I'm going to spin up the eliminator analysis again this year. It was a fun exercise last year and I think people found it interesting. If you didn't see this last year, here's what I'm doing:
- 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.
Here's what I've got through last Saturday's games:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhQMNaX1.png&hash=92c236d38fb496c48353e11c46410fc0c3e5894a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fn92CwIW.png&hash=555d1f1f6d0c6e801d504478b61829ba9e572b80)
Basically at this point, I've only eliminated teams with three losses and teams that lost twice out of conference (meaning that in order to get into the at-large pool they would have to lose a league game, which would be a third loss and a de facto disqualifier). Next week I plan to do a deeper dive into the various standings in the leagues and identify some more teams that meet the following criteria: low SOS without future opportunities for RRO wins, two-loss teams with games left against league leaders (basically teams that are in win out and qualify automatically or lose a third game and be eliminated). There are some teams that probably fit this bill already, but enough of them that I'd prefer to wait one more week and have some of them get knocked out on their own and lessen the analysis time I need to spend.
We'll get around to talking about who is IN the tournament more in a couple of weeks. Hopefully taking a look at who is out will tide us over until then. :)
Couple of notes that I forgot...
- If there are any questions, teams in the red cells are eliminated, green are still alive. McMurry is grayed because they aren't eligible yet (or again or however you want to look at that).
- h/t to ExTartanPlayer who is helping me out as a second set of eyes on this again this year.
- you can click the images there to blow them up
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 13, 2016, 10:25:03 PM
I'm going to spin up the eliminator analysis again this year. It was a fun exercise last year and I think people found it interesting. If you didn't see this last year, here's what I'm doing:
- 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.
Here's what I've got through last Saturday's games:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhQMNaX1.png&hash=92c236d38fb496c48353e11c46410fc0c3e5894a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fn92CwIW.png&hash=555d1f1f6d0c6e801d504478b61829ba9e572b80)
Basically at this point, I've only eliminated teams with three losses and teams that lost twice out of conference (meaning that in order to get into the at-large pool they would have to lose a league game, which would be a third loss and a de facto disqualifier). Next week I plan to do a deeper dive into the various standings in the leagues and identify some more teams that meet the following criteria: low SOS without future opportunities for RRO wins, two-loss teams with games left against league leaders (basically teams that are in win out and qualify automatically or lose a third game and be eliminated). There are some teams that probably fit this bill already, but enough of them that I'd prefer to wait one more week and have some of them get knocked out on their own and lessen the analysis time I need to spend.
We'll get around to talking about who is IN the tournament more in a couple of weeks. Hopefully taking a look at who is out will tide us over until then. :)
Thanx Wally!
wally does all of the real work on this, but just a few comments:
1) We try to err on the side of leaving teams "alive" rather than ruling them out, even when it would take a one-in-a-million set of circumstances. That does mean certain teams stay on the list as "alive" for a Pool C bid even though it requires an extremely unlikely set of circumstances to get them a Pool C bid. I'll use Capital as an example: the Crusaders are already 3-2, with a conference loss to Ohio Northern, and they still have to play Mount Union and John Carroll the next two weeks. Getting them to a Pool C bid would require an incredibly odd series of results around the league and the country (since they'd have to beat UMU/JCU, probably both, and somehow still not win the league...) but since this is an "eliminator" we try to only take out the teams that are absolutely, positively NOT going to get a Pool C.
2) The ironclad "You're out" rules are basically:
- you already have 3 total losses (I don't think there's ever been a 3-loss Pool C)
- you have 2 non-league losses (since you'd have to lose a league game to end up in Pool C, putting you at three losses)
The murky situations come with a team that has 1 non league loss and plays in a historically "blah" league with a weak SOS. Benedictine is a good test case here. They're 4-1, 2-0 in the league with a semirespectable loss to Wheaton. Getting them into Pool C means they have to take a second loss against someone in their own league, which is going to be an awful loss for any playoff team to have (consider that the teams most likely to challenge then, Aurora and Lakeland, both have multiple non-league losses to other teams that probably aren't going to win their own leagues). And it's possible that Wheaton would be one of the other teams in Pool C with them, meaning they'd have a H2H loss against someone else in the pool. Overall, that's a terrible spot to be in, and realistically it's incredibly hard to gin up a scenario where 8-2 Benedictine finishes second in the NACC and actually makes the tournament. Buuuuut since this is an "Eliminator" we're being generous.
Also, refer to wally's earlier statement - being eliminated in this table doesn't mean you're eliminated from the playoffs. Many of these teams can still win their leagues. This is about winnowing down the viable list of Pool C candidates.
Good stuff. I was just thinking about UW-Platteville or Oshkosh as the loser will go 8-2 most likely (though Stevens Point is good too, and maybe LAX). They may be one of the strongest two-loss teams ever, and they still may not make the playoffs with two losses.
I'm not going to weep for them because they would have had two chances, and definitely had chances against Whitewater. Again, the only guarantee to the playoffs is win your league.
If a couple of conferences don't go 'chalk' then we could have some interesting Pool C discussions and set up some serious elimination games later in the season.
Quote from: smedindy on October 14, 2016, 01:21:52 PM
Good stuff. I was just thinking about UW-Platteville or Oshkosh as the loser will go 8-2 most likely (though Stevens Point is good too, and maybe LAX). They may be one of the strongest two-loss teams ever, and they still may not make the playoffs with two losses.
I thought UWP was the best 2-loss at-large team I've ever seen last year and they didn't even sniff the tournament thanks to some curious West RAC rankings. So we'll see how it plays out for the Pioneers this time around. Similar roadblocks (namely a 1-loss runner up from a non-WIAC league) could emerge this year in the West. Right now it seems that the Coe/Dubuque loser could be a team that finishes ranked ahead of a 2-loss (and third place) WIAC team. St. John's probably finishes ranked higher than that third WIAC team as well. It won't happen from the NWC this year, and I don't think the SCIAC, MWC, or UMAC have the juice to take a 1-loss runner up in the region's top 10.
So if you're a WIAC enthusiast and you want three teams in the field, keep any eye on the IIAC and the MIAC. We should be pretty well informed on this once we get to official regional rankings.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 13, 2016, 10:25:03 PM
I'm going to spin up the eliminator analysis again this year. It was a fun exercise last year and I think people found it interesting. If you didn't see this last year, here's what I'm doing:
- 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.
Here's what I've got through last Saturday's games:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhQMNaX1.png&hash=92c236d38fb496c48353e11c46410fc0c3e5894a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fn92CwIW.png&hash=555d1f1f6d0c6e801d504478b61829ba9e572b80)
Basically at this point, I've only eliminated teams with three losses and teams that lost twice out of conference (meaning that in order to get into the at-large pool they would have to lose a league game, which would be a third loss and a de facto disqualifier). Next week I plan to do a deeper dive into the various standings in the leagues and identify some more teams that meet the following criteria: low SOS without future opportunities for RRO wins, two-loss teams with games left against league leaders (basically teams that are in win out and qualify automatically or lose a third game and be eliminated). There are some teams that probably fit this bill already, but enough of them that I'd prefer to wait one more week and have some of them get knocked out on their own and lessen the analysis time I need to spend.
We'll get around to talking about who is IN the tournament more in a couple of weeks. Hopefully taking a look at who is out will tide us over until then. :)
Thanks Wally.
My gut feeling after week #7. Which are the 6 of the 8! Who stays home?
East -- E8 runner-up; NJAC Runner-up
South -- Thomas More (because CWRU runs an easy table); HSU-UMHB loser
North -- Mount Union if JCU wins the OAC; Wheaton IL
West -- WIAC runner-up; Johnnies
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 15, 2016, 11:28:16 PM
My gut feeling after week #7. Which are the 6 of the 8! Who stays home?
East -- E8 runner-up; NJAC Runner-up
South -- Thomas More (because CWRU runs an easy table); HSU-UMHB loser
North -- Mount Union if JCU wins the OAC; Wheaton IL
West -- WIAC runner-up; Johnnies
Agree with the bolded teams as more or less at-large locks, provided they don't go and take a weird L down the stretch.
CWRU closes with Westminster and Carnegie Mellon and I wouldn't ink those games in as wins for CWRU. Also Thomas More has already closed out the TMC closes with St. Vincent, Bethany, and Thiel- none of which should challenge the Saints, so I think TMC is cruising to an undefeated PAC record. How the PAC would sort out 8-0 TMC and 8-0 CWRU, I don't know yet. I don't think we've seen anything definitive on this tiebreak scenario.
The Pool B is a de facto AQ for the ASC champion. The ASC runner up...we'll see how they rank regionally (particularly given the possibility of an undefeated PAC co-champ that does not receive that league's AQ). Also a one-loss Hendrix or one loss Berry or one loss Muhlenberg could be lurking around out there getting in the way of an ASC runner up. H-SU has games left with UMHB and ETBU, so they aren't clear to 9-1 quite yet.
The North and East could both get really weird. The NJAC is crazy town at the moment. The E8 is always crazy town. You've got the possibility out there also of a one loss St. Lawrence LL runner up.
Pool C is going to be really intriguing after the first 2-3 gimmes. Lot of good teams with good profiles in play for maybe three spots.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 16, 2016, 12:47:35 AM
CWRU closes with Westminster and Carnegie Mellon and I wouldn't ink those games in as wins for CWRU. Also Thomas More has already closed out the TMC closes with St. Vincent, Bethany, and Thiel- none of which should challenge the Saints, so I think TMC is cruising to an undefeated PAC record. How the PAC would sort out 8-0 TMC and 8-0 CWRU, I don't know yet. I don't think we've seen anything definitive on this tiebreak scenario.
First: as one of our handful of regular PAC posters, I will confirm that it's nearly a lock that Thomas More runs the table. They have already cleared all significant obstacles on their schedule (wins in consecutive weeks over W&J, CMU, Westminster) and should cruise to the finish. You can't totally rule it out (I mean,
Bethany led W&J for the majority of last night's game before falling 37-36, and St. Vincent did play TMC tough last year) but I'd put TMC's chances of running the table at about 98 percent.
Second, although CWRU has a very nice team, they do have a pair of competitive games remaining. Both Westminster and Carnegie Mellon are good teams. CMU beat CWRU last year, and their 3-3 record belies how good they've been (with an OT loss vs. 5-1 WashU; 4-point loss to TMC; OT loss vs. 5-1 W&J). Westminster is sitting at 5-1 with their own moments of truth to come (next three games: W&J, CMU, CWRU). I'll say that Case is the slight favorite against both CMU and Westminster, but not a very heavy one. CWRU probably is about 50/50 to run the table in their PAC games.
Finally, if they do both finish undefeated, ADL70 and SaintsFAN have been trying to parse this apart, but it's still not 100 percent clear to me...
Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 03, 2016, 10:15:48 AM
Quote from: ADL70 on October 03, 2016, 08:49:20 AM
PAC tiebreaker
Tiebreaker for NCAA automatic qualifier (AQ): 1) Head-to-head competition, 2) Record against the highest-ranked team in the conference not involved in the tie. In the case of a three-way tie, it would be the fourth team. In case of a four-way tie, it would be the fifth-team, etc. If the records against that team are the same, it goes to the next highest team not involved in the tie, etc., 3) strength of conference wins (conference winning percentage of teams you beat in 8 PAC games, 4) Overall record, 5) Record vs. common non-league opponent(s). Note: if one team is eliminated, the tiebreaker begins again at step #1. All teams in a 3 or more team tie must have played each other for the head-to-head tiebreaker to be applicable. [Emphasis added]
I would think #3 would favor TMC with Case not playing W&J.
I actually want to roll it back to criteria #2. What if one of the teams is 1-0 against the "highest team not involved in the tie" and the other is 0-0? I don't know if that breaks the tie or not. If it doesn't, then #3 seems likely to favor TMC because they've played all of the other heavyweights while Case will miss one. But this is where it gets fun...because all sorts of other games not involving the two teams start to matter. If Bethany had held on to upset W&J last night, that would have helped Case. If CMU had beaten W&J last week, that would have helped Case. W&J becomes a critical piece as the best team that TMC plays and CWRU misses. The Westminster-Carnegie Mellon game also matters because it could influence who ends up in that third-place spot. The Westminster-W&J game will matter, too. I think Case needs W&J to lose (maybe twice, actually) because if W&J finishes alone in third place, that would seem to give Thomas More the tiebreaker on criteria #2.
I don't think this gets to criteria #4. I think it ends at #2 or #3. But it's incredibly messy right now.
Guess what? We're still not done! Case also has a non-league game with 5-1 WashU, still in contention for the SAA title. This doesn't matter for PAC title purposes, but it does include a pair of teams that are on the fringes of the playoff picture and the regional-rankings discussion(s). WashU can do Case a big favor by winning the SAA and getting themselves regionally ranked. What if Case finishes 9-1 with a loss to Carnegie, giving TMC the PAC title, but a win over eventual SAA champion WashU? Does that Case get in as a 9-1 Pool C team? The potential butterfly-effects still floating around here are mind-numbing.
I expect that wally will switch from the "Eliminator" to the actual selection exercise once we're a little further along, maybe week 9 or so...
It's messy for sure. And the way the season is playing out, outsiders like Denison and Bluffton could wind up with one loss, in "C" and waiting and watching.
Quote from: smedindy on October 16, 2016, 02:36:12 PM
It's messy for sure. And the way the season is playing out, outsiders like Denison and Bluffton could wind up with one loss, in "C" and waiting and watching.
Denison, Bluffton and Pool C, all in the same sentence?
Sign of the end times? ???
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2016, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 16, 2016, 02:36:12 PM
It's messy for sure. And the way the season is playing out, outsiders like Denison and Bluffton could wind up with one loss, in "C" and waiting and watching.
Denison, Bluffton and Pool C, all in the same sentence?
Sign of the end times? ???
"Could" is really the key word here. We have this tendency to look at all of these teams and assume they'll win out because they look like they're better than everyone left on the schedule (this happens in FBS too, when we see a bunch of 6-0 and 5-1 teams and think "Golly, what happens if all these teams win out?" - chances are, they won't).
It's certainly possible that these teams "could" end up in Pool C, but as I surmise smedindy meant, it's that teams like this are still in the picture and
one or two of them may end up in the picture at the end.
Right, but Bluffton's toughest game left is against Rose-Hulman, good but not great. Same with Defiance. They gave Franklin a game, and that was a game that caused me to downgrade Franklin - not anymore.
Denison has to face Wabash and DPU. If they beat Witt then they have the confidence that they can beat anybody. They could lose both as well.
Bluffton also gave Trine their only loss so far. Would be a big help if Trine ran the table and won the MIAA.
Sorry to let my daytime job interfere with good D3 talk (LOL), but is UW River Falls (Administrative region #4) versus Southwestern TX (administrative region #4) an in-region game? (I have not perused the Manual in several years. It might impact the deep numbers inside Pool C.)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 17, 2016, 06:38:50 PM
Sorry to let my daytime job interfere with good D3 talk (LOL), but is UW River Falls (Administrative region #4) versus Southwestern TX (administrative region #4) an in-region game? (I have not perused the Manual in several years. It might impact the deep numbers inside Pool C.)
It's hard to not be in-region anymore. I think as long as everybody is playing 2/3 or 3/4 of their games in-region, then they all count as in-region. And if Wisconsin and Texas are in the same administrative region, then yeah.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 16, 2016, 08:40:47 PM
Bluffton also gave Trine their only loss so far. Would be a big help if Trine ran the table and won the MIAA.
Lots of ifs left in the North region, but I'm super intrigued by what's coming down the line.
- Wabash can win out and get to 9-1. They'll have a crummy SOS (thanks Albion), but they'll almost certainly have one RRO win on that profile, perhaps two. Same for Witt. Same for Denison. Same for DePauw.
- How would the North RAC treat 8-2 NCAC teams? Especially if Bluffton gets to 9-1. Or Trine. Or Olivet. Carthage is out there that could be 9-1 or 8-2. Would they beat out an 8-2 NCAC team in the regional rankings? Or could an 8-2 NCAC team with a RRO win stay ranked ahead of those 1-loss HCAC/MIAA teams? These are really, really important choices.
Intrigue abounds in the last month of the season in the North.
I probably won't keep repeating this part of the post, but I'll do it again this week as people trickle in to the at-large conversation this week. Here's the idea behind these eliminator tables:
- 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.
Updated through Week 7 games:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOj78uOZ.png&hash=1fd72ee4bcaa331dcefc58d503b1aa63e00f788e)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0aiYQ9o.png&hash=ff79728ee939a3bcdf2ba9e2683982baab516cde)
Eliminated teams in the red cells, teams still clinging to at-large hope in the green cells. Newly eliminated teams this week with white text and also repeated below with commentary on the teams that I eliminated prior to having collected a third loss:
Elmhurst
Rose-Hulman - RHIT has to play Franklin and Bluffton. They'll either win those games and win the HCAC or lose one and have a third loss.
Alma - Same as RHIT, substitute Trine and Olivet as their remaining key games.
Capital
Gustavus Adolphus
Puget Sound
Chapman
Minnesota-Morris
Louisiana College
Catholic
Rhodes
Ferrum
LaGrange
Ithaca
RPI
Mass-Maritime - Bucs have games left with Bridgewater State and Framingham State. Wins there probably wins the league, any loss will end their at-large prospects.
Curry
Montclair State
Kean
And yes, there are a lot of teams left alive from the UMAC and the MWC, and there's only very, very, very slight chances that even a single loss runner up from those leagues can crack the top 10 in the deep West region, but those leagues are going to sort themselves out in the next couple of weeks and we can be better informed on whether any runners up from those leagues might have any shot at all when we see some regional rankings. Same sort of deal with the survivors from the ECFC and MASCAC, but the East can still beat itself up enough that two loss runners up might get ranked. So we'll let that play out a little longer also.
This may be a year where the first rankings posted are trial balloons, and the second rankings are reflections of how the other regions ranked their teams in order to get the best possible "C" contenders to the table at the right time. So we could see a 2-loss team jump a 1-loss team strategically (or vice versa).
Not that it happens that way, but it SEEMS that it happened that way a couple of times.
Here's something, though. Would the West rank a 4th WIAC team? I think the MIAC will have everyone with three losses except the Johnnies and Tommies. The IIAC may cannibalize itself. The NWC probably would rank two. So maybe they rank a 7-3 Stevens Point or LaCrosse and that way get Platteville or Oshkosh another RR win that boosts their potential 2-loss candidacy? I could see the West RRs with 4 WIAC, 2 MIAC, 2 NWC, 1 IIAC and 1 SCIAC.
The East's committee is going to be fun to watch - how they untangle the E8, NJAC and MAC from each other. A strategic ranking of a strong 2-loss team could make a big difference.
Also, it seems there are a lot of teams with one loss just hanging around. Besides Bluffton, which could go 9-1, and Denison, which has a puncher's chance to win the dang NCAC for reals, a lot of teams in the PAC and SAA have none or one loss.
Of all the years to have TMC and CWRU not play each other.
Quote from: smedindy on October 18, 2016, 01:10:46 AM
This may be a year where the first rankings posted are trial balloons, and the second rankings are reflections of how the other regions ranked their teams in order to get the best possible "C" contenders to the table at the right time. So we could see a 2-loss team jump a 1-loss team strategically (or vice versa).
Not that it happens that way, but it SEEMS that it happened that way a couple of times.
Here's something, though. Would the West rank a 4th WIAC team? I think the MIAC will have everyone with three losses except the Johnnies and Tommies. The IIAC may cannibalize itself. The NWC probably would rank two. So maybe they rank a 7-3 Stevens Point or LaCrosse and that way get Platteville or Oshkosh another RR win that boosts their potential 2-loss candidacy? I could see the West RRs with 4 WIAC, 2 MIAC, 2 NWC, 1 IIAC and 1 SCIAC.
The East's committee is going to be fun to watch - how they untangle the E8, NJAC and MAC from each other. A strategic ranking of a strong 2-loss team could make a big difference.
I'm curious who you envision from the SCIAC as a regionally-ranked team. IMO, the IIAC alone has four teams (Coe, Dubuque, Central, and Wartburg) that could whup anyone from D3 SoCal. The SCIAC will, of course, have an AQ, but I can't really see them with an RR.
Quote from: smedindy on October 18, 2016, 01:10:46 AM
This may be a year where the first rankings posted are trial balloons, and the second rankings are reflections of how the other regions ranked their teams in order to get the best possible "C" contenders to the table at the right time. So we could see a 2-loss team jump a 1-loss team strategically (or vice versa).
Not that it happens that way, but it SEEMS that it happened that way a couple of times.
Here's something, though. Would the West rank a 4th WIAC team? I think the MIAC will have everyone with three losses except the Johnnies and Tommies. The IIAC may cannibalize itself. The NWC probably would rank two. So maybe they rank a 7-3 Stevens Point or LaCrosse and that way get Platteville or Oshkosh another RR win that boosts their potential 2-loss candidacy? I could see the West RRs with 4 WIAC, 2 MIAC, 2 NWC, 1 IIAC and 1 SCIAC.
The East's committee is going to be fun to watch - how they untangle the E8, NJAC and MAC from each other. A strategic ranking of a strong 2-loss team could make a big difference.
Does "once ranked, always ranked" still exist? If so, then a committee could really go down the game theory rabbit hole by swapping out 4 or 5 teams at the bottom of their rankings from first to second ranking, thus generating more RRO for any potential Pool C contender. In the East, for instance, the committee could leave off all the Northeast teams and pack the bottom of the rankings with teams from the East and Mid-Atlantic, swap them out for others in the second set, then bring in the New England conference champs for the final rankings.
Quote from: smedindy on October 18, 2016, 01:10:46 AM
Here's something, though. Would the West rank a 4th WIAC team? I think the MIAC will have everyone with three losses except the Johnnies and Tommies. The IIAC may cannibalize itself. The NWC probably would rank two. So maybe they rank a 7-3 Stevens Point or LaCrosse and that way get Platteville or Oshkosh another RR win that boosts their potential 2-loss candidacy? I could see the West RRs with 4 WIAC, 2 MIAC, 2 NWC, 1 IIAC and 1 SCIAC.
I say doubtful. This is the West region that last year kept Whitworth ranked ahead of Platteville for no real discernible reason other than Whitworth lost one time (badly, to Linfield) and Platteville lost twice (not at all badly to Whitewater and then badly to Oshkosh). Unless a lot of really weird stuff happens in the West region, I really can't see the fourth place team from the WIAC being in the top 10 rankings.
