive but needs help.
----------------------------------------
ECFC:

Leaders: Husson, Norwich.  Both undefeated in league play and in control of their destinies with a showdown looming on 11/7 for control of the league title picture.  Castleton lurks in third with 1 league loss...although they have already lost to Husson, if Norwich beats Husson then Castleton would play Norwich on 11/14 with a chance to create a three-way tie.  Similar to CCIW: Husson and Norwich control their own destiny, Castleton is alive but needs help.
----------------------------------------
Empire 8:

Leader: Cortland State.  This is a huge mess.  Cortland has one loss, three teams have 2 losses, and no result in this league can be taken for granted.  I'm not even going to try to list the different scenarios still in play here.  It's still entirely possible this could come down to a tie with 3 or 4 teams.
----------------------------------------
HCAC:

Leader: Franklin.  The Grizzlies just beat second-place Rose-Hulman this week and, like Johns Hopkins, have what amounts to a two-game lead on the field with three to play.  Probably about 98 percent sure here as well, similar to Johns Hopkins against the Centennial.
----------------------------------------
IIAC:

Leader: Dubuque, undefeated in league play, holding a one-game lead over Wartburg with h2h victory in hand.  Dubuque plays 1-loss Loras this week, and with a win would also have the "effective two game lead" on the entire field.  If Loras beats Dubuque, a number of different scenarios come back into play.
----------------------------------------
Liberty League:

Leader: St. Lawrence, also with the "win over second place team" (RPI) securely in hand, giving them an effective two-game lead with three to play.  St. Lawrence doesn't quite have the same history of lording over this league that JHU does over the Centennial and Franklin does over the HCAC, so I don't know if this race is OVER in all caps like those two are, but it's close.
----------------------------------------
MAC:

Leaders: Albright, Delaware Valley, Stevenson (all one-loss in conference play).  Delaware Valley owns h2h wins over both Albright and Stevenson so they're in the driver's seat here, and they're the only team in control of their own destiny.  Albright and Stevenson play next week; the winner of that game will have to win out and hope that someone (Widener?) can upset Delaware Valley.
----------------------------------------
MASCAC:

Leader: Framingham State.  Has a one-game lead but yet to play current second-place team, Bridgewater State.  Winner of that game likely takes the league; both Framingham State and Bridgewater State control their own destiny.
----------------------------------------
MIAA:

Leader: Olivet.  Trine's upset over Albion this week muddies the picture a little.  Olivet is undefeated and controls their fate; if Albion beats Olivet next week, that could create a three-way tie with Olivet, Trine, and Albion atop the league (not a given, either, as this league can be somewhat unpredictable).
----------------------------------------
MIAC:

Leader: St. Thomas.  There are three one-loss teams lurking but Concordia-Moorhead's game this week will likely determine the league title.  If CM upsets St. Thomas we have a lot of scenarios in play.  If UST wins they will probably take the league, although they do still play one-loss Gustavus Adolphus (who would be a heavy underdog and may have multiple losses by the time that game is played).  St. John's is also sitting with one loss but it came against UST, so they need help.
----------------------------------------
MWC:

Leader: the MWC is (I think) the only Division III league with two divisions.  St. Norbert and Monmouth are presently in control of their divisions and on track to meet in the league title game to determine the Pool A selection.  Macalester has one loss and a game remaining with St. Norbert, so they might be able to nose their way into the league title game with an upset.
----------------------------------------
NACC:

Leaders: Benedictine, Lakeland.  This week Lakeland plays third-place Concordia (Wisconsin).  If Lakeland wins that game, the Benedictine/Lakeland game will decide the title outright.  If Concordia wins, that brings the possibility of a three-way tie into play.
----------------------------------------
NCAC:

Leader: Wabash.  The Monon Bell game was looking like an exciting showdown of 9-0's until DePauw went out and lost to Ohio Wesleyan this week.  Technically both Denison and DePauw are still alive if they can upset Wabash.  But really, this one's over, folks.
----------------------------------------
NEFC:

Leader: Western New England.  WNE has three games remaining against three teams who all only have one league loss of their own (Endicott, Coast Guard, Salve Regina) so this league has a series of elimination games remaining.  WNE is probably the heavy favorite.
----------------------------------------
NESCAC

Just kidding!
----------------------------------------
NJAC:

Leaders: Wesley, Salisbury.  Both undefeated in the league and scheduled to play11/7 for the game that should decide the league title (I assume that Salisbury's canceled game with TCNJ has effectively no bearing on the league championship).  However, surprising Frostburg State is lurking with one loss vs. Wesley and a game remaining against Salisbury...so if Salisbury is able to upset Wesley, Frostburg will play Salisbury on 11/14 with a share of the league title at stake.
----------------------------------------
NWC:

Leader: Linfield.  Just notched a 52-10 win over Whitworth and also already blew out Pacific.  Technically still has to beat one-loss Puget Sound to seal the title but I'm guessing that will not be a problem.
----------------------------------------
OAC:

Next question.

OK, fine.  Mount Union is the leader and still has to play John Carroll and Baldwin-Wallace, both with only one loss.  In a related story, Mount Union has outscored opponents 405-31 this year, including a 51-7 win against Ohio Northern (who beat John Carroll and lost 17-14 to Baldwin-Wallace).  I'll give BW some credit for bouncing back from a bad opening loss to reach 5-2, but come on.  These guys aren't beating Mount this year.
----------------------------------------
ODAC:

Leader: Washington & Lee, who sits undefeated with three one-loss lurkers.  W & L should be out of the woods if they can beat Emory & Henry this week; the other 1-loss teams, Guilford and Hampden-Sydney, already have lost to W &L and need help.
----------------------------------------
PAC:

Leaders: Thomas More, Case Western.  CWRU beat W & J this week to insert themselves formally into the race.  The two undefeated leaders will play on 11/7 for the title.  W & J has lost to both so I think this is down to a two-horse race in any realistic scenario.
----------------------------------------
SAA:

Leader: Berry.  The third-year program is in the driver's seat after beating fellow third-year program and current second-place team Hendrix (the only 1-loss team in the league).  Everyone else has two or more league losses, so only calamity can take the title from Berry.
----------------------------------------
SCIAC:

Leader: La Verne.  One of the more surprising stories of the season, La Verne is undefeated in league play and owns a h2h victory over the only 1-loss team, Claremont-Mudd-Scrips.  They are safe if they can win at least two of their last three.
----------------------------------------
UMAC:

Leader: St. Scholastica, undefeated in league play with a h2h victory over the only 1-loss team, Northwestern.  Probably has this one wrapped up.
----------------------------------------
USAC:

Leader: Huntingdon, with 1-loss Maryville looming on 11/7.  A Huntingdon win there would likely win the league.  Maryville's loss is against NC Wesleyan, way down in the league standings, so I don't think there are any three-way tie scenarios in play here.
----------------------------------------
WIAC:

Leader: UW-Oshkosh, who is undefeated with h2h wins over UWP and UWW.  UWO has to beat one-loss UW-River Falls this week to put themselves totally out of the woods, and if they do that will almost seal this race.
----------------------------------------
ASC*

Leaders: UMHB, Hardin-Simmons.  UMHB @ Hardin-Simmons, 10/31 will decide the league...probably.  ETBU still has games against both but seems unlikely to beat both.

*the ASC does not have an AQ this year, but the winner of the UMHB-HSU game is likely your Pool B team.  I did not list the independents and the SCAC anywhere.  Trinity (SCAC) is 6-1 and maybe kinda-sorta alive as a Pool B team but they won't get selected over UMHB or HSU so we're probably putting them into Pool C.

Excellent stuff, ETP.  I would just say that in the NCAC, it isn't quite as sewn up as you indicate.  Denison and DePauw play this week.  A Denison win means Denison and Wabash will play for the title on 11/7.  A DePauw win will add the league's AQ to the bounty for the winner of the Monon Bell Classic.  The loss to OWU notwithstanding, I do think DePauw has enough game to win that game if Wabash is careless.  I don't think that'll happen (obviously), but I don't want to dismiss DePauw as having no chance.  I'll have a much more thorough explanation for that during Bell week.  :)

And Trinity is definitely not in play in Pool B.  The h2h loss to Hardin-Simmons pretty much dooms them to be behind H-SU and UMHB regardless of who wins that big game.  Both teams have good postseason prospects at the moment, which would set up the groan-worthy rematch in round 1. 

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2015, 05:46:24 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 23, 2015, 04:48:57 PM
As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

Quote from: emma17 on October 26, 2015, 11:13:50 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2015, 05:46:24 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 23, 2015, 04:48:57 PM
As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

No, because there's not a chance that you could set up a bracket that meets Division III's economic limitations AND is a clean 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31 across the board.  That's not possible. 

And I'm not misunderstanding WWW at all.  His position on automatic qualifiers is clear. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 26, 2015, 11:24:56 AM

Quote from: emma17 on October 26, 2015, 11:13:50 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2015, 05:46:24 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 23, 2015, 04:48:57 PM
As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

No, because there's not a chance that you could set up a bracket that meets Division III's economic limitations AND is a clean 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31 across the board.  That's not possible. 

And I'm not misunderstanding WWW at all.  His position on automatic qualifiers is clear.

Wesley and Mount do not always get the easiest path. I'll grant you last year. But in 2011, which is the year that I believe they went to more of the pod system, Wesley had to beat Hobart, Linfield, UMHB (on the road) to get to the semis and Mount. ( where they lost 28-21.)

Most of the other years, the Wesley/UMHB winner has gone to the semifinals.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 26, 2015, 11:24:56 AM

Quote from: emma17 on October 26, 2015, 11:13:50 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2015, 05:46:24 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 23, 2015, 04:48:57 PM
As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

No, because there's not a chance that you could set up a bracket that meets Division III's economic limitations AND is a clean 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31 across the board.  That's not possible. 

And I'm not misunderstanding WWW at all.  His position on automatic qualifiers is clear.

I believe you said "it's the economics your upset about, not the selection process"- to which Ralph agreed.
I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I'm good with that. Although it may be true that www is also upset about the economics, his point is valid. Mt and Wesley and UWW and others would have a tougher road to round 3 if the playoffs resembled more closely a true 1 v 32 format.

In RETROSPECT ONLY does it seem that Mt. Union gets an easier road in round 2:

They've played W&J, Wittenberg, Johns Hopkins, Centre (and won only 30-10) and Delaware Valley in the second round.

In a 1-32 seed tourney, these would all be four seeds, in the Top 16. And you know what...THEY ARE!

Quote from: emma17 on October 26, 2015, 12:43:14 PM
I believe you said "it's the economics your upset about, not the selection process"- to which Ralph agreed.
I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I'm good with that. Although it may be true that www is also upset about the economics, his point is valid. Mt and Wesley and UWW and others would have a tougher road to round 3 if the playoffs resembled more closely a true 1 v 32 format.

If they seeded the tournament 1-32 and paired them off perfectly, sure, it might mean that the top seeded teams have a "tougher" road to the quarterfinals.  I think the difference would be negligible, frankly, but whatever.  I concede that point.  But pairing off the teams perfectly 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31, etc. etc. is not even close to a thing that is going to exist, so I guess I don't understand the point of the discussion.  This isn't something that's going to be done ever. 

The 2015 playoff results will be the proof in the pudding one way or the other as far as deserving Pool C bids or not.  North Central with 3 losses is most likely going to have given the 3 teams it lost to (Wesley, UWP, and Wheaton) tougher games than what another Pool C selection will (or what those teams will face in Round 1 (if UWP is selected).  But, you just can't lose 3 games and make the playoffs without winning the AQ. 

UWP will be interesting as they lost twice to 2 highly ranked teams.  I'm not sure that many of the other Pool C candidates would have done as well against UWW although many could probably have gotten beat by 30. 

Maybe Whitworth for a Pool C.  I would say that they are a Top 25 team even though they got badly beat by Linfield on Saturday.  I'd guess that most of the teams in the Top 15+ would get badly beaten by a Linfield team that is playing as well as it is.

It makes the first round easier for the NCAA... Whitworth to Linfield... Hardin Simmons to MHB... SCIAC to St Thomas... UMAC to UWO...

The Week 8 update to the B/C Eliminator table.  Here is a peek at the logic we are trying to apply as we go through this week to week:

1. Two-loss teams can make the tournament as Pool Cs
2. Three-loss teams never have
3. The last-time we had a conference get three teams in, the 3rd best team was the Pool A.

And with those three main points in mind:

- Three loss teams are automatically out.
- Two-loss teams are still in, unless those teams are already behind a pair of zero or one-loss teams in their own conference.  I think we're pretty close to adhering to this absolutely, but there may be a case here and there where we've knocked out a two-loss team that isn't going accumulate other useful criteria such as high SOS or wins vs. RROs. 

Thanks again to ExTartanPlayer and Bombers798891 for working through this with me.  Teams that we believe are out of at-large contention are in red, teams that I believe are still alive are in green, and Pool B eligible teams are marked with an asterisk(*), all as of Week 8 results.  And this week I've italicized teams that were newly eliminated.

CCIW	HCAC	MIAA	NACC	NCAC	OAC
Carthage	Earlham	Hope	Cocnordia(Wis)	Allegheny	Muskingum
Augustana	Hanover	Alma	Aurora	Hiram	Marietta
North Park	Bluffton	Kalamazoo	Wis Lutheran	Wooster	Heidelberg
Millikin	Anderson	Adrian	Benedictine	Oberlin	Wilmington
North Central	Defiance	Trine	Lakeland	OWU	B-W
Elmhurst	MSJ	Olivet	CUC	Kenyon	Otterbein
Wheaton	Manchester	Albion	Rockford	Witt	Capital
IWU	Franklin			Denison	ONU
	RHIT			Wabash	Mount Union
				DePauw	John Carroll

---

IIAC	IND	MIAC	MWC	NWC	SCIAC	UMAC	WIAC
BVC	Finlandia*	St. Olaf	Lawrence	L&C	Redlands	IWC	Eau Claire
Dubuque	Maranatha*	Carleton	Macalester	Willamette	Chapman	Martin Luther	River Falls
Loras		Hamline	Carroll	PLU	Whittier	Greenville	La Crosse
Coe		Augsburg	Ripon	UPS	P-PC	Crown	Stout
Simpson		C-MC	Beloit	Pacific	CMS	MacMurray	SP
Luther		St. John's	Grinnell	George Fox	Laverne	Eureka	Oshkosh
Central		Bethel	Lake Forest	Whitworth	Occidental	Minn-Morris	Platteville
Wartburg		St. Thomas	IC	Linfield	Cal Lutheran	SSC	Whitewater
		Gustavus Adolphus	Cornell			Westminster
			Knox			Northwestern
			Monmouth
			St. Norbert

---

ASC	CC	ODAC	PAC	SAA	SCAC	USAC
LC*	McDaniel	Randolph-Macon	Grove City	Sewanee	Southwestern*	Averett
Bellhaven**	Juniata	Catholic	Thiel	Millsaps	Austin*	Ferrum
HPU*	Dickinson	E&H	Waynesburg	Hendrix	TLU*	NCWC
SRSU*	Ursinus	Bridgewater	CMU	Rhodes	Trinity*	LaGrange
McMurry***	Susquehenna	H-SC	Bethany	WashU		Greensboro
ETBU*	Muhlenberg	W&L	St. Vincent	B-SC		Huntingdon
UMHB*	Moravian	Shenandoah	Westminster	Centre		Methodist
H-SU*	Gettysburg	Guilford	Geneva	Berry		Maryville
	F&M		CWRU	Chicago
	Johns Hopkins		Thomas More
			W&J

---

ECFC	Empire 8	IND	LL	MAC	MASCAC	NEFC	NJAC
Mount Ida	Buffalo St.	Alfred St.**	Union	Misericordia	Worcester State	Curry	So Virginia
Anna Maria	Hartwick		St. Lawrence	Wilkes	Plymouth State	Nichols	TCNJ
Norwich	SJF		RPI	Leb Valley	Westfield State	Maine Maritime	Montclair St.
Gallaudet	Utica		USMMA	Lycoming	Bridgewater St.	Salve Regina	Salisbury
Husson	Morrisville St.		Springfield	King's	Western Conn.	MIT	WPU
Castleton	Brockport St.		WPI	FDU-F	Mass-Dartmouth	Endicott	CNU
Becker	Alfred		Hobart	Widener	Mass-Maritime	Coast Guard	Frostburg St.
SUNY-MC	Ithaca		Rochester	Del Valley	Framingham St.	Western NE	Rowan
	Cortland St.			Albright	Fitchburg State		Kean
				Stevenson			Wesley

** Provisional, ineligible for postseason
*** Reclassifying, ineligible for postseason

This week's eliminations:
Cal Lutheran
Bethel
Washington & Jefferson
Franklin & Marshall
Gettysburg
Brockport State
Ithaca
Hobart
Widener
Kean

I don't have a ton to add here as I think thee eliminations are pretty self-evident.  W&J can get in at 8-2 but they'll be behind the PAC runner up (probably unless it gets weird over there) and they have common opponent problems with Chicago, who also is hanging on by a fingertip. 

We may need to reconsider Buffalo State also.  We knocked them out from the get go and I think they're still out.  They may be in play if Alfred winds up winning the league which I think requires Cortland State to lose both of their remaining games, but I'm not sure.  The E8 has gone full bizarro. 