I think the West rankings will eventually be made up of:
UWW
UWO
UWP
Linfield
STT
STJ
Coe
Dubuque or Wartburg
Monmouth
And then one of the following: an undefeated SCIAC champion (Redlands/PP), Whitworth
Would you rank a three-loss, fourth place WIAC team ahead of single loss SCIAC or even two loss Whitworth (and we know this committee loves them some NWC)? I think that's a tough sell when that team is so severely disadvantaged by the win percentage criteria. I'd have to dive into SOS figures to see how that helps/hurts, although SOS didn't matter much in the Whitworth/UWP situation last year.
Quote from: AUKaz00 on October 18, 2016, 10:17:36 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 18, 2016, 01:10:46 AM
This may be a year where the first rankings posted are trial balloons, and the second rankings are reflections of how the other regions ranked their teams in order to get the best possible "C" contenders to the table at the right time. So we could see a 2-loss team jump a 1-loss team strategically (or vice versa).
Not that it happens that way, but it SEEMS that it happened that way a couple of times.
Here's something, though. Would the West rank a 4th WIAC team? I think the MIAC will have everyone with three losses except the Johnnies and Tommies. The IIAC may cannibalize itself. The NWC probably would rank two. So maybe they rank a 7-3 Stevens Point or LaCrosse and that way get Platteville or Oshkosh another RR win that boosts their potential 2-loss candidacy? I could see the West RRs with 4 WIAC, 2 MIAC, 2 NWC, 1 IIAC and 1 SCIAC.
The East's committee is going to be fun to watch - how they untangle the E8, NJAC and MAC from each other. A strategic ranking of a strong 2-loss team could make a big difference.
Does "once ranked, always ranked" still exist? If so, then a committee could really go down the game theory rabbit hole by swapping out 4 or 5 teams at the bottom of their rankings from first to second ranking, thus generating more RRO for any potential Pool C contender. In the East, for instance, the committee could leave off all the Northeast teams and pack the bottom of the rankings with teams from the East and Mid-Atlantic, swap them out for others in the second set, then bring in the New England conference champs for the final rankings.
No, once ranked, always ranked isn't a thing. Only the final rankings (not published, of course) are used for selection.
WW (aka GT) - When do you expect the NCAA regional rankings to come out? 11/2 (ish)? I am thinking it's before Wk 10 with another rd bf Wk 11 then the "final" / unseen ones run after the games on 11/12.
Quote from: ITH radio on October 18, 2016, 01:17:56 PM
WW (aka GT) - When do you expect the NCAA regional rankings to come out? 11/2 (ish)? I am thinking it's before Wk 10 with another rd bf Wk 11 then the "final" / unseen ones run after the games on 11/12.
Yeah, that's my expectation. We'll get just two sets of published rankings before the final Saturday.
PAC Commish was interviewed during the CWRU-Geneva broadcast and said that coaches voted before the season and the first breaker is "W/L % of PAC teams you beat." All you have to look at is the team you didn't play. If CWRU and TMC win out, and W&J has better record than Geneva, then TMC gets AQ, if Geneva, then CWRU gets AQ.
Quote from: ADL70 on October 22, 2016, 10:16:09 PM
PAC Commish was interviewed during the CWRU-Geneva broadcast and said that coaches voted before the season and the first breaker is "W/L % of teams you beat." Assuming he meant conf w/l, all you have to look at is the team you didn't play. If CWRU and TMC win out, and W&J has better record than Geneva, then TMC gets AQ, if Geneva, then CWRU gets AQ.
Weird. So they'll break the tie using non-common opponents. Bizarro. In any case, we can look at the current standings and the remaining schedules of WJ and Geneva and see how that book is going to end.
I think you need to add Rose-Hulman back into the Pool C list for now. No team in the HCAC controls their own destiny right now which is really strange (but that will be sorted out this weekend). So if Rose beats Bluffton and MSJ beats Franklin, then Rose would still be in pool C with MSJ as pool A.
If Bluffton/Franklin win then Franklin is A and Bluffton C... if Franklin/Rose win then Rose is A and Franklin C... and if MSJ/Bluffton win Bluffton is A.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 23, 2016, 08:38:10 AM
I think you need to add Rose-Hulman back into the Pool C list for now. No team in the HCAC controls their own destiny right now which is really strange (but that will be sorted out this weekend). So if Rose beats Bluffton and MSJ beats Franklin, then Rose would still be in pool C with MSJ as pool A.
If Bluffton/Franklin win then Franklin is A and Bluffton C... if Franklin/Rose win then Rose is A and Franklin C... and if MSJ/Bluffton win Bluffton is A.
An interesting scenario. I'll mull this over some more before I update the table this week, but I think right now my lean is to keep RHIT red on the at-large table. If MSJ beats Franklin, Franklin stops being ranked which would be bad for RHIT. Similarly, if RHIT beats Bluffton, I don't think Bluffton gets ranked either. The IC loss is a bad look and while RHIT's SOS isn't all that bad right now (it's not great), they still haven't detonated the SOS bomb that is Earlham. And now that we're whittling the field of contenders down a bit more and are getting a better idea of where teams are lining up in the at-large queue, it's difficult to see RHIT getting high enough in the North to have a plausible shot at at-large invitation. But I need to look at it some more to be sure. Thanks for pointing these HCAC scenarios out for me. I had definitely overlooked the possibility of a Rose/MSJ co-championship.
By no means do I think Rose has a chance at a pool C spot (and with both Franklin and Trine losing I think that may have finished off Bluffton's chance as well) but in the interest of erring on the side of inclusion I thought I'd mention it. :)
Aside from Mt. Union and North Central, the North is just a mess. Wheaton will probably make it at 9-1. JCU will be 8-2 with two losses to excellent teams, but two losses. The NCAC runner up will have two losses unless it's Denison (and Dension beats DPU, which causes a ripple effect of issues elsewhere).
The North may have just one "C", Wheaton, if other shenanigans happen. Will a 9-1 Wabash make it? Will 8-2 JCU be ranked ahead of them? What about Denison. I think the HCAC gets just their champ, even if it's 9-1 Bluffton in the "C" spot.
I'm sure the South can get messy with the SAA and PAC merry-go-rounds. The West seems reasonable, depending on where they line up UW-P versus one loss Dubuque, where they decide to rank Monmouth, and if St. John's can beat C-M. I don't think a two-loss Whitworth gets on the "C" board.
Just as a heads up, I think I'm going to put out a projection this week. I did one last year the week before RRs came out, which would be this week. I'll use the various regional fan polls as surrogate regional rankings this week, editing only if there's something really weird. The fan polls do a really good job, but sometimes miss a bit on valuing the win percentage criteria. Probably target Wednesday for that post.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2016, 02:19:17 PM
Just as a heads up, I think I'm going to put out a projection this week. I did one last year the week before RRs came out, which would be this week. I'll use the various regional fan polls as surrogate regional rankings this week, editing only if there's something really weird. The fan polls do a really good job, but sometimes miss a bit on valuing the win percentage criteria. Probably target Wednesday for that post.
Like it. Hope the east has a clear picture, not likely though with the mess that is going on this year.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 23, 2016, 02:19:17 PM
Just as a heads up, I think I'm going to put out a projection this week. I did one last year the week before RRs came out, which would be this week. I'll use the various regional fan polls as surrogate regional rankings this week, editing only if there's something really weird. The fan polls do a really good job, but sometimes miss a bit on valuing the win percentage criteria. Probably target Wednesday for that post.
Have fun with the South, minus the top 4 ::)
As things are playing out in the PresAC, TMC and CWRU can tie. TMC gets the tie-breaker and undefeated CWRU goes to Pool C.
Can one honestly deny an undefeated team with a respectable schedule a Pool C bid?
HSU and CWRU as Pool C from the South (IMHO thru week 8.)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2016, 09:14:32 PM
As things are playing out in the PresAC, TMC and CWRU can tie. TMC gets the tie-breaker and undefeated CWRU goes to Pool C.
Can one honestly deny an undefeated team with a respectable schedule a Pool C bid?
HSU and CWRU as Pool C from the South (IMHO thru week 8.)
Alas, I hardly think Case would be a candidate to break up the 'Texas Sub-bracket'. Barring a revolt against the NCAA 'bean-counters', looks like UMHB-HSU in a first round game (that should be at least third round). Assuming they don't suddenly decide to loosen the purse-strings on account of fairness, are there ANY realistic alternative pairings to avoid UMHB/HSU, The Sequel?
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 24, 2016, 09:29:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2016, 09:14:32 PM
As things are playing out in the PresAC, TMC and CWRU can tie. TMC gets the tie-breaker and undefeated CWRU goes to Pool C.
Can one honestly deny an undefeated team with a respectable schedule a Pool C bid?
HSU and CWRU as Pool C from the South (IMHO thru week 8.)
Alas, I hardly think Case would be a candidate to break up the 'Texas Sub-bracket'. Barring a revolt against the NCAA 'bean-counters', looks like UMHB-HSU in a first round game (that should be at least third round). Assuming they don't suddenly decide to loosen the purse-strings on account of fairness, are there ANY realistic alternative pairings to avoid UMHB/HSU, The Sequel?
I'm sure there are other ways, but the most reasonable scenario that lets the NCAA avoid a UMHB/HSU round 1 game involves the following:
1- no Pool Cs from the NWC or SCIAC. That pairing has to happen for one flight
and
2- Hendrix wins the SAA and gets to drive to either UMHB or HSU
and
3- you've got some odd team out somewhere else (Husson, perhaps) and there just has to be a second flight.
Of course, if they can make Hendrix drive somewhere other than Texas and all of the other 13 pairs of teams can get matched up in a way that avoids a second flight, then that's probably what happens.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 24, 2016, 09:29:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2016, 09:14:32 PM
As things are playing out in the PresAC, TMC and CWRU can tie. TMC gets the tie-breaker and undefeated CWRU goes to Pool C.
Can one honestly deny an undefeated team with a respectable schedule a Pool C bid?
HSU and CWRU as Pool C from the South (IMHO thru week 8.)
Alas, I hardly think Case would be a candidate to break up the 'Texas Sub-bracket'. Barring a revolt against the NCAA 'bean-counters', looks like UMHB-HSU in a first round game (that should be at least third round). Assuming they don't suddenly decide to loosen the purse-strings on account of fairness, are there ANY realistic alternative pairings to avoid UMHB/HSU, The Sequel?
Yes sir. Hendrix winning the AQ for the SAA could go to UMHB, 480 miles.
But, Hendrix is available to Huntingdon specifically, 488 miles.
Alright, updated eliminator tables through 10/22 games:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBkWUYnq.png&hash=b82d991a2de6382bb1b9e29ef7e0c26e3767736a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FirIzjmH.png&hash=1c956952fba19cb48e8213ba858f7d7ba2ad80e6)
A lot of new eliminations (in white) this week:
Trine - A loss to Hope is devastating. The loss to Bluffton becomes a serious North region roadblock for Trine, which puts any realistic shot they have at getting high enough in the rankings to get an invitation.
Benedictine
Wartburg
Hamline
Illinois College
Lake Forest*
Macalester*
Pacific Lutheran
Eureka**
MacMurray*
Northwester**
St. Scholastica
UW-Stevens Point
Juniata
Moravian
Guilford
St. Vincent
SUNY-Maritime
Buffalo State
Merchant Marine
Plymouth State
* LFC, Macalester, and MacMurray. These teams have not lost three times or lost twice outside of their leagues, which is the de facto elimination criteria. However, we've got enough information at this point that all three of these two loss teams have no reasonable path to an at-large bid. We can see that at least some of the following teams are going to get in the West's rankings with 2 or fewer losses: Coe, Dubuque, Central, C-M, St. John's, St. Thomas, Linfield, Whitworth, UWs Oshkosh, Platteville, La Crosse, Whitewater. Basically as long as three of those teams don't lose three games, the UMACs and MWCs are blocked.
** The remaining UMACs, Eureka and Northwestern, play each other in the final week. The winner is getting an AQ, the loser is going to pick up the second loss that I used to eliminate the teams in the first asterisked point.
I did give more thought to pulling RHIT back from the red, but have decided to stand pat on last week's decision to knock them out. I think the series of events that has to happen for RHIT to be an 8-2 non-autoqualifier do too much damage to their profile to make them the 1st or 2nd at-large team in the region, which would have to happen for the Engineers to have any chance at all at an at-large bid. I think RHIT is an AQ or out. That missed extra point against Illinois College (http://d3football.com/seasons/2016/boxscores/20160903_9zg6.xml) is everything right now.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2016, 09:50:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 24, 2016, 09:29:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2016, 09:14:32 PM
As things are playing out in the PresAC, TMC and CWRU can tie. TMC gets the tie-breaker and undefeated CWRU goes to Pool C.
Can one honestly deny an undefeated team with a respectable schedule a Pool C bid?
HSU and CWRU as Pool C from the South (IMHO thru week 8.)
Alas, I hardly think Case would be a candidate to break up the 'Texas Sub-bracket'. Barring a revolt against the NCAA 'bean-counters', looks like UMHB-HSU in a first round game (that should be at least third round). Assuming they don't suddenly decide to loosen the purse-strings on account of fairness, are there ANY realistic alternative pairings to avoid UMHB/HSU, The Sequel?
Yes sir. Hendrix winning the AQ for the SAA could go to UMHB, 480 miles.
But, Hendrix is available to Huntingdon specifically, 488 miles.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.giphy.com%2FKUOPgSNoKVcuQ.gif&hash=d60a890c2bc7bdfdb71aaff67429da6b80fa974d)
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2016, 10:05:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2016, 09:50:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 24, 2016, 09:29:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2016, 09:14:32 PM
As things are playing out in the PresAC, TMC and CWRU can tie. TMC gets the tie-breaker and undefeated CWRU goes to Pool C.
Can one honestly deny an undefeated team with a respectable schedule a Pool C bid?
HSU and CWRU as Pool C from the South (IMHO thru week 8.)
Alas, I hardly think Case would be a candidate to break up the 'Texas Sub-bracket'. Barring a revolt against the NCAA 'bean-counters', looks like UMHB-HSU in a first round game (that should be at least third round). Assuming they don't suddenly decide to loosen the purse-strings on account of fairness, are there ANY realistic alternative pairings to avoid UMHB/HSU, The Sequel?
Yes sir. Hendrix winning the AQ for the SAA could go to UMHB, 480 miles.
But, Hendrix is available to Huntingdon specifically, 488 miles.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.giphy.com%2FKUOPgSNoKVcuQ.gif&hash=d60a890c2bc7bdfdb71aaff67429da6b80fa974d)
If Hendrix gets the SAA AQ and goes to UMHB, who does HSU play? ???
Quote from: Scots13 on October 24, 2016, 10:50:12 PM
If Hendrix gets the SAA AQ and goes to UMHB, who does HSU play? ???
Could be anybody. If there's an odd team out somewhere, the committee can get creative with it. Husson is another outlier who can make their quadrant of the bracket unbalanced in the opposite way that you see with the Texas/West Coast sub-bracket. Could shoot Husson to Texas and maintain balance. But it doesn't have to be Husson. Any odd team out from anywhere could get on a plane. I think my main point was that if there HAS to be two flights and one is going to be SCIAC/NWC, then you can have Hendrix play at UMHB and literally anybody else play at HSU. There may not have to be two flights.
What may help with the flight merry-go-rounds that the NWC and SCIAC probably won't get "C"s. Dubuque and Coe will probably win out, with Dubuque probably being ranked along with Oshkosh, St. John's and maybe Platteville. Toss in St. Thomas, Linfield, UW-Whitewater, and Monmouth (I can't see the West not ranking a 10-0 Monmouth) and the SCIAC winner, Whitworth probably will never be ranked. C-M may get ranked too.
Central hitting the 2-point conversion against Whitworth looms large for the Pirates' C chances.
RHIT may have died by the missed XP, but they beat Franklin thanks to a missed XP as well.
Husson could end up going to play a 10-0 WNEC as we've seen the Comm pair the NEFC/ECFC champs in prior years. Eagles also could go to SLU if they won the LL (or even if they didn't, SLU could get in as one of two east region 9-1 potential Pool C's).
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2016, 11:04:28 PM
Quote from: Scots13 on October 24, 2016, 10:50:12 PM
If Hendrix gets the SAA AQ and goes to UMHB, who does HSU play? ???
Could be anybody. If there's an odd team out somewhere, the committee can get creative with it. Husson is another outlier who can make their quadrant of the bracket unbalanced in the opposite way that you see with the Texas/West Coast sub-bracket. Could shoot Husson to Texas and maintain balance. But it doesn't have to be Husson. Any odd team out from anywhere could get on a plane. I think my main point was that if there HAS to be two flights and one is going to be SCIAC/NWC, then you can have Hendrix play at UMHB and literally anybody else play at HSU. There may not have to be two flights.
For selfish reasons I'd rather see Hendrix play HSU. The Hendrix OC is a former HSU QB from Abilene. That would be a homecoming hero vs the hometown schiool scenario. Plays well in the paper. Of course you also have the OC of hendrix taking on his college nemesis angle if its hendrix vs UMHB
Quote from: Toby Taff on October 25, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2016, 11:04:28 PM
Quote from: Scots13 on October 24, 2016, 10:50:12 PM
If Hendrix gets the SAA AQ and goes to UMHB, who does HSU play? ???
Could be anybody. If there's an odd team out somewhere, the committee can get creative with it. Husson is another outlier who can make their quadrant of the bracket unbalanced in the opposite way that you see with the Texas/West Coast sub-bracket. Could shoot Husson to Texas and maintain balance. But it doesn't have to be Husson. Any odd team out from anywhere could get on a plane. I think my main point was that if there HAS to be two flights and one is going to be SCIAC/NWC, then you can have Hendrix play at UMHB and literally anybody else play at HSU. There may not have to be two flights.
For selfish reasons I'd rather see Hendrix play HSU. The Hendrix OC is a former HSU QB from Abilene. That would be a homecoming hero vs the hometown schiool scenario. Plays well in the paper. Of course you also have the OC of hendrix taking on his college nemesis angle if its hendrix vs UMHB
Not going to happen in round 1. Hendrix is 524 miles from HSU according to the NCAA calculator. That's a flight. They just fit in under UMHB or Huntingdon, but HSU is a no go.
Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2016, 02:00:56 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on October 25, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2016, 11:04:28 PM
Quote from: Scots13 on October 24, 2016, 10:50:12 PM
If Hendrix gets the SAA AQ and goes to UMHB, who does HSU play? ???
Could be anybody. If there's an odd team out somewhere, the committee can get creative with it. Husson is another outlier who can make their quadrant of the bracket unbalanced in the opposite way that you see with the Texas/West Coast sub-bracket. Could shoot Husson to Texas and maintain balance. But it doesn't have to be Husson. Any odd team out from anywhere could get on a plane. I think my main point was that if there HAS to be two flights and one is going to be SCIAC/NWC, then you can have Hendrix play at UMHB and literally anybody else play at HSU. There may not have to be two flights.
For selfish reasons I'd rather see Hendrix play HSU. The Hendrix OC is a former HSU QB from Abilene. That would be a homecoming hero vs the hometown schiool scenario. Plays well in the paper. Of course you also have the OC of hendrix taking on his college nemesis angle if its hendrix vs UMHB
Not going to happen in round 1. Hendrix is 524 miles from HSU according to the NCAA calculator. That's a flight. They just fit in under UMHB or Huntingdon, but HSU is a no go.
You got a link for that calculator?
Quote from: art76 on October 25, 2016, 02:08:34 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2016, 02:00:56 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on October 25, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 24, 2016, 11:04:28 PM
Quote from: Scots13 on October 24, 2016, 10:50:12 PM
If Hendrix gets the SAA AQ and goes to UMHB, who does HSU play? ???
Could be anybody. If there's an odd team out somewhere, the committee can get creative with it. Husson is another outlier who can make their quadrant of the bracket unbalanced in the opposite way that you see with the Texas/West Coast sub-bracket. Could shoot Husson to Texas and maintain balance. But it doesn't have to be Husson. Any odd team out from anywhere could get on a plane. I think my main point was that if there HAS to be two flights and one is going to be SCIAC/NWC, then you can have Hendrix play at UMHB and literally anybody else play at HSU. There may not have to be two flights.
For selfish reasons I'd rather see Hendrix play HSU. The Hendrix OC is a former HSU QB from Abilene. That would be a homecoming hero vs the hometown schiool scenario. Plays well in the paper. Of course you also have the OC of hendrix taking on his college nemesis angle if its hendrix vs UMHB
Not going to happen in round 1. Hendrix is 524 miles from HSU according to the NCAA calculator. That's a flight. They just fit in under UMHB or Huntingdon, but HSU is a no go.
You got a link for that calculator?
google is your friend. https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles
First go at this for 2016. Much will change in the next three weeks, but why not set the table? As far as I can tell, the bid break down is the same as last year:
25 Pool A - Automatic qualifiers for conference champions
1 Pool B - Eligible teams are those that do not play in Pool A-qualifying conferences (ASC, SCAC, Independents)
6 Pool C - Everybody who didn't get one of the first 26 bids from Pools A or B are eligible
Pool A
Here are Pool As as things sit currently:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZnP6yQ0.png&hash=891bd4ff2660223435c2bb5671eacd7bf2bfb86e)
Yes, there are some ties happening in a handful of these leagues and I had to guess a little bit. I've tried to err on the side of "most likely", but certainly some of these bids will change hands over the next couple of weeks. Also, do note that nobody has clinched a Pool A bid as of yet. That might start happening this weekend.
With the Pool A's off the board, the process is as follows:
- Take the highest remaining team from each region's regional rankings, and compare those four teams according the NCAA's selection criteria (see the D3football.com FAQ for a primer...will also try to link to a 2016 championship manual to make it all official as soon as I find one)
- Select the "best" team according to the criteria
- Replace the selected team with the next highest ranked team from that particular region
- Repeat the process until all spots are filled
The regional rankings. This week I'm using our various regional fan polls as surrogate rankings. I've made a couple of changes where the criteria trump the voters' usually better judgement (the criteria can do counterintuitive things). I'll note where I've made changes. The remaining at-large teams in this week's "regional rankings" are:
North: Wheaton, Wittenberg, John Carroll, Wabash, Bluffton
South: UMHB, H-SU, ETBU, Muhlenberg, Berry, CWRU, Huntingdon, Westminster(PA)
East: SJF, Wesley, Albright, Frostburg State, Hobart
West: UW-Oshkosh, St. John's, UW-Platteville, Dubuque, Concordia-Moorhead
I swapped John Carroll and Wabash in the North. Wabash's SOS is basically a disqualifier at the moment.
In the South I jumped Berry up over a bunch of teams due to their very high SOS and a RRO win.
In the East, I swapped SJF and Wesley due to superior win percentage and SOS.
The West I think is basically fine, but my hunch is that Dubuque winds up ranked higher than UW-P from that committee.
Pool B
This process is pretty straightforward for Pool B. Technically there are teams from the North and East eligible here, but those teams (specifically, D3s independents) don't have at-large worthy profiles. So we'll skip them. That leaves us with the highest ranked team from the South, which is going be Mary Hardin-Baylor. For completeness, here is UMHB's profile:
1S Mary Hardin-Baylor - 7-0 W/L record, 3-0 vs. Regionally ranked opponents (RROs), 0.607 SOS (15th)
Not only is this easily the best Pool B profile, it may be the best profile in the field. Really, really, really good argument to be made that UMHB should host through the semis, iyam.
Pool C
Six of these bad boys to give away. Let's do it. The format here is:
[Ranking and Region] [Team name] - [D3 record], [Record vs. RRO], [SOS (nat'l rank)]
Round 1:
3N Wheaton - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.604 (16)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.584 (28)
6E St. John Fisher - 6-1, 1-0 RRO, 0.600 (19)
2W UW-Oshkosh - 5-1, 2-1 RRO, 0.649 (4)
Bit of some sneaky here because UW-O's game against Morthland doesn't pop up in the NCAA's SOS calculus, but nevertheless, they have a top flight SOS, they have multiple RRO wins, and their RRO loss is a squeaker against 1W UWW. Pretty easy choice here, really.
Round 2:
3N Wheaton - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.604 (16)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.584 (28)
6E St. John Fisher - 6-1, 1-0 RRO, 0.600 (19)
5W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.497 (128)
This is a tough round because these profiles are so similar. If you look at "results" vs. ranked opponents, I think it's an interesting conversation to weight H-SU's loss to UMHB against SJF's win against Olivet and which result is better. I'm giving the very slight edge to SJF here because I like wins against ranked teams just a smidge more than I like losses. SJF's win comes against a team that is in my projected field. HSU (or Wheaton or St. John's) has no such wins.
Round 3:
3N Wheaton - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.604 (16)
2S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.584 (28)
5E Wesley - 5-2, 1-0 RRO, 0.569 (42)
5W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.497 (128)
Wesley is a big name that just sidled up to the table, but they have a pair of non-ranked losses and that's a bad deal against the rest of this board. So I've got three other runners up, each with a loss to their league champion and no quality wins. Here's where we can talk about these results vs ranked opponents again- H-SU fared a bit better against the team that I think might be the #1 overall seed than Wheaton did against North Central (North #2) so I'm edging H-SU into the tournament (and probably right back to Belton).
Round 4:
3N Wheaton - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.604 (16)
5S East Texas Baptist - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.584 (28)
5E Wesley - 5-2, 1-0 RRO, 0.569 (42)
5W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.497 (128)
ETBU is a tricky add. They're either going to lose to HSU and get knocked out of this thing or they're going to win and take HSU's place. Maybe should have gone with an either/or for that second South at-large team. We'll play it out. Wheaton's SOS is a bit too much to ignore four rounds deep. Wheaton feels pretty safely in, but they'd really benefit from IWU or Carthage sneaking into the rankings. We'll see how that goes.
Round 5:
5N Wittenberg - 6-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.604 (17)
5S East Texas Baptist - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.584 (28)
5E Wesley - 5-2, 1-0 RRO, 0.569 (42)
5W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.497 (128)
So Wittenberg has arrived and they're basically Wheaton except with a regionally ranked win. I thought we'd have placed St. John's by now, but we've had a lot of really big SOS numbers and there's not a ton of meat on the Johnnies profile beyond win percentage. I'm placing Wittenberg based on (through smiling teeth) the strength of the NCAC. Fear not, power conference aficionados- Witt's SOS is going to bomb hard and fast in the last three weeks and this won't be an easy call in three weeks.
Round 6:
7N John Carroll - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.435 (200)
5S East Texas Baptist - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.584 (28)
5E Wesley - 5-2, 1-0 RRO, 0.569 (42)
5W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.497 (128)
One ticket left. Not a slam dunk by any means here, but I'm going with St. John's. They had a better result vs. St. Thomas (one of the top four seeds, almost certainly) than ETBU had with UMHB. I know the SOS lags a bit for St. John's here, but ballot inertia (which we all hate, I know, but it's a real thing) isn't going to let St. John's sit around for five rounds unselected. I didn't really talk much about Wesley through these rounds, but that second loss (to an unranked team) is too much to overcome through 8 weeks. It may not be as some of these other teams take Ls. This week, though, there's just not room for multiple losses on your profile.
Alright, that's what I've got this week. It'll be fun to see how this changes over the next couple of weeks as we untangle some of the bunching that's happening in the South and East regions.
Wally, nice analysis (as usual). I suspect that Wheaton will eventually be 1-1 against RROs. IWU will be favored in all remaining games, and if they make it to 8-2 I'm confident they will be ranked (low, but ranked).
It took me a few days, but I finally finished a mileage chart and mapped out possible 1st round South Region games using Wally's chart given the Texas sub-bracket and the 500 mile threshold for bussing. Granted, some games might be inter-regional so this is theoretical in-region games. Only the ASC has possible conference rematches on this list.
ASC:
UMHB- Hendrix, HSU, ETBU
HSU- UMHB, ETBU
ETBU- UMHB, HSU, Hendrix (Huntingdon is 502 miles)
Unless Hell freezes, ETBU is out as they have HSU left the play
CC:
JHU- W&L, RMC, CWRU, Westminster
Muhlenberg- W&L, RMC, CWRU, Westminster
F&M- W&L, RMC, CRWU, Westminster
ODAC:
W&L- JHU, Muhlenberg, F&M, Berry, Centre, Maryville, CWRU, TMC, Westminster
RMC-JHU, Muhlenberg, F&M, Maryville, CWRU, Westminster
SAA:
Berry- W&L, Huntingdon, Maryville, TMC
Centre- W&L, Huntingdon, Maryville, CWRU, TMC, Westminster
Hendrix- UMHB, ETBU, Huntingdon
WashU- Maryville, TMC
USAC:
Huntingdon- Berry, Centre, Hendrix
Maryville- W&L, RMC, Berry, Centre, WashU, TMC
PAC:
CWRU- JHU, Muhlenberg, F&M, W&L, RMC, Centre
TMC- W&L, Berry, Centre, WashU, Maryville
Westminster- JHU, Muhlenberg, F&M, W&L, RMC, Centre
I know it may not matter after this weekend (go Bluffton), but I'm curious where Franklin would fall in your analysis right now if they were in Pool C.
5-1 vs D3, 2-0 RRO (if Bluffton is ranked) and .541 SoS (which will go down with Anderson and Hanover to come) I think would get them ranked ahead of John Carroll and get to the table for the last round but would the committee go 3 straight from the North and pick them over St John's?
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 26, 2016, 09:46:14 PM
I know it may not matter after this weekend (go Bluffton), but I'm curious where Franklin would fall in your analysis right now if they were in Pool C.
5-1 vs D3, 2-0 RRO (if Bluffton is ranked) and .541 SoS (which will go down with Anderson and Hanover to come) I think would get them ranked ahead of John Carroll and get to the table for the last round but would the committee go 3 straight from the North and pick them over St John's?
I'm curious to see what the North committee does with John Carroll. In our NRFP, we've kind of collectively decided to place JCU behind the NCAC quagmire which has kind of surprised me, tbh, but it isn't unreasonable to see the Streaks nestled up behind Wheaton. Then you'd have to see how they do with Mount Union to see if they can lose close enough to stay there. Interesting season for JCU...waxed by Oshkosh in Week 1, (probably) waxed by Mount Union in Week 11 and then absolutely nothing inbetween.
I could see a scenario where Franklin ends up ranked higher than JCU. Would I then see them going in ahead of St. John's? Doubtful, particularly if St. John's has been collecting votes for while. Franklin would have the RRO win that St. John's probably won't get, but Franklin also has a loss to an unranked team which St. John's does not. And if it's super close and we dip into the secondary criteria, Franklin's result with Butler is not a helper.
Good note on SOS as well. As I went through this, it really felt like there are a lot of elevated SOSs right now. I think we're going to see the SOS figures come down and bunch up a little more as we finish up the schedule. SOS will still help us differentiate teams, but maybe not quite as much as they did for me tonight.
Thanks for the accolades to the South Region Fan Poll, but if I were sitting on the Regional Ranking Committee, I would rank the teams this way.
1) UMHB ASC Pool B
2) JHU Centennial Pool A
3) CWRU Pres AC Pool C (Regional record 10-0 and possibly wins over ranked Westminster or WashU StL as possible SAA Pool A, if they get some help.)
4) Thomas More Pres AC Pool A
5) HSU ASC Pool B/C
Also-rans in no particular order... Hendrix, Huntingdon and W&L, the Final Pool A's.
The Committee criteria for me are different from my South Region Fan Poll ballot.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 26, 2016, 10:55:50 PM
Thanks for the accolades to the South Region Fan Poll, but if I were sitting on the Regional Ranking Committee, I would rank the teams this way.
1) UMHB ASC Pool B
2) JHU Centennial Pool A
3) CWRU Pres AC Pool C (Regional record 10-0 and possibly wins over ranked Westminster or WashU StL as possible SAA Pool A, if they get some help.)
4) Thomas More Pres AC Pool A
5) HSU ASC Pool B/C
CWRU didn't get close in my projection tonight, which introduces the "could we really leave out an undefeated team" conversation. The answer is, no, we couldn't do that. If CWRU gets through these last three weeks with wins, the SOS that is killing them right now will come up (that's actually going to happen whether they win or not), and they've got opportunity to score one or two RRO wins. I'm not projecting CWRU in this week, but the Spartans are in full control of their postseason chances.
I suspect that a road win at WUStl this weekend launches them way, way up the South rankings that we'll see on Wednesday. Maybe ahead of H-SU in the at-large line, maybe not. But 10-0 CWRU is playing in the tournament. No question.
So wally, when you do these projected brackets mid-season, do you usually do it without projecting team's future records? I'm asking because you had SJFU as your second Pool C team, but they're going to probably have two losses if they're not Pool A, which would obviously affect their odds.
I'm currently trying to assign probabilities for teams to get in based on regressions of prior performances (specific to Pool C, Pool A is pretty straight-forward), so hopefully I'll have something meaningful to add by the end of the week.
Quote from: HansenRatings on October 26, 2016, 11:54:46 PM
So wally, when you do these projected brackets mid-season, do you usually do it without projecting team's future records? I'm asking because you had SJFU as your second Pool C team, but they're going to probably have two losses if they're not Pool A, which would obviously affect their odds.
I'm currently trying to assign probabilities for teams to get in based on regressions of prior performances (specific to Pool C, Pool A is pretty straight-forward), so hopefully I'll have something meaningful to add by the end of the week.
If you can mathematically model the selection committee's choices you should get a Nobel. :)
I think of these mid-season projections as more of a "if the season ended today" kind of snapshot. When I started doing this a few years ago, mostly I was just curious to see how the at-large picture evolves over the last month or so of the season. I don't try to project future results too much, except in cases where two teams (generally from the same conference) are kind of hitched together but will play one another at a later date. I think I've had this happen with the MIAC a couple of times, particularly when Bethel was a serious player there along with STT, STJ, and C-M. Even trying to get the current "snapshot", it doesn't make sense to have four teams from the same league in play because that's just not a thing that's going to happen. I could/should have done this with HSU/ETBU this week, which would have bumped Muhlenberg up onto the table (the Mules would not have been selected in any case).
You're right about SJF. 9-1 SJF would be a conference champion. 8-2 SJF...well, 8-2 SJF teams have actually had good luck in these situations, so maybe that's not a terrible spot for the Cardinals after all.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2016, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: HansenRatings on October 26, 2016, 11:54:46 PM
So wally, when you do these projected brackets mid-season, do you usually do it without projecting team's future records? I'm asking because you had SJFU as your second Pool C team, but they're going to probably have two losses if they're not Pool A, which would obviously affect their odds.
I'm currently trying to assign probabilities for teams to get in based on regressions of prior performances (specific to Pool C, Pool A is pretty straight-forward), so hopefully I'll have something meaningful to add by the end of the week.
If you can mathematically model the selection committee's choices you should get a Nobel. :)
I think of these mid-season projections as more of a "if the season ended today" kind of snapshot. When I started doing this a few years ago, mostly I was just curious to see how the at-large picture evolves over the last month or so of the season. I don't try to project future results too much, except in cases where two teams (generally from the same conference) are kind of hitched together but will play one another at a later date. I think I've had this happen with the MIAC a couple of times, particularly when Bethel was a serious player there along with STT, STJ, and C-M. Even trying to get the current "snapshot", it doesn't make sense to have four teams from the same league in play because that's just not a thing that's going to happen. I could/should have done this with HSU/ETBU this week, which would have bumped Muhlenberg up onto the table (the Mules would not have been selected in any case).
You're right about SJF. 9-1 SJF would be a conference champion. 8-2 SJF...well, 8-2 SJF teams have actually had good luck in these situations, so maybe that's not a terrible spot for the Cardinals after all.
I always have trouble denying the East Region (for football especially) an at large bid when there are enough at large bids for 1 per region. That being said, the East is a mess and I think that 10-0 CWRU knocks out the 6th Pool C team on the table.
When the committee sits down, I think that a 9-1 HSU/ETBU and 10-0 CWRU come out from the South. The West will get 2 bids (Johnnies and UW-someone). The North and East will get 1 Pool C bid each.
CWRU still has to get to 10-0. The hay is very, very far from being in the barn where that is concerned.
I think CWRU are a pick 'em (if not a slight dog) in St. Louis this weekend and I think they're a definite underdog against Westminster. Favored against CMU, but when you play CMU you're always in danger of getting Benger'd.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2016, 09:25:25 AM
CWRU still has to get to 10-0. The hay is very, very far from being in the barn where that is concerned.
I think CWRU are a pick 'em (if not a slight dog) in St. Louis this weekend and I think they're a definite underdog against Westminster. Favored against CMU, but when you play CMU you're always in danger of getting Benger'd.
The important thing to remember is CWRU's opponents so far this season are 14-35, with St. Vincent being the only team above .500 at 4-3. CWRU's last three opponents are 16-5, with the worst being CMU at 4-3. At this point, all we really know about CWRU is they are above average and have played a very below average schedule. Case has the 223rd ranked schedule in DIII with a .409 SOS. Since we don't count the NESCAC schools, that's 223 out of 237. Almost the 95th percentile. Now of course it will improve with their last 3 games, and winning games is important, but at 7-0 against their slate, I don't feel real confident that they are heading for the playoffs.
CWRU only has about a 1-in-4 chance of finishing undefeated according to my projections (http://loghan.shinyapps.io/Season_Projections), so it's not likely, but really not that unlikely.
If you're interested, I've projected how the SOS rankings (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uaOa2AdzYH83Ct-1E9w7jpjpe5lm8JUWGbCQP3xg694/edit?usp=sharing) will look by season's end. I have italicized every team my model believes is most likely to earn their conference's Pool A bid, had underlined UMHB as the most likely Pool B team, and I have bolded every potential Pool C team that is likely to finish at or below two losses.
Wabash's SOS is probably going to be the worst SOS of any team with two or fewer losses, with only CWRU and Eureka even close.
UW-Oshkosh is going to get in. They'll probably finish second in the country in SOS, and there's only a 10% chance they lose any game down the stretch.
Fisher's 8-2 magic might hold too, depending on their ranking by the RAC--I'm projecting them to have the third-highest SOS among likely Pool C teams (behind UW-O and UW-P). If any other East team at 8-2 gets in, I would bet on Hobart, with a projected SOS at #34
Wheaton has the next highest SOS, and I think IWU will be regionally-ranked, giving them another boost.
I'm not so sure about Dubuque's Pool C chances. Teams likely to be ranked above them in SOS also with one loss from Pool C: Franklin, Hardin-Simmons, SAA runner-up, Wheaton, UW-O. They'll probably need to be ranked above SJU in the West to have a shot.
Quote from: HansenRatings on October 27, 2016, 10:05:53 AM
CWRU only has about a 1-in-4 chance of finishing undefeated according to my projections (http://loghan.shinyapps.io/Season_Projections), so it's not likely, but really not that unlikely.
Sounds about right to me.
Quote from: HansenRatings on October 27, 2016, 10:05:53 AM
If you're interested, I've projected how the SOS rankings (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uaOa2AdzYH83Ct-1E9w7jpjpe5lm8JUWGbCQP3xg694/edit?usp=sharing) will look by season's end. I have italicized every team my model believes is most likely to earn their conference's Pool A bid, had underlined UMHB as the most likely Pool B team, and I have bolded every potential Pool C team that is likely to finish at or below two losses.
Am I understanding the linked sheet is what you're projecting to be final NCAA SOS figures? I think Wabash's OWP can be, at worst, 0.444. That difference, with the 2/3 weight on that portion of the math, would be about a 0.06 boost in NCAA SOS, which is a pretty big jump. I'm not saying that gets Wabash's SOS totally out of jail, but it does certainly get them out of the 220s.
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2016, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: HansenRatings on October 27, 2016, 10:05:53 AM
If you're interested, I've projected how the SOS rankings (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uaOa2AdzYH83Ct-1E9w7jpjpe5lm8JUWGbCQP3xg694/edit?usp=sharing) will look by season's end. I have italicized every team my model believes is most likely to earn their conference's Pool A bid, had underlined UMHB as the most likely Pool B team, and I have bolded every potential Pool C team that is likely to finish at or below two losses.
Am I understanding the linked sheet is what you're projecting to be final NCAA SOS figures? I think Wabash's OWP can be, at worst, 0.444. That difference, with the 2/3 weight on that portion of the math, would be about a 0.06 boost in NCAA SOS, which is a pretty big jump. I'm not saying that gets Wabash's SOS totally out of jail, but it does certainly get them out of the 220s.
Thanks for pointing that out. I had an error in my lookup functions.
Should be fixed now. Wabash is at #177
Wally, thanks for doing this. As things now stand in the NJAC, Wesley has no chance of being in the pool C discussion. They win out, they win the NJAC. Another loss and they have no shot at anything. Well, unless all kinds of crazy goes on in the NJAC and they end up in some tie for the AQ and somehow win the tiebreaker. From what I can see the only teams left in the pool C discussion from the NJAC are Salisbury and Frostburg, but since they play each other someone gets a second loss. If either of them wins out they win the AQ, so in the end the NJAC has no viable pool C candidates.
Thanks, wesleydad. One benefit of doing these early projections is getting alerted to specific situations like this one in the NJAC.
I wouldn't throw dirt on any 2-loss NJAC runner up just yet. There's a lot of things that can happen in the East region that would allow for a 2-loss NJAC runner up to be first in the at-large line. Stranger things have happened.
Come for the content stay for the one liners.
Thanks for all the time and effort on this week's projection (and the weeks ahead), Wally. This is always fun to read. Plus, I truly love the one-liners/catchphrases. :)
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 27, 2016, 01:17:43 PM
Thanks, wesleydad. One benefit of doing these early projections is getting alerted to specific situations like this one in the NJAC.
I wouldn't throw dirt on any 2-loss NJAC runner up just yet. There's a lot of things that can happen in the East region that would allow for a 2-loss NJAC runner up to be first in the at-large line. Stranger things have happened.
Personally, I can't see a three loss Wesley team getting to the board and getting taken as a Pool C, they are in control of their own destiny and would need to win out. Regarding the remaining NJAC, the only two loss team would be Salisbury or CNU and that would be a reach, Salisbury would need Albright to finish strong and become RR. Salisbury and CNU would also need Frostburg, CNU/Salisbury or Wesley to be RR at the end of the year to give them 2 wins over RR opponents. Maybe if Rowan wins out and sneaks back into the discussion.
Edit: I revised this paragraph so many times, now created my own conundrum ???
I'm guessing Wally is waiting on the Regional Rankings to make a post, so I'll start things off this week. I recently tried to model which teams the selection committee is most likely to select for Pool C contention, after accounting for Pools A & B. The model isn't perfect, but over the last five seasons, it would have predicted all but one or two of the selections correct each season. I'll probably have a blog post later in the week to go into specific details, but essentially it tries to predict regional rankings to predict who will be selected. I used this in conjunction with my regular season-end projection model (https://loghan.shinyapps.io/Season_Projections/) to give each team a probability of being selected to the tournament. Here are my results:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRWsHJmW.png&hash=21f570e4e898df2c44b24914f20f0c151509260e)
Most interesting thing to me here is that my model thinks that Muhlenberg's resume will be closer to that of a typical playoff participant than the HSU/ETBU winner.
Travel day yesterday, so I'm a day behind. I'll have freshly updated eliminator tables sometime tonight and then I'll crank out a projection tomorrow after the RRs are released. This week's at-large projection is going to look a little different than last week. I think I'm going to try and integrate more of my eliminator stuff into the projection this week- so for instance, (spoiler) Wesley is eliminated from Pool C this week as I can't find a scenario where they can be 8-2 and not win the NJAC AQ (h/t to wesleydad for pointing that out last week). So even though I'm going to project Salisbury as the NJAC champion and Wesley may well be the first or second highest ranked at-large team in the East region in Wednesday's official rankings, I'm going to exclude Wesley from the at-large analysis.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 01:07:18 AM
I'm guessing Wally is waiting on the Regional Rankings to make a post, so I'll start things off this week. I recently tried to model which teams the selection committee is most likely to select for Pool C contention, after accounting for Pools A & B. The model isn't perfect, but over the last five seasons, it would have predicted all but one or two of the selections correct each season. I'll probably have a blog post later in the week to go into specific details, but essentially it tries to predict regional rankings to predict who will be selected. I used this in conjunction with my regular season-end projection model (https://loghan.shinyapps.io/Season_Projections/) to give each team a probability of being selected to the tournament. Here are my results:
Most interesting thing to me here is that my model thinks that Muhlenberg's resume will be closer to that of a typical playoff participant than the HSU/ETBU winner.
This is cool. Don't sleep on the CC runner up, gang. Every year we kind of forget about the CC past Hopkins, and every year that league's 9-1 runner up is right in the mix at the last couple of rounds of voting.