No eliminations from the North this week, but DePauw, Albion, and RHIT are all on the thinnest of ice.  It'll be interesting to see how the regional committee treats RHIT.  Albion and DePauw are almost certainly out here, but there are some three way tiebreak situations that could put them in Pool C with just one loss.  So we'll let that play out. 

That leaves 46 teams in play for those 7 at-large bids.  The regional breakdown is:
North - 10
West - 11
South - 14
East - 11

I like this Wally_Wabash guy. :)

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 26, 2015, 07:35:03 PM

We may need to reconsider Buffalo State also.  We knocked them out from the get go and I think they're still out.  They may be in play if Alfred winds up winning the league which I think requires Cortland State to lose both of their remaining games, but I'm not sure.  The E8 has gone full bizarro

Go BENGALS!

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 26, 2015, 07:35:03 PM

We may need to reconsider Buffalo State also.  We knocked them out from the get go and I think they're still out.  They may be in play if Alfred winds up winning the league which I think requires Cortland State to lose both of their remaining games, but I'm not sure. The E8 has gone full bizarro

I'm going to flip this around. I think Cortland has to win the league for Buff State to have a shot.

Two-loss teams generally need something extra, like a RR win, to get over the hump. Buff State's only shot at that is if Cortland is 9-1. (I guess they could go 8-2, and be ranked, but the East is such a mess, I'd hate to hitch my wagon there.)

The trouble is, if Cortland wins out, that makes one of Buff State's losses come from a 4 (and maybe 5)-loss Morrisville.

So we'd have, best case for Buff State: One win over a RR opponent (Cortland), one bad loss (Morrisville), and a poor OOC schedule (a 5-5/4-6 Otterbein, and Finlandia, who is flat out terrible). In 2015, that's a thin, thin, resume for a 2-loss Pool C

I guess we should put them in, based on our rules, as I someone could knock off Alfred, giving an 8-2 Buff State 2nd place to a 9-1 Cortland. But I'd be flat out stunned if they got a Pool C

Not that I have a say in the selections, but if I did, I'd have to eliminate UWP from Pool C contention for the same reason I would have eliminated TLU from Pool C contention last year.  The regular season is important, and it's very much like an audition for the world to see how well a team stacks up against the best competition.  UWP lost badly to UWO.  Even though I think it's likely they would be a favorite against a couple Pool C teams this year (assuming committee uses same criteria as it has), I can't reward a team that so miserably failed such an important audition.

Quote from: emma17 on October 27, 2015, 01:14:27 PM
Not that I have a say in the selections, but if I did, I'd have to eliminate UWP from Pool C contention for the same reason I would have eliminated TLU from Pool C contention last year.  The regular season is important, and it's very much like an audition for the world to see how well a team stacks up against the best competition.  UWP lost badly to UWO.  Even though I think it's likely they would be a favorite against a couple Pool C teams this year (assuming committee uses same criteria as it has), I can't reward a team that so miserably failed such an important audition.

I actually posed to Wally that we include, essentially, the "resumes" of recent 2-loss Pool C teams, so we'd have something to guide our process with teams like that. If/when he gets that up, we might have some more info to help that decision. I think for now, we've tried to air on the side of caution with 2-loss teams who might have a few positive checks the committee is looking for, but you might be right on UWP.

On one of the boards, PAC maybe? I played around with a mock South Region Committee ranking given the info we have right now. Not accounting for anything that might happen going forward. I was surprised that I ended up with two 2 loss teams over a host of one loss teams, but when looking at how the RRO dominoes fell and SOS it seemed almost inevitable. Granted they were teams 9 and 10 and probably wouldn't see the board, but it was hard to ignore them based on the criteria.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 27, 2015, 01:50:30 PM

Quote from: emma17 on October 27, 2015, 01:14:27 PM
Not that I have a say in the selections, but if I did, I'd have to eliminate UWP from Pool C contention for the same reason I would have eliminated TLU from Pool C contention last year.  The regular season is important, and it's very much like an audition for the world to see how well a team stacks up against the best competition.  UWP lost badly to UWO.  Even though I think it's likely they would be a favorite against a couple Pool C teams this year (assuming committee uses same criteria as it has), I can't reward a team that so miserably failed such an important audition.

I actually posed to Wally that we include, essentially, the "resumes" of recent 2-loss Pool C teams, so we'd have something to guide our process with teams like that. If/when he gets that up, we might have some more info to help that decision. I think for now, we've tried to air on the side of caution with 2-loss teams who might have a few positive checks the committee is looking for, but you might be right on UWP.

I think I'll go ahead and do this ahead of my Pool B/C projection this week.  Once we get all of the regional fan polls posted (which will be surrogate regional rankings this week),  we'll put up profiles for the two loss teams that we have still alive in the eliminator. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2015, 03:00:21 PM

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 27, 2015, 01:50:30 PM

Quote from: emma17 on October 27, 2015, 01:14:27 PM
Not that I have a say in the selections, but if I did, I'd have to eliminate UWP from Pool C contention for the same reason I would have eliminated TLU from Pool C contention last year.  The regular season is important, and it's very much like an audition for the world to see how well a team stacks up against the best competition.  UWP lost badly to UWO.  Even though I think it's likely they would be a favorite against a couple Pool C teams this year (assuming committee uses same criteria as it has), I can't reward a team that so miserably failed such an important audition.

I actually posed to Wally that we include, essentially, the "resumes" of recent 2-loss Pool C teams, so we'd have something to guide our process with teams like that. If/when he gets that up, we might have some more info to help that decision. I think for now, we've tried to air on the side of caution with 2-loss teams who might have a few positive checks the committee is looking for, but you might be right on UWP.

I think I'll go ahead and do this ahead of my Pool B/C projection this week.  Once we get all of the regional fan polls posted (which will be surrogate regional rankings this week),  we'll put up profiles for the two loss teams that we have still alive in the eliminator.

I don't think the fan polls work real well as Regional Ranking surrogates but I can see how it would make your life easier. Criteria is simply too different.

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 03:03:41 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2015, 03:00:21 PM

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 27, 2015, 01:50:30 PM

Quote from: emma17 on October 27, 2015, 01:14:27 PM
Not that I have a say in the selections, but if I did, I'd have to eliminate UWP from Pool C contention for the same reason I would have eliminated TLU from Pool C contention last year.  The regular season is important, and it's very much like an audition for the world to see how well a team stacks up against the best competition.  UWP lost badly to UWO.  Even though I think it's likely they would be a favorite against a couple Pool C teams this year (assuming committee uses same criteria as it has), I can't reward a team that so miserably failed such an important audition.

I actually posed to Wally that we include, essentially, the "resumes" of recent 2-loss Pool C teams, so we'd have something to guide our process with teams like that. If/when he gets that up, we might have some more info to help that decision. I think for now, we've tried to air on the side of caution with 2-loss teams who might have a few positive checks the committee is looking for, but you might be right on UWP.

I think I'll go ahead and do this ahead of my Pool B/C projection this week.  Once we get all of the regional fan polls posted (which will be surrogate regional rankings this week),  we'll put up profiles for the two loss teams that we have still alive in the eliminator.

I don't think the fan polls work real well as Regional Ranking surrogates but I can see how it would make your life easier. Criteria is simply too different.

I'm going to allow myself the latitude to make adjustments where there are egregious...errors isn't the right word...oversights of the criteria, let's say.  I don't know if I'll have to do much tweaking (I think I can more or less buy what the fan pollsters are putting together right now...the people participating in those exercises are really thoughtful), but we won't do anything crazy here like pretend that North Central is toward the front of the at-large line in the North.  That might be the only weird case, really. 

I can see that. The one I found surprising is right now I'd have Moravian or Hendrix as the first candidate on the table for the South by the current criteria. Since neither are in the SRFP as of last week, it surprised me when I looked at current SOS and RRO numbers. Moravian gets Gettysburg and Muhlenberg to come, so that could change things, but Hendrix is pretty much clear sailing to the end of the season.

Lots of games to play, but little things like that are strange right now.

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 01:59:49 PM
On one of the boards, PAC maybe? I played around with a mock South Region Committee ranking given the info we have right now. Not accounting for anything that might happen going forward. I was surprised that I ended up with two 2 loss teams over a host of one loss teams, but when looking at how the RRO dominoes fell and SOS it seemed almost inevitable. Granted they were teams 9 and 10 and probably wouldn't see the board, but it was hard to ignore them based on the criteria.

Yeah, as the season's gone on, the thought process on two-loss teams has morphed slowly from a "We can't just eliminate two-loss teams yet, no matter how lousy we think they are" to "Give us a reason why you should be up here". Wally and ETP know a lot more about the big picture than me, so they've done almost all that lifting, but I can tell you they're following an internal logic and trying to think about criteria in these calls.

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I can see that. The one I found surprising is right now I'd have Moravian or Hendrix as the first candidate on the table for the South by the current criteria. Since neither are in the SRFP as of last week, it surprised me when I looked at current SOS and RRO numbers. Moravian gets Gettysburg and Muhlenberg to come, so that could change things, but Hendrix is pretty much clear sailing to the end of the season.

Lots of games to play, but little things like that are strange right now.

Barring a weird second loss somewhere, I think the loser of the UMHB-HSU game this weekend should and will be the first Pool C team available from the South (with the winner obviously getting the Pool B invitation).  Past that, it gets weird and difficult in the South for sure- thanks in large part to Chicago, who couldn't possibly be any less South. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2015, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I can see that. The one I found surprising is right now I'd have Moravian or Hendrix as the first candidate on the table for the South by the current criteria. Since neither are in the SRFP as of last week, it surprised me when I looked at current SOS and RRO numbers. Moravian gets Gettysburg and Muhlenberg to come, so that could change things, but Hendrix is pretty much clear sailing to the end of the season.

Lots of games to play, but little things like that are strange right now.

Barring a weird second loss somewhere, I think the loser of the UMHB-HSU game this weekend should and will be the first Pool C team available from the South (with the winner obviously getting the Pool B invitation).  Past that, it gets weird and difficult in the South for sure- thanks in large part to Chicago, who couldn't possibly be any less South.

You are right. That's what I had but I forgot only one of them would hit the table since both are undefeated. Still, probably looking at 0-1 RRO and not a great SOS for either, since TLU is sitting on an 0-2, not so good SOS right now either, they may not even hit the rankings. Of the two loss teams, TLU had a pretty bad SOS for whatever reason and if Hendrix and Chicago end up ranked they have better RRO records and higher SOS numbers. Of course UMHB has the worst SOS of the undefeated South teams right now. All that will change obviously.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2015, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I can see that. The one I found surprising is right now I'd have Moravian or Hendrix as the first candidate on the table for the South by the current criteria. Since neither are in the SRFP as of last week, it surprised me when I looked at current SOS and RRO numbers. Moravian gets Gettysburg and Muhlenberg to come, so that could change things, but Hendrix is pretty much clear sailing to the end of the season.

Lots of games to play, but little things like that are strange right now.

Barring a weird second loss somewhere, I think the loser of the UMHB-HSU game this weekend should and will be the first Pool C team available from the South (with the winner obviously getting the Pool B invitation).  Past that, it gets weird and difficult in the South for sure- thanks in large part to Chicago, who couldn't possibly be any less South.

Well, as Sageer has noted, they are on the South Side of Chicago! ;D

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2015, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I can see that. The one I found surprising is right now I'd have Moravian or Hendrix as the first candidate on the table for the South by the current criteria. Since neither are in the SRFP as of last week, it surprised me when I looked at current SOS and RRO numbers. Moravian gets Gettysburg and Muhlenberg to come, so that could change things, but Hendrix is pretty much clear sailing to the end of the season.

Lots of games to play, but little things like that are strange right now.

Barring a weird second loss somewhere, I think the loser of the UMHB-HSU game this weekend should and will be the first Pool C team available from the South (with the winner obviously getting the Pool B invitation).  Past that, it gets weird and difficult in the South for sure- thanks in large part to Chicago, who couldn't possibly be any less South.

With that in mind, any chance the winner doesn't host the loser in the first round of the tournament?

Quote from: crufootball on October 27, 2015, 04:46:15 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2015, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I can see that. The one I found surprising is right now I'd have Moravian or Hendrix as the first candidate on the table for the South by the current criteria. Since neither are in the SRFP as of last week, it surprised me when I looked at current SOS and RRO numbers. Moravian gets Gettysburg and Muhlenberg to come, so that could change things, but Hendrix is pretty much clear sailing to the end of the season.

Lots of games to play, but little things like that are strange right now.

Barring a weird second loss somewhere, I think the loser of the UMHB-HSU game this weekend should and will be the first Pool C team available from the South (with the winner obviously getting the Pool B invitation).  Past that, it gets weird and difficult in the South for sure- thanks in large part to Chicago, who couldn't possibly be any less South.

With that in mind, any chance the winner doesn't host the loser in the first round of the tournament?

Hendrix is within 500 miles of UMHB. There is always a shot! Or the loser could simply lose again, or not be chosen.

Quote from: crufootball on October 27, 2015, 04:46:15 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2015, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I can see that. The one I found surprising is right now I'd have Moravian or Hendrix as the first candidate on the table for the South by the current criteria. Since neither are in the SRFP as of last week, it surprised me when I looked at current SOS and RRO numbers. Moravian gets Gettysburg and Muhlenberg to come, so that could change things, but Hendrix is pretty much clear sailing to the end of the season.

Lots of games to play, but little things like that are strange right now.

Barring a weird second loss somewhere, I think the loser of the UMHB-HSU game this weekend should and will be the first Pool C team available from the South (with the winner obviously getting the Pool B invitation).  Past that, it gets weird and difficult in the South for sure- thanks in large part to Chicago, who couldn't possibly be any less South.

With that in mind, any chance the winner doesn't host the loser in the first round of the tournament?

I think Hendrix is the only other school even remotely in play that could spare y'all the rematch.  And I think Hendrix probably needs calamity to get in (we've knocked them out in the Eliminator).  A UMHB/HSU rematch is probably about a 96% probability of happening. 

Are we saying that UWP has been knocked out of Pool C contention with their 2nd loss - even though they lost to two teams ranked in the Top 7?  There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW - History sure wouldn't support it.  Maybe Wabash will be in the same bracket again as UWW and hopefully UWO and I can be proven wrong.  Unfortunately Thomas More and JHU most likely won't get a chance to see how they would do as they'll be in the East and lose to Wesley.

Wally has them still having a chance, and there's precedence for an excellent 2-loss team to make the tourney from the West.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 05:47:55 PM
Are we saying that UWP has been knocked out of Pool C contention with their 2nd loss - even though they lost to two teams ranked in the Top 7?  There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

Aw, the poor kids lost to two teams in the top 7?  Man, life is hard!  If they hadn't given up 63 points in one of those games, I might listen.  Even emma17, diehard WIAC fan and ardent supporter of changing the Pool C process to include teams with solid performances against "established teams" just posted here saying that he would be hard-pressed to include UWP!

On one hand you repeatedly complain about AQ's being an everyone-gets-a-trophy problem, then you whine about the poor team who had to play a tough schedule getting left out - even though they lost one of those games by 35 points!  Yeah - it's a tough life.  Winning the national title is something you have to earn.  Like I've said, this stuff devalues the regular season games.  UWP had their chance to beat UWW and UWO.  They lost both.  Neither one was a last-minute fluke.  Deal with it.

*Editing to add: with that said, I'm about to add another comment that suggests I don't think UWP is eliminated yet.  This first post was just a reply to this silly ongoing notion that teams deserve second, third, fourth chances just because they played a hard schedule instead of teams that are going undefeated and 9-1 in "weaker" leagues.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 27, 2015, 03:45:20 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 01:59:49 PM
On one of the boards, PAC maybe? I played around with a mock South Region Committee ranking given the info we have right now. Not accounting for anything that might happen going forward. I was surprised that I ended up with two 2 loss teams over a host of one loss teams, but when looking at how the RRO dominoes fell and SOS it seemed almost inevitable. Granted they were teams 9 and 10 and probably wouldn't see the board, but it was hard to ignore them based on the criteria.

Yeah, as the season's gone on, the thought process on two-loss teams has morphed slowly from a "We can't just eliminate two-loss teams yet, no matter how lousy we think they are" to "Give us a reason why you should be up here". Wally and ETP know a lot more about the big picture than me, so they've done almost all that lifting, but I can tell you they're following an internal logic and trying to think about criteria in these calls.

For me, it's been simple.  Any 9-1 team at least survives the first cut of "Do they have any chance at all to get discussed?" because there just aren't many teams that finish 9-1 in Pool C (what's the all-time record for 9-1 teams in the Pool C discussion since the field expanded to 32?  I think the most 9-1 teams I can ever remember being left out of the field is 2).  Even though there will be the occasional 9-1 team with an extremely flimsy resume who will never get discussed, it's hard to flag that for sure in the Eliminator, so we'd best leave all 1-loss possibilities on the table.

Then when we start looking at 8-2 teams, you realize, there are going to be a lot of 8-2 teams.  Too many for any old 8-2 team to make it to the table.  So there's gotta be a bonus point on an 8-2's resume.  A really big SOS, one or more RR wins, or 2+ good RR "results" working for you.

And that's where I think walla walla's last post is really stretching it with the "closeness" of those UWP losses.  It's possible that a team like 8-2 Concordia-Moorhead might get into the discussion if they're carrying an 8-point loss to St. John's and an overtime loss to St. Thomas.  As smedindy noted, there is precedent; St. Thomas got in last year at 8-2 with two competitive losses (although, as wally said in the past, that seemed like a bit of an odd pick).  But one of those UWP losses was an annihilation, and while UWO is undeniably awesome, the two weeks preceding their UWP game, they won by 3 points and 11 points.  UWP lost by a whole lot more than that.