Should be interesting to see what comes out on Weds. My guess for ER would be something like this:
1. Alfred (highest SOS of 8-0 teams, arguably best conf, etc)
2. Stevenson 8-0 (better SOS than SLU)
3. SLU 8-0 (could see them lower bc of bad SOS but usually comm rewards 8-0 league leaders from the "top 4"
4. SJFC 7-1 (best SOS of 1 loss ER teams)
5. Hobart 7-1 (bc of high SOS)
6. Salisbury 7-1
7. Frostburg 7-1 (w. solid SOS of 115)
8. WNE 8-0 (maybe crazy bc of low SOS but have seen undefeated teams from NE get in Wk 10)
9. Salve 8-0 (see above)
10. Husson 6-1 (low SOS but only 7 point loss to #1 ALF gets them on board IMO)
Ironically only really two teams on this list has a Pool C shot (SLU, if the lose to HOB and beat WPI in Wk 11 to go 9-1 and ALF if they lose to SJF and end up 9-1 - even in that scenario, I could see SLU being left out bc of SOS).
Quote from: ITH radio on November 01, 2016, 12:37:14 PM
Should be interesting to see what comes out on Weds. My guess for ER would be something like this:
1. Alfred (highest SOS of 8-0 teams, arguably best conf, etc)
2. Stevenson 8-0 (better SOS than SLU)
3. SLU 8-0 (could see them lower bc of bad SOS but usually comm rewards 8-0 league leaders from the "top 4"
4. SJFC 7-1 (best SOS of 1 loss ER teams)
5. Hobart 7-1 (bc of high SOS)
6. Salisbury 7-1
7. Frostburg 7-1 (w. solid SOS of 115)
8. WNE 8-0 (maybe crazy bc of low SOS but have seen undefeated teams from NE get in Wk 10)
9. Salve 8-0 (see above)
10. Husson 6-1 (low SOS but only 7 point loss to #1 ALF gets them on board IMO)
Ironically only really two teams on this list has a Pool C shot (SLU, if the lose to HOB and beat WPI in Wk 11 to go 9-1 and ALF if they lose to SJF and end up 9-1 - even in that scenario, I could see SLU being left out bc of SOS).
I think Alfred is in really good at-large shape as long as they don't lose twice.
The possibility of Stevenson and/or St. Lawrence falling in to Pool C could really muddy the waters here. If those two hang in there though, I think there's a really good chance that a 2-loss team from the East region gets strong consideration for an invitation. SJF is most likely. Salisbury and Frostburg are also possibilities there.
If there is going to be a 2-loss at-large team, I think it's coming from this region.
I think Alfred is in really good at-large shape as long as they don't lose twice.
The possibility of Stevenson and/or St. Lawrence falling in to Pool C could really muddy the waters here. If those two hang in there though, I think there's a really good chance that a 2-loss team from the East region gets strong consideration for an invitation. SJF is most likely. Salisbury and Frostburg are also possibilities there.
If there is going to be a 2-loss at-large team, I think it's coming from this region.
You would think if a two loss team makes it they would be from the east, over a potential 2 loss John Carroll or a 2 loss UW-P?
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 01, 2016, 02:13:32 PM
You would think if a two loss team makes it they would be from the east, over a potential 2 loss John Carroll or a 2 loss UW-P?
Yes.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2016, 01:12:11 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 01, 2016, 12:37:14 PM
Should be interesting to see what comes out on Weds. My guess for ER would be something like this:
1. Alfred (highest SOS of 8-0 teams, arguably best conf, etc)
2. Stevenson 8-0 (better SOS than SLU)
3. SLU 8-0 (could see them lower bc of bad SOS but usually comm rewards 8-0 league leaders from the "top 4"
4. SJFC 7-1 (best SOS of 1 loss ER teams)
5. Hobart 7-1 (bc of high SOS)
6. Salisbury 7-1
7. Frostburg 7-1 (w. solid SOS of 115)
8. WNE 8-0 (maybe crazy bc of low SOS but have seen undefeated teams from NE get in Wk 10)
9. Salve 8-0 (see above)
10. Husson 6-1 (low SOS but only 7 point loss to #1 ALF gets them on board IMO)
Ironically only really two teams on this list has a Pool C shot (SLU, if the lose to HOB and beat WPI in Wk 11 to go 9-1 and ALF if they lose to SJF and end up 9-1 - even in that scenario, I could see SLU being left out bc of SOS).
I think Alfred is in really good at-large shape as long as they don't lose twice.
The possibility of Stevenson and/or St. Lawrence falling in to Pool C could really muddy the waters here. If those two hang in there though, I think there's a really good chance that a 2-loss team from the East region gets strong consideration for an invitation. SJF is most likely. Salisbury and Frostburg are also possibilities there.
If there is going to be a 2-loss at-large team, I think it's coming from this region.
Absolutely agree, and it's probably going to be Fisher (again).
Here's the teams from each region I think are most likely to get an at-large bid
if they don't get in through Pool AEast:Alfred (67.17%)
SJFU (49.09%)
SLU (32.26%)
Utica (12.43%)
Frostburg (7.91%)
WNE (5.77%)
Salisbury (2.20%)
Hobart (1.02%)
If Utica wins out, they're going to have some very impressive "good wins" against Alfred and Fisher. If Fisher doesn't win against Alfred, I think they probably need Alfred to win against Utica this week. The E8 runner-up, whoever it is, will have about a 2-in-3 chance of getting in.
North:Wheaton (87.96%)
Mount Union (83.89%, and probably WAY too low)
North Central (45.00%)
John Carroll (35.88%)
Wittenberg (31.56%)
Wabash (21.91%)
IWU (6.75%)
Carthage (3.28%)
Franklin (1.67%)
Here you can kinda see how my model is estimating the regional rankings. A 1-loss NCAC runner-up is assumed to be ranked below a 2-loss John Carroll.
South:Case Western (66.28%)
Muhlenberg (55.68%)
Thomas More (48.21%)
Hardin-Simmons (19.87%)
ETBU (7.89%)
Berry (7.21%)
JHU (4.55%)
Case has about a 1-in-3 chance of winning out, which is assumed a lock for Pool C, so their odds with only 1-loss is about 50-50. I would have to assume they would be better off beating Westminster than CMU. The HSU-ETBU winner is probably hurt in my model because they'll have a lower winning percentage than any other 1-loss team (which only matters about 1/3 as much as only having 1 loss, but looking at previous seasons, it does matter).
West:UW-Oshkosh (86.44%)
UW-Whitewater (75.00%, and also low; 0.03/0.04 = 0.75)
St. John's (65.13%)
Concordia-M'head (16.04%)
Central (8.63%)
Monmouth (8.09%)
Dubuque (5.26%)
UW-Platteville (3.87%)
Surprised to see Platteville on here at all, because of the assumptions I made. They probably need UWO to tank to get in. Moorhead would only have a 1-in-6 chance of getting in if they win out, and if Monmouth loses, they won't have a win against a RRO, which would hurt their chances as a 1-loss Pool C team.
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 01, 2016, 02:13:32 PM
I think Alfred is in really good at-large shape as long as they don't lose twice.
The possibility of Stevenson and/or St. Lawrence falling in to Pool C could really muddy the waters here. If those two hang in there though, I think there's a really good chance that a 2-loss team from the East region gets strong consideration for an invitation. SJF is most likely. Salisbury and Frostburg are also possibilities there.
If there is going to be a 2-loss at-large team, I think it's coming from this region.
You would think if a two loss team makes it they would be from the east, over a potential 2 loss John Carroll or a 2 loss UW-P?
I don't have the SOS info in front of me, but others have already mentioned on these boards this year that John Carrol could have the "best two losses" to top 5 teams in the country, which helps them a ton. UW-P has the "next best" two losses. Using that criteria. I just don't see how any two loss team from the East stacks up against them - so I disagree that the likelihood of a two loss team making it to Pool C comes from the East.
And, welcome aboard!
The reason I see a 2-loss East team getting in before a 2-loss team from any other region is because in the East, they're more likely to be the highest regionally-ranked team eligible for Pool C. In the North or West, they're going to be the second or third team on the board.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
The reason I see a 2-loss East team getting in before a 2-loss team from any other region is because in the East, they're more likely to be the highest regionally-ranked team eligible for Pool C. In the North or West, they're going to be the second or third team on the board.
This is exactly right. Why SJF instead of UWP? Because we're not choosing between SJF and UWP directly. We're more likely to be choosing from something like SJF/HSU/St. John's/Wabash. Being at the front of the line in your region is a big deal.
Last year UWP would/should have graded out better than the last 2-3 teams that got in the field, but UWP got slotted behind Whitworth in their own region and never got a shot to have their criteria compared to the other teams that were selected. Same thing could happen to the Pioneers this year.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
The reason I see a 2-loss East team getting in before a 2-loss team from any other region is because in the East, they're more likely to be the highest regionally-ranked team eligible for Pool C. In the North or West, they're going to be the second or third team on the board.
It's my understanding that the committee takes the next best team in successive rounds - so a two loss team from the East might sit there and never get picked, at least until another two loss team from another region shows up on the board, and then it won't be apples to apples with those "quality" losses.
Quote from: art76 on November 01, 2016, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
The reason I see a 2-loss East team getting in before a 2-loss team from any other region is because in the East, they're more likely to be the highest regionally-ranked team eligible for Pool C. In the North or West, they're going to be the second or third team on the board.
It's my understanding that the committee takes the next best team in successive rounds - so a two loss team from the East might sit there and never get picked, at least until another two loss team from another region shows up on the board, and then it won't be apples to apples with those "quality" losses.
Correct,
but the committee has never
not taken at least one team from each region, other than 2007, when the South had 2 more auto-bids and also got 2 teams in through Pool B.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2016, 02:36:07 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
The reason I see a 2-loss East team getting in before a 2-loss team from any other region is because in the East, they're more likely to be the highest regionally-ranked team eligible for Pool C. In the North or West, they're going to be the second or third team on the board.
This is exactly right. Why SJF instead of UWP? Because we're not choosing between SJF and UWP directly. We're more likely to be choosing from something like SJF/HSU/St. John's/Wabash. Being at the front of the line in your region is a big deal.
Last year UWP would/should have graded out better than the last 2-3 teams that got in the field, but UWP got slotted behind Whitworth in their own region and never got a shot to have their criteria compared to the other teams that were selected. Same thing could happen to the Pioneers this year.
Wally (and others),
Perhaps I am being too objective in my understanding of the selection process - or at least not understanding some of the nuances. From this comment should I assume (and we all know what that means) that a regional ranking takes precedent over a strong resume? If I am hiring a person and I have to decide between their resume and another candidate on the recommendation of a colleague, which should I choose?
Quote from: art76 on November 01, 2016, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
The reason I see a 2-loss East team getting in before a 2-loss team from any other region is because in the East, they're more likely to be the highest regionally-ranked team eligible for Pool C. In the North or West, they're going to be the second or third team on the board.
It's my understanding that the committee takes the next best team in successive rounds - so a two loss team from the East might sit there and never get picked, at least until another two loss team from another region shows up on the board, and then it won't be apples to apples with those "quality" losses.
Art,
It helps me to think of it as the great Pez Dispenser method of selecting teams. We may all agree that blue is the best color, and the West Dispenser may be loaded with blues, but unfortunately, every Pez Dispenser gets to contribute one to the pot, even if they are oranges and yellows.
The National Committee is given recommendations from the Regional Committees, and unless they strongly disagree with how the regions rank their teams, they will evaluate one team from each region against each other. So UWP could have a better resume than a team ahead of them in the regional ranking, but wouldn't be eligible for Pool C consideration until that team was in the tournament.
With that said, it's also extremely unlikely that a team that finished third in their conference outright (no wins over a team that finished ahead of them) gets into the tournament. In two separate instances over the last few years, the committee has said that they will not take a third-place team from a conference.
In 2012, I know a certain head coach for a team that finished 8-2 (5-2), and tied for second in their conference, but the team they tied with beat them and finished 7-3 (5-2), and the chair of the national committee told him they couldn't take a 3rd place team from a conference (if you catch my drift)
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:53:42 PM
The National Committee is given recommendations from the Regional Committees, and unless they strongly disagree with how the regions rank their teams, they will evaluate one team from each region against each other. So UWP could have a better resume than a team ahead of them in the regional ranking, but wouldn't be eligible for Pool C consideration until that team was in the tournament.
With that said, it's also extremely unlikely that a team that finished third in their conference outright (no wins over a team that finished ahead of them) gets into the tournament. In two separate instances over the last few years, the committee has said that they will not take a third-place team from a conference.
In 2012, I know a certain head coach for a team that finished 8-2 (5-2), and tied for second in their conference, but the team they tied with beat them and finished 7-3 (5-2), and the chair of the national committee told him they couldn't take a 3rd place team from a conference (if you catch my drift)
Doesn't look good for Platteville fans.
Quote from: art76 on November 01, 2016, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
The reason I see a 2-loss East team getting in before a 2-loss team from any other region is because in the East, they're more likely to be the highest regionally-ranked team eligible for Pool C. In the North or West, they're going to be the second or third team on the board.
It's my understanding that the committee takes the next best team in successive rounds - so a two loss team from the East might sit there and never get picked, at least until another two loss team from another region shows up on the board, and then it won't be apples to apples with those "quality" losses.
While it is possible that 2-loss SJF could be the East region's representative for the entirety of the Pool C process and never get in, the likelihood is small. They may wind up with the highest SOS of any at-large team (tight race with UW-Oshkosh), and they may well sneak an extra RRO win in vs. Olivet (I expect Olivet will be ranked if they get to 9-1...they may well be ranked this week anyway). With a giant SOS and a 1-1 or 1-2 record vs. RROs, I think they're going in. At some point the at-large table is going to get populated with teams that are 9-1, loss to undefeated league champion, middle of the pack SOS, no quality wins (we call this The Muhlenberg™) and that kind of profile won't beat SJF 4-5 rounds deep into the process.
Quote from: art76 on November 01, 2016, 02:55:35 PM
Doesn't look good for Platteville fans.
Or players/coaches. It's frustrating to have to play two games annually against Top 5-10 teams, and not get a chance to continue your season unless you beat one of them.
It rarely looks good for a third place team in any league.
While I do agree that it doesn't look good for Platteville, I'm not quite ready to bury them just yet. St. John's last two games here are not totally gimmes. If they lose one, I think UW-P becomes the second highest ranked at-large team in the West. Oshkosh should get peeled off in the first round of Pool C selections, which would put Platteville on the board with five rounds to go. Could they sit there for five rounds and not get picked? I don't think so. I think they'd go in. But they need that help. Last week they needed Dubuque and St. John's to lose. They're halfway there.
As a side note, I don't think it ought to be a slam dunk that UW-P is ranked behind St. John's anyway. I'm sure that's how it will end up, but there's not a whole lot of meat on the St. John's profile, tbh.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 01, 2016, 02:55:35 PM
Doesn't look good for Platteville fans.
Or players/coaches. It's frustrating to have to play two games annually against Top 5-10 teams, and not get a chance to continue your season unless you beat one of them.
And if you go 1-1 against Top 10 teams in the season, you are probably gonna get a Pool C bid.
When I see the WIAC Pool A bid winner, I see the team that is likely to host 3 post-season games.
Pool A winners from other conferences are just hoping for 1-2 home playoff games, at most.
Such are the stakes in the WIAC.
Here's the NCAA pre-championship manual for 2016 (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016DIIIMFB_Prechamps_Manual_20161025.pdf). Did a quick speed read on this and I don't think there's anything new or alarming in there. It is nice to have as a reference though.
The manual is finally correct in its inclusion of Nebraska Wesleyan as a Division III football-playing institution. It does incorrectly segregate NWU off as an independent, but hey, baby steps. They'll get this right one of these years.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2016, 05:02:16 PM
Here's the NCAA pre-championship manual for 2016 (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016DIIIMFB_Prechamps_Manual_20161025.pdf). Did a quick speed read on this and I don't think there's anything new or alarming in there. It is nice to have as a reference though.
The manual is finally correct in its inclusion of Nebraska Wesleyan as a Division III football-playing institution. It does incorrectly segregate NWU off as an independent, but hey, baby steps. They'll get this right one of these years.
Thanks and plus 1!
I have missed something. Why is Shenandoah not eligible for the ODAC championship?
I googled like crazy but got nada on Shenandoah's ineligibility. The school's site nor the ODAC site mention it either.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 01, 2016, 02:55:35 PM
Doesn't look good for Platteville fans.
Or players/coaches. It's frustrating to have to play two games annually against Top 5-10 teams, and not get a chance to continue your season unless you beat one of them.
Well, there's an easy solution to that. Beat them.
I don't think Stevens Point or River Falls or Eau Claire cry much over Platteville's problem.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2016, 05:24:02 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 01, 2016, 05:02:16 PM
Here's the NCAA pre-championship manual for 2016 (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016DIIIMFB_Prechamps_Manual_20161025.pdf). Did a quick speed read on this and I don't think there's anything new or alarming in there. It is nice to have as a reference though.
The manual is finally correct in its inclusion of Nebraska Wesleyan as a Division III football-playing institution. It does incorrectly segregate NWU off as an independent, but hey, baby steps. They'll get this right one of these years.
Thanks and plus 1!
I have missed something. Why is Shenandoah not eligible for the ODAC championship?
My guess is that this is a goof and they mixed up Shenandoah and Susquehanna, who is most definitely in time out this year. (http://www.d3football.com/notables/2016/08/susquehanna-ncaa-violation-vacates-2015-season)
New eliminator tables:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FT9ls0Af.png&hash=1e5413ab68c92b0c0b806aab3a085e474e20324a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdrlFuwZ.png&hash=9db741aae9b06297c055fdd5be595df8df27487a)
Freshly eliminated teams:
Bluffton - not 3 losses, but hard to find a path for them to the top 2-3 at-large positions in the region at this point. Catching a beatdown in Week 9 is not so good.
Coe - Clinched IIAC AQ, so they won't be at-large
UW-La Crosse
Brockport
WPI
Widener
Framingham State - Needs to win out which would win the MASCAC AQ. A loss eliminates them.
Christopher Newport
Rowan
Wesley - Needs to win out, which wins the NJAC. A loss eliminates them.
I also tidied up the teams that aren't eligible with some extra gray cells this week.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:23:59 PM
West:
UW-Oshkosh (86.44%)
UW-Whitewater (75.00%, and also low; 0.03/0.04 = 0.75)
St. John's (65.13%)
Concordia-M'head (16.04%)
Central (8.63%)
Monmouth (8.09%)
Dubuque (5.26%)
UW-Platteville (3.87%)
Just to clarify, this is saying that a 2 loss Whitewater team that has lost its final two games to River Falls and Stout actually has a 75% chance of being a Pool B selection? Or is that not what this says? Because that seems kind of hard to believe.
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 01, 2016, 10:00:40 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:23:59 PM
West:
UW-Oshkosh (86.44%)
UW-Whitewater (75.00%, and also low; 0.03/0.04 = 0.75)
St. John's (65.13%)
Concordia-M'head (16.04%)
Central (8.63%)
Monmouth (8.09%)
Dubuque (5.26%)
UW-Platteville (3.87%)
Just to clarify, this is saying that a 2 loss Whitewater team that has lost its final two games to River Falls and Stout actually has a 75% chance of being a Pool B selection? Or is that not what this says? Because that seems kind of hard to believe.
In 10,000 simulations, UW-Whitewater failed to clinch the Pool A bid in 4. I wouldn't put much statistical relevance of a 4-trial sample.
wally, next week could you maybe put teams that have locked Pool A in another color like black or blue or something? I think it would be good to identify those teams as well rather than be indistinguishable from the also rans.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 01, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
wally, next week could you maybe put teams that have locked Pool A in another color like black or blue or something? I think it would be good to identify those teams as well rather than be indistinguishable from the also rans.
Can do. I'll also identify the Pool A locks in the projection that I do, but since that's a separate post it's definitely useful to ID those teams in the eliminator tables so that everybody who is out of Pool B/C doesn't look the same as a 2-6 team. I think I'll go with gold cells to highlight the teams that booked the golden ticket.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.images.express.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fdynamic%2F36%2F590x%2Fticket-615762.jpg&hash=193ebc8a65b7cde6c55ae8b5765cc99a15f850ef)
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:53:42 PM
The National Committee is given recommendations from the Regional Committees, and unless they strongly disagree with how the regions rank their teams, they will evaluate one team from each region against each other. So UWP could have a better resume than a team ahead of them in the regional ranking, but wouldn't be eligible for Pool C consideration until that team was in the tournament.
With that said, it's also extremely unlikely that a team that finished third in their conference outright (no wins over a team that finished ahead of them) gets into the tournament. In two separate instances over the last few years, the committee has said that they will not take a third-place team from a conference.
In 2012, I know a certain head coach for a team that finished 8-2 (5-2), and tied for second in their conference, but the team they tied with beat them and finished 7-3 (5-2), and the chair of the national committee told him they couldn't take a 3rd place team from a conference (if you catch my drift)
You mean they wouldn't take the 3rd place team over the 2nd place team or just a 3rd place team overall? I only ask because they have taken a 3rd place team at least once, i think in 2007, when the E8 got two pool C bids.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 10:57:58 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 01, 2016, 10:00:40 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:23:59 PM
West:
UW-Oshkosh (86.44%)
UW-Whitewater (75.00%, and also low; 0.03/0.04 = 0.75)
St. John's (65.13%)
Concordia-M'head (16.04%)
Central (8.63%)
Monmouth (8.09%)
Dubuque (5.26%)
UW-Platteville (3.87%)
Just to clarify, this is saying that a 2 loss Whitewater team that has lost its final two games to River Falls and Stout actually has a 75% chance of being a Pool B selection? Or is that not what this says? Because that seems kind of hard to believe.
In 10,000 simulations, UW-Whitewater failed to clinch the Pool A bid in 4. I wouldn't put much statistical relevance of a 4-trial sample.
Agreed. I just wanted to be sure I was interpreting that correctly. Thanks again for designing your model. It's informative and interesting to follow!
Quote from: Upstate on November 02, 2016, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 01, 2016, 02:53:42 PM
The National Committee is given recommendations from the Regional Committees, and unless they strongly disagree with how the regions rank their teams, they will evaluate one team from each region against each other. So UWP could have a better resume than a team ahead of them in the regional ranking, but wouldn't be eligible for Pool C consideration until that team was in the tournament.
With that said, it's also extremely unlikely that a team that finished third in their conference outright (no wins over a team that finished ahead of them) gets into the tournament. In two separate instances over the last few years, the committee has said that they will not take a third-place team from a conference.
In 2012, I know a certain head coach for a team that finished 8-2 (5-2), and tied for second in their conference, but the team they tied with beat them and finished 7-3 (5-2), and the chair of the national committee told him they couldn't take a 3rd place team from a conference (if you catch my drift)
You mean they wouldn't take the 3rd place team over the 2nd place team or just a 3rd place team overall? I only ask because they have taken a 3rd place team at least once, i think in 2007, when the E8 got two pool C bids.
Yes, they took a third-place team in '07, but have said pretty consistently since then that they won't give an at-large to a team the finishes third in their conference, or to a third team from a conference.
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 02, 2016, 08:30:58 AM
Agreed. I just wanted to be sure I was interpreting that correctly. Thanks again for designing your model. It's informative and interesting to follow!
Thanks. I'm glad some people are into it, because my fiance doesn't seem to be that into me being on my laptop all evening some nights!
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 02, 2016, 08:35:36 AM
Thanks. I'm glad some people are into it, because my fiance doesn't seem to be that into me being on my laptop all evening some nights!
I feel you on that. The matchup between my wife and the amount of time I spend pottering around with Division III football has a game score of like 0.04.
Live shot of my afternoon.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpyFY72V.gif&hash=bba9c6c86558061cbea35c675e706e5105490340)
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 01:12:23 PM
Live shot of my afternoon.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpyFY72V.gif&hash=bba9c6c86558061cbea35c675e706e5105490340)
Ha, I hear you on that.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 01:12:23 PM
Live shot of my afternoon.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpyFY72V.gif&hash=bba9c6c86558061cbea35c675e706e5105490340)
That's funny. I'm guessing it'll show up around 3-5pm ET, probably on the later side but maybe Rd1 will be easier given that there's still a decent amount of undefeated teams still in the queue.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 01:12:23 PM
Live shot of my afternoon.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpyFY72V.gif&hash=bba9c6c86558061cbea35c675e706e5105490340)
Pat's being quite the tease by posting a regional rankings page before the rankings have been released.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional-rankings
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2016/first-regional-ranking
The rankings are here.
Biggest question to me comes out of the East Region
1-loss SJFU & Salisbury ahead of undefeated SLU, if SLU loses to Hobart, will a 2-loss SJFU or Salisbury still be ahead of them?
Ok with ERR other than Albright. Bad read by RAC IMO. 0-2 vs RROs but I guess their SOS is bolstered b/c of who they lost to but I don't see them getting in at 8-2.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 02, 2016, 03:31:15 PM
Biggest question to me comes out of the East Region
1-loss SJFU & Salisbury ahead of undefeated SLU, if SLU loses to Hobart, will a 2-loss SJFU or Salisbury still be ahead of them?
Maybe, if not definitely. SLU has a serious SOS problem. They could be left out of Pool C even at 9-1 b/c it. The LL title game is basically an elimination game. Whoever loses is out of the NCAAs.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 02, 2016, 03:33:55 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 02, 2016, 03:31:15 PM
Biggest question to me comes out of the East Region
1-loss SJFU & Salisbury ahead of undefeated SLU, if SLU loses to Hobart, will a 2-loss SJFU or Salisbury still be ahead of them?
Maybe, if not definitely. SLU has a serious SOS problem. They could be left out of Pool C even at 9-1 b/c it. The LL title game is basically an elimination game. Whoever loses is out of the NCAAs.
Morrisville State definitely hurt them this year, no one expected Morrisville to be winless. I think St. Lawrence should be rooting for Norwich to win the ECFC and possibly jump into the final rankings as conference champ and Morrisville beats both Brockport and Alfred State. However, St. Lawrence controls its own destiny, all they have to do is win baby win.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 02, 2016, 02:22:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 01:12:23 PM
Live shot of my afternoon.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpyFY72V.gif&hash=bba9c6c86558061cbea35c675e706e5105490340)
Pat's being quite the tease by posting a regional rankings page before the rankings have been released.
I figured some people might like to hit refresh on our site rather than ncaa.com. We need the page views. :)
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 01:12:23 PM
Live shot of my afternoon.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpyFY72V.gif&hash=bba9c6c86558061cbea35c675e706e5105490340)
So what's the hold-up, Wally? :)
Here's a first batch of RR Hot Takes for you:
EAST: Hard to quibble with anything there. One interesting point - will SJF remain that high if they lose to Alfred? Right now they would be the first Pool C on the board from the East...and one would think that if they're currently held in high enough esteem to be ranked #3, that a close loss against an undefeated #1 should not change that, but we've seen previous examples where this happens. Also, the NJAC round-robin that's about to unfold between Salisbury and Wesley/Frostburg State has some jumbling potential. Still a lot to be sorted out here.
NORTH: I think Wheaton is safely into Pool C if they win out. John Carroll is in an interesting spot: will they stay that high in the RR's if/when they take a second loss to Mount Union? Very similar position to the Alfred/SJF situation in the East. It's critical for JCU's Pool C chances that they stay nestled right behind Wheaton and get onto the board as quickly as possible.
SOUTH: Now here we have a potential Pool C logjam thanks to the "CWRU and Thomas More don't play each other" situation. Right now, assuming UMHB gets the Pool B bid, HSU will be the first C on the board from the South (if they beat ETBU this weekend)...which would (possibly) leave an undefeated Case Western team sittin, waitin, wishin for at least 1 or 2 rounds of Pool C deliberation.
WEST: UWO looks like they're in pretty good shape. Platteville sitting down at 8 is probably bad news for the WIAC's chances of getting three into the tourney; they'll be the third team in line from the West, and with the South potentially bringing an undefeated team to the table...it's going to be tight...
Can't wait for wally's projection exercises.
For me, if JCU loses to Mt. Union and it's a decently close game, would they jam the NCAC runner-up?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/F4zXD8ZEOAFcQ/giphy.gif)
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 02, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Here's a first batch of RR Hot Takes for you:
EAST: Hard to quibble with anything there. One interesting point - will SJF remain that high if they lose to Alfred? Right now they would be the first Pool C on the board from the East...and one would think that if they're currently held in high enough esteem to be ranked #3, that a close loss against an undefeated #1 should not change that, but we've seen previous examples where this happens. Also, the NJAC round-robin that's about to unfold between Salisbury and Wesley/Frostburg State has some jumbling potential. Still a lot to be sorted out here.
NORTH: I think Wheaton is safely into Pool C if they win out. John Carroll is in an interesting spot: will they stay that high in the RR's if/when they take a second loss to Mount Union? Very similar position to the Alfred/SJF situation in the East. It's critical for JCU's Pool C chances that they stay nestled right behind Wheaton and get onto the board as quickly as possible.
SOUTH: Now here we have a potential Pool C logjam thanks to the "CWRU and Thomas More don't play each other" situation. Right now, assuming UMHB gets the Pool B bid, HSU will be the first C on the board from the South (if they beat ETBU this weekend)...which would (possibly) leave an undefeated Case Western team sittin, waitin, wishin for at least 1 or 2 rounds of Pool C deliberation.
WEST: UWO looks like they're in pretty good shape. Platteville sitting down at 8 is probably bad news for the WIAC's chances of getting three into the tourney; they'll be the third team in line from the West, and with the South potentially bringing an undefeated team to the table...it's going to be tight...
Can't wait for wally's projection exercises.
I see a pretty big difference between Fisher in the East and John Carroll in the North.
In the East, most of those teams have matchups against each other still looming, meaning for the teams below Fisher to be in the Pool C discussion, they would have a loss somewhere in the next two weeks.
In the North, JCU has to lose to be in the Pool C discussion. Wittenberg, Franklin, and Wabash could all potentially be Pool C teams without picking up another loss.
For Case, if they go 10-0 they're in. I think the deliberation comes into effect if they lose one of the next two. Is a one-loss Case ahead of a 1-loss Muhlenberg/SAA runner-up/ODAC runner-up?
I'm a pretty staunch believer that UW-P is out. UWO and SJU will be in if they win out. They're 1-loss runners up in the two best conferences in the country. Neither the WIAC nor MIAC has had a 1-loss runner up kept out of the tournament before.
I think one thing to keep in mind as we read these regional rankings is that there is a part of the rankings that we don't see- the vote totals. Like the Top 25 poll or any of the regional polls folks do in these forums, there are clusters and gaps and clusters and gaps. So, for instance, we know John Carroll is 4th in the North region's rankings, but we don't know if they're closer to Wheaton than they are to Olivet (or Denison or Wittenberg). Similarly in the South, CWRU is ranked higher than Thomas More, but that vote total could be super close. Just something to consider. Alright, back to the bunker. I'll have a projection up soonish. Before Game 7 starts for sure.
IMHO, South Region: (Assume all teams win out.)
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor 8-0 8-0 Pool B bid
2. Johns Hopkins 8-0 8-0 Pool A (Centennial)
3. Hardin-Simmons 7-1 5-1 (Winning out against ETBU and McMurry) Pool C along with UW-Oshkosh and Wheaton IL
4. Case Western Reserve 8-0 8-0 (Winning out but not the Pres AC AQ) Undefeated Pool C, last one off the table.
5. Thomas More 8-1 8-1 Pool A bid from the Pres AC, according the discussions about tie-breakers on the Pres AC message board
6. Muhlenberg 7-1 7-1 Pool C and left on the table
7. Berry 7-1 7-1 SAA Pool A
8. Maryville 7-1 7-1 USA South Pool A
9. East Texas Baptist 7-1 5-1 2-loss Pool C bid (Lost to UMHB and HSU; probably cannot jump either Muhlenberg or CWRU with win over HSU)
10. Randolph-Macon 7-1 7-1 ODAC Pool A bid
Alright, here we go. 25 Pool A's, 1 Pool B, 6 Pool C's. I hope we know the drill on how at-large selection works both from a criteria POV and the mechanics of the process. Let's get started.
The 25 Pool A's as of this moment:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3nKgQwO.png&hash=98f7368daa43ba34f23be424cfa529c35d00c71f)
I'm going to put teams that have clinched in gold cells - so far just Coe has clinched a Pool A bid.
I'm going to denote changes from last week by making changed Pool A projections in a blueish tinted text. This week just two Pool A bid projections have changed: RHIT has unseated Franklin in the Heartland and Randolph-Macon took control of the ODAC.
Pool B
1S Mary Hardin-Baylor: 8-0, 3-0 vs. RROs, 0.590 (17th) SOS
No change in my stance here from last week. UMHB has put together one of the best seasons in the division and probably needs to be one of the top two overall seeds in the tournament. Whether that happens or not, who knows. UMHB getting this Pool B bid is an absolute lock though.
Now after UMHB comes out for Pool B, the remaining regional boards look as follows:
East: SJF, Hobart, Albright, Wesley, Frostburg State
North: Wheaton, John Carroll, Wittenberg, Franklin, Wabash
South: Hardin-Simmons, Case Western Reserve, Muhlenberg, Berry, ETBU
West: UW-Oshkosh, St. John's, UW-Platteville, Concordia-Moorhead
And off we go.
Pool C:
Round 1:
3N Wheaton - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.588 (22)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.553 (54)
3E St. John Fisher - 7-1, 1-0 RRO, 0.594 (15)
3W UW-Oshkosh - 6-1, 2-1 RRO, 0.625 (3)
Oshkosh remains a pretty clear choice as the first team invited through Pool C. The win percentage is a push (we tend to apply the win percentage criteria by counting losses rather than calculating the actual win percentage) and Oshkosh has advantages in the RRO and SOS categories. Titans are in and really only a second loss is going to change this.
Round 2:
3N Wheaton - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.588 (22)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.553 (54)
3E St. John Fisher - 7-1, 1-0 RRO, 0.594 (15)
6W St. John's- 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.488 (146)
SJF's RRO win over 5N Olivet gives them an edge over Wheaton here. Now is a good time to talk about SJF's final two games. They can win both and win the E8 which changes this projection (sort of). If they lose to Alfred, they pick up a second loss, but I kind of think they stay the top ranked at-large team in the East even with that loss. If they beat Alfred and Alfred falls into Pool C at 9-1, the Saxons are going to go in here. So you can think of this place as the E8 runner up if you like. Those big SOS's really help E8 teams.
Round 3:
3N Wheaton - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.588 (22)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.553 (54)
6E Hobart - 7-1, 0-0 RRO, 0.571 (33)
6W St. John's- 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.488 (146)
This is kind of a toss up between Wheaton and H-SU. I'm going with Wheaton at this point because of the SOS edge and I'm going to fudge a little with future results. While H-SU may catch and surpass Wheaton in the SOS department, beating ETBU is going to knock them out of the rankings while I think there's a decent chance attrition in the North is going to result in Illinois Wesleyan floating into the North's rankings eventually (next week). So I'm anticipating an RRO advantage for Wheaton by the time we get to the end here.
Round 4:
4N John Carroll - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.466 (176)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 5-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.553 (54)
6E Hobart - 7-1, 0-0 RRO, 0.571 (33)
6W St. John's- 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.488 (146)
Now it gets tricky because JCU is likely to pick up a second loss to Mount Union which (probably) impacts their place in line. That SOS is pretty rough this week for John Carroll as well. Hobart has a great SOS, but they also have zero results against ranked opponents (more evidence of the gaping holes that exist in the NCAA's SOS calculus). I'm taking Hardin-Simmons in this round on the combo platter of their high SOS and a 20-15 result against what might be the tournament's top seed. That RRO result compared to the RRO results of the other contenders here is an advantage for the Cowboys.
Round 5:
4N John Carroll - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.466 (176)
4S Case Western Reserve - 8-0, 0-0 RRO, 0.455 (192)
6E Hobart - 7-1, 0-0 RRO, 0.571 (33)
6W St. John's - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.488 (146)
I ran into this problem last week with St. John's, too. They've been around now for four rounds, their profile is The Muhlenberg™, and there's just nothing particularly exciting about St. John's beyond their history and the reputation of their league. None of these things are criteria. And yet, 9-1 St. John's isn't not playing in this tournament. So in go the Johnnies, and there's not a particularly compelling reason why. But that's just how it's going to go.
Round 6:
4N John Carroll - 7-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.466 (176)
4S Case Western Reserve - 8-0, 0-0 RRO, 0.455 (192)
6E Hobart - 7-1, 0-0 RRO, 0.571 (33)
8W UW-Platteville - 5-2, 0-2 RRO, 0.608 (8)
Despite a lack of any regionally ranked wins (or losses) and a poor SOS, an undefeated team isn't getting left out. So the Spartans are my last team in.
I can't argue with any logic. I also don't see a path for an NCAC runner-up here, unless SJF has two losses and the committee really looks at those two losses. But their criteria is so strong otherwise.
Wheaton's SOS will fall when they play Carroll, but not so they have to worry about dropping in these rankings. One loss Wheaton or H-S is going to go.
If having to pick a one-loss NCAC member or St. John's, I can guarantee St. John's is going to go. And really, there's no argument. The NCAC runners-up will have played either Capital, Albion or Marietta as their non-conference game.
I do think CWRU will go off earlier than sixth. But that will just leave Muhlenberg on the table.
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2016, 07:17:56 PM
I can't argue with any logic. I also don't see a path for an NCAC runner-up here, unless SJF has two losses and the committee really looks at those two losses. But their criteria is so strong otherwise.
Wheaton's SOS will fall when they play Carroll, but not so they have to worry about dropping in these rankings. One loss Wheaton or H-S is going to go.
If having to pick a one-loss NCAC member or St. John's, I can guarantee St. John's is going to go. And really, there's no argument. The NCAC runners-up will have played either Capital, Albion or Marietta as their non-conference game.
I do think CWRU will go off earlier than sixth. But that will just leave Muhlenberg on the table.
Had Wittenberg been ranked ahead of John Carroll (probably should have been, honestly) they have a compelling profile at this stage of the game (less so when their SOS falls closer to the middle of the pack over the next two weeks). But given today's rankings, no, the NCAC runner up isn't going anywhere. I do think that the NCAC runner up will be in the discussion for a few rounds after JCU loses. Whether it's Wittenberg (with Denison as the league AQ) or Wabash (with Wittenberg as the league AQ), there should be some conversation about inviting the league co-champion. Whether they go in or not, who knows. Have to see how the rest of this plays out.
If CWRU gets to 10-0, the South region shouldn't jerk them around and rank them behind the ASC runner up. Rank them third and get them in the field without the drama we got from Centre a couple of years ago.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 07:29:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2016, 07:17:56 PM
I can't argue with any logic. I also don't see a path for an NCAC runner-up here, unless SJF has two losses and the committee really looks at those two losses. But their criteria is so strong otherwise.
Wheaton's SOS will fall when they play Carroll, but not so they have to worry about dropping in these rankings. One loss Wheaton or H-S is going to go.
If having to pick a one-loss NCAC member or St. John's, I can guarantee St. John's is going to go. And really, there's no argument. The NCAC runners-up will have played either Capital, Albion or Marietta as their non-conference game.
I do think CWRU will go off earlier than sixth. But that will just leave Muhlenberg on the table.
Had Wittenberg been ranked ahead of John Carroll (probably should have been, honestly) they have a compelling profile at this stage of the game (less so when their SOS falls closer to the middle of the pack over the next two weeks). But given today's rankings, no, the NCAC runner up isn't going anywhere. I do think that the NCAC runner up will be in the discussion for a few rounds after JCU loses. Whether it's Wittenberg (with Denison as the league AQ) or Wabash (with Wittenberg as the league AQ), there should be some conversation about inviting the league co-champion. Whether they go in or not, who knows. Have to see how the rest of this plays out.
If CWRU gets to 10-0, the South region shouldn't jerk them around and rank them behind the ASC runner up. Rank them third and get them in the field without the drama we got from Centre a couple of years ago.
Good! I agree and then send them to Belton to play the CRU in the first round and send HSU any place else in the country.
I will take UMHB and spot CWRU 21 points. ;)
The way the committee ranked the North, Franklin's going to be ahead of Wabash on SOS and will also have a 1-1 RR record. I'm kind of surprised RHIT isn't ahead of Franklin. Still, they'd be ahead of Wabash now.
Let's say SJF loses to Alfred. Hobart beats St. Lawrence. Does SJF's SOS advantage keep it above St. Lawrence?
Rose has 2 losses and Franklin only has 1 that's why they are ranked that way.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 02, 2016, 05:49:47 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 02, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Here's a first batch of RR Hot Takes for you:
EAST: Hard to quibble with anything there. One interesting point - will SJF remain that high if they lose to Alfred? Right now they would be the first Pool C on the board from the East...and one would think that if they're currently held in high enough esteem to be ranked #3, that a close loss against an undefeated #1 should not change that, but we've seen previous examples where this happens. Also, the NJAC round-robin that's about to unfold between Salisbury and Wesley/Frostburg State has some jumbling potential. Still a lot to be sorted out here.
NORTH: I think Wheaton is safely into Pool C if they win out. John Carroll is in an interesting spot: will they stay that high in the RR's if/when they take a second loss to Mount Union? Very similar position to the Alfred/SJF situation in the East. It's critical for JCU's Pool C chances that they stay nestled right behind Wheaton and get onto the board as quickly as possible.
SOUTH: Now here we have a potential Pool C logjam thanks to the "CWRU and Thomas More don't play each other" situation. Right now, assuming UMHB gets the Pool B bid, HSU will be the first C on the board from the South (if they beat ETBU this weekend)...which would (possibly) leave an undefeated Case Western team sittin, waitin, wishin for at least 1 or 2 rounds of Pool C deliberation.
WEST: UWO looks like they're in pretty good shape. Platteville sitting down at 8 is probably bad news for the WIAC's chances of getting three into the tourney; they'll be the third team in line from the West, and with the South potentially bringing an undefeated team to the table...it's going to be tight...
Can't wait for wally's projection exercises.
I see a pretty big difference between Fisher in the East and John Carroll in the North.
In the East, most of those teams have matchups against each other still looming, meaning for the teams below Fisher to be in the Pool C discussion, they would have a loss somewhere in the next two weeks.
In the North, JCU has to lose to be in the Pool C discussion. Wittenberg, Franklin, and Wabash could all potentially be Pool C teams without picking up another loss.
For Case, if they go 10-0 they're in. I think the deliberation comes into effect if they lose one of the next two. Is a one-loss Case ahead of a 1-loss Muhlenberg/SAA runner-up/ODAC runner-up?
I'm a pretty staunch believer that UW-P is out. UWO and SJU will be in if they win out. They're 1-loss runners up in the two best conferences in the country. Neither the WIAC nor MIAC has had a 1-loss runner up kept out of the tournament before.
I understand that, but I'm talking specifically about the frustrating case where a team drops a few spots in the RR's solely for picking up another loss, even when that loss is a highly competitive one against a higher-ranked team.
If the RR's currently think that John Carroll is the fourth-best team in the North today, and they lose by a touchdown to the #1 ranked North team to end the regular season, it makes no sense that they should then drop below Wittenberg, Franklin, or Wabash after that happens (since none of those teams have anything left on their schedule that would be a better "result" than that). And yet, we've seen this happen before...I'll have to look it up but once in the East I remember someone getting dropped a few slots in the RR's after a close loss against the #1 or #2 team in the rankings, and trying to figure out why that made any sense.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 02, 2016, 08:57:22 PM
I understand that, but I'm talking specifically about the frustrating case where a team drops a few spots in the RR's solely for picking up another loss, even when that loss is a highly competitive one against a higher-ranked team.
If the RR's currently think that John Carroll is the fourth-best team in the North today, and they lose by a touchdown to the #1 ranked North team to end the regular season, it makes no sense that they should then drop below Wittenberg, Franklin, or Wabash after that happens (since none of those teams have anything left on their schedule that would be a better "result" than that). And yet, we've seen this happen before...I'll have to look it up but once in the East I remember someone getting dropped a few slots in the RR's after a close loss against the #1 or #2 team in the rankings, and trying to figure out why that made any sense.
A few things, 1) it does make sense, because the first Primary Criteria is winning percentage against DIII opponents. A loss can change a team's winning percentage without changing their perceived strength. 2) For Wabash to be in the Pool C discussion, they
would have a better result than that (according to the Primary Criteria)--a win against Denison, another RRO. And Witt seems like they would have a comparable SOS. 3) These rankings aren't meant to be a "who would probably win in a matchup" ranking, that's what Top 25's and computer rankings are for. I personally think JCU is a better team, but with two losses, they're probably not
more deserving than a one-loss Witt/Franklin/Wabash (I think Wabash would probably leap-frog Franklin with a W vs. Denison).
As for Wally's analysis, I would probably agree with how he slotted teams right now. If I were projecting which teams were more likely to get in after Week 11 though, I would probably keep Case out, because I don't think they'll go undefeated (I think they're better than both Westminster and CMU, but odds are they'll lose one), and slot Muhlenberg in their place, because they seem really likely to win out, and I don't see a second 1-loss team from the East or North (or UW-Platteville) getting in ahead of them.