The other thing that hurts UWP is that their big win, North Central, is going to have (at least) two other losses and will probably not be in the playoff field.  In an alternate universe where NCC beats Wesley and Wheaton and takes the CCIW at 9-1 with their only loss against UWP...that trump card of an RR win against a 9-1 league champion would help offset the two losses.  But with NCC 7-3 or 6-4 and maybe not regionally ranked, that win no longer works as a big shiny diamond in your favor.  It's just a good win.

Seems to me that the only prayer UWP has hinges on whether North Central can beat IWU Saturday. If NCC loses, I don't see how they could stay regionally ranked as a 4 loss team. UWP desperately needs a win against an RRO on its season end resume to have a prayer. Even if they do- I still have the dilemma of how a RAC would consider a result against a a potential borderline RRO from another region. In short, when the west RAC deliberates, they aren't going to know where the north RAC is slotting NCC, if anywhere. Sure they can take a guess on the week 10s advisory rankings, but as we know, those don't count in the official criteria. I'd love to get confirmation that the RACs talk to each other but I somehow doubt it. While it is true that the national selection committee will have the benefit of seeing all the "secret" regional rankings, the damage may already be done for UWP if they are ranked behind other west teams and never make it on the pool c board. As usual- I defer to wally's clairvoyance if he's seeing something I'm not.

I haven't gotten into full analysis mode yet here so this is more of a feeling than anything else, but I think UW-P presents one of the stronger 2-loss Pool C profiles that we've seen, maybe ever.  A lot of this hinges on whether or not North Central winds up ranked (which depends entirely on their result with IWU this weekend), but they look very strong.  Very high SOS, they walloped Dubuque (who really should be ranked), they beat North Central (who can still actually very plausibly win the CCIW).  They'll need to keep an eye on the MIAC race and how the runner up situation plays out there, but UW-P is very much in play here.   

Quote from: wabndy on October 27, 2015, 06:56:40 PM
While it is true that the national selection committee will have the benefit of seeing all the "secret" regional rankings, the damage may already be done for UWP if they are ranked behind other west teams and never make it on the pool c board. As usual- I defer to wally's clairvoyance if he's seeing something I'm not.

This is a really important piece.  We know Platteville will be behind Whitewater in the West already.  They may well be behind St. John's as well (if the MIAC shakes out with a 1-loss St. John's).  That would put them third in the West, which is a really tough place to be.  They should by all means be ahead of Wartburg (Wartburg is in serious trouble, guys).  So, Platteville could very well be the third team out of the West that sidles up to the table in about round 4 or 5 of the process.  At which point can they overcome voting inertia and get one of those last two spots?  It'll be interesting.  Man, I'm excited to run through this and see how it goes. 

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 27, 2015, 06:53:46 PM

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 27, 2015, 03:45:20 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 27, 2015, 01:59:49 PM
On one of the boards, PAC maybe? I played around with a mock South Region Committee ranking given the info we have right now. Not accounting for anything that might happen going forward. I was surprised that I ended up with two 2 loss teams over a host of one loss teams, but when looking at how the RRO dominoes fell and SOS it seemed almost inevitable. Granted they were teams 9 and 10 and probably wouldn't see the board, but it was hard to ignore them based on the criteria.

Yeah, as the season's gone on, the thought process on two-loss teams has morphed slowly from a "We can't just eliminate two-loss teams yet, no matter how lousy we think they are" to "Give us a reason why you should be up here". Wally and ETP know a lot more about the big picture than me, so they've done almost all that lifting, but I can tell you they're following an internal logic and trying to think about criteria in these calls.

For me, it's been simple.  Any 9-1 team at least survives the first cut of "Do they have any chance at all to get discussed?" because there just aren't many teams that finish 9-1 in Pool C (what's the all-time record for 9-1 teams in the Pool C discussion since the field expanded to 32?  I think the most 9-1 teams I can ever remember being left out of the field is 2).  Even though there will be the occasional 9-1 team with an extremely flimsy resume who will never get discussed, it's hard to flag that for sure in the Eliminator, so we'd best leave all 1-loss possibilities on the table.

Then when we start looking at 8-2 teams, you realize, there are going to be a lot of 8-2 teams.  Too many for any old 8-2 team to make it to the table.  So there's gotta be a bonus point on an 8-2's resume.  A really big SOS, one or more RR wins, or 2+ good RR "results" working for you.

And that's where I think walla walla's last post is really stretching it with the "closeness" of those UWP losses.  It's possible that a team like 8-2 Concordia-Moorhead might get into the discussion if they're carrying an 8-point loss to St. John's and an overtime loss to St. Thomas.  As smedindy noted, there is precedent; St. Thomas got in last year at 8-2 with two competitive losses (although, as wally said in the past, that seemed like a bit of an odd pick).  But one of those UWP losses was an annihilation, and while UWO is undeniably awesome, the two weeks preceding their UWP game, they won by 3 points and 11 points.  UWP lost by a whole lot more than that.

The other thing that hurts UWP is that their big win, North Central, is going to have (at least) two other losses and will probably not be in the playoff field.  In an alternate universe where NCC beats Wesley and Wheaton and takes the CCIW at 9-1 with their only loss against UWP...that trump card of an RR win against a 9-1 league champion would help offset the two losses.  But with NCC 7-3 or 6-4 and maybe not regionally ranked, that win no longer works as a big shiny diamond in your favor.  It's just a good win.

And it cuts both ways.  I suspect that NCC's drop in the latest d3football.com poll had less to do with their loss to Wheaton (who was already ranked much higher and expected to win) than with UWP getting pummeled (making it far less of a 'good loss').

(As a side note, anyone recall if a 4-3 team has ever before been in the top 20?)

You don't need to use "" when talking about "weaker" conferences or "weaker" teams. The evidence that not all conferences are equal has been and will continue to be proven each year in the playoffs.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 08:01:29 PM
You don't need to use "" when talking about "weaker" conferences or "weaker" teams. The evidence that not all conferences are equal has been and will continue to be proven each year in the playoffs.

I don't think anybody believes that all of the conferences are equal.  Do they?

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 08:01:29 PM
You don't need to use "" when talking about "weaker" conferences or "weaker" teams. The evidence that not all conferences are equal has been and will continue to be proven each year in the playoffs.

OK.  I'll stop using the quotes.

Why does the fact that not all conferences are equal mean that we should exclude some conferences from the playoffs?

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 05:47:55 PM
There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 28, 2015, 07:29:03 AM
Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

LOL

I don't like the score of that Platteville game either, but last year we saw TLU get in with a similar/worse wipeout and much less meat on their profile than what Platteville has this year.  And TLU went in BEFORE an undefeated team from their same region.  It may be that the West RAC really punishes Platteville for that margin of defeat in a way that the South region didn't do to TLU in 2014.  I'm just saying we've seen very recently that that sort of loss can be overcome at selection time. 

Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 28, 2015, 07:29:03 AM
If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

I would argue (though I know the criteria say nothing about this) that a 3rd place team from any conference does not belong in the playoffs.  They've already shown that they are not as good as 2 other teams that (it seems) are going to make the field.  It's not a case where there is a 3 way tie for first (or even a 2 way tie for 2nd) and one teams gets left behind.  If you couldn't beat 2 teams ahead of you in your conference then you didn't earn a spot into the playoffs.  Sure, it may be the case that there are teams in the playoffs that said team could beat (even easily) but there are also teams in the playoffs that have proven they can beat said team (and in once case---easily).  Obviously just my opinion and the selection committees will do what they do but it seems pretty clear (to me) that 2 losses in conference (with the 2 teams that beat you ahead of you in the standings) should not qualify for 1 of the very limited number of At Large spots.


Did I use enough parentheses? 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 09:17:31 AM
I don't like the score of that Platteville game either, but last year we saw TLU get in with a similar/worse wipeout and much less meat on their profile than what Platteville has this year.  And TLU went in BEFORE an undefeated team from their same region.  It may be that the West RAC really punishes Platteville for that margin of defeat in a way that the South region didn't do to TLU in 2014.  I'm just saying we've seen very recently that that sort of loss can be overcome at selection time.

What UWP does have working for it (that TLU didn't) is the possibility of a couple RR wins to offset that blowout loss.  If Dubuque goes 8-2 and wins the IIAC, and North Central goes 7-3 and ends up in a tie for the CCIW, they'll have a couple bonus points helping them out.  In which case, they might be in, and that's cool. 

What I'm ranting against is the poor Team X, they played other hard teams and only sorta got killed that drips out of walla walla's last post.  "I bet no other team outside the top 8 could hang with UWO and UWW the way UWP did" (ignoring that another team inside their own conference, with a loss to an MIAA team did that this season).  If there's going to be an argument for UWP in the playoffs, it's going to be that they (might) have a couple of RR wins, not that they only lost by an average of 22.5 points against UWO and UWW.

Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 28, 2015, 09:23:04 AM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 28, 2015, 07:29:03 AM
If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

I would argue (though I know the criteria say nothing about this) that a 3rd place team from any conference does not belong in the playoffs.  They've already shown that they are not as good as 2 other teams that (it seems) are going to make the field.

I would be careful with this kind of proclamation. We know this isn't true from other settings. The Cubs were the 3rd best team in their division and collectively those three teams were the 3 best (based on record) in all of baseball. It obviously isn't apples to apples but you can't definitively say a 3rd place team from conference X isn't good enough to make the tournament. That's what the at large system is designed for isn't it? To give the "next best" teams the opportunity to prove themselves? Personally I love the AQ system and am pretty comfortable with the Pool C selection process, though I really like some of Wally's tweaks he suggested a couple weeks ago.

As far as a team with a blow out loss deserving admission, that would likely preclude any 2nd place WIAC team (in most years) and any OAC team other than Mt Union. Also, TLU (previously mentioned) played their rematch with MHB to a one score game in the playoffs.

Quote from: USee on October 28, 2015, 11:24:44 AM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 28, 2015, 09:23:04 AM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 28, 2015, 07:29:03 AM
If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

I would argue (though I know the criteria say nothing about this) that a 3rd place team from any conference does not belong in the playoffs.  They've already shown that they are not as good as 2 other teams that (it seems) are going to make the field.

I would be careful with this kind of proclamation. We know this isn't true from other settings. The Cubs were the 3rd best team in their division and collectively those three teams were the 3 best (based on record) in all of baseball. It obviously isn't apples to apples but you can't definitively say a 3rd place team from conference X isn't good enough to make the tournament. That's what the at large system is designed for isn't it? To give the "next best" teams the opportunity to prove themselves? Personally I love the AQ system and am pretty comfortable with the Pool C selection process, though I really like some of Wally's tweaks he suggested a couple weeks ago.

As far as a team with a blow out loss deserving admission, that would likely preclude any 2nd place WIAC team (in most years) and any OAC team other than Mt Union. Also, TLU (previously mentioned) played their rematch with MHB to a one score game in the playoffs.

I don't think that there is a bigger red herring in this whole at-large conversation than conference affiliation.  Conference affiliation is a distraction.   When we did the mock selection last year, I don't think we talked about conference affiliation one time (I'd have to check the archive)- or if we did it wasn't something that had any impact on our votes.  When I do the projections, the conference affiliation never enters the thought process. 

As for third place teams being in or out- generally that takes care of itself.  We've only seen one league place three teams in the tournament one time.  But this is a fairly extraordinary case this year- Platteville has lost to their eventual league champion and to the defending national champion (criteria or no, the committees are giving some special dispensation to results against Whitewater and Mount Union...that's just what 10 years of total dominance gets).  Never mind what place Platteville finishes in their league- if you look at the 10 games they played and who they beat and how they played against other ranked teams, they will stack up favorably.  Getting to the front of the line in the West, from what I can see right now, is probably their biggest obstacle. 

Wally,

Well said. I think conference affiliation can cut both ways. It shouldn't get undeserving teams in and conference affiliation shouldn't keep otherwise deserving teams out. I agree it is a different kind of year. We could have 3 one loss MIAC teams as well. Or even 2 one loss CCIW teams that don't get the AQ.

As a fan of the last 3rd-place team to make the NCAAs, I wanted to throw my hat in here on this subject. In 2007, people generally believed Ithaca was better than the Hartwick team they finished behind in the conference (borne out through the final poll positions of both teams). Ithaca also suffered a butt-kicking loss to Fisher that year, at home no less.

But times have changed, and as Denzel told us in Training Day: "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." Ithaca got in by the skin of their teeth, and had they not gotten in, they'd have no one but themselves to blame. I think teams have to, in this era of shrinking Pool Cs, need to say "Look what we did that these teams didn't" not "Come on, you know we're really good"

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 28, 2015, 12:00:23 PM
I think teams have to, in this era of shrinking Pool Cs, need to say "Look what we did that these teams didn't" not "Come on, you know we're really good"

+K. Love this.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 05:58:52 AM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 05:47:55 PM
There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule? 

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:10:28 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 05:58:52 AM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 05:47:55 PM
There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

Quote from: USee on October 28, 2015, 11:24:44 AM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 28, 2015, 09:23:04 AM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 28, 2015, 07:29:03 AM
If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

I would argue (though I know the criteria say nothing about this) that a 3rd place team from any conference does not belong in the playoffs.  They've already shown that they are not as good as 2 other teams that (it seems) are going to make the field.

I would be careful with this kind of proclamation. We know this isn't true from other settings. The Cubs were the 3rd best team in their division and collectively those three teams were the 3 best (based on record) in all of baseball. It obviously isn't apples to apples but you can't definitively say a 3rd place team from conference X isn't good enough to make the tournament. That's what the at large system is designed for isn't it? To give the "next best" teams the opportunity to prove themselves? Personally I love the AQ system and am pretty comfortable with the Pool C selection process, though I really like some of Wally's tweaks he suggested a couple weeks ago.

As far as a team with a blow out loss deserving admission, that would likely preclude any 2nd place WIAC team (in most years) and any OAC team other than Mt Union. Also, TLU (previously mentioned) played their rematch with MHB to a one score game in the playoffs.

I think the at large is for the "next best team" I just don't think that team should be one that has already lost to 2 other teams (in their same conference) that make the field ahead of them.  In my mind, they've already "proven themselves" or failed to prove themselves. 

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:10:28 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 05:58:52 AM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 05:47:55 PM
There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

He would have lost the bet, but that doesn't make it a bad bet.  How many teams would you pick to stay close with Whitewater and Oshkosh? 

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:28:14 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:10:28 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 05:58:52 AM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 05:47:55 PM
There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

He would have lost the bet, but that doesn't make it a bad bet.  How many teams would you pick to stay close with Whitewater and Oshkosh?

35 points is "close" ?

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 01:31:19 PM

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:28:14 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:10:28 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 05:58:52 AM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 27, 2015, 05:47:55 PM
There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

He would have lost the bet, but that doesn't make it a bad bet.  How many teams would you pick to stay close with Whitewater and Oshkosh?

35 points is "close" ?

I'm saying that staying close with Oshkosh and Whitewater is unlikely based on all results.  The fact that Stevens Point did so is an upset, not expected.  The fact that Stevens Point was also upset by a worse team is also an upset.  And so on. 

The main point: you can't just point to one win or one loss on a schedule to determine the strength of a team.

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
I'm saying that staying close with Oshkosh and Whitewater is unlikely based on all results.  The fact that Stevens Point did so is an upset, not expected.  The fact that Stevens Point was also upset by a worse team is also an upset.  And so on. 

And I'm the one cherry-picking results?   You've said that three of UWSP's results this year are "unlikely" or "not expected" or "upset" - this sure seems like a convenient way of dismissing all of the results you don't like by calling them unexpected, and then just sticking to what you already believed about the teams.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 28, 2015, 01:45:42 PM

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
I'm saying that staying close with Oshkosh and Whitewater is unlikely based on all results.  The fact that Stevens Point did so is an upset, not expected.  The fact that Stevens Point was also upset by a worse team is also an upset.  And so on. 

And I'm the one cherry-picking results?   You've said that three of UWSP's results this year are "unlikely" or "not expected" or "upset" - this sure seems like a convenient way of dismissing all of the results you don't like by calling them unexpected, and then just sticking to what you already believed about the teams.

They were all upsets at the time of the game.  After Stevens Point stays close with Platteville and Oshkosh, it's less of an upset that they did the same with Whitewater.  The real outlier as of today is the Albion game.  We don't throw the outlier out of consideration, but it's not going to matter more than the other 9 games on the schedule.

Quote from: emma17 on October 26, 2015, 11:13:50 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2015, 05:46:24 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 23, 2015, 04:48:57 PM
As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

Sorry that I am 2 days late.

The effect that the Pool System has had on D-3 athletics is that it has encouraged colleges to add teams, in all sports!

The simple goal in adding a new sport is to be competitive among peer institutions (the teams in your conferences). 

Look at all of the football programs that have been added in the last 15 years.  The new programs in the Northwest Conference just wanted to be competitive. Now there are more opportunities for student-athletes in that part of the country.

Look at all of the new conferences that have earned the Pool A bid. Yes independents have merged into new conferences, but IMHO, D-3 is stronger for it.