I would agree with Hansen. I wonder if the order went uwo, sju, hsu, Wheaton, case (if they stay undefeated), then the six round would get interesting if JCU, uwp, muhl, and Hobart are on the board. Would like to see what JCU sos would go to if they loss to mount. Since we know that a loss is a loss does not matter to who or how close
Do the committees factor in possible RRO from other regions before the first ranking (e.g. Franklin's win over Thomas More) or do they wait until after the first rankings to know for sure then factor it in on the 2nd rankings?
For SOS yes, but not for wins of RRO. The RRO is for the at large spots and how the process works of seeing who should represent each region each round.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2016, 10:15:05 PM
Do the committees factor in possible RRO from other regions before the first ranking (e.g. Franklin's win over Thomas More) or do they wait until after the first rankings to know for sure then factor it in on the 2nd rankings?
That's a good question, and not something I've thought of before. I suspect they, at some level, have the same outlook Pat & Keith have preached for years about Quality Wins > Quality Losses, and they know who will probably be ranked in other regions.
Someone like the guys from In The HuddLLe probably know those insider secrets better.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2016, 10:15:05 PM
Do the committees factor in possible RRO from other regions before the first ranking (e.g. Franklin's win over Thomas More) or do they wait until after the first rankings to know for sure then factor it in on the 2nd rankings?
It's the great annual unanswered question. I have no idea and I don't believe we've ever received an answer from anybody who knows. While the North committee may not know where Thomas More is ranked in the South, surely they could pretty safely assume that Thomas More was going to be ranked and evaluate accordingly, right?
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 02, 2016, 09:51:20 PM
I would agree with Hansen. I wonder if the order went uwo, sju, hsu, Wheaton, case (if they stay undefeated), then the six round would get interesting if JCU, uwp, muhl, and Hobart are on the board. Would like to see what JCU sos would go to if they loss to mount. Since we know that a loss is a loss does not matter to who or how close
I think there's a chance that John Carroll could stay put as the second in line from the North region if they play a close game and lose to Mount Union. That feels like the way this is set up at this point. JCU's SOS is bad, they have no good wins, and their lone result against a ranked opponent is a noncompetitive 19-point loss to Oshkosh. The more I dig into this JCU business, the more I think the North committee really got this wrong. Are they cashing in benefit of the doubt capital by being the second place OAC team? St. John's is kind of doing the same thing in the MIAC, but the OAC and the MIAC are two completely different things this year (this has been the case for a number of years now, but especially this year). Are they getting actual credit just for having shown up to a game against Oshkosh? That seems odd given that they weren't competitive in that game. I'm having a hard time figuring out the JCU ranking tonight.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 10:33:30 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2016, 10:15:05 PM
Do the committees factor in possible RRO from other regions before the first ranking (e.g. Franklin's win over Thomas More) or do they wait until after the first rankings to know for sure then factor it in on the 2nd rankings?
It's the great annual unanswered question. I have no idea and I don't believe we've ever received an answer from anybody who knows. While the North committee may not know where Thomas More is ranked in the South, surely they could pretty safely assume that Thomas More was going to be ranked and evaluate accordingly, right?
It probably is for Thomas More but not for everyone, so indeed, the committees do not consider those cross-region regionally ranked results in the first ranking.
Did some fumbling around during lunch about travel distances to see potential matchups. If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds, you should root for the 4-H's (Hendrix, Huntingdon, Hobart and Husson) and Eureka to win their conferences, and for Concordia-Moorhead to beat St. John's to get a Pool C birth.
Hendrix's only <500 miles matchup would be UMHB or Huntingdon.
Huntingdon's would be the the SAA winner as long as it's not Wash U.
Hobart & Husson are >500 miles apart, but St. Lawrence is within Husson's 500 mile radius. The only other schools within 500 miles of Husson are WNE/Salve.
Concordia's only <500 mile trip would be St. Thomas or Northwestern, and if Eureka beats Northwestern, then Concordia-UST is the only <500 mile trip from Moorhead (the Wisconsin and Iowa schools are all just out of reach).
You can see everything on a map here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing)
Great job on that--for what it's worth--I (as a Linfield guy) wouldn't mind seeing a rematch with UMHB--I think the outcome of that game did not reflect the quality of the competition for the first 3 quarters of football. Still....I wouldn't mind that rematch coming in the 3rd round or later....
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 02:25:19 PM
Great job on that--for what it's worth--I (as a Linfield guy) wouldn't mind seeing a rematch with UMHB--I think the outcome of that game did not reflect the quality of the competition for the first 3 quarters of football. Still....I wouldn't mind that rematch coming in the 3rd round or later....
... the
operative words in your post!
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Wait, you mean everybody doesn't do a rematch in the first round or two? ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Wait, you mean everybody doesn't do a rematch in the first round or two? ::) ::) ::)
The ASC is 33-24 (.578) in post season play.
In five seasons, ASC foes played in the post-season.
2004 -- UMHB beat HSU in the second round. UMHB played 3 more games. HSU had the bye back in the days of the 28-team bracket.
2006 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
2008 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 3 more games
2011 -- UMHB beat McMurry in the second round. UMHB played 1 more game. McMurry beat Trinity in the first round.
2015 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
That has 2 effects on cumulative playoff records.
The losing team did not get a chance to notch another potential win against a non-ASC foe.
The ASC seems to have not gotten the chance to play a weaker seed in the bracket because of "geographic proximity".
The conference post-season record against non-ASC teams is 28-19 (.596)
(FAQ #9 http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs )
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2016, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Wait, you mean everybody doesn't do a rematch in the first round or two? ::) ::) ::)
The ASC is 33-24 (.578) in post season play.
In five seasons, ASC foes played in the post-season.
2004 -- UMHB beat HSU in the second round. UMHB played 3 more games. HSU had the bye back in the days of the 28-team bracket.
2006 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
2008 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 3 more games
2011 -- UMHB beat McMurry in the second round. UMHB played 1 more game. McMurry beat Trinity in the first round.
2015 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
That has 2 effects on cumulative playoff records.
The losing team did not get a chance to notch another potential win against a non-ASC foe.
The ASC seems to have not gotten the chance to play a weaker seed in the bracket because of "geographic proximity".
The conference post-season record against non-ASC teams is 28-19 (.596)
(FAQ #9 http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs )
Not going to break it down as nicely as you have but same thing for the NWC in the past 5 years Linfield has rematches a conference foe in the first round of the playoffs 3 times and rematched their SCIAC preseason foe the other two years. It gets old...no?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2016, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Wait, you mean everybody doesn't do a rematch in the first round or two? ::) ::) ::)
The ASC is 33-24 (.578) in post season play.
In five seasons, ASC foes played in the post-season.
2004 -- UMHB beat HSU in the second round. UMHB played 3 more games. HSU had the bye back in the days of the 28-team bracket.
2006 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
2008 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 3 more games
2011 -- UMHB beat McMurry in the second round. UMHB played 1 more game. McMurry beat Trinity in the first round.
2015 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
That has 2 effects on cumulative playoff records.
The losing team did not get a chance to notch another potential win against a non-ASC foe.
The ASC seems to have not gotten the chance to play a weaker seed in the bracket because of "geographic proximity".
The conference post-season record against non-ASC teams is 28-19 (.596)
(FAQ #9 http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs )
I honestly thought it would be more than 5 times in 12 years. Then I noticed the post doesn't reflect other teams in TX outside of the ASC.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2016, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Wait, you mean everybody doesn't do a rematch in the first round or two? ::) ::) ::)
The ASC is 33-24 (.578) in post season play.
In five seasons, ASC foes played in the post-season.
2004 -- UMHB beat HSU in the second round. UMHB played 3 more games. HSU had the bye back in the days of the 28-team bracket.
2006 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
2008 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 3 more games
2011 -- UMHB beat McMurry in the second round. UMHB played 1 more game. McMurry beat Trinity in the first round.
2015 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
That has 2 effects on cumulative playoff records.
The losing team did not get a chance to notch another potential win against a non-ASC foe.
The ASC seems to have not gotten the chance to play a weaker seed in the bracket because of "geographic proximity".
The conference post-season record against non-ASC teams is 28-19 (.596)
(FAQ #9 http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs )
You also left out the UMHB-Louisiana College rematch in the First Round in 2012. UMHB went to the Semifinals and lost at Mount Union in the final seconds that season.
Quote from: Ray Finkles on November 03, 2016, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2016, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Wait, you mean everybody doesn't do a rematch in the first round or two? ::) ::) ::)
The ASC is 33-24 (.578) in post season play.
In five seasons, ASC foes played in the post-season.
2004 -- UMHB beat HSU in the second round. UMHB played 3 more games. HSU had the bye back in the days of the 28-team bracket.
2006 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
2008 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 3 more games
2011 -- UMHB beat McMurry in the second round. UMHB played 1 more game. McMurry beat Trinity in the first round.
2012 -- UMHB beat Louisiana College in the first round. UMHB played 3 more games.
2015 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
That has 2 effects on cumulative playoff records.
The losing team did not get a chance to notch another potential win against a non-ASC foe.
The ASC seems to have not gotten the chance to play a weaker seed in the bracket because of "geographic proximity".
The conference post-season record against non-ASC teams is 27-18 (.600)
(FAQ #9 http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs )
You also left out the UMHB-Louisiana College rematch in the First Round in 2012. UMHB went to the Semifinals and lost at Mount Union in the final seconds that season. (Yeah, the heartbreak game.)
+1! That is what I get for doing it a work on a break!
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 10:33:30 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2016, 10:15:05 PM
Do the committees factor in possible RRO from other regions before the first ranking (e.g. Franklin's win over Thomas More) or do they wait until after the first rankings to know for sure then factor it in on the 2nd rankings?
It's the great annual unanswered question. I have no idea and I don't believe we've ever received an answer from anybody who knows. While the North committee may not know where Thomas More is ranked in the South, surely they could pretty safely assume that Thomas More was going to be ranked and evaluate accordingly, right?
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 02, 2016, 09:51:20 PM
I would agree with Hansen. I wonder if the order went uwo, sju, hsu, Wheaton, case (if they stay undefeated), then the six round would get interesting if JCU, uwp, muhl, and Hobart are on the board. Would like to see what JCU sos would go to if they loss to mount. Since we know that a loss is a loss does not matter to who or how close
I think there's a chance that John Carroll could stay put as the second in line from the North region if they play a close game and lose to Mount Union. That feels like the way this is set up at this point. JCU's SOS is bad, they have no good wins, and their lone result against a ranked opponent is a noncompetitive 19-point loss to Oshkosh. The more I dig into this JCU business, the more I think the North committee really got this wrong. Are they cashing in benefit of the doubt capital by being the second place OAC team? St. John's is kind of doing the same thing in the MIAC, but the OAC and the MIAC are two completely different things this year (this has been the case for a number of years now, but especially this year). Are they getting actual credit just for having shown up to a game against Oshkosh? That seems odd given that they weren't competitive in that game. I'm having a hard time figuring out the JCU ranking tonight.
Are we sure the RACs are even considering possible RROs from their own region in the first ranking? It's not the 2nd loss that will keep JCU out, it's the lack of a third OAC team in the rankings. I wouldn't be surprised to see them get passed next week.
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 09:57:45 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2016, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 03, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
If you're a HSU/ETBU, Linfield, or UMHB fan, and you don't want to see repeat matchups in the first couple of rounds...
We're on the same page.
I think most of us hate seeing that. Maybe we should take up a collection at all first round games this year, like they do in church.
Wait, you mean everybody doesn't do a rematch in the first round or two? ::) ::) ::)
The ASC is 33-24 (.578) in post season play.
In five seasons, ASC foes played in the post-season.
2004 -- UMHB beat HSU in the second round. UMHB played 3 more games. HSU had the bye back in the days of the 28-team bracket.
2006 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
2008 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 3 more games
2011 -- UMHB beat McMurry in the second round. UMHB played 1 more game. McMurry beat Trinity in the first round.
2015 -- UMHB beat HSU in the first round. UMHB played 2 more games
That has 2 effects on cumulative playoff records.
The losing team did not get a chance to notch another potential win against a non-ASC foe.
The ASC seems to have not gotten the chance to play a weaker seed in the bracket because of "geographic proximity".
The conference post-season record against non-ASC teams is 28-19 (.596)
(FAQ #9 http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs )
I honestly thought it would be more than 5 times in 12 years. Then I noticed the post doesn't reflect other teams in TX outside of the ASC.
It is fair for the SCAC champ and the ASC champ to meet in the first round. McMurry was a Pool C bid and was sent to Trinity, the SCAC Champ in 2011. Pool C UMHB was sent to Pool A Trinity in 2004.
So we're all rooting for Husson and Huntingdon to take flights to UMHB/Linfield in the second round?
Quote from: AO on November 03, 2016, 11:16:55 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 02, 2016, 10:33:30 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2016, 10:15:05 PM
Do the committees factor in possible RRO from other regions before the first ranking (e.g. Franklin's win over Thomas More) or do they wait until after the first rankings to know for sure then factor it in on the 2nd rankings?
It's the great annual unanswered question. I have no idea and I don't believe we've ever received an answer from anybody who knows. While the North committee may not know where Thomas More is ranked in the South, surely they could pretty safely assume that Thomas More was going to be ranked and evaluate accordingly, right?
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 02, 2016, 09:51:20 PM
I would agree with Hansen. I wonder if the order went uwo, sju, hsu, Wheaton, case (if they stay undefeated), then the six round would get interesting if JCU, uwp, muhl, and Hobart are on the board. Would like to see what JCU sos would go to if they loss to mount. Since we know that a loss is a loss does not matter to who or how close
I think there's a chance that John Carroll could stay put as the second in line from the North region if they play a close game and lose to Mount Union. That feels like the way this is set up at this point. JCU's SOS is bad, they have no good wins, and their lone result against a ranked opponent is a noncompetitive 19-point loss to Oshkosh. The more I dig into this JCU business, the more I think the North committee really got this wrong. Are they cashing in benefit of the doubt capital by being the second place OAC team? St. John's is kind of doing the same thing in the MIAC, but the OAC and the MIAC are two completely different things this year (this has been the case for a number of years now, but especially this year). Are they getting actual credit just for having shown up to a game against Oshkosh? That seems odd given that they weren't competitive in that game. I'm having a hard time figuring out the JCU ranking tonight.
Are we sure the RACs are even considering possible RROs from their own region in the first ranking? It's not the 2nd loss that will keep JCU out, it's the lack of a third OAC team in the rankings. I wouldn't be surprised to see them get passed next week.
That's an interesting thought. Just seems weird that these first set of rankings are being released without considering all of the criteria. Do the second week's rankings reference the previous week's rankings to identify RROs?
I'm still not sure why it's hard to have each regional committee create a list of 10 teams, share them with the other groups, make appropriate adjustments, then publish. There really aren't going to be a whole lot of instances where the other regional rankings have impact, and most that do are obvious (UMHB/Linfield, Franklin/Thomas More, SJF/Olivet).
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 09:28:34 PM
Not going to break it down as nicely as you have but same thing for the NWC in the past 5 years Linfield has rematches a conference foe in the first round of the playoffs 3 times and rematched their SCIAC preseason foe the other two years. It gets old...no?
Yes, Cat, it does get monotonous.
I think that the more insidious aspect is when you look at the outcomes in a tabulated form like total conference wins.
IMHO, the NWC vs SCIAC games have been pairings of a #1, 2, or 3 seed versus a #5,6, or 7 seed in the West.
When the ASC teams have gone against one another, it has been a #1, 2 or 3 seed going against a #3,4 or 5 seed in the South region.
When NWC and ASC teams (essentially Linfield versus UMHB) have met, IMHO, it has clearly been the toughest draw at that round of the playoffs.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 04, 2016, 09:03:22 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 03, 2016, 09:28:34 PM
Not going to break it down as nicely as you have but same thing for the NWC in the past 5 years Linfield has rematches a conference foe in the first round of the playoffs 3 times and rematched their SCIAC preseason foe the other two years. It gets old...no?
Yes, Cat, it does get monotonous.
I think that the more insidious aspect is when you look at the outcomes in a tabulated form like total conference wins.
IMHO, the NWC vs SCIAC games have been pairings of a #1, 2, or 3 seed versus a #5,6, or 7 seed in the West.
When the ASC teams have gone against one another, it has been a #1, 2 or 3 seed going against a #3,4 or 5 seed in the South region.
When NWC and ASC teams (essentially Linfield versus UMHB) have met, IMHO, it has clearly been the toughest draw at that round of the playoffs.
Yep----life on the Islands---it's not all sun and umbrella drinks ;D
So it's on record, here are the committee members for each RAC (nationally commitee is made up of the chair and co-chair of each RAC)
EAST REGION
Erick Hart, co-chair Brockport Empire 8
Jack McKiernan, co-chair Kean NJAC (also chair of national committee)
Tony Volpone, Castleton, ECFC
Blaise Faggioano, Utica, Empire 8
Chris Robertson, Worcester Polytechnic, Liberty League
Jim Seavey, Mass-Maritime, MASCAC
Dan Garrett, Kean, NJAC
Chris Colvin, Nichols, New England Football
Ed Hottle, Stevenson, Middle Atlantic
NORTH REGION
Kris Diaz, co-chair, Baldwin Wallace, OAC
Chris Martin, co-chair, CCIW commisioner, CCIW
Michael Yeager, Carthage, CCIW
Denny Dorrel, Bluffton, Heartland
Greg Pscodna, Alma, Michigan Intercol.
Jack Hatem, Denison, North Coast
Dennis Miller, Wisconsin Lutheran, Northern Athletics
Tim Doup, Otterbein, OAC
SOUTH REGION
Darla Kirby, co-chair, Mary Hardin-Baylor, American Southwest
Jack Leipheimer, co-chair, Thiel, USA South
Jesse Burleson, Hardin-Simmons, American Southwest
Mike Donnelly, Muhlenberg, Centennial
JJ Nekoloff, Old Dominion commisioner, Old Dominion
Danny Padron Texas Lutheran Pool B (Southern Collegiate)
Mike Sirianni, Wash. & Jefferson, Presidents' AC
Tony Kunczewski, Berry, Southern Athletic
Cleive Adams, Averett, USA South
WEST REGION
James Catanzaro, co-chair, Lake Forest, Midwest
Rod Sandberg, co-chair, Whitworth, Northwest
Jay Anderson, Buena Vista, Iowa Intercollegiate
Glen Caruso, St. Thomas (MN), Minnesota Intercol.
Damon Tomeo, Knox, Midwest
Chris Casey, George Fox, Northwest
Jaime Hoffman, Occidental, SCIAC
Clayt Birmingham, Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin Intercollegiate
John Auer, Crown Upper, Midwest
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2016, 10:23:26 AM
Yep----life on the Islands---it's not all sun and umbrella drinks ;D
Made me chuckle - thanx!
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
You can see everything on a map here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing)
Thanx for this link - very well done! I'm guessing you plan to keep it updated as teams are eliminated - I'm hoping so.
Quote from: art76 on November 04, 2016, 02:00:59 PM
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 03, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
You can see everything on a map here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing)
Thanx for this link - very well done! I'm guessing you plan to keep it updated as teams are eliminated - I'm hoping so.
WOW, thanks for creating! Very cool.
With Bridgewater St winning the MASCAC there are now 2 teams within 500 miles of Husson. It will be interesting to see which team, Bridgewater St or WNEW gets to play them. I also hope like most Texas folk do that they do not have UMHB and HSU play in the first round.
And if St. Lawrence gets a Pool C, then that would make 3 within 500 miles of Bangor.
Another potential island team is Huntingdon. If Wash U clinches the SAA Pool A bid, Huntindon will have NO ONE within 500 miles:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing)
If this happens, and with the NWC and SCIAC both completely isolated also, maybe the committee switches things up a bit and doesn't send Redlands to Linfield in the first round.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 06, 2016, 10:43:42 AM
Another potential island team is Huntingdon. If Wash U clinches the SAA Pool A bid, Huntindon will have NO ONE within 500 miles:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing)
If this happens, and with the NWC and SCIAC both completely isolated also, maybe the committee switches things up a bit and doesn't send Redlands to Linfield in the first round.
probably not thought---the winner of the NWC/SCIAC match will have to fly in the 2nd round now matter what....but they could send Huntington somewhere that, if they lost, the second round matchup could be done without a flight...maybe?
If Wash U wins the SAA, every team in the field would be more than 500 miles from Huntingdon
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 06, 2016, 10:43:42 AM
Another potential island team is Huntingdon. If Wash U clinches the SAA Pool A bid, Huntindon will have NO ONE within 500 miles:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aKFzFXOJRlE-df4cJuW6b2JBDIw&usp=sharing)
If this happens, and with the NWC and SCIAC both completely isolated also, maybe the committee switches things up a bit and doesn't send Redlands to Linfield in the first round.
They definitely could do that. Sadly, it won't prevent the ASC rematch though.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 06, 2016, 11:41:00 AM
If Wash U wins the SAA, every team in the field would be more than 500 miles from Huntingdon
What I was saying was that they could fly Huntington somewhere that, if Huntington lost, the next round matchup would not require a flight. The case would not be the same if they Sent Huntington to Linfield for example---either way--the winner would require a flight to/from them.
As usual, the next to last week provides some clarity on muddy waters, but muddies up other waters.
For me, the question is what happens to St. Lawrence? Will they be ranked below SJF?
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
As usual, the next to last week provides some clarity on muddy waters, but muddies up other waters.
For me, the question is what happens to St. Lawrence? Will they be ranked below SJF?
They were when the week started, so I suspect that continues this week.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2016, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
As usual, the next to last week provides some clarity on muddy waters, but muddies up other waters.
For me, the question is what happens to St. Lawrence? Will they be ranked below SJF?
They were when the week started, so I suspect that continues this week.
Never post on the run...
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2016, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
As usual, the next to last week provides some clarity on muddy waters, but muddies up other waters.
For me, the question is what happens to St. Lawrence? Will they be ranked below SJF?
They were when the week started, so I suspect that continues this week.
Never post on the run...
We can spin it forward one week and wonder if 9-1 SLU would be ranked ahead of 8-2 SJF. That's an order that dominoes all the way through Pool C. I think the Alfred/SJF loser stays the top ranked at-large team in the East, but it's not quite as clear if SJF is 8-2.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 06, 2016, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2016, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
As usual, the next to last week provides some clarity on muddy waters, but muddies up other waters.
For me, the question is what happens to St. Lawrence? Will they be ranked below SJF?
They were when the week started, so I suspect that continues this week.
That's kind of what I was thinking.
I'm also intrigued what happens if St. John's loses to C-M. Is Platteville still ahead of C-M? Does that open up things clearly for a 1-loss Wabash, a 1-D3 loss Franklin, or a 2-loss John Carroll? Or will Muhlenberg do the 'Muhlenberg' again? Will Frostburg rise up enough to take a spot if they beat Salisbury.
I do think, barring something unusual, that Hardin-Simmons is in and ETBU is out.
Never post on the run...
We can spin it forward one week and wonder if 9-1 SLU would be ranked ahead of 8-2 SJF. That's an order that dominoes all the way through Pool C. I think the Alfred/SJF loser stays the top ranked at-large team in the East, but it's not quite as clear if SJF is 8-2.
I have a "what if" question for the gurus here: Is it to the advantage of the West Regional Committee to rank Concordia-Moorhead ahead of UW Platteville this week? I ask, because if the Cobbers end up winning this coming weekend, they would have better results than Platteville - 1-1 against Regionally Ranked Opponents. They would also be the second place team in their conference. If the Cobbers lose, the "super secret" rankings could switch them back. Of course, now that I write this out, the committee could swap them in that last ranking as well, depending on the outcomes of those final games in week 11. If the object is to get two teams in from the West, whose resume looks better at the end of the season?
Quote from: art76 on November 07, 2016, 09:50:06 AM
I have a "what if" question for the gurus here: Is it to the advantage of the West Regional Committee to rank Concordia-Moorhead ahead of UW Platteville this week? I ask, because if the Cobbers end up winning this coming weekend, they would have better results than Platteville - 1-1 against Regionally Ranked Opponents. They would also be the second place team in their conference. If the Cobbers lose, the "super secret" rankings could switch them back. Of course, now that I write this out, the committee could swap them in that last ranking as well, depending on the outcomes of those final games in week 11. If the object is to get two teams in from the West, whose resume looks better at the end of the season?
I think the objective for the regional committees is to rank the teams according to the NCAA's criteria. If that gets multiple teams from a region in, great. If not, also great. That's not to say that committees aren't free to try and game the system, but I don't think that's the mandate and it would be a bummer to ever learn that that's a thing that happens. Rank the teams fairly and objectively and let the chips fall where they may.
To answer the original question though, I don't think there's a compelling reason for C-M to move ahead of UW-P this week. Next week, maybe.
Quote from: USee on November 04, 2016, 11:10:04 AM
WEST REGION
James Catanzaro, co-chair, Lake Forest, Midwest
Rod Sandberg, co-chair, Whitworth, Northwest
Jay Anderson, Buena Vista, Iowa Intercollegiate
Glen Caruso, St. Thomas (MN), Minnesota Intercol.
Damon Tomeo, Knox, Midwest
Chris Casey, George Fox, Northwest
Jaime Hoffman, Occidental, SCIAC
Clayt Birmingham, Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin Intercollegiate
John Auer, Crown Upper, Midwest
Two Midwest and one UMAC rep makes me wonder if this is why Northwestern is getting ranked. Lesser conferences sticking up for one another?
T9. Northwestern (Minn.) 8-1 8-1 .429 SOS >> They've already clinched their Pool A. But it could affect seeding and matchups. There's just no signature win on that schedule. I don't think we've ever seen a UMAC team ranked unless they were unbeaten. My assumption is that they'll still be Rd 1 canon fodder for UST, but it's surprising none the less.
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
As usual, the next to last week provides some clarity on muddy waters, but muddies up other waters.
For me, the question is what happens to St. Lawrence? Will they be ranked below SJF?
Yep. Here's Frank's ERR projection:
"Note that 7-8-9 are pretty much interchangeable, but the winner of Frostburg/Salisbury likely finishes ahead of SLU. That means the loser of Fisher/Alfred and the winner of Frostburg/Salisbury are ahead of SLU for Pool C consideration.
1) Alfred 9-0 .552 0-0 RRO
2) Hobart 8-1 .605 1-0 RRO
3) Fisher 8-1 .563 1-0 RRO
4) Stevenson 8-1 .501 1-0 RRO
5) Wesley 7-2 .584 2-0 RRO
6) WNE 9-0 .500 0-0 RRO
7) Frostburg 8-1 .504 0-1 RRO
8) Salisbury 7-2 .533 1-1 RRO
9) SLU 8-1 .500 0-1 RRO
10) Albright 7-2 .517 0-2 RRO
MISSING THE BOARD (In No Order):
Husson 8-1 .440 0-1 RRO
DVC 7-2 .495 1-2 RRO (lost to Albright, lower SOS than WES & ALB)
Bridgewater St. 7-2 .503 0-0 RRO
Salve Regina 7-1 .511 0-1 RRO"
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2016, 11:10:39 AM
Quote from: USee on November 04, 2016, 11:10:04 AM
WEST REGION
James Catanzaro, co-chair, Lake Forest, Midwest
Rod Sandberg, co-chair, Whitworth, Northwest
Jay Anderson, Buena Vista, Iowa Intercollegiate
Glen Caruso, St. Thomas (MN), Minnesota Intercol.
Damon Tomeo, Knox, Midwest
Chris Casey, George Fox, Northwest
Jaime Hoffman, Occidental, SCIAC
Clayt Birmingham, Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin Intercollegiate
John Auer, Crown Upper, Midwest
Two Midwest and one UMAC rep makes me wonder if this is why Northwestern is getting ranked. Lesser conferences sticking up for one another?
T9. Northwestern (Minn.) 8-1 8-1 .429 SOS >> They've already clinched their Pool A. But it could affect seeding and matchups. There's just no signature win on that schedule. I don't think we've ever seen a UMAC team ranked unless they were unbeaten. My assumption is that they'll still be Rd 1 canon fodder for UST, but it's surprising none the less.
Please let me see if I follow your line of reasoning.
Northwestern's presence in the Regional Rankings keeps a WIAC or MIAC school out of the rankings, therefore impacting the portfolio of another team in region.
Thank you.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2016, 12:55:35 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2016, 11:10:39 AM
Quote from: USee on November 04, 2016, 11:10:04 AM
WEST REGION
James Catanzaro, co-chair, Lake Forest, Midwest
Rod Sandberg, co-chair, Whitworth, Northwest
Jay Anderson, Buena Vista, Iowa Intercollegiate
Glen Caruso, St. Thomas (MN), Minnesota Intercol.
Damon Tomeo, Knox, Midwest
Chris Casey, George Fox, Northwest
Jaime Hoffman, Occidental, SCIAC
Clayt Birmingham, Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin Intercollegiate
John Auer, Crown Upper, Midwest
Two Midwest and one UMAC rep makes me wonder if this is why Northwestern is getting ranked. Lesser conferences sticking up for one another?
T9. Northwestern (Minn.) 8-1 8-1 .429 SOS >> They've already clinched their Pool A. But it could affect seeding and matchups. There's just no signature win on that schedule. I don't think we've ever seen a UMAC team ranked unless they were unbeaten. My assumption is that they'll still be Rd 1 canon fodder for UST, but it's surprising none the less.
Please let me see if I follow your line of reasoning.
Northwestern's presence in the Regional Rankings keeps a WIAC or MIAC school out of the rankings, therefore impacting the portfolio of another team in region.
Thank you.
You can read it how you want, but I tend to agree with Hazzben. The UMAC hardly ever has a regionally-ranked team, and they may be the single worst conference in the country. Northwestern has lost a game, and has a miserable SOS (
especially considering they're in a 10-team conference, and conferences of that size tend to have SOS numbers clustered close to 0.500 because it's nearly a closed loop). I would think that the second-best team from the IIAC (Central/Dubuque?), or Redlands (or even Pomona-Pitzer) belongs in the rankings much more than a one-loss team from the UMAC.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 07, 2016, 02:13:59 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 07, 2016, 12:55:35 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 07, 2016, 11:10:39 AM
Quote from: USee on November 04, 2016, 11:10:04 AM
WEST REGION
James Catanzaro, co-chair, Lake Forest, Midwest
Rod Sandberg, co-chair, Whitworth, Northwest
Jay Anderson, Buena Vista, Iowa Intercollegiate
Glen Caruso, St. Thomas (MN), Minnesota Intercol.
Damon Tomeo, Knox, Midwest
Chris Casey, George Fox, Northwest
Jaime Hoffman, Occidental, SCIAC
Clayt Birmingham, Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin Intercollegiate
John Auer, Crown Upper, Midwest
Two Midwest and one UMAC rep makes me wonder if this is why Northwestern is getting ranked. Lesser conferences sticking up for one another?
T9. Northwestern (Minn.) 8-1 8-1 .429 SOS >> They've already clinched their Pool A. But it could affect seeding and matchups. There's just no signature win on that schedule. I don't think we've ever seen a UMAC team ranked unless they were unbeaten. My assumption is that they'll still be Rd 1 canon fodder for UST, but it's surprising none the less.
Please let me see if I follow your line of reasoning.
Northwestern's presence in the Regional Rankings keeps a WIAC or MIAC school out of the rankings, therefore impacting the portfolio of another team in region.
Thank you.
You can read it how you want, but I tend to agree with Hazzben. The UMAC hardly ever has a regionally-ranked team, and they may be the single worst conference in the country. Northwestern has lost a game, and has a miserable SOS (especially considering they're in a 10-team conference, and conferences of that size tend to have SOS numbers clustered close to 0.500 because it's nearly a closed loop). I would think that the second-best team from the IIAC (Central/Dubuque?), or Redlands (or even Pomona-Pitzer) belongs in the rankings much more than a one-loss team from the UMAC.
Yeah, even as an avid little-guy cheerleader, Northwestern being ranked seems pretty egregious. As you mention the UMAC is nearly a closed-loop but the OOC results we do have are not favorable (to wit, the same MacMurray team that dealt Northwestern a 38-14 loss barely scraped by with a 27-21 win over a Rockford team that's 1-8, 0-5 in one of the other least-good-conferences-in-the-country). Northwestern's 14-0 win over Augsburg is nice (any win for a UMAC team over an MIAC team is nice) but Auggie is 2-6 in the league with lopsided losses to even the middle-of-the-pack teams. Even with the acknowledgement that this is about the criteria rather than qualitative judgements...a one-loss team with a terrible SOS, zero regionally-ranked results and a 24-point loss vs. nobody's idea of a powerhouse seems like a curious choice.
Updated tables with lots of new eliminations this week. Many from teams clinching Pool A bids, thus taking them out of Pool B/C, and many more that picked up a third loss or sort of had their fate crystallize with last week's regional rankings.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8E1vgik.png&hash=6040bbcd03c78221ccc7547dd02304e8c31355a4)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX5KqMCi.png&hash=14365445de15aa45f027f6c07e75d027c6b8f24e)
Per request, I've illuminated the Pool A teams in the gold cells. Many of them are new, but lack the white text (the contrast wasn't great for reading, so I skipped that part). You guys can check Saturday's wrap ups if you're particularly interested in which of those teams clinched last week (all but Coe). The other eliminations, with comments where appropriate:
Carthage
Denison - Denison may stay ranked this week and next, but at this point it's difficult to see them being ahead of John Carroll, Wabash, or Franklin (let alone DePauw, which I'll talk about in a separate post). That's just too deep on the North bench to get a bid.
Wittenberg - Is in a win or out situation. Beat Allegheny and they'll be the NCAC AQ. Lose to Allegheny in week 11 and you've got no shot. That's way too harsh a loss to take hours before selections are made.
Central - Both of the IIAC teams here were left out of the West's regional rankings. One may slide in if C-M loses, but you can't see them jumping Platteville, which is where I see the West region cut line at this year.
Dubuque
Whitworth - Same deal as the IIACs. One loss Whitworth squeaked in last year. Two loss Whitworth will most certainly not.
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps - The SCIACs here also get burned by being in a deep West region. Both were out of the rankings, both have no realistic path to the the tournament.
Pomona-Pitzer
ETBU - ETBU was at the bottom of the South rankings last week and took a large margin loss. Coupled with the large margin loss to UMHB earlier, and ETBU is going to fall out and that'll be that.
Franklin & Marshall
Shenandoah
Washington & Jefferson - The Presidents lost to Thomas More, they don't get a shot at CWRU, and they were unranked in the first regional rankings. Again, there's no reasonable path here for W&J to get invited- just too many teams ahead of them at this point.
Westminster
Hendrix
Huntingdon - The USACs are now a one bid league. Like Wittenberg, Huntingdon can not afford a week 11 loss. A win and they are the conference AQ. Maryville will fall out of the rankings and there's not room for them to get high enough for a bid.
Maryville
Utica
Hobart - Hobart is in a win or out situation, same as Witt and Huntingdon.
Salve Regina
Ok so something that popped up in my head as I went through this this week is that I wiped out pretty much any 2-loss team that didn't appear in the first set of regional rankings. It would be interesting to see if any team in the last 4-5 seasons made the tournament as an at-large without having been included in the first set of regional rankings. The scarcity of at-large bids makes me think it's not really possible without full blown carnage in an entire region in the last two weeks of the season. It's just hard to see instances where something like 3-5 teams ahead of an unranked team all lose and create that kind of huge rise in the rankings. Maybe a research project for later.
Ok, so DePauw. ExTartanPlayer, who gives me first draft feedback on these tables, talked me into pulling DePauw back from the red. DePauw with a win against Wabash might be able to end with 2 RROs, depending on whether or not the North region would rank four NCAC teams (unlikely, I know, but if there's a year for that kind of thing to happen it's this year). In any case, they would have wins over Wabash and Denison in the last three weeks of the season. If they are impressive enough in a (very, very, very hypothetical) win against Wabash, maybe they can get enough juice to jump over Franklin. And then depending on what kind of margin we see from Mount Union and John Carroll, maybe just maybe DePauw could jump all the way up behind Wheaton as the region's second at-large team. That's a lot of what ifs and maybes there, I know, but particularly in the North region, I think the order of at-larges beyond Wheaton is really, really fluid. So DePauw gets to stay this week in what I must say is an incredible display of objectivity here on Monon Bell week. :)
Wally, I don't think I'd have the stones to do what you just did regarding DPU. I mean...if DPU gets a pool "C" I buy Zima for the board!
Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2016, 09:46:51 PM
Wally, I don't think I'd have the stones to do what you just did regarding DPU. I mean...if DPU gets a pool "C" I buy Zima for the board!
I talked him into it.
DePauw getting in would require about seven different results falling exactly as they need, but I think the right series of dominoes could at least get them on the table. It's a remote chance, but since this is supposed to be an "eliminator" rather than a projection I made the case that DePauw has a faint pulse if EVERYTHING breaks right for them.
So ESPN Stats & Info has been putting out something called "Strength of Record" to help people make sense of the CFP rankings. The metric is supposed to tell you the likelihood that an average Top 25 team would have the same or better record as a given team. For DIII, the average Top 25 team is essentially Wheaton/John Carroll.
Take Muhlenberg for example: what are the odds that an average Top 25 team (or Wheaton) could play the 9 teams Muhlenberg has played, and have a record of 9-0 or 8-1? About 95%.
I performed this calculation for every team with 2 losses or fewer, and here are the results:
2.23% UW-Whitewater
10.34% UW-Oshkosh
16.83% St. Thomas
21.52% Mary Hardin-Baylor
32.86% North Central Ill.
43.68% Coe
51.24% Johns Hopkins
53.61% Mount Union
62.73% Alfred
62.85% UW-Platteville
63.94% Wheaton Ill.
64.58% John Carroll
74.82% Linfield
76.18% St. John's
76.27% Concordia-Moorhead
76.35% Monmouth
78.83% Case Western Reserve
79.25% Hardin-Simmons
89.46% Illinois Wesleyan
90.92% Western New England
91.64% St. John Fisher
93.34% Dubuque
93.43% Thomas More
94.04% Olivet
94.43% East Texas Baptist
94.61% Frostburg State
94.71% Muhlenberg
94.87% Hobart
94.98% Stevenson
95.80% Central
96.21% Whitworth
96.51% Franklin
96.98% Wittenberg
97.57% Berry
97.98% Sul Ross State
98.00% Wabash
98.46% Washington U.
98.68% Centre
98.74% Redlands
98.74% St. Lawrence
98.94% Randolph-Macon
98.96% Salisbury
98.99% Delaware Valley
98.99% Huntingdon
99.05% Washington and Jefferson
99.17% Wesley
99.38% Denison
99.44% Albright
99.76% Maryville Tenn.
99.88% Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
99.94% DePauw
99.95% Pomona-Pitzer
99.96% Salve Regina
99.97% Bluffton
99.98% Husson
99.98% Lake Forest
99.99% Rose-Hulman
99.99% Northwestern Minn.
100.00% Bridgewater State
100.00% Macalester
100.00% Eureka
100.00% MacMurray
Doesn't make sense to me that a Top 25 team would win 95% of the games Muhlenberg played, but less than 55% playing JHU's schedule which is basically the same thing. That's a big drop.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 08, 2016, 01:57:49 PM
Doesn't make sense to me that a Top 25 team would win 95% of the games Muhlenberg played, but less than 55% playing JHU's schedule which is basically the same thing. That's a big drop.
I think the difference lies with W&L and Wilkes, but does that one game account for 40% (maybe). Also, the Mules haven't played Moravian which is much better than McDaniel which is who Johns Hopkins plays.
I think the number is meant to indicate how often or likely it is for an average Top 25 team to have the same record as Team X. An average top 25 team could be 8-1 vs. Muhlenberg's schedule 95% of the time. Against the Hopkins schedule, even though it's basically the same schedule, the bar is raised to having to achieve 9-0, which is considerably harder to do (about 40% or so harder apparently).
Fair enough, what are there like, 12 undefeated teams left? So yeah, going 9-0 no matter is tough for sure. W&L is only 5-4 though and Wilkes is 3-6 but did upset the favorite in their league. Anyway, interesting stuff.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 02:10:54 PM
I think the number is meant to indicate how often or likely it is for an average Top 25 team to have the same record as Team X. An average top 25 team could be 8-1 vs. Muhlenberg's schedule 95% of the time. Against the Hopkins schedule, even though it's basically the same schedule, the bar is raised to having to achieve 9-0, which is considerably harder to do (about 40% or so harder apparently).
Bingo.
So lower the percentage is kind of another of saying a harder SOS? Or lower the percentage is better saying only 40% could get the same record?
So Wheaton and JCU are about 64% likely to have the same record as Wheaton and JCU?
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 08, 2016, 02:33:56 PM
So lower the percentage is kind of another of saying a harder SOS? Or lower the percentage is better saying only 40% could get the same record?
The lower the percentage, the less likely an average Top 25 team would be to win at least as many games.
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2016, 02:43:21 PM
So Wheaton and JCU are about 64% likely to have the same record as Wheaton and JCU?
Yeah, basically, if they replayed their schedule, they would do just as well more often than not.
The big difference between Strength of Record (SOR) and SOS is that SOS is independent of a team's record. SOR depends on a team's record.
Platteville is 7-2. Their SOS wouldn't change if they were 8-1 or 9-0, but their SOR would change to basically match Oshkosh's or Whitewater's.
Another takeaway from this is that, according to my model, it's about the same difficulty to go 0.800 in the WIAC as it is to go 0.900 in most other "power" conferences, but going undefeated is pretty hard to do regardless of your conference.
That number for UMHB's schedule doesn't pass the smell test. Wheaton or John Carroll is undefeated vs Linfield, HSU, ETBU & others >20% of the time?
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 03:15:17 PM
That number for UMHB's schedule doesn't pass the smell test. Wheaton or John Carroll is undefeated vs Linfield, HSU, ETBU & others >20% of the time?
Here's a sanity check for that:
These are the odds my model would give an average Top 25 team over the three teams you mentioned:
Linfield (#8): 45%
HSU (#14): 61%
ETBU (#44): 88%
Going 3-0 over that stretch is 24% (0.45*0.61*0.88=0.24). Their odds of going undefeated against the rest of the schedule would only need to be 83% to result in an overall SOR of 20%.
As a caveat, my model isn't as high on ETBU as most other models (or the D3Football/AFCA polls), but it's slightly higher on Linfield. The same thing that plagues human voters in making judgements makes it hard on computer systems--there's not enough out-of-region games played by teams on the island.
If you assume ETBU more along the lines of a borderline Top 25 team, instead of a Top 50 team, those odds would go from 20% to about 15%.
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 03:15:17 PM
That number for UMHB's schedule doesn't pass the smell test. Wheaton or John Carroll is undefeated vs Linfield, HSU, ETBU & others >20% of the time?
Fair point on Linfield, but are we really sure that HSU and (especially) ETBU are all
that good? ETBU had no recent history of success until they went 7-3 last year, including three
blowout losses (49-22 vs. 4-6 McMurry, 55-27 vs. 8-2 Texas Lutheran, and 67-20 vs. UMHB). The only really impressive notch on their belt was a 27-21 home win against Hardin-Simmons team that was one week removed from the program's biggest win in over a decade (beating UMHB). ETBU has followed that up with a 7-2 season that, again, includes 30+ point losses against UMHB and HSU.
I know you Texans think that everyone down there would beat everyone else up here if only they would get rid of the Texas sub-bracket in the playoffs, but I'm not sure the body of evidence we do have really supports that.
ETBU and HSU are good teams, sure, especially HSU. But let's not pretend that UMHB ran some gauntlet of three top-10 teams. They have one outstanding win (Linfield), one very good win (HSU) and then the win over ETBU is probably about the same as any generic top-10-team-beats-another-pretty-good-team win, like Whitewater beating UW-Stevens Point maybe.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 08, 2016, 03:32:49 PM
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 03:15:17 PM
That number for UMHB's schedule doesn't pass the smell test. Wheaton or John Carroll is undefeated vs Linfield, HSU, ETBU & others >20% of the time?
Fair point on Linfield, but are we really sure that HSU and (especially) ETBU are all that good? ETBU had no recent history of success until they went 7-3 last year, including three blowout losses (49-22 vs. 4-6 McMurry, 55-27 vs. 8-2 Texas Lutheran, and 67-20 vs. UMHB). The only really impressive notch on their belt was a 27-21 home win against Hardin-Simmons team that was one week removed from the program's biggest win in over a decade (beating UMHB). ETBU has followed that up with a 7-2 season that, again, includes 30+ point losses against UMHB and HSU.
I know you Texans think that everyone down there would beat everyone else up here if only they would get rid of the Texas sub-bracket in the playoffs, but I'm not sure the body of evidence we do have really supports that.
ETBU and HSU are good teams, sure, especially HSU. But let's not pretend that UMHB ran some gauntlet of three top-10 teams. They have one outstanding win (Linfield), one very good win (HSU) and then the win over ETBU is probably about the same as any generic top-10-team-beats-another-pretty-good-team win, like Whitewater beating UW-Stevens Point maybe.