Week 9 games to keep an eye on for Pool B/C watchers. 
Note:  bolded teams are still alive in the at-large pools

North Central @ Illinois Wesleyan
Albion @ Olivet
DePauw @ Denison [elimination game]
St. Thomas @ Concordia-Moorhead
Gustavus Adolphus @ Bethel [elimination game]
Mary Hardin-Baylor @ Hardin-Simmons
Gettysburg @ Moravian [elimination game]
Washington & Lee @ Emory & Henry
Washington U. @ Case Western Reserve [elimination game]
Texas Lutheran @ Trinity(TX) [elimination game]
Frostburg State @ Rowan [elimination game]
And what may well be the 2015 swan song for The dc1 West Coast Special™: Pacific @ Whitworth [elimination game]

Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 28, 2015, 01:25:58 PM

Quote from: USee on October 28, 2015, 11:24:44 AM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on October 28, 2015, 09:23:04 AM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 28, 2015, 07:29:03 AM
If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

I would argue (though I know the criteria say nothing about this) that a 3rd place team from any conference does not belong in the playoffs.  They've already shown that they are not as good as 2 other teams that (it seems) are going to make the field.

I would be careful with this kind of proclamation. We know this isn't true from other settings. The Cubs were the 3rd best team in their division and collectively those three teams were the 3 best (based on record) in all of baseball. It obviously isn't apples to apples but you can't definitively say a 3rd place team from conference X isn't good enough to make the tournament. That's what the at large system is designed for isn't it? To give the "next best" teams the opportunity to prove themselves? Personally I love the AQ system and am pretty comfortable with the Pool C selection process, though I really like some of Wally's tweaks he suggested a couple weeks ago.

As far as a team with a blow out loss deserving admission, that would likely preclude any 2nd place WIAC team (in most years) and any OAC team other than Mt Union. Also, TLU (previously mentioned) played their rematch with MHB to a one score game in the playoffs.

I think the at large is for the "next best team" I just don't think that team should be one that has already lost to 2 other teams (in their same conference) that make the field ahead of them.  In my mind, they've already "proven themselves" or failed to prove themselves.

That's your opinion and I am glad we don't have a system that thinks that way. If the "next best team(s)" happen to be in the same conference in a particular year then the system should recognize that. I would be completely against any criteria that limits access to the 3rd best team in a given conference as vehemently as all of us who are against restricting access from perceived "lesser" conferences.

The reason being it's the inverse of the same argument. You can't say Muhlenberg doesn't deserve a big because they didn't play anyone anymore than you can say UWP doesn't deserve a bid because they didn't beat 2 of the top five teams in the nation who happen to be in their conference. If the criteria (which most of us agree need to be tweaked at least) dictate Muhlenberg and/or UWP, then so be it.

The real problem with using the "How many teams outside the Top 8 would stay close* with UWO and UWW" question to determine Pool C validity is that it's inherently biased in favor WIAC teams since outside of them, very few other teams get that chance.

(*That is if you accept that a game in which a team trailed 35-7 early in the second quarter, never got closer than 14, trailed by at least 21 for the entirety of the 4th quarter, and lost by 35 is "close")

You've set up a condition that roughly 98% of Division III cannot even attempt to meet in any given year, and you're essentially penalizing them for not doing it.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 28, 2015, 02:45:45 PM
The real problem with using the "How many teams outside the Top 8 would stay close* with UWO and UWW" question to determine Pool C validity is that it's inherently biased in favor WIAC teams since outside of them, very few other teams get that chance.

You've set up a condition that roughly 98% of Division III cannot even attempt to meet in any given year, and you're essentially penalizing them for not doing it.

Yes.  Yes.  YES. All of this here.  This is pretty much perfect. 

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 28, 2015, 02:45:45 PM
The real problem with using the "How many teams outside the Top 8 would stay close* with UWO and UWW" question to determine Pool C validity is that it's inherently biased in favor WIAC teams since outside of them, very few other teams get that chance.

(*That is if you accept that a game in which a team trailed 35-7 early in the second quarter, never got closer than 14, trailed by at least 21 for the entirety of the 4th quarter, and lost by 35 is "close")

You've set up a condition that roughly 98% of Division III cannot even attempt to meet in any given year, and you're essentially penalizing them for not doing it.

Bravo. Mt. Union or UWW isn't the standard we're comparing to. We're comparing teams against the criteria first and foremost.

I wonder, has anyone moaned or complained about swimming since not everyone can swim at Kenyon's level (or Denison's)? No, they make nationals based on criteria, not can this individual swim with Kenyon's best swimmer at that event.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 02:51:15 PM

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 28, 2015, 02:45:45 PM
The real problem with using the "How many teams outside the Top 8 would stay close* with UWO and UWW" question to determine Pool C validity is that it's inherently biased in favor WIAC teams since outside of them, very few other teams get that chance.

You've set up a condition that roughly 98% of Division III cannot even attempt to meet in any given year, and you're essentially penalizing them for not doing it.

Yes.  Yes.  YES. All of this here.  This is pretty much perfect.

What do you propose?  That the criteria includes guessing how teams would have fared if they had played against better teams? 

In a better system that included margin of victory you could compare a close loss to Whitewater with a big win over Plymouth State.   It would matter how you performed against your schedule, rather than how tough your schedule is.   Until that criteria is added we need to avoid penalizing losses to Whitewater as if it was equivalent to a loss to Plymouth State.  So strength of schedule is going to be an advantage for the MIAC and WIAC to counteract the criteria impact from losses to better teams.

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 03:10:47 PM

Until that criteria is added we need to avoid penalizing losses to Whitewater as if it was equivalent to a loss to Plymouth State. 

No one's saying otherwise. But you have to use some criteria that every team at least has the potential to meet.

The statement that started all this was: "How many other teams outside the Top 8 can stay close to UWO/UWW?" Of the 220 or so non-top 8, non-WIAC teams in Division III, there is one school that we can answer that for: Finlandia. That's it.

So we're essentially trying to say that the WIAC deserves a 3rd team because they accomplished* something Finlandia didn't.

*Again, this supposes that a 35-point loss is close. It's not IMO, but YMMV

This next question ties in to wallywabash's list of important Pool B/C games this week:

What chance would Wash-U have (if any) to get considered for a Pool C berth, if it finishes the end of the regular season 8-2?

The Bears (5-2) play at Case-Western Reserve (6-1) this week.  They would seem to have a decent SOS if they ran the table, but since Rhodes finished 8-2 last season in the SAA and didn't get in, I know that getting a bid for Wash-U would be a long shot.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 28, 2015, 03:24:48 PM

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 03:10:47 PM

Until that criteria is added we need to avoid penalizing losses to Whitewater as if it was equivalent to a loss to Plymouth State. 

No one's saying otherwise. But you have to use some criteria that every team at least has the potential to meet.

The statement that started all this was: "How many other teams outside the Top 8 can stay close to UWO/UWW?" Of the 220 or so non-top 8, non-WIAC teams in Division III, there is one school that we can answer that for: Finlandia. That's it.

So we're essentially trying to say that the WIAC deserves a 3rd team because they accomplished* something Finlandia didn't.

*Again, this supposes that a 35-point loss is close. It's not IMO, but YMMV

I might be reading too much into your opposition.   I just fear this:  "I'm not giving them full credit for their SOS advantage since they got it from just happening to be in a tough conference.   They didn't have to schedule those games".

Quote from: jaybird44 on October 28, 2015, 03:50:23 PM
This next question ties in to wallywabash's list of important Pool B/C games this week:

What chance would Wash-U have (if any) to get considered for a Pool C berth, if it finishes the end of the regular season 8-2?

The Bears (5-2) play at Case-Western Reserve (6-1) this week.  They would seem to have a decent SOS if they ran the table, but since Rhodes finished 8-2 last season in the SAA and didn't get in, I know that getting a bid for Wash-U would be a long shot.

Wash U, the good:  They have games remaining with CWRU (6-1), Chicago (5-2), Hendrix (5-2).  All of these games will push up Washington's already respectable SOS. 

Wash U, the bad: The minute Washington beats any of those teams, those teams won't be regionally ranked, which is going to leave Washington in a position where they have a pretty good SOS and an 0-1 record against RROs (Berry, who by all means should be ranked). 

Wash U, the unfortunate: they're going to be behind the loser of UMHB/HSU no matter what.  My hunch is that they'll be behind TLU also, even if I'm not sure TLU's profile really supports that.  Guilford is a problem if they get to 9-1.  The SRFP right now is ranking W&J...which I don't think I agree with, but if that's a thing that happens, there's another WashU obstacle.  And that's just the South region.  There may be only one at-large viable team in the North and East regions, but there are a bunch in the South and West, which makes it difficult for a team like Washington this year. 

But if Washington closes out win/win/win against those teams and are a clean runner up in the SAA, who knows what else might happen.  A lot of teams can have their profiles get crushed in the last three weeks.  Right now though- Washington is a super long shot. 

Quote from: jaybird44 on October 28, 2015, 03:50:23 PM
This next question ties in to wallywabash's list of important Pool B/C games this week:

What chance would Wash-U have (if any) to get considered for a Pool C berth, if it finishes the end of the regular season 8-2?

The Bears (5-2) play at Case-Western Reserve (6-1) this week.  They would seem to have a decent SOS if they ran the table, but since Rhodes finished 8-2 last season in the SAA and didn't get in, I know that getting a bid for Wash-U would be a long shot.

I've still got the UAA roots so of course I'd be pulling for it, but I'm going with "minimal" unless a whole lotta dominoes fall their way. 

- If WashU beat Case, and then Case beat Thomas More and CMU to win the PAC at 8-2, they would be in the tournament and might be regionally ranked.  Any 8-2 team you need a feather in your cap like an RR win, to that's the first thing that would probably have to happen: Case wins the PAC and squeezes into the last South RR's at 8-2. 

- they lost to Berry and Centre.  Berry is currently 6-1, Centre is 5-2.  Berry and Centre play in their last game.  I don't know if either scenario (Berry wins or Centre wins) is favorable for WashU.

If Centre wins, that puts another 8-2 team with a h2h win over WashU into the discussion (if Berry wins the next two weeks, they would win the league even with a loss to Centre)

If Berry wins, that gives WashU a loss against likely 9-1 RR'd Berry and 7-3 probably-not-RR'd Centre.

I don't know which of those is better for WashU, really.  It's probably worse if Centre wins, because that probably puts Centre in front of them in the South RR's (if either gets there at all) and I don't see two 8-2 teams from the SAA both getting in (not when you look at the long list of C candidates from the West that would have stronger resumes).  One might get in if they end up first or second on the South list of teams getting discussed, but it's not a guarantee that will happen, either.

Clarification - I should have said "how many teams outside either the Top 8 or the WIAC would have done better.." as UWSP obviously did better against both UWW and UWO than did UWP.  My mistake.  Or I could have said "how many teams from the insert (South) or (East) conference would have done better...?"

The larger point I was trying to make is that it sucks that our system penalizes a team for 2 league losses to Top 7 ranked teams when only a small fraction of the teams in the country would do better.  They'll be overlooked in the playoffs for a 9-1 team from a weaker conference who will lose by a lot to a team that loses by a lot to Wesley or MUC or MHB.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 28, 2015, 04:49:59 PM
The larger point I was trying to make is that it sucks that our system penalizes a team for 2 league losses to Top 7 ranked teams when only a small fraction of the teams in the country would do better.  They'll be overlooked in the playoffs for a 9-1 team from a weaker conference who will lose by a lot to a team that loses by a lot to Wesley or MUC or MHB.

I don't think that you can really say this.  I'm not sure we've seen an instance where a two-loss team, with losses to Top 7 ranked teams, have been passed up for a 9-1 team with very little else on the profile except for high win percentage.  You seem convinced that the system is going to jam Platteville based on prior experience- except that I don't think that prior experience exists.  And you're still stuck on this weaker conference thing which couldn't matter less.  The damn strength-of-conference thing is the biggest set of jingle keys ever.  Turn that channel off, man.  It's not important here. 

The only time that I recall a scenario close to this is 2011 Oshkosh.  2011 Oshkosh lost to Mount Union (by a bunch), lost to Whitewater (by a field goal).  Slam dunk in, right?  Except that they went and lost to La Crosse in the week after the UWW game and blew it all up.  They didn't get to the clubhouse with those two losses.  If Platteville does get home at 8-2, I think they've got a good chance. 

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on October 28, 2015, 04:49:59 PM
Or I could have said "how many teams from the insert (South) or (East) conference would have done better...?"

Who knows? They don't play UWW or UWO. Word it however you want, the fact is unchanged. We don't know how any of these teams could have done. If Buff State hadn't played Whitewater in 2012, we'd assume that no East team could have hung with them that year. You've asked a question that has no possible answer, and that means we can't just make one up that suits us.

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 03:10:47 PM
In a better system that included margin of victory you could compare a close loss to Whitewater with a big win over Plymouth State.   It would matter how you performed against your schedule, rather than how tough your schedule is.

We already do have that criteria - more or less.  Two of the official criteria:
- Results versus common Division III opponents;
- Results versus regionally ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection.


So if you had a north and west region team on the board, both with a loss to their respective region #1s, and one played the game close and the other got blown out, then all other criteria being equal the one who played it close should be selected first.  This criteria acknowledges the fact that: 1) that the selection committee are composed of some really knowledgable people who are intimately familiar with the state of the sport at this level, 2) creating a PF/PA criteria is not in keeping with the philosophy of D3 athletics and is largely meaningless given the lack of overlapping competition we have around the nation.  To use your example, a hard fought loss against UWW does mean something and, when trying to compare any two schools, might be a positive.  On the other hand, I don't really care that much about how many points (on the low or high side) a team in the Pool C conversation won by against a Plymouth State, and when comparing results and neither does the selection committee- unless we using them as a common opponent comparison.

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 04:08:43 PM

I might be reading too much into your opposition.   I just fear this:  "I'm not giving them full credit for their SOS advantage since they got it from just happening to be in a tough conference.   They didn't have to schedule those games".

You are, although that's partially my fault.

Of course, the quality of teams you play matter, and playing tougher teams should be rewarded over playing weaker ones. And those are...that's why we use results against RRO and calculate SOS.

My issue is that we can't get too specific with it. We can say, for example, that UWP deserves to get in over a 2-loss Buffalo State because they played a tougher schedule and more difficult opponents. That should be shown in the RRO/SOS results.

But what we can't do is set up scenarios there's literally no answer to. We can't say, "UWP deserves to get in over Buffalo State in 2015 because had Buff State played UWO and UWW in 2015, they would have lost by more than 35 and 10 points." There's no way to prove that one way or the other. Buff State played Whitewater twice. Once it went exactly how we thought it would, once it went exactly the opposite. We don't know what would happen if they played in 2015, just like we didn't know in 2011 what was going to happen in 2012/2013

Alright, let's project.  Quickly, here's the deal:
- In 2015 we have 25 Automatic Qualifiers (Pool A), which are determined by each qualifying conference.  Those champions qualify, if there are funky ties, the conferences are responsible for breaking those multi-team ties and they all do it differently.  I'm sure we'll see this one or two places this year. 
- We have just one Pool B bid, which comes from teams that don't play in conferences that qualify for Pool A (this year those leagues are the ASC and the SCAC) and Independents. 
- That leaves us with 6 extra bids for Pool C, which is everybody who didn't make the Pool A and B cuts. 
The process is as follows:
- The automatic qualifiers are placed first and removed from further consideration...they're already in, after all. 
- The top ranked team eligible for Pool B (based on the NCAA's regional rankings) from each region will be considered together.  The criteria will be applied and discussed and the committee will vote on those four teams and the top vote getter goes in.  Now, I've given you a bit of an okie-doke here, because only the South Region has Pool B eligible teams.  I suppose that Finlandia is eligible from the North, but we can safely assume that they aren't making it. 
- With the Pool B bid awarded, we move on to Pool C, using the same process: top ranked team from each region is considered, one of those four is selected, and the selected team is replaced on the tableau by the next ranked team from that region. 

Good?  Next week we'll have official NCAA rankings, for this week I'm going to use the fan polls as surrogate rankings.  The people voting in those do a great job.  I do have a couple of alterations from those rankings, which I'll highlight when we get there.  Alright, let's do this. 
First, my projected Pool A bids through Week 8:

League	Team
CC	Johns Hopkins
CCIW	Wheaton
ECFC	Husson
Empire 8	Cortland State
HCAC	Franklin
IIAC	Dubuque
LL	St. Lawrence
MAC	Delaware Valley
MASCAC	Framingham State
MIAA	Olivet
MIAC	St. Thomas
MWC	St. Norbert
NACC	Lakeland
NCAC	Wabash
NEFC	Western NE
NJAC	Wesley
NWC	Linfield
OAC	Mount Union
ODAC	Washington & Lee
PAC	Thomas More
SAA	Berry
SCIAC	La Verne
UMAC	St. Scholastica
USAC	Huntingdon
WIAC	UW-Oshkosh

Now I'll take a quick break and show you what we've got left over in the regional rankings after we remove the Pool A teams:
North: Illinois Wesleyan, Wittenberg, DePauw, Rose-Hulman
South: UMHB, Hardin-Simmons, TLU, CWRU, W&J, Guilford
East: Salisbury, Albright, Rowan, Stevenson, Alfred
West: UW-Whitewater, St. John's, UW-Platteville, Concordia-Moorhead, Wartburg

Two notes:
- The North region poll is ranking North Central at 4-3 and I tossed them out.  I don't think that 3-loss record leaps the other at-large teams in the region.  I know- they played a hard schedule.  there's a penalty for losing though and we've never seen a 3-loss team selected here. If the North RAC ranks NCC above these teams next week, we'll plug the Cardinals in then. 
- In the West I flip flopped Concordia-Moorhead and Platteville.  CMC has a poor SOS and is 0-1 vs. RROs. Platteville has a great SOS and is 2-2 vs. RROs.  I'd be shocked if this isn't the correct order. 