ETBU played without its starting QB versus McMurry.
Linfield has a long history of being not a top 10 team but a top 5 team and there is a difference in D-3. They probably have the best quarterback in D3 right now and I'm not sure who else is in the discussion. They entered the game against UMHB as the consensus #3 in the nation and apart from the UMHB game, none of their other contests really look much different from last year when they were the number three team in the nation (apart from 'struggling' a little bit more at Whitworth, vs when they hosted them last year). I don't think there's more than 10 teams in D3 that could even win a game vs Linfield.
And having watched both HSU and Linfield play the same team on the same field, I don't know how anyone can argue that Linfield is better than HSU this year. When you ask 'are we really sure that HSU is all that good?', I'm just going to assume you haven't watched the team play.
I get the stereotype of a Texas person claiming everything is better in Texas. But any ASC team that has gotten the chance to play a non-Texas, non-top 5 team in the playoffs has run circles around them. The ASC has speed on the field that isn't present elsewhere in D3 (while the WIAC, UMU, and Linfield have size on the field that the rest of us can't compete with.) The body of evidence most certainly bears this out.
With any model, the biggest discrepancies are going to be in the tails. Measuring the talent of UMU, UWW, UMHB, and teams like Linfield against the rest of D3 is certainly working in the tails. I appreciate you disclosing those figures and they help me see clearly how I differ. I couldn't give any of those teams in the middle more than a 25% chance against Linfield. For the record Sam Riddle has lost @UWW, @ StT, @UMHB, and a 3point game vs Willamette as a sophomore. I think most of the posters around here would probably agree with me on this.
I then would not give any of those teams more than a 25% chance against HSU. I know most posters around here will not agree with me on this. Those inputs would give UMHB something like a ~5% SOR and to me that passes the smell test.
For what it's worth ETBU has always had athletes, and has almost never had consistency, discipline, or quality coaching. If this new young coach commits to the program and stays around a few years, I could easily see them running the table in the ASC in a year or two.
Be careful with one game samples.
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 05:11:05 PM
Linfield has a long history of being not a top 10 team but a top 5 team and there is a difference in D-3. They probably have the best quarterback in D3 right now and I'm not sure who else is in the discussion. They entered the game against UMHB as the consensus #3 in the nation and apart from the UMHB game, none of their other contests really look much different from last year when they were the number three team in the nation (apart from 'struggling' a little bit more at Whitworth, vs when they hosted them last year). I don't think there's more than 10 teams in D3 that could even win a game vs Linfield.
There are some pretty good QB's having some great years. No disrespect to Sam Riddle, who is awesome, but there are a few guys "in the discussion" depending on how you define it. From and individual performance perspective there are some eye popping performances from guys like Tanner Matlick, Chase Burton, and Ian Kolste to name a few. But if you want wins and rankings along with performance Broc Rutter from #6 North Central is a Freshman QB and his numbers stand toe to toe with Sam Riddle's.
Sam Riddle:
156-234 (66.7%) 29 TD's, 9 INTs, 2,347 yds, 293 yds per game, 184.12 efficiency rating. 7-1 ranked #7
Broc Rutter
167-248 (67.3) 30 TD's, 4 INTs, 2,365 yds, 262 yds per game, 184.14 efficiency rating. 9-0 ranked #6
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 08, 2016, 03:32:49 PM
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 03:15:17 PM
That number for UMHB's schedule doesn't pass the smell test. Wheaton or John Carroll is undefeated vs Linfield, HSU, ETBU & others >20% of the time?
Fair point on Linfield, but are we really sure that HSU and (especially) ETBU are all that good? ETBU had no recent history of success until they went 7-3 last year, including three blowout losses (49-22 vs. 4-6 McMurry, 55-27 vs. 8-2 Texas Lutheran, and 67-20 vs. UMHB). The only really impressive notch on their belt was a 27-21 home win against Hardin-Simmons team that was one week removed from the program's biggest win in over a decade (beating UMHB). ETBU has followed that up with a 7-2 season that, again, includes 30+ point losses against UMHB and HSU.
I know you Texans think that everyone down there would beat everyone else up here if only they would get rid of the Texas sub-bracket in the playoffs, but I'm not sure the body of evidence we do have really supports that.
ETBU and HSU are good teams, sure, especially HSU. But let's not pretend that UMHB ran some gauntlet of three top-10 teams. They have one outstanding win (Linfield), one very good win (HSU) and then the win over ETBU is probably about the same as any generic top-10-team-beats-another-pretty-good-team win, like Whitewater beating UW-Stevens Point maybe.
Thanks for the post ExTP.
IMHO, the upper echelon over the last decade as has been UWW and UMU followed closely by the second tier.
The teams that I have seen in the playoffs in the second tier have been UMHB, Wesley, and Linfield.
I have reviewed the playoffs for UMHB (who has been the survivor of the Texas Sub-bracket against HSU, McMurry, Louisiana College, Trinity and Texas Lutheran in various years). Here is my evidence that the ball in the ASC is just overwhelmingly that much better (until you get to our "nemeses", UMU, UWW, Linfield and Wesley). Here are the playoff games not involving the Texas Sub-bracket or the "nemeses" since 2007 (Year Round Team and score).
2015 2 Huntingdon 43-23
2013 1 Redlands 35-7
2 Rowan 59-8
3 St John Fisher 45-23
2012 2 Franklin 63-17
2011 1 Redlands 34-13
2010 1 CNU 59-7
2 Thomas More 69-7
2009 1 at Central 42-40
2008 3 Wash & Jeff 63-7
2007 2 NCWC 64-0
Ralph, what were UMHB's scores against their peers in (& around) Texas those years? Most of those scores seem pretty standard for UMHB even against the ASC runner-up/SCAC champ most years.
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2016, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 05:11:05 PM
Linfield has a long history of being not a top 10 team but a top 5 team and there is a difference in D-3. They probably have the best quarterback in D3 right now and I'm not sure who else is in the discussion. They entered the game against UMHB as the consensus #3 in the nation and apart from the UMHB game, none of their other contests really look much different from last year when they were the number three team in the nation (apart from 'struggling' a little bit more at Whitworth, vs when they hosted them last year). I don't think there's more than 10 teams in D3 that could even win a game vs Linfield.
There are some pretty good QB's having some great years. No disrespect to Sam Riddle, who is awesome, but there are a few guys "in the discussion" depending on how you define it. From and individual performance perspective there are some eye popping performances from guys like Tanner Matlick, Chase Burton, and Ian Kolste to name a few. But if you want wins and rankings along with performance Broc Rutter from #6 North Central is a Freshman QB and his numbers stand toe to toe with Sam Riddle's.
Sam Riddle:
156-234 (66.7%) 29 TD's, 9 INTs, 2,347 yds, 293 yds per game, 184.12 efficiency rating. 7-1 ranked #7
Broc Rutter
167-248 (67.3) 30 TD's, 4 INTs, 2,365 yds, 262 yds per game, 184.14 efficiency rating. 9-0 ranked #6
Hobart's Shane Sweeney is having a nice year:
220-361 (60.9%), 30 TDs, 4 INTs, 2,889 yds, 321 YPG, 153.4 efficiency
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Ralph, what were UMHB's scores against their peers in (& around) Texas those years? Most of those scores seem pretty standard for UMHB even against the ASC runner-up/SCAC champ most years.
I will get those to you tonight. Thanks.
Super important rankings today for several teams. In these second set of rankings, we usually see some shuffling that provides better indication regarding a lot of pending if/then situations. Placement today for teams like Platteville and Concordia-Moorhead, Wabash/Franklin/John Carroll, Frostburg/St Lawrence/SJF are going to be really informative
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2016, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 05:11:05 PM
Linfield has a long history of being not a top 10 team but a top 5 team and there is a difference in D-3. They probably have the best quarterback in D3 right now and I'm not sure who else is in the discussion. They entered the game against UMHB as the consensus #3 in the nation and apart from the UMHB game, none of their other contests really look much different from last year when they were the number three team in the nation (apart from 'struggling' a little bit more at Whitworth, vs when they hosted them last year). I don't think there's more than 10 teams in D3 that could even win a game vs Linfield.
There are some pretty good QB's having some great years. No disrespect to Sam Riddle, who is awesome, but there are a few guys "in the discussion" depending on how you define it. From and individual performance perspective there are some eye popping performances from guys like Tanner Matlick, Chase Burton, and Ian Kolste to name a few. But if you want wins and rankings along with performance Broc Rutter from #6 North Central is a Freshman QB and his numbers stand toe to toe with Sam Riddle's.
Sam Riddle:
156-234 (66.7%) 29 TD's, 9 INTs, 2,347 yds, 293 yds per game, 184.12 efficiency rating. 7-1 ranked #7
Broc Rutter
167-248 (67.3) 30 TD's, 4 INTs, 2,365 yds, 262 yds per game, 184.14 efficiency rating. 9-0 ranked #6
There's a difference between a good QB having a great year and a great QB having a great career. At this point Riddle has a 33 game body of work against some of the top competition in the country and I don't think anyone currently playing has career numbers that compare. Broc certainly has the opportunity to produce a career that significantly dwarfs Riddle's. Let's allow him to play a few playoff games first.
Rankings are up. For ERR looks like E8 runner up will make it in.
My quick thoughts on today's RRs:
East: ITH is right in seeing that the E8 runner up is going to be the top at large team in the region, which means they'll almost surely get in. I've kind of been saying this about SJF for a couple of weeks in spite of some hand-wringing over a second loss. But the way the East has played out, that has always seemed like the way this was going to go. On deck in the East? Looks like the Frostburg/Salisbury winner, which makes for an interesting conversation on Saturday night.
North: Wabash got a huge boost this week jumping over Franklin. I'm still not sure why John Carroll is ranked 4th in this region ahead of Olivet and Wittenberg (I know why, but it's a shame that they're willing to dismiss the criteria so blatantly). Sets up some intrigue this weekend if Wabash continues to dominate DePauw and John Carroll loses to Mount Union- are those results enough to push Wabash into the on deck position here Saturday night? Maybe. Is it enough to get Wabash in? Who knows. I know you don't have a chance if you don't get to the table though, so this is a massive improvement. It's not quite all roses for Wabash though- Denison drops out (a would-be RRO win for Wabash) and is replaced by IWU which frankly makes little sense. I don't see it in the criteria why IWU needs to be ahead of Denison, but this was always a possibility this week.
South: This is probably the cleanest region. No big surprises here. The intrigue comes with CWRU. Win and in. Lose and it's going to be interesting to see if they have enough support in the room to stay ranked ahead of Muhlenberg or perhaps even Berry should Berry win and not be the SAA AQ.
West: The really interesting thing in this region this week is that they've put Concordia-Moorhead right in UW-Platteville's back pocket. This really foreshadows a slingshot move here if C-M beats St. John's. I think that result shoots the Cobbers into the on deck circle behind UW-Oshkosh in this region.
Regional Rankings are out, as reported by Frank - Absolutely no changes in the West. In the East, they just rearranged the pecking order. The North dropped Denison, put Illinois Wesleyan in #10 and shook up the order a bit. The South dropped Maryville and East Texas Baptist and added Huntingdon at #9 and Centre at #10. The South left the top 7 alone and simply moved Randolph-Macon up from #10 to #8 now. There doesn't seem too much, if any, swapping of any teams into Pool C from these changes using Wally's criteria from last week. But I'll await the official thought process and results along with the rest of you.
Quote from: CruGuy on November 09, 2016, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: USee on November 08, 2016, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: CruGuy on November 08, 2016, 05:11:05 PM
Linfield has a long history of being not a top 10 team but a top 5 team and there is a difference in D-3. They probably have the best quarterback in D3 right now and I'm not sure who else is in the discussion. They entered the game against UMHB as the consensus #3 in the nation and apart from the UMHB game, none of their other contests really look much different from last year when they were the number three team in the nation (apart from 'struggling' a little bit more at Whitworth, vs when they hosted them last year). I don't think there's more than 10 teams in D3 that could even win a game vs Linfield.
There are some pretty good QB's having some great years. No disrespect to Sam Riddle, who is awesome, but there are a few guys "in the discussion" depending on how you define it. From and individual performance perspective there are some eye popping performances from guys like Tanner Matlick, Chase Burton, and Ian Kolste to name a few. But if you want wins and rankings along with performance Broc Rutter from #6 North Central is a Freshman QB and his numbers stand toe to toe with Sam Riddle's.
Sam Riddle:
156-234 (66.7%) 29 TD's, 9 INTs, 2,347 yds, 293 yds per game, 184.12 efficiency rating. 7-1 ranked #7
Broc Rutter
167-248 (67.3) 30 TD's, 4 INTs, 2,365 yds, 262 yds per game, 184.14 efficiency rating. 9-0 ranked #6
There's a difference between a good QB having a great year and a great QB having a great career. At this point Riddle has a 33 game body of work against some of the top competition in the country and I don't think anyone currently playing has career numbers that compare. Broc certainly has the opportunity to produce a career that significantly dwarfs Riddle's. Let's allow him to play a few playoff games first.
There is also a difference in saying "...They have the best QB in Division 3 right now...", with "Riddle has a 33 game body of work". I was responding to the first comment not the second. It's unquestioned Riddle has the best 33 game body of work of any QB in division 3 right now but that's not what I was initially responding to. Let's see who has the best post season and goes farther in the playoffs this year. Right now those two are neck and neck.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2016, 03:02:51 PM
My quick thoughts on today's RRs:
East: ITH is right in seeing that the E8 runner up is going to be the top at large team in the region, which means they'll almost surely get in. I've kind of been saying this about SJF for a couple of weeks in spite of some hand-wringing over a second loss. But the way the East has played out, that has always seemed like the way this was going to go. On deck in the East? Looks like the Frostburg/Salisbury winner, which makes for an interesting conversation on Saturday night.
North: Wabash got a huge boost this week jumping over Franklin. I'm still not sure why John Carroll is ranked 4th in this region ahead of Olivet and Wittenberg (I know why, but it's a shame that they're willing to dismiss the criteria so blatantly). Sets up some intrigue this weekend if Wabash continues to dominate DePauw and John Carroll loses to Mount Union- are those results enough to push Wabash into the on deck position here Saturday night? Maybe. Is it enough to get Wabash in? Who knows. I know you don't have a chance if you don't get to the table though, so this is a massive improvement. It's not quite all roses for Wabash though- Denison drops out (a would-be RRO win for Wabash) and is replaced by IWU which frankly makes little sense. I don't see it in the criteria why IWU needs to be ahead of Denison, but this was always a possibility this week.
South: This is probably the cleanest region. No big surprises here. The intrigue comes with CWRU. Win and in. Lose and it's going to be interesting to see if they have enough support in the room to stay ranked ahead of Muhlenberg or perhaps even Berry should Berry win and not be the SAA AQ.
West: The really interesting thing in this region this week is that they've put Concordia-Moorhead right in UW-Platteville's back pocket. This really foreshadows a slingshot move here if C-M beats St. John's. I think that result shoots the Cobbers into the on deck circle behind UW-Oshkosh in this region.
Hard to imagine CWRU stays ranked above Muhlenberg or Berry with a loss vs. CMU.
I love my Tartans and think they're a pretty good team this year, but that's probably as bad a loss as any Pool C candidate will have, and it's a far inferior "result against RRO" to Muhlenberg's six-point loss to Johns Hopkins. Unless there's a huge SoS gap between CWRU and Muhlenberg, I can't see them staying above Muhlenberg if they lose to CMU.
My Pool C bids as of today, and everyone else winning out. I think that the top Pool C's in each region come off 1st in each regon:
East: Alfred/SJF loser: Salisbury left on the table
South: HSU comes off first; an undefeated CWRU comes off 5th Muhlenberg left on the table
North: Wheaton off first; JCU losing respectfully to UMU at the table. (I don't think that they drop below Wabash)
West: UWO off first; Johnnies left on the table.
I think that JCU (0-2 versus Regionally Ranked teams) gets the last Pool C bid.
What happens if JCU pulls the upset this weekend? UMU goes into pool C but has horrible criteria but a decent reputation as a playoff team. Chaos reigns?
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2016, 04:28:16 PM
What happens if JCU pulls the upset this weekend? UMU goes into pool C but has horrible criteria but a decent reputation as a playoff team. Chaos reigns?
No. Mount Union goes in super early, probably before Wheaton and we all gnash teeth because Mount Union is basically getting a wave-through despite having terrible criteria.
While I don't think it's in the handbook per se, we have heard in interviewing prior Committee Chairs the sort of past / prior year's playoff performance as a way in. MU would definitely qualify in that case (no way they are losing this wkd so I think the point is moot - yes I used the word moot)....
Quote from: ITH radio on November 09, 2016, 05:22:03 PM
While I don't think it's in the handbook per se, we have heard in interviewing prior Committee Chairs the sort of past / prior year's playoff performance as a way in. MU would definitely qualify in that case (no way they are losing this wkd so I think the point is moot - yes I used the word moot)....
(https://i1.wp.com/s2.quickmeme.com/img/b7/b796e9b83d01bad317016db8c5cc7853c95a5e20fad84b999dd5275c5cb6741c.jpg)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2016, 04:05:16 PM
My Pool C bids as of today, and everyone else winning out. I think that the top Pool C's in each region come off 1st in each regon:
East: Alfred/SJF loser: Salisbury left on the table
South: HSU comes off first; an undefeated CWRU comes off 5th Muhlenberg left on the table
North: Wheaton off first; JCU losing respectfully to UMU at the table. (I don't think that they drop below Wabash)
West: UWO off first; Johnnies left on the table.
I think that JCU (0-2 versus Regionally Ranked teams) gets the last Pool C bid.
Interesting, if CWRU loses, and St. John's loses, (and JCU loses) then...
Alfred / SJF
HSU
Wheaton
UWO
On the table:
Salisbury
Muhlenberg
JCU or Wabash
Concordia - Moorhead
If it's JCU - do you take the one-loss teams over the two-loss teams, even though Salisbury's SOS will be high?
If it's Wabash - C-M, Muhlenberg and Wabash will have similar SOS, and then there's Salisbury with the high SOS.
Hmmm.....
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2016, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2016, 04:28:16 PM
What happens if JCU pulls the upset this weekend? UMU goes into pool C but has horrible criteria but a decent reputation as a playoff team. Chaos reigns?
No. Mount Union goes in super early, probably before Wheaton and we all gnash teeth because Mount Union is basically getting a wave-through despite having terrible criteria.
Does that scenario put Wheaton on the bubble and Wabash out?
The order the respective picks are made help those teams sitting behind the first team from their respective regions. St. John's/Concordia-Moorhead is going to sit there the longest I suspect because Oshkosh is going to get picked first with their monster SOS. Who gets picked second after Oshkosh? That region stands the better chance of getting a second team in because of a teams setting there on the table for so long. I know it's not supposed to be "a thing" - but it happens.
Alright, projection time. Here we go:
Pool A:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsQXeR9Z.png&hash=9c8602d4d62d9191d18a0da02c7e6b7c61b65078)
Clinched teams in the gold cells, newly changed projections in blue text. Some comments on some of the changes:
- Hobart moved in the LL driver's seat with a win at St. Lawrence
- Lakeland is now in control of the fluid NACC race
- Denison's loss cedes control of the NCAC to Wittenberg
- Wesley joins the win and in crowd with their big win at Salisbury
- Huntingdon, also won the SAA showdown with Maryville and is one win away from clinching
- The SAA is the interesting one. I changed from WashU to Centre this week given that I think Centre is a slight favorite to beat Berry, which would give Centre the league championship. Not really any at-large dominoes with that change as all of the SAA teams appear to be below the cut line.
Pool B
1S Mary Hardin-Baylor: 9-0, 2-0 vs. RROs, 0.581 (14th) SOS
Nothing major to report here. ETBU dropping out has cost the Crusaders a RRO win, which makes them a little less sexy for the top overall seed. UW-Whitewater has a strong claim this week, even if poll voters punished them a bit for the UWRF game. In any case, for Pool B, this is a slam dunk.
Now after UMHB comes out for Pool B, the remaining regional boards look as follows:
East: SJF, Salisbury, Albright, Frostburg State, St. Lawrence
North: Wheaton, John Carroll, Wabash, Franklin, Illinois Wesleyan
South: Hardin-Simmons, Case Western Reserve, Muhlenberg, Berry
West: UW-Oshkosh, St. John's, UW-Platteville, Concordia-Moorhead
To the board!
Pool C:
Round 1:
3N Wheaton - 8-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.551 (42)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.547 (46)
3E St. John Fisher - 8-1, 1-0 RRO, 0.563 (27)
3W UW-Oshkosh - 7-1, 2-1 RRO, 0.617 (1)
As with the first two projections, Oshkosh has overwhelming advantages here with SOS and RRO results and is the clear choice in the first round.
Round 2:
3N Wheaton - 8-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.551 (42)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.547 (46)
3E St. John Fisher - 8-1, 1-0 RRO, 0.563 (27)
6W St. John's- 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115)
I'm sticking with SJF here, even though the RRO advantage they had over Wheaton last week is gone. Illinois Wesleyan has been ranked by the North RAC this week, which gives Wheaton an RRO win. SJF's RRO win is slightly better (5N vs. 10N...these results coming out of the same region is useful), so I'll continue to honor SJF here. In addition to the RRO comparison, SJF also has a slight SOS edge.
Round 3:
3N Wheaton - 8-1, 1-1 RRO, 0.551 (42)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.547 (46)
7E Salisbury - 7-2, 1-1 RRO, 0.533 (62)
6W St. John's- 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115)
So last week I took Wheaton here anticipating ETBU dropping out of and IWU coming in to the regional rankings. That is exactly what happened. There isn't enough SOS movement here to warrant a flip, so Wheaton is the choice.
Round 4:
4N John Carroll - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.472 (173)
3S Hardin-Simmons - 6-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.547 (46)
7E Salisbury - 7-2, 1-1 RRO, 0.533 (62)
6W St. John's- 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115)
Hardin-Simmons has a significant SOS advantage over John Carroll (who is also probably losing this week) and St. John's. The SOS is similar-ish to Salisbury, but Salisbury has an extra loss, to an unranked team no less, so they aren't super attractive at this point. The Cowboys are also the last team remaining from the original group of four C candidates, so ballot inertia. Cowboys go in.
Round 5:
4N John Carroll - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.472 (173)
4S Case Western Reserve - 9-0, 0-0 RRO, 0.475 (169)
7E Salisbury - 7-2, 1-1 RRO, 0.533 (62)
6W St. John's- 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115)
I'm flipping the order at the end here this week. As the prospect of a 10-0 CWRU