Pool B (1 bid)
We have only South teams in play here, so the work is done for us.  The bid goes to top ranked Mary Hardin-Baylor (6-0, 0.451 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs).  We'll see in a minute that Hardin-Simmons smashes UMHB's SOS, but UMHB has a lot of capital banked (not a criteria, I know) and have a better result vs. the ranked common opponent (TLU). 

Pool C (6 bids)
Round 1:
N: Illinois Wesleyan (7-0 w/l record, 0.555 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: UW-Whitewater (5-1, 0.593, 1-1)

If you're new to this, I kind of write this stream-of-consciousness style, so I may say something now and be completely wrong about it by the time I get to the end.  Before I go any further, I think all of these teams are going in.  Good profiles across the board here.  I'm going to fudge here a little bit and pretend that IWU has a loss (they have to if they're going to be in Pool C).  That puts me pretty squarely on Whitewater as the pick.  One interesting thing happening here is that Belhaven is not counting against Whitewater's SOS...but Morningside isn't counting either so it's kind of a push.  If we're quibbling over IWU and UWW here, secondary criteria favor UWW thanks to that win vs. Morningside. 

Round 2:
N: Illinois Wesleyan (7-0 w/l record, 0.555 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: St. John's (6-1, 0.589, 2-1)

For the sake of consistency, we'll keep assuming IWU has a loss.  St. John's has kind of a bonus RRO win in there thanks to Dubuque's having a solid IIAC campaign.  That second win and the SOS advantage make St. John's the choice.

Round 3:
N: Illinois Wesleyan (7-0 w/l record, 0.555 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: UW-Platteville (5-2, .616, 2-2)

Now it gets tough. Had Platteville played a little closer with Oshkosh, you'd feel better about moving them right in with 2 RRO wins and that ridiculous SOS.  But win percentage is a criteria too, and that result isn't good.  Hardin-Simmons may suffer a similar fate on Saturday as UWP did vs. UWO...or they could really help their case by losing close (or winning, which moves them to Pool B and UMHB here to Pool C).  I'm going to select Illinois Wesleyan here.  They have a nice SOS which will be helped by upcoming games with North Central and Wheaton.  Keep an eye on the CCIW though.  That conference could well end with tai-champs and the tiebreak there can do funny things.  This is also an interesting intersection because we're about to have a common opponent situation with Platteville and IWU. 

Round 4:
N: Wittenberg (5-2 w/l record, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: UW-Platteville (5-2, .616, 2-2)

I think that's gonna do it for the North.  Really shallow pool of at-large teams there this year.  This is where Platteville's SOS really comes into play.  Two RRO wins and a full .100 advantage over their closest rivals here.  That .100 margin is HUGE.  I can't overstate that.  Platteville is my choice. 

Round 5:
N: Wittenberg (5-2 w/l record, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: Concordia-Moorhead (6-1, 0.459, 0-1)

CMC can obviously help themselves over the next two weeks, but for now, that profile isn't getting them in.  Same with Witt.  And at this point we've had HSU and Salisbury waiting around for four rounds and they'll have some voting inertia here.  So much of this will come down to games vs. UMHB and Wesley, respectively, but at this moment I'm going to take Hardin-Simmons.  I think the RRO wins are about equal here (TLU/Rowan), Salisbury has an early loss to Albright (who could easily be ranked ahead of Salisbury in any case), but something that's not showing up here is a cancelled game vs. TCNJ.  TCNJ would do damage to Salisbury's SOS and they wouldn't look quite as nice in this spot.  So Hardin-Simmons goes in, and Salisbury is now on the bubble. 

Round 6:
N: Wittenberg (5-2 w/l record, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RROs)
S: Texas Lutheran (4-2, 0.540, 0-2)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: Concordia-Moorhead (6-1, 0.459, 0-1)

The last choice is usually pretty tough, but this time it isn't.  Salisbury has been waiting for five rounds now, they are the only team on the board with a quality win, and the SOS isn't awful (albeit a little bit of fool's gold).  Pretty easy pick off of this board, really. 

And with all of that said, keep in mind that SOS's can and will fluctuate in a major way over the last three weeks, which will  have an impact on the selections.  Also, we're going to see teams fall out of the rankings and other teams move in, which will have a major domino effect.  Platteville is less sexy if North Central takes a fourth loss and falls out of the rankings.  And do keep in mind that the only rankings that count for RRO purposes are the final rankings (which we don't see)- there is no once ranked, always ranked situation. 

That's what I've got for the first go round in 2015.  We'll do it again next Wednesday after the NCAA releases the first set of rankings. 

And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams. 

I was just going to say that Wally.

Last year it was little different, but we had an unbeaten team, a TLU team with one loss and a Muhlenberg team that was definitely on the bubble but proved worthy even in defeat. Mainly, the objection was that Muhlenberg had no track record. Well, that's not a criteria.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams.

Nice try!  You're clearly screwing the WIAC.  You didn't put in UW-Stevens Point, who only lost by an average of 7.7 points to UW-Whitewater, UW-Oshkosh, and UW-Platteville.  East Coast bias, man.

(Great work, as always...now time to look at this and try to figure out who's actually going to be in Pool C when the rent comes due)

Acknowledging the constraints of the exercise, it's probably worth noting which of these teams has another loss (or losable game) coming and who has a really, really high likelihood of winning out.

IWU: games with NCC and Wheaton (ceiling: 10-0 Pool A, floor: 8-2 and maybe out)
Hardin-Simmons: game with UMHB and ETBU (ceiling: 10-0 Pool B, floor: 8-2 and maybe out)
Salisbury: games with Wesley and surprisingly 6-1 Frostburg State (ceiling: 9-1 Pool C, floor: 7-3 and out)
UW-Whitewater: probably out of the woods unless there's a major upset
St. John's: probably should win out, although Bethel could be tough
UW-Platteville: probably out of the woods unless there's a major upset
Wittenberg: should win out, but seems like a longshot for the field even if they do
Concordia-Moorhead: plays UST this week, could force three-way tie in MIAC
Texas Lutheran: plays 6-1 Trinity this week

(those are just the teams that made it to the discussion table; there are plenty of other games of interest involving the teams just off the board right now which could change the equation here, such as CWRU vs. Thomas More...an upset there would bring TMC into the Pool C mix)

Of course some of these teams, if they hit their "ceiling" will be replaced by the teams they've beaten (IWU would be swapped out for Wheaton, Hardin-Simmons would be swapped out for UMHB, etc).  And then if Trinity beats TLU, obviously they will jump TLU in the South RR's.  Speaking of which, in the SRFP we all just kinda ditched Trinity after their loss to HSU, but beating TLU this week might put them back into play in the South RR's (or have a domino effect of removing someone else from the RR's).

As usual, wally has done outstanding work giving us an idea what the teams would look like if selection were happening today with the regular season incomplete.  I'm just trying to add a few extra pieces here by showing who has big games coming that might either win them the league (and change who appears in Pool C) or knock them down a peg to the 8-2 line, where they might get jumped in the RR's.  All season, wally has done a great job posting up the Pool C elimination games.  We'll have a bunch coming this week and next.

If Wheaton ends up swapped for IWU the process probably changes quite a bit. Wheaton will have a significanlty worse SOS than IWU and potentially no RRO wins. There is also a chance (we will know after Saturday) that both IWU and Wheaton are in the North with 1 loss.

Quote from: USee on October 28, 2015, 09:19:04 PM
If Wheaton ends up swapped for IWU the process probably changes quite a bit. Wheaton will have a significanlty worse SOS than IWU and potentially no RRO wins. There is also a chance (we will know after Saturday) that both IWU and Wheaton are in the North with 1 loss.

10-0 IWU winning the CCIW is probably a worst case scenario for Wheaton.  However, unless a second loss happens for the Thunder, I can't see a scenario where they aren't the first at-large team from the North.  And that's half the battle right there.  I'm not sweating about Wheaton too much at this point. 

Well, if NCC beats IWU and then IWU beats Wheaton and NCC wins the tiebreaker, you could have IWU and Wheaton as one loss at large teams w IWU owning the H2H.  It's implausible but not impossible.

Quote from: USee on October 28, 2015, 09:19:04 PM
If Wheaton ends up swapped for IWU the process probably changes quite a bit. Wheaton will have a significanlty worse SOS than IWU and potentially no RRO wins. There is also a chance (we will know after Saturday) that both IWU and Wheaton are in the North with 1 loss.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  I didn't mean that the selection would just happen the same way, only that it would exchange which teams were in the discussion if some of these league titles go opposite the anticipated result.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams.

Very nice Wally, always a treat to see what you do every year. Thanx!

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 28, 2015, 06:52:03 PM

Quote from: AO on October 28, 2015, 04:08:43 PM

I might be reading too much into your opposition.   I just fear this:  "I'm not giving them full credit for their SOS advantage since they got it from just happening to be in a tough conference.   They didn't have to schedule those games".

You are, although that's partially my fault.

Of course, the quality of teams you play matter, and playing tougher teams should be rewarded over playing weaker ones. And those are...that's why we use results against RRO and calculate SOS.

My issue is that we can't get too specific with it. We can say, for example, that UWP deserves to get in over a 2-loss Buffalo State because they played a tougher schedule and more difficult opponents. That should be shown in the RRO/SOS results.

But what we can't do is set up scenarios there's literally no answer to. We can't say, "UWP deserves to get in over Buffalo State in 2015 because had Buff State played UWO and UWW in 2015, they would have lost by more than 35 and 10 points." There's no way to prove that one way or the other. Buff State played Whitewater twice. Once it went exactly how we thought it would, once it went exactly the opposite. We don't know what would happen if they played in 2015, just like we didn't know in 2011 what was going to happen in 2012/2013

I'm not trying to defend the scenario as if it's part of the criteria.  UWP is getting in over Buffalo State in 2015 because Buffalo State doesn't have as strong of a schedule.  We don't have the option of saying "we don't know what would happen", all we have is the teams that they did play this year.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

Quote from: AO on October 29, 2015, 11:43:28 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

I've never seen Wally do this. He, and I and others, have argued against changing the criteria to build in a preference for the power conferences, but we have generally said the current criteria, while not perfect, works pretty well. I like how it currently works, except SOS is a flawed number to base decisions on.

Unfortunately I struggle to come up with a quantitative alternative. My best idea is to give more weight to RROs and go back to once ranked, always ranked, but give an extra weight to the final regional ranking teams. So instead of all weeks being equal, have the first set of RROs worth a fraction of what the final week is worth. Finally, use a modified SOS for the RROs as a measure, so if you go 0-2 against RROs that are 1-5 in the final rankings, that's worth more than going 0-2 against RROs that are 6-10 in the final rankings. Wins are worth more than losses, but a loss to #1 is worth a significant fraction of a win over #10.

That would also make it complex enough that the RR committees might not be tempted to do the bit of monkeying around we've seen, like putting TLU through as the "B" instead of Centre last year.

Quote from: AO on October 29, 2015, 11:43:28 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

No, that's not true at all.  You're the one who keeps bringing up conferences.  wally has posted several times by now that conference affiliation does not really come up in the selection process.  The teams get weighed against the teams.  That's it.  Nobody brings up that this team plays in the MIAC or that team plays in the Centennial Conference.  The teams come to the board.  The criteria of each team is presented: record, SOS, RRO's, and so on.  "Conference" is not a criteria, no matter how much you want it to be.

Quote from: AO on October 29, 2015, 11:43:28 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

I don't really care about the conferences at all.  If the criteria point me to a team from the WIAC, awesome.  If it points me to a team from the MAC, still awesome.  I'm not particular about where these at-large teams come from.  What does get my dander up is the notion that we should be funneling these at-large bids to teams from a select few conferences that we have arbitrarily decided are "the best".  That shouldn't be happening. 

Re: scheduling.  This is a really, really hard thing.  First, there's a lot more that goes into scheduling that just trying to find a partner that will help your at-large profile.  Plus you can't possibly know 2 or 3 or more years out that the team you've scheduled a home and home with is still going to be helpful by the time you get to those games.  Outside of just a small handful of teams, that part of the equation is very volatile.  Economics matter in scheduling.  Institutional partnerships matter.  Visibility in recruiting areas matter.  There are a ton of things that matter when it comes to scheduling non-conference games other than "how is that team going to affect my SOS?" 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2015, 12:01:47 PM

Quote from: AO on October 29, 2015, 11:43:28 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 28, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

I don't really care about the conferences at all.  If the criteria point me to a team from the WIAC, awesome.  If it points me to a team from the MAC, still awesome.  I'm not particular about where these at-large teams come from.  What does get my dander up is the notion that we should be funneling these at-large bids to teams from a select few conferences that we have arbitrarily decided are "the best".  That shouldn't be happening. 

Re: scheduling.  This is a really, really hard thing.  First, there's a lot more that goes into scheduling that just trying to find a partner that will help your at-large profile.  Plus you can't possibly know 2 or 3 or more years out that the team you've scheduled a home and home with is still going to be helpful by the time you get to those games.  Outside of just a small handful of teams, that part of the equation is very volatile.  Economics matter in scheduling.  Institutional partnerships matter.  Visibility in recruiting areas matter.  There are a ton of things that matter when it comes to scheduling non-conference games other than "how is that team going to affect my SOS?"

Forgive me for skipping a couple steps ahead on the conference talk.  I'm considering power conference to be equivalent with high SOS.  If your conference went 14-4 in the non-conference like the MIAC and others do every year, then you're going to have a criteria advantage before we even consider your W-L.  Since SOS also plays a major part in the regional rankings, the power conferences have a huge boost.  Oddly enough, Concordia-Moorhead might have managed to squander their boost by scheduling non-countable Jamestown and winless Eau-Claire. 

You're right, teams really do need to find the "small handful of teams" who are good every year if they want to have a good shot at a pool c from a poor conference.  It probably won't make sense to stretch the budgets to schedule somebody that might be mediocre the year you end up playing.

Quote from: AO on October 29, 2015, 01:42:23 PM
Forgive me for skipping a couple steps ahead on the conference talk.  I'm considering power conference to be equivalent with high SOS.  If your conference went 14-4 in the non-conference like the MIAC and others do every year, then you're going to have a criteria advantage before we even consider your W-L.  Since SOS also plays a major part in the regional rankings, the power conferences have an huge boost.  Oddly enough, Concordia-Moorhead might have managed to squander their boost by scheduling non-countable Jamestown and winless Eau-Claire. 

You're right, teams really do need to find the "small handful of teams" who are good every year if they want to have a good shot at a pool c from a poor conference.  It probably won't make sense to stretch the budgets to schedule somebody that might be mediocre the year you end up playing.

Take a shot at which league has the best SOS so far in 2015.  No peeking! 

I think my stance on scheduling has basically boiled down to this: I think schools should schedule whatever non-conference game they want without paying any attention whatsoever to the selection criteria.  It's too volatile and unpredictable.  Schedule games against like-philosphied schools.  Schedule games in areas that you want to recruit in.  Schedule games that aren't going to break your budget.  And then with all of those priorities taken care of, then maybe pay some mind to the criteria.

If a team wants to schedule a game that they KNOW will help them in the criteria, there's only a handful of ways to go.  And if you take on one of THOSE games, you're probably going to lose and that's not good.   If you schedule a game against a team that is more on your level (assuming we're dealing with teams that aren't in the upper crust of the division here), then you might lose which would be bad, or you might win but that other team might have a particularly crummy year (see 2014 W&L), or you might win and that team might be decent and you'll get a small boost.  Lots of ifs in play there.  The point is: you can either pay for some SOS points by sacrificing a game to the purples or you can schedule games that make more sense which might not pay off in SOS points, but benefit you in a hundred other ways. 

And I would also add that in addition to not knowing whether or not a future opponent will help you down the road, you also don't know what the committee will favor down the road.  This is frustrating to be sure, but the preferences of the selection committee change from year to year.  If you play Whitewater in a non-league game and lose by not a terrible margin in a year when the selection committee happens to favor win percentage a little more than SOS or RRO, then you wasted a game.  I just think that you're always trying to chase your tail by fitting your schedule to the selection criteria...which are always changing. 

The issue with large leagues is that sometimes they only have one at large game to play with if they do a round robin. That affects other leagues around them. The NCAC and OAC having just one game to play with affects the MIAA, CCIW, PAC and HCAC at the least and maybe even the SAA and NACC.

Last year Centre almost paid for a great on-paper lousy in-reality schedule.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 29, 2015, 01:54:14 PM
Take a shot at which league has the best SOS so far in 2015.  No peeking! 

The Centennial?  They went 8-2 but with only one-non-conference game they can only get so far above .500

I'm going with the SAA. I've seen some of their SOS numbers...

Quote from: jknezek on October 29, 2015, 02:09:25 PM
I'm going with the SAA. I've seen some of their SOS numbers...

When I had initially posted the question I check some math against the MIAC and the WIAC and the SAA is in fact a "better" conference using SOS as the metric.   But the "best" conference is the Empire 8.  As a league, their SOS is 0.598 (which is almost a made up number it's so ludicrous) and 7 of their 9 teams live in the top 30 of the SOS rankings through week 8.  Absurd. 

There are still 16 undefeated teams listed in the SOS list:

35 Johns Hopkins    7-0    1.000    .5952 (51)    .5333    0.575
51 Illinois Wesleyan    7-0    1.000    .5476 (82)    .5709    0.555
75 UW-Oshkosh    6-0    1.000    .5152 (107)    .5907    0.540
88 Wesley    7-0    1.000    .5128 (111)    .5547    0.527
89 St. Norbert    7-0    1.000    .4878 (133)    .6014    0.526
101 Hardin-Simmons    5-0    1.000    .4783 (137)    .5984    0.518
106 Linfield    6-0    1.000    .4839 (136)    .5798    0.516
111 St. Thomas    7-0    1.000    .4651 (145)    .6100    0.513
119 Washington and Lee    6-0    1.000    .4706 (142)    .5778    0.506
143 Olivet    7-0    1.000    .4186 (188)    .6361    0.491
167 Thomas More    8-0    1.000    .4255 (184)    .5520    0.468
170 Wheaton (Ill.)    7-0    1.000    .3810 (200)    .6345    0.466
183 Mary Hardin-Baylor    6-0    1.000    .3667 (206)    .6196    0.451
187 Wabash    7-0    1.000    .4048 (192)    .5326    0.447
204 Mount Union    7-0    1.000    .3488 (212)    .5691    0.422
222 Western New England    7-0    1.000    .2857 (224)    .5270    0.366

What I find interesting is which teams are listed near the bottom of the list. Some of these teams will lose a game between now and the end of the season. Nothing really new here, except to note which teams are here this year at this time of the year.

As a UWEC Blugold, whose 0-7 team stinks like a foot and is sitting at #45 on strength of schedule, and looking at a defeated season, I humbly appologize...
You see, UWEC has lost to ranked St. Thomas and Wheaton teams, and will close out with Whitewater, Platteville and Oshkosh. Thus, we will be moving up in the SOS schedule rankings, thus knocking other schools downward, and perhaps thereby ruining the seasons of some teams on the playoff bubble who are counting on SOS to help them get in...  ;D

Quote from: bulk19 on October 30, 2015, 03:33:17 PM
As a UWEC Blugold, whose 0-7 team stinks like a foot and is sitting at #45 on strength of schedule, and looking at a defeated season, I humbly appologize...

Aw man...the Blugolds were collateral damage.  I could have easily used Wilmington or Stout or River Falls or Muskingum as an example.  Sorry about that. 

I apologize again - sorry to ranked Concordia-Moorehead, for inadvertently overlooking and not mentioning their W over the Blugolds this season, too...

Nice job guys explaining how this all works and how it might go.  If Wesley were to lose to Salisbury and drop to pool C, could they be in trouble if Albright wins out.  I would think that Albright would be ahead of them based on common opponent result and Wesley may never get to the table.  Or would that change how the dominos fall and both Albright and Wesley would get in?

Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2015, 07:38:05 AM
Nice job guys explaining how this all works and how it might go.  If Wesley were to lose to Salisbury and drop to pool C, could they be in trouble if Albright wins out.  I would think that Albright would be ahead of them based on common opponent result and Wesley may never get to the table.  Or would that change how the dominos fall and both Albright and Wesley would get in?

Really good question.  The short answer is, I'm not sure.  The common opponent result in your scenario is bad for Wesley, but Wesley may be able to overcome that with a superior SOS and ranked wins against Rowan and North Central...IF those two teams can hang on to the back end of their regional rankings.  If one or both slip, it gets really easy to put Albright ahead of Wesley in the rankings. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2015, 12:11:42 PM

Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2015, 07:38:05 AM
Nice job guys explaining how this all works and how it might go.  If Wesley were to lose to Salisbury and drop to pool C, could they be in trouble if Albright wins out.  I would think that Albright would be ahead of them based on common opponent result and Wesley may never get to the table.  Or would that change how the dominos fall and both Albright and Wesley would get in?

Really good question.  The short answer is, I'm not sure.  The common opponent result in your scenario is bad for Wesley, but Wesley may be able to overcome that with a superior SOS and ranked wins against Rowan and North Central...IF those two teams can hang on to the back end of their regional rankings.  If one or both slip, it gets really easy to put Albright ahead of Wesley in the rankings.

with todays result for Salisbury, Wesley can not lose the game if they want to get in.  the umhb loss may change things up a little although you guys had hardin in anyway.  I was thinking, when was the last time uww and umhb had to travel for the playoffs.  this could be a really interesting playoff bracket set up.  maybe uww goes to mount bracket since the west is very loaded.

UWW was on the road in 2010 beating North Central in the quarters and @Wesley in the Semi's if I remember correctly.

Quote from: USee on October 31, 2015, 10:08:36 PM
UWW was on the road in 2010 beating North Central in the quarters and @Wesley in the Semi's if I remember correctly.

i believe that is correct.  still 5 years is a long time. 

Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2015, 10:21:26 PM

Quote from: USee on October 31, 2015, 10:08:36 PM
UWW was on the road in 2010 beating North Central in the quarters and @Wesley in the Semi's if I remember correctly.

i believe that is correct.  still 5 years is a long time.

I think it was putting Whitewater on the road in 2010 that forced a rule change protecting undefeated teams that also performed well in the previous year's tournament.  Pretty egregious error, really. 

Winners from the spotlight games:

North Central @ Illinois Wesleyan
Albion @ Olivet
DePauw @ Denison
St. Thomas @ Concordia-Moorhead
Gustavus Adolphus @ Bethel ]
Mary Hardin-Baylor @ Hardin-Simmons
Gettysburg @ Moravian
Washington & Lee @ Emory & Henry
Washington U. @ Case Western Reserve
Texas Lutheran @ Trinity(TX)
Frostburg State @ Rowan
And what may well be the 2015 swan song for The dc1 West Coast Special™: Pacific @ Whitworth

Other games of note:
Cortland State @ Morrisville State
Christopher Newport @ Salisbury

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 31, 2015, 10:26:37 PM

Quote from: wesleydad on October 31, 2015, 10:21:26 PM

Quote from: USee on October 31, 2015, 10:08:36 PM
UWW was on the road in 2010 beating North Central in the quarters and @Wesley in the Semi's if I remember correctly.

i believe that is correct.  still 5 years is a long time.

I think it was putting Whitewater on the road in 2010 that forced a rule change protecting undefeated teams that also performed well in the previous year's tournament.  Pretty egregious error, really.

Careful, wally!  Those who perpetually argue THIS year only should be wary of 'pretty egregious error'.  The results from 2010 ONLY clearly favored NCC as the home team.  I agreed that it was a miscarriage of justice, but it was perfectly proper for those who argue that ONLY this year's results should matter! ;D

Methinks you are tripping over your own hypocrisy. ;)

And if past results count for undefeated teams, why not in comparing 9-1 teams with comparable losses, etc.?

My memory tells me that UWW traveled to UMHB a few years ago. It also tells me that it was a close, low scoring game. Something like 7 - 6.

Only this year's results should matter, but... We just don't have the datapoints with 9-10 regular season games to just let the chips fall where we may and not rely on nond3like criteria like PF/PA. Why in years that that UWW goes undefeated in the regular season should the purple powers not be on opposite sides of the bracket? I don't think this criteria has ever been used to determine the last pool c team in. But the pool c selection criteria are the same criteria that the committee must use (along with GAAP) to make up the tournament bracket. This rule allows the committee members to employ their common sense and knowledge of the d3 football world to generate common sense brackets.

Assuming UWW does get in this year, I think it'd be fascinating to see these two meet before Salem.

Quote from: wabndy on November 01, 2015, 09:30:04 AM
Assuming UWW does get in this year, I think it'd be fascinating to see these two meet before Salem.

All,

To get these two teams on the "same side of the bracket", what has to fall in place during the Pool C picks? Perhaps better said, who has to be the top four seeds? With UMHB losing yesterday, many folks' brackets just got a little more complicated, don't you think?

In the CCIW race we got a little more clarity and a little more complexity with regards to Pool C. North Central's win over IWU (by 18 pts) brings into play the possibility of a 3 way tie in the race for the AQ. Here are the possible scenarios:

Wheaton plays @IWU this Saturday and if they win, they lock up the AQ with one week to play. This all but eliminates any reasonable possibility of a Pool C bid for the CCIW

If Wheaton were to lose it brings up a 3 way tie for the CCIW title (assuming they all win out). The tie breaker is point differential between the 3 teams. IWU has to win Saturday by 29 pts to win the AQ. If IWU beats Wheaton, NCC is in the driver's seat for the AQ. Wheaton cannot win the AQ if they lose to IWU because of the point differential NCC has over the other two. With a Wheaton loss IWU would be ahead of them on the Pool C totem pole.

To summarize, the simplest scenario is a Wheaton win Saturday which gives them the AQ and elminates Pool C for the CCIW.

A Wheaton loss gives NCC the AQ (barring an IWU win by 29 pts) and puts IWU and Wheaton in the Pool C equation with Wheaton's criteria considered weak and IWU's resume fairly strong.

Quote from: art76 on November 01, 2015, 09:37:18 AM

Quote from: wabndy on November 01, 2015, 09:30:04 AM
Assuming UWW does get in this year, I think it'd be fascinating to see these two meet before Salem.

All,

To get these two teams on the "same side of the bracket", what has to fall in place during the Pool C picks? Perhaps better said, who has to be the top four seeds? With UMHB losing yesterday, many folks' brackets just got a little more complicated, don't you think?

I have the distance from UWW to Mount as 507 miles... so they definitely won't meet before the quarterfinals and probably not likely to meet before semifinals since there's plenty of closer teams to have in a bracket with each. Even then, I don't feel like they'd probably end up on the same side of the bracket. I think the top seeds right now would be Mount, Linfield, Wesley, St Thomas/Wheaton/Oshkosh which would probably be Wesley @ Mount and St Thomas/Wheaton/Oshkosh @ Linfield.

I could easily see them making a sub-bracket this year be La Verne @ Linfield and UMHB @ Hardin-Simmons. Because what's a D3 playoffs without a Texas rematch in the first round? ::)

FC,
I seem to remember that the committee does do an actual 1-4 seeding to determine how the brackets go and that they are not required to predict cost savings beyond the first round or two - certainly not the national semifinal round. I wouldn't want to start projecting the 1-4 seeding at least until we get our first round of regional rankings.

For those scoring at home, the NCAA's official mileage calculator (to see if you are within 500 miles and a bus ride away from any potential opponent) can be found here: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

Note that google maps mileage doesn't count.

Do we get Regional Rankings this week?

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 01, 2015, 12:49:23 PM
Do we get Regional Rankings this week?

Yes. On Wednesday.

This is going to be really, really interesting this week.  I'm anxious to hear ATN tomorrow talk about what's going on in the at-large world and in particular with UMHB.  As I noted in the projection last week, Hardin-Simmons probably looked better according to the criteria than UMHB and could have been ranked ahead of the Crusaders, except that the Crusaders have the kind of track record that generally lets them slide a bit for weak(er) criteria.  But that all goes away once you lose a game.  And now UMHB is going to come to this dance with some really shaky criteria.  At this point, I think they would still be the top ranked at-large team in the South (after Hardin-Simmons peels off for the Pool B bid) and that may be good enough to get them in.  Wednesday's rankings will tell the tale. 

UMHB's non-conference games are an example of what on paper could have been decent that turned south. OWU and LAX are underperforming and Millsaps is a mess. Their next two games may not help - Howard Payne is terrible and ETBU will probably finish 6-4.

Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2015, 10:57:41 PM
UMHB's non-conference games are an example of what on paper could have been decent that turned south. OWU and LAX are underperforming and Millsaps is a mess. Their next two games may not help - Howard Payne is terrible and ETBU will probably finish 6-4.

All true, but despite the official criteria, it is just inconceivable to me that a 9-1 UMHB would not be in.

It would be a travesty/injustice if a 9-1 MHB team were to be excluded from the play-offs.

Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2015, 10:57:41 PM
UMHB's non-conference games are an example of what on paper could have been decent that turned south. OWU and LAX are underperforming and Millsaps is a mess. Their next two games may not help - Howard Payne is terrible and ETBU will probably finish 6-4.

Adding to that point, its not like UMHB is scheduling those teams out of convenience either. Ohio Wesleyan is over 1,000 miles away and while LAX and Milsaps were at home this year we traveled there last year and one was a plane trip and the other was a very long bus trip.

Quote from: crufootball on November 02, 2015, 10:21:18 AM

Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2015, 10:57:41 PM
UMHB's non-conference games are an example of what on paper could have been decent that turned south. OWU and LAX are underperforming and Millsaps is a mess. Their next two games may not help - Howard Payne is terrible and ETBU will probably finish 6-4.

Adding to that point, its not like UMHB is scheduling those teams out of convenience either. Ohio Wesleyan is over 1,000 miles away and while LAX and Milsaps were at home this year we traveled there last year and one was a plane trip and the other was a very long bus trip.

True, but wasn't Whitewater and Oshkosh looking for games since they both scheduled Finlandia?   I won't be insulted if MHB doesn't make it.  There are a lot of good teams out there with great wins.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 01, 2015, 11:32:33 PM
It would be a travesty/injustice if a 9-1 MHB team were to be excluded from the play-offs.

Right now UMHB's SOS is 0.476 and comes in at 158th on the national SOS rankings. That ranking will certainly go down next week as they pick up a game against 1-7 Howard Payne and won't be helped much when they play East Texas Baptist in week 11.  They will have a (1-1) record against RROs.


As a point of comparison, I've tried to reconstruct the 2014 Pool B/C resumes.  Since we didn't see the final regional rankings, RRO results are estimates.
Pool B
Wesley (5-0, 2-0 vs. RRO, 0.608 SOS (#2))
Texas Lutheran (7-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, SOS 0.510 (T #95))

Pool C

Centre (10-0, 0-0 vs. RRO, SOS 0.440 (T#212))
John Carroll (9-1, 1-1 vs. RRO,  SOS 0.511 (T #90))
Wabash (9-1, 1-1* vs. RRO,  SOS 0.520 (T #66))
Muhlenberg (9-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, SOS 0.500 (T #120))
Delaware Valley (9-1, 0-1 vs. RRO, SOS 0.519 (T #72))
St. Thomas (8-2, 0-2 vs. RRO, SOS 0.502 (T #114))

* not sure if Hampden-Sydney was ranked in the final east rankings, they were ranked 9th in their region going into the losing game against Randolph Macon but nevertheless won the crazy ODAC AQ on a 4 way tie.  If they weren't, Wabash had a 0-1 RRO record.

So going back to UMHB - I'd probably put a buck or two down on them getting in, but I wouldn't exactly today call it an injustice if they don't with such a horrendously low SOS.  No, the low SOS is not really their fault (A: its a long way to Texas, B: its a long way to travel for a likely shellacking).  I don't see a two loss team jumping over them, but with an 0-1 RRO and a low sos, they may be the last one loss team in.

Quote from: wabndy on November 02, 2015, 11:04:18 AM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 01, 2015, 11:32:33 PM
It would be a travesty/injustice if a 9-1 MHB team were to be excluded from the play-offs.

Right now UMHB's SOS is 0.476 and comes in at 158th on the national SOS rankings. That ranking will certainly go down next week as they pick up a game against 1-7 Howard Payne and won't be helped much when they play East Texas Baptist in week 11.  They will have a (1-1) record against RROs.


As a point of comparison, I've tried to reconstruct the 2014 Pool B/C resumes.  RRO numbers are
Pool B
Wesley (5-0, 2-0 vs. RRO, 0.608 SOS (#2))
Texas Lutheran (7-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, SOS 0.510 (T #95))

Pool C
John Carroll (9-1, 1-1 vs. RRO,  SOS 0.511 (T #90))
Wabash (9-1, 1-1* vs. RRO,  SOS 0.520 (T #66))
Muhlenberg (9-1, 1-1 vs. RRO, SOS 0.500 (T #120))
Delaware Valley (9-1, 0-1 vs. RRO, SOS 0.519 (T #72))
St. John Fisher (8-2, 0-1 vs. RRO, SOS  0.564 (#15))
St. Thomas (8-2, 0-2 vs. RRO, SOS 0.502 (T #114))

* not sure if Hampden-Sydney was ranked in the final east rankings, they were ranked 9th in their region going into the losing game against Randolph Macon but nevertheless won the crazy ODAC AQ on a 4 way tie.

So going back to UMHB - I'd probably put a buck or two down on them getting in, but I wouldn't exactly today call it an injustice if they don't with such a horrendously low SOS.  No, the low SOS is not really their fault (A: its a long way to Texas, B: its a long way to travel for a likely shellacking).  I don't see at two loss team jumping over them, but with an 0-1 RRO and a low sos, they may be the last one loss team in.

Never mind - I now see this comparison is using last year's rankings.

Quote from: AO on November 02, 2015, 11:03:25 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 02, 2015, 10:21:18 AM

Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2015, 10:57:41 PM
UMHB's non-conference games are an example of what on paper could have been decent that turned south. OWU and LAX are underperforming and Millsaps is a mess. Their next two games may not help - Howard Payne is terrible and ETBU will probably finish 6-4.

Adding to that point, its not like UMHB is scheduling those teams out of convenience either. Ohio Wesleyan is over 1,000 miles away and while LAX and Milsaps were at home this year we traveled there last year and one was a plane trip and the other was a very long bus trip.

True, but wasn't Whitewater and Oshkosh looking for games since they both scheduled Finlandia?   I won't be insulted if MHB doesn't make it.  There are a lot of good teams out there with great wins.

Well I cannot say whether or not UMHB tried to schedule either of those games but we have scheduled teams such as UW-W, Wesley, Redlands, CNU, Kean, and TLU for our non-conference games and at that time all of those teams were in the playoff discussion when we scheduled the game.

I can't argue with the fact that the SOS number for UMHB doesn't look good and or give a quantifiable better way to judge teams other than SOS but as smedindy said you can't say we don't try.

I wouldn't say that UMHB is definitely out or definitely in at this point.  They're closer to in, IMO.  The problem here is that right this second, it is a crowded house trying to get those at-large spots and UMHB picked a bad year to take a loss.  Most years, this isn't going to be an issue for them.   But, there are also two weeks of games left and a lot of stuff that we don't see happening will happen (CNU/Salisbury, anyone?).  I think the herd will thin just enough that this won't be a big issue in two weeks. 

What would be fun is if UMHB was ranked something like 6th this week behind TMC and CWRU and maybe even Berry and we can get a full week of outrage and hand wringing.  That'd just be fun for spectators. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2015, 12:20:20 PM
I wouldn't say that UMHB is definitely out or definitely in at this point.  They're closer to in, IMO.  The problem here is that right this second, it is a crowded house trying to get those at-large spots and UMHB picked a bad year to take a loss.  Most years, this isn't going to be an issue for them.   But, there are also two weeks of games left and a lot of stuff that we don't see happening will happen (CNU/Salisbury, anyone?).  I think the herd will thin just enough that this won't be a big issue in two weeks. 

What would be fun is if UMHB was ranked something like 6th this week behind TMC and CWRU and maybe even Berry and we can get a full week of outrage and hand wringing.  That'd just be fun for spectators.

At this point do the regional rankings that compare HSU and UMHB really matter. If UMHB gets in, is there anyway they aren't playing HSU in Abilene?

Quote from: crufootball on November 02, 2015, 12:28:31 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2015, 12:20:20 PM
I wouldn't say that UMHB is definitely out or definitely in at this point.  They're closer to in, IMO.  The problem here is that right this second, it is a crowded house trying to get those at-large spots and UMHB picked a bad year to take a loss.  Most years, this isn't going to be an issue for them.   But, there are also two weeks of games left and a lot of stuff that we don't see happening will happen (CNU/Salisbury, anyone?).  I think the herd will thin just enough that this won't be a big issue in two weeks. 

What would be fun is if UMHB was ranked something like 6th this week behind TMC and CWRU and maybe even Berry and we can get a full week of outrage and hand wringing.  That'd just be fun for spectators.

At this point do the regional rankings that compare HSU and UMHB really matter. If UMHB gets in, is there anyway they aren't playing HSU in Abilene?

Yes just two,    slim and none.  "island"   ;D

Quote from: crufootball on November 02, 2015, 12:28:31 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2015, 12:20:20 PM
I wouldn't say that UMHB is definitely out or definitely in at this point.  They're closer to in, IMO.  The problem here is that right this second, it is a crowded house trying to get those at-large spots and UMHB picked a bad year to take a loss.  Most years, this isn't going to be an issue for them.   But, there are also two weeks of games left and a lot of stuff that we don't see happening will happen (CNU/Salisbury, anyone?).  I think the herd will thin just enough that this won't be a big issue in two weeks. 

What would be fun is if UMHB was ranked something like 6th this week behind TMC and CWRU and maybe even Berry and we can get a full week of outrage and hand wringing.  That'd just be fun for spectators.

At this point do the regional rankings that compare HSU and UMHB really matter. If UMHB gets in, is there anyway they aren't playing HSU in Abilene?

Super highly unlikely.  It just kind of depends on who all gets in, but right now it looks like the NWC/SCIAC pairing is clean (as in, there won't be any at-large teams from those leagues), Berry has a few options that they can drive to, and Husson looks like they'll have a couple of options also.  They might be able to do this first round with just the one west coast flight. 

But you're not really worried about the rankings w/ respect to Hardin-Simmons.  That relationship is carved in stone at this point.  It's the rest of the South that matters and whether or not any other at-large team could sneak up above UMHB.  I don't think that'll happen, but we've seen some funky things happen in these rankings, particularly the South's rankings. 

Berry should pair with the USASAC winner. Either Huntingdon or Maryville are well inside 500 miles. That actually makes for reasonable first round game. The only hiccup is that it would be a rematch with Maryville of week 1. I think Berry has come a long way since then, Maryville seems very week to week. M'ville and Huntingdon play this week for the USASAC marble. Can't imagine the loser has a shot at anything though a 2 loss M'Ville would be 1-1 vs RRO if Berry and Huntingdon win out. SOS will probably be awful...

Berry can also get to likely playoff teams Thomas More, Franklin or Washington & Lee.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2015, 01:30:33 PM
Berry can also get to likely playoff teams Thomas More, Franklin or Washington & Lee.

Yes. But Huntingdon can't.... Lot of football left.

From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 02, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Yes.

A 9-1 MHB team is most likely a true Top 8 caliber team this season. Their program has shown an ability to compete with the top teams of D3 over the past decade. I don't see any reason why this year's team is not at that same level.

What other Pool C candidates would likely beat MHB? The list is short -UWW and maybe St John's. Head to head MHB is going to beat - Thomas More, John's Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25.

MHB has proven that they are a Top 5 program and as such they deserve a spot in the playoffs at 9-1.

Quote from: minni on November 02, 2015, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 02, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 12:06:41 AM
Yes.

A 9-1 MHB team is most likely a true Top 8 caliber team this season. Their program has shown an ability to compete with the top teams of D3 over the past decade. I don't see any reason why this year's team is not at that same level.

What other Pool C candidates would likely beat MHB? The list is short -UWW and maybe St John's. Head to head MHB is going to beat - Thomas More, John's Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25.

MHB has proven that they are a Top 5 program and as such they deserve a spot in the playoffs at 9-1.

I'm not sure they'd be favored by much at Platteville or Concordia. 

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 12:06:41 AM
What other Pool C candidates would likely beat MHB? The list is short -UWW and maybe St John's. Head to head MHB is going to beat - Thomas More, John's Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25.

I think what we learned on Saturday is that we don't really know who in the top 25 UMHB is going to beat.  Except for TLU.  We know they can beat TLU. 

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 12:56:05 AM

Quote from: minni on November 02, 2015, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 02, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 12:56:05 AM

Quote from: minni on November 02, 2015, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 02, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

Quote from: minni on November 03, 2015, 09:22:26 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 12:56:05 AM

Quote from: minni on November 02, 2015, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 02, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

What year was HSU burned by the Pool C?

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 09:32:48 AM

Quote from: minni on November 03, 2015, 09:22:26 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 12:56:05 AM

Quote from: minni on November 02, 2015, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 02, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

What year was HSU burned by the Pool C?

Same year UMHB was burned by the pool C 2002.  Three way championship between UMHB, HSU, and ETBU.

As we patiently wait out regional rankings and welcome our Cru friends to PoolCland, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at past history of the 36 team playoff field to see the types of teams who actually in Pool C can rest reasonably comfortably.

1. Undefeated Pool B teams (Looking at you 2014 Centre) Although we never really knew if Centre got in last year in Pool B or C, the penultimate regional rankings had them ranked third in Pool B heavy South.  I don't remember in the modern era (with the introduction of the AQ in 1999) a partial round robin conference ever having two undefeated teams - but if it did happen i'm sure it would be a near complete lock for Pool C.

2. 9-1 teams with at least a 1-1 RRO record and a loss to a purple power.  Otherwise traditionally (and this is the year that breaks the tradition) known as the OAC's second automatic bid.  Given this crazy football year, I'm going to go ahead and assume that this also applies if you ARE a purple power in Pool C.

3. 9-1 teams at least 1 legitimate RRO win (I'm defining legitimate as being one not against a 9th or 10th ranked team in a decimated region).  I'd probably also add a > .500 SOS to this criteria but there is plenty of history for sub .500 SOS teams getting in with this resume.Have I left any out?

Quote from: minni on November 03, 2015, 10:08:57 AMSame year UMHB was burned by the pool C 2002.  Three way championship between UMHB, HSU, and ETBU.

For what its worth - in 2002 we had a 28 team field. The top four tournament seeds got first round byes. Lots of people were getting burned by Pool C as conferences quickly consolidated to gain enough football playing members to get into Pool A.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 12:56:05 AM
Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

Bingo.  Every fan wants to believe that their team is the only one in Pool C that had it hard.  Almost every team that makes it into the Pool C discussion is one of the following:

a) 9-1 with only loss to an undefeated conference champion (often a close loss)
b) 8-2 with loss to undefeated conference champion + (insert very good non-conference opponent here)
c) 8-2 with losses to two very good conference opponents + one very good non-league win

Life in Pool C is hard.  "We only lost 1-2 close games to really good teams" doesn't guarantee you a playoff berth because Pool C usually has a dozen of those.  If you're in Pool C, you've left it up to the playoff genies.  If you want to make the playoffs for stone-cold-dead-lock-100-percent-sure, win'em all.

Quote from: wabndy on November 03, 2015, 10:21:40 AM
1. Undefeated Pool B teams (Looking at you 2014 Centre) Although we never really knew if Centre got in last year in Pool B or C, the penultimate regional rankings had them ranked third in Pool B heavy South. 

I believe the committee chair did in fact disclose that Centre went in through Pool C.  The difference is negligible other than the indirect confession that the South had stuck to their guns and ranked TLU above Centre despite Centre having gone undefeated and TLU having lost by a zillion to UMHB. 

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 03, 2015, 10:25:26 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 12:56:05 AM
Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

Bingo.  Every fan wants to believe that their team is the only one in Pool C that had it hard.  Almost every team that makes it into the Pool C discussion is one of the following:

a) 9-1 with only loss to an undefeated conference champion (often a close loss)
b) 8-2 with loss to undefeated conference champion + (insert very good non-conference opponent here)
c) 8-2 with losses to two very good conference opponents + one very good non-league win

Life in Pool C is hard.  "We only lost 1-2 close games to really good teams" doesn't guarantee you a playoff berth because Pool C usually has a dozen of those.  If you're in Pool C, you've left it up to the playoff genies.  If you want to make the playoffs for stone-cold-dead-lock-100-percent-sure, win'em all.

Ex, I'd be surprised if the bolded was true for fans on this site (but agree probably true for those not on this site).  I believe most D3 fans on this site get it.  In fact, that's one of the reasons Pool C is uncomfortable.  There can be a chasm between the teams that the committee feels "deserve" to get in based on the current criteria used and teams many fans believe "deserve" to get in because they would likely provide better competition based on recent past performance.  IMO, a UMHB fan is entirely justified in thinking Pool C selection should be the latter.   

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 12:06:41 AM

Head to head MHB is going to beat - Thomas More, John's Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25.

I see you're using this argument again, where you just say something is true, provide no actual evidence for the claim (because there isn't any) and we're just supposed to accept it because it's so obvious.

Quote from: emma17 on November 03, 2015, 11:58:47 AM
There can be a chasm between the teams that the committee feels "deserve" to get in based on the current criteria used and teams many fans believe "deserve" to get in because they would likely provide better competition based on recent past performance.  IMO, a UMHB fan is entirely justified in thinking Pool C selection should be the latter.

What has 2015 UMHB done that tells us they are one of the best 6 non-qualifiers?   I'm not arguing for or against UMHB right now- I'll wait until Wednesday for that.  But if we do the blind resume thing that the TV people love to do (you'll see it during any lengthy play stoppage in FBS games from now until the first week of December), UMHB doesn't look all that special.  If I had to guess right now I'd say they probably project in, but that profile is sort of fragile. 

Quote from: minni on November 03, 2015, 10:08:57 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 09:32:48 AM

Quote from: minni on November 03, 2015, 09:22:26 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 09:16:18 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 03, 2015, 12:56:05 AM

Quote from: minni on November 02, 2015, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 02, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
From a selfish standpoint I'd much rather see MHB stay home in the playoffs as they will most likely be somewhere in Linfield's side of the bracket along with UWW, UWO, St Thomas, St Johns, Hardin Simmons, etc.  Any team that replaces them will be nowhere as good...

But, MHB has earned the respect of getting into the playoffs by how they have done in prior years.  They deserve to go over any other 9-1 team outside of UWW.  SOS be damned...

So you are saying based on the "past" MHB should receive a bid?  You're not basing it on the current year performance?

Is that much worse than potentially keeping out a team that lost to a very good opponent on the road by 3 just because their opponents didn't have a good record?

This kind of thing happens to 3-4 teams every single year.  Life in Pool C is not comfortable.

I want UMHB in the playoffs.  Looks great for the "south" and the ASC conference.  I am just not looking for a repeat of 2004.  In the past I have been blessed by the Pool C and I have been burned by the Pool C.  It sucks.

What year was HSU burned by the Pool C?

Same year UMHB was burned by the pool C 2002.  Three way championship between UMHB, HSU, and ETBU.

That year I wouldn't blame Pool C, just the fact that there are no good ways to break up a 3 way tie for 1st place. Once that was determined to be ETBU, HSU did have 2 losses that year which is usually a death nail in Pool C land.

And yes emma17 that is how I feel, I am not naive in thinking the other 20 something teams that have 1 loss are not feeling the same way UMHB feels right now. However I would argue that given the playoff structure we have, which gives out an automatic way to get into the playoffs for 95% of teams, the at-large bids should be for teams that are going to make the field the most competitive possible. To that end I am not saying that just because a traditional power lost they deserve a second chance through Pool C, but if you want to tell me that there are 6 better teams than UMHB that don't have automatic bids than I would be happy to have a polite disagreement with you.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 12:18:37 PM
What has 2015 UMHB done that tells us they are one of the best 6 non-qualifiers?

This right here has consistently been the primary source of disagreement: the use of past years' information to inform present years' rankings and playoff decisions.

The unsaid piece of walla walla's argument ("Head to head MHB is going Thomas More, Johns Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25") is that he "knows" this because UMHB has been better than those teams on the national stage in 2014, 2013, and 2012.  It has to be based on past evidence; as Bombers points out, there is no possible way to know this based on 2015 game results (there are no direct matchups and zero common opponents between the teams).  We're just supposed to take it for granted that UMHB is still definitely better than those teams because results from the last few years would tell us that.  But you know what else?  Results from 2014, 2013, and 2012 would have told us that UMHB was better than Hardin-Simmons.  How'd that work out?

emma has been consistent in this message: that results from the last two or three seasons should come into play in determining the Pool C slots.  That's the sticking point for the two sides of this argument.  My strongest opposition is basically...well, the game that just happened is a good place to start.  We can't assume that MHB is better than all of those other teams just because last year!  Earlier this year, a Wartburg team that nearly took down Whitewater got utterly obliterated to the tune of 45-13 by a Dubuque team carrying two blowout non-league losses.  This stuff happens all the time.  Teams change from year to year.  2014 results shouldn't have any impact on 2015 playoff teams.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 03, 2015, 12:41:16 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 12:18:37 PM
What has 2015 UMHB done that tells us they are one of the best 6 non-qualifiers?

This right here has consistently been the primary source of disagreement: the use of past years' information to inform present years' rankings and playoff decisions.

The unsaid piece of walla walla's argument ("Head to head MHB is going Thomas More, Johns Hopkins, and everyone ranked below them in the Top 25") is that he "knows" this because UMHB has been better than those teams on the national stage in 2014, 2013, and 2012.  It has to be based on past evidence; as Bombers points out, there is no possible way to know this based on 2015 game results (there are no direct matchups and zero common opponents between the teams).  We're just supposed to take it for granted that UMHB is still definitely better than those teams because results from the last few years would tell us that.  But you know what else?  Results from 2014, 2013, and 2012 would have told us that UMHB was better than Hardin-Simmons.  How'd that work out?

emma has been consistent in this message: that results from the last two or three seasons should come into play in determining the Pool C slots.  That's the sticking point for the two sides of this argument.  My strongest opposition is basically...well, the game that just happened is a good place to start.  We can't assume that MHB is better than all of those other teams just because last year!  Earlier this year, a Wartburg team that nearly took down Whitewater got utterly obliterated to the tune of 45-13 by a Dubuque team carrying two blowout non-league losses.  This stuff happens all the time.  Teams change from year to year.  2014 results shouldn't have any impact on 2015 playoff teams.

You're taking it a little too far.  We don't need common opponents to make a good guess about the strength of teams.  It's not a good or "fair" way to select at-large teams, but surely we can use subjective insight to see that Mary Hardin-Baylor has better athletes on the field.  Thomas More doesn't have any common opponents with Western Kentucky, but we can still guess who would win.  Kind of a pointless argument as the games won't take place, but I'm certain most people would pick the Crusaders.

An interesting case study for all the energy going into pool C discussions is my own team, The Wheaton Thunder.   Right now they are ranked in the top 10, undefeated with one good win, pretty decent playoff history and facing another top 25 team this week that, with a win, would clinch the AQ for them.   Just wine the game! If they win they have an outside shot at a #1 seed or at least a couple home playoff games.  If they lose (on the road to a top 25 team) they face the real possibility of not being selected as a 9-1 team in the pool C process.  At a minimum they would be a bubble team.  How can that be you ask? A weak SOS, they would be behind IWU in the cue, and as a result would likely get to the table later.  We will know more after Wednesday and Wally does a tremendous job projecting the candidates, but from where I sit I have to agree w Ex-Tartan if Wheaton loses Saturday they deserve whatever hand is dealt at the table of the Pool C sharks.

Quote from: AO on November 03, 2015, 12:54:29 PM
You're taking it a little too far.  We don't need common opponents to make a good guess about the strength of teams.  It's not a good or "fair" way to select at-large teams, but surely we can use subjective insight to see that Mary Hardin-Baylor has better athletes on the field.  Thomas More doesn't have any common opponents with Western Kentucky, but we can still guess who would win.  Kind of a pointless argument as the games won't take place, but I'm certain most people would pick the Crusaders.

If UMHB has better athletes, why did they lose?  I'm not saying they do or don't.  I'm saying that as soon as they lose, everything that we take for granted about UMHB (or UWW as well this year) goes up in flames.  Maybe this year UMHB (or UWW) aren't the same teams that they've been recently?  I think that's a fair question to ask when a team loses.  Unless of course they lose to Western Kentucky. 

OK Cru fans, I'll take the challenge.  What would a scenario look like that would place 6 other teams ahead of UMHB in the pool C race?

Below i'm projecting the final resume under these scenarios indicated below.  SOS is current as of today with an indicator as needed if it will rise or fall significantly in the next two weeks.

UMHB (9-1, 1-1 RRO, SOS .476 (and falling)) (lets also assume East Texas Baptist will not be RR at the end of the season).

6. Whitewater (8-1, 9-1, 1-1 RRO, SOS .538) is going to be in - maybe not first - but its gonna happen.  Lets move on.
5. Wheaton loses to North Central on Saturday by a little.  That gives North central the AQ and leaves both Wheaton and Illinois Wesleyan competitive in Pool C.  Illinois Wesleyan (9-1, 2-1 RRO, SOS .550)(and rising)).
4.  St. Johns (9-1, 2-1 RRO, SOS .569)
3. Wabash drops the bell game and gives DePauw the NCAC AQ. Hampden Sydney is regionally ranked  (9-1, 2-1 RRO, SOS 0.457 (will be above .500 at season end))
2. Platteville (8-2, 1-2 RRO, SOS .594 (and falling))
1. Wheaton (9-1, 1-1 RRO, SOS 0.472 (and rising))  See #5 above.

We can quibble about which order these are in.  Yes-  this would be on rare territory to give two conferences two Pool C bids but I think this is all definitely plausible.  The low SOS and only 1 RRO win could push UMHB to the bubble.  I think in this scenario you could fairly throw Platteville, Wheaton, and UMHB in a hat and pull two out of the three and not get much howling from the rest of the D3 football universe. 

Good point AO.
I think too that this discussion would be helped if we stopped using certain terms and concepts that only dramatize the situation.
For instance, "We're supposed to take for granted that umhb is still definitely better". No, it's not about knowing who is definately better, it's about choosing between a small number of teams that look worthy and then picking the team that is likely better.
And "We can't assume umhb is better than all of those teams just because of last year".  No, we aren't assuming umhb is better just because of last year. When we have to use subjectivity either way, it gives us greater confidence to select a team that has proven year after year after year that they will be competitive in the playoffs. The program has earned the benefit of the doubt. There are several Pool C candidates that simply don't give that sort of confidence.

If it's umhb or UWP, I'm going w umhb. I don't think it's a hard decision.
Pool C is tough. If UWP doesn't like it, then they should perform better in the playoffs and against UWO in the biggest game of the season. Until then, they and all other candidates should realize that all data points will be used to determine the 6 teams most likely to raise the competitive level of the playoffs.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 01:12:44 PM

Quote from: AO on November 03, 2015, 12:54:29 PM
You're taking it a little too far.  We don't need common opponents to make a good guess about the strength of teams.  It's not a good or "fair" way to select at-large teams, but surely we can use subjective insight to see that Mary Hardin-Baylor has better athletes on the field.  Thomas More doesn't have any common opponents with Western Kentucky, but we can still guess who would win.  Kind of a pointless argument as the games won't take place, but I'm certain most people would pick the Crusaders.

If UMHB has better athletes, why did they lose?  I'm not saying they do or don't.  I'm saying that as soon as they lose, everything that we take for granted about UMHB (or UWW as well this year) goes up in flames.  Maybe this year UMHB (or UWW) aren't the same teams that they've been recently?  I think that's a fair question to ask when a team loses.  Unless of course they lose to Western Kentucky.

I don't think you have to take anything for granted at this point in the season.  1 loss doesn't change how they performed in their first 7 games or dramatically change how I would predict them to perform in the future.  If they were previously predicted to beat Thomas More by 28, maybe now we think they only will win by 20.  When Wartburg lost to Dubuque we were saying for weeks that they weren't the same team.  Hardin-Simmons proved to me that they belonged in the top-ten moreso than MHB proving that they don't.

Quote from: emma17 on November 03, 2015, 01:19:03 PM
If it's umhb or UWP, I'm going w umhb. I don't think it's a hard decision.

I think that's an incredibly hard decision.  UWP, frankly, has accomplished more this year than UMHB has. 

Quote from: AO on November 03, 2015, 01:23:13 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 01:12:44 PM

Quote from: AO on November 03, 2015, 12:54:29 PM
You're taking it a little too far.  We don't need common opponents to make a good guess about the strength of teams.  It's not a good or "fair" way to select at-large teams, but surely we can use subjective insight to see that Mary Hardin-Baylor has better athletes on the field.  Thomas More doesn't have any common opponents with Western Kentucky, but we can still guess who would win.  Kind of a pointless argument as the games won't take place, but I'm certain most people would pick the Crusaders.

If UMHB has better athletes, why did they lose?  I'm not saying they do or don't.  I'm saying that as soon as they lose, everything that we take for granted about UMHB (or UWW as well this year) goes up in flames.  Maybe this year UMHB (or UWW) aren't the same teams that they've been recently?  I think that's a fair question to ask when a team loses.  Unless of course they lose to Western Kentucky.

I don't think you have to take anything for granted at this point in the season.  1 loss doesn't change how they performed in their first 7 games or dramatically change how I would predict them to perform in the future.  If they were previously predicted to beat Thomas More by 28, maybe now we think they only will win by 20.  When Wartburg lost to Dubuque we were saying for weeks that they weren't the same team.  Hardin-Simmons proved to me that they belonged in the top-ten moreso than MHB proving that they don't.

I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask. 

It appears that some people want the criteria changed every year to get their team into the playoffs with home field advantage every year.

Quote from: RLW on November 03, 2015, 01:34:40 PM
It appears that some people want the criteria changed every year to get their team into the playoffs with home field advantage every year.

" candy N nuts"  =  "if's and butt"s" ;D

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 01:29:21 PM
I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

Hardin-Simmons was really good before the Mary Hardin-Baylor game.  They weren't just undefeated, they were blowing teams out. You could have made a convincing argument before that game took place that Hardin-Simmons should be ranked right with MHB.   It wasn't a giant upset.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 01:29:21 PM
I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

I've got no horse in this race, and I can't really bring statistics to the table; but UMHB passes they eye test. I try to watch as many Top 25 D3 games as I can on the weekends, and they have been as impressive as anyone else in the country. They are faster, bigger, and more physical than most of the Top 25 teams. They are a team that is a great QB away from being the best team in the country (who isn't though, right?).

With that being said, a loss is a loss; and they will be sweating it out hoping for a bid. I just don't think it makes that much sense to question/doubt a team that wins their first 7 games by a 40 point average before losing a 3 point game on the road to an undefeated team.

Quote from: emma17 on November 03, 2015, 01:19:03 PMit gives us greater confidence to select a team that has proven year after year after year that they will be competitive in the playoffs.

Except that a "team" isn't a constant. It's comprised of a group of individuals who change from year to year, in countless ways. Some players leave, some players join, some players get better, some players get worse. And you're competing with 200+ teams who have all done the same.

Quote from: Westside on November 03, 2015, 01:56:41 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 01:29:21 PM
I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

I've got no horse in this race, and I can't really bring statistics to the table; but UMHB passes they eye test. I try to watch as many Top 25 D3 games as I can on the weekends, and they have been as impressive as anyone else in the country. They are faster, bigger, and more physical than most of the Top 25 teams. They are a team that is a great QB away from being the best team in the country (who isn't though, right?).

With that being said, a loss is a loss; and they will be sweating it out hoping for a bid. I just don't think it makes that much sense to question/doubt a team that wins their first 7 games by a 40 point average before losing a 3 point game on the road to an undefeated team.

I understand the first part of your post, so I'm certainly not refuting UMHB's quality or doubting that they're a very good team. 

I'm just responding to the bolded part: this is how almost every serious Pool C team's resume looks.  "We blew out most of the teams on our schedule, and we only lost one close game to our conference champion (or we lost two close games, one to our conference champion plus another to a really good team)! How can we be left out of the playoffs?"  That's the deal.  Life is hard.  If you want to avoid the Magic Box Select-O-Matic that is Pool C, win all of your games.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 03, 2015, 02:09:24 PM
I understand the first part of your post, so I'm certainly not refuting UMHB's quality or doubting that they're a very good team. 

I'm just responding to the bolded part: this is how almost every serious Pool C team's resume looks.  "We blew out most of the teams on our schedule, and we only lost one close game to our conference champion (or we lost two close games, one to our conference champion plus another to a really good team)! How can we be left out of the playoffs?"  That's the deal.  Life is hard.  If you want to avoid the Magic Box Select-O-Matic that is Pool C, win all of your games.

Good time to point out that I'm not basing any of my arguments for MHB on the playoff selection criteria.  Long live limited at-large bids which creates more meaningful regular season games!

Until proven otherwise I am going to grade programs and conferences based on how they have done in the playoffs over the past 5 years.  There may be good teams that come up every few years because of a strong senior class or a very good transfer (HSC with the QB who came over from the SEC as an example).  But there are a very few good programs that deserve the respect of everyone in D3 until they show on the field in successive seasons that things are trending down. 

These programs are Mount Union, Whitewater, MHB, Wesley, and Linfield.  There are 4 conferences where the winner deserves the same level of respect - CCIW, WIAC, OAC, and MIAC - teams from these conferences have been very competitive in the playoffs especially the conference winner.

I have a very hard time giving any team from the East a Pool C bid no matter their record because frankly the region has been terrible in the playoffs (outside of Wesley).  Until the East AQ teams consistently both go deep AND be competitive in each round they should be limited to the AQ only.

Regional Rankings as a metric seem to be worthless given how weak is the East combined with how many D3 programs are in the area.  Too much room for the East Coast bias come selection time.

The same can be said for using Strength of Schedule.  Put the conference champ of any East conference in the MIAC and they are going to finish #2 at best (except for Wesley).  We can't compare SOS when it is obvious that the teams in one region are simply not as good as the other regions.  (Obvious in terms of Top 25 rankings, preseason rankings by D3 experts, and past playoff results.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 03, 2015, 02:04:09 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 03, 2015, 01:19:03 PMit gives us greater confidence to select a team that has proven year after year after year that they will be competitive in the playoffs.

Except that a "team" isn't a constant. It's comprised of a group of individuals who change from year to year, in countless ways. Some players leave, some players join, some players get better, some players get worse. And you're competing with 200+ teams who have all done the same.

This is true in the NFL maybe, but here in D3 we seem to have a remarkable stability among the top teams.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 02:25:23 PM
I have a very hard time giving any team from the East a Pool C bid no matter their record because frankly the region has been terrible in the playoffs (outside of Wesley).  Until the East AQ teams consistently both go deep AND be competitive in each round they should be limited to the AQ only.

LOL.  Here, let me show you how one of those matchups went when an East Pool C team played an OAC Pool C team in the first round.  At the OAC team's place, no less.  A week after the OAC team lost by 8 points to Mount Union.

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2013/boxscores/20131123_4kt8.xml

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 03, 2015, 02:09:24 PM

Quote from: Westside on November 03, 2015, 01:56:41 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2015, 01:29:21 PM
I was waiting for this circular logic to pop up.  UMHB is still really good because they lost only by 3 to Hardin-Simmons who we know is really good because they beat UMHB.  Not buying this one. 

Maybe- and I know this is radical- but maybe we've been kinda wrong about UMHB all along in 2015.  I don't know the answer.  I do know that when they lose, that's a fair question to ask.

I've got no horse in this race, and I can't really bring statistics to the table; but UMHB passes they eye test. I try to watch as many Top 25 D3 games as I can on the weekends, and they have been as impressive as anyone else in the country. They are faster, bigger, and more physical than most of the Top 25 teams. They are a team that is a great QB away from being the best team in the country (who isn't though, right?).

With that being said, a loss is a loss; and they will be sweating it out hoping for a bid. I just don't think it makes that much sense to question/doubt a team that wins their first 7 games by a 40 point average before losing a 3 point game on the road to an undefeated team.

I understand the first part of your post, so I'm certainly not refuting UMHB's quality or doubting that they're a very good team. 

I'm just responding to the bolded part: this is how almost every serious Pool C team's resume looks.  "We blew out most of the teams on our schedule, and we only lost one close game to our conference champion (or we lost two close games, one to our conference champion plus another to a really good team)! How can we be left out of the playoffs?"  That's the deal.  Life is hard.  If you want to avoid the Magic Box Select-O-Matic that is Pool C, win all of your games.

That is pretty much what I said. I agree with you completely. I was just stating that the "maybe they aren't who we thought they were" part was wrong.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 02:25:23 PM
Until proven otherwise I am going to grade programs and conferences based on how they have done in the playoffs over the past 5 years.  There may be good teams that come up every few years because of a strong senior class or a very good transfer (HSC with the QB who came over from the SEC as an example).  But there are a very few good programs that deserve the respect of everyone in D3 until they show on the field in successive seasons that things are trending down. 

These programs are Mount Union, Whitewater, MHB, Wesley, and Linfield.  There are 4 conferences where the winner deserves the same level of respect - CCIW, WIAC, OAC, and MIAC - teams from these conferences have been very competitive in the playoffs especially the conference winner.

I have a very hard time giving any team from the East a Pool C bid no matter their record because frankly the region has been terrible in the playoffs (outside of Wesley).  Until the East AQ teams consistently both go deep AND be competitive in each round they should be limited to the AQ only.

Regional Rankings as a metric seem to be worthless given how weak is the East combined with how many D3 programs are in the area.  Too much room for the East Coast bias come selection time.

The same can be said for using Strength of Schedule.  Put the conference champ of any East conference in the MIAC and they are going to finish #2 at best (except for Wesley).  We can't compare SOS when it is obvious that the teams in one region are simply not as good as the other regions.  (Obvious in terms of Top 25 rankings, preseason rankings by D3 experts, and past playoff results.

😂😁😂😀😅

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 02:25:23 PM
Until proven otherwise I am going to grade programs and conferences based on how they have done in the playoffs over the past 5 years. 

Thats great, and reasonable, in your personal grade book.  I don't disagree with any of it.  But if I understand you, I think you are assuming that the the playoffs are esoterically supposed to be the place where the "top" 32 teams duke it out and #33 is left on the couch.  Or conversely that Pool C at least should be based exclusively among the six 1 loss teams and the primary criteria is a 5 year rolling average of their past playoff performance.  If you are saying that UMHB (the 5 year rolling UMHB - not the 2015 UMHB) is undoubtedly a top 10 team and on any given Saturday would be a clear favorite against 5 of of the other top ten teams, I'd probably agree with you there too.  That kind of argument however is perfect on a board to discuss this site's top 25 poll.  It doesn't really fit here.


The current Pool C selection criteria do, frankly, a masterful job of keeping as many teams relevant and as many student athletes engaged in the playoff hunt as long as possible.  It has evolved from a long and bloody history of 4, 8, 16, and 28 team fields that were rife with abuse of backroom horse trading and revenge seeking.  It even gives a nod to last year's playoff performance as a final tiebreaker criteria.  Most of all it allows a playoff field to be settled on the field, encourages tough competitive scheduling, and gives each and every team in the country a clear road to Salem in week 1.  What it sounds like you are basically calling for is saying that the grandees of D3 football (consistent national semi-finals participants) get an automatic pass to Pool C if they pick up a loss in the regular season.  That kind of rule, whether written or unwritten, is the great dividing line between the D1 and D3 game.  Its the kind of rule (or rule of thumb) that D1 power conferences (and ESPN) put in to protect their revenue streams and keep the key college football media markets happy and engaged.  I think if you'll step back, swallow the lump that comes with losing a close one to a conference rival, you'll agree that what we have works best for D3.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 02:25:23 PM
Regional Rankings as a metric seem to be worthless given how weak is the East combined with how many D3 programs are in the area.  Too much room for the East Coast bias come selection time.

East coast bias!!  Hahahaha.  You're aware that 6/8 of the selection committee are not from the East region, right?   You know this, RIGHT? 

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 03, 2015, 02:30:14 PM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 03, 2015, 02:25:23 PM
I have a very hard time giving any team from the East a Pool C bid no matter their record because frankly the region has been terrible in the playoffs (outside of Wesley).  Until the East AQ teams consistently both go deep AND be competitive in each round they should be limited to the AQ only.

LOL.  Here, let me show you how one of those matchups went when an East Pool C team played an OAC Pool C team in the first round.  At the OAC team's place, no less.  A week after the OAC team lost by 8 points to Mount Union.

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2013/boxscores/20131123_4kt8.xml

Not sure if I agree with Walla completely, but your cherry picked "one of those matchups" isn't exactly disproving what Walls is saying.

Plus I don't agree that the OAC is a power conference in DIII. Mount carries that conference, and they don't get much competition until the semis (and sometimes not till the Stagg Bowl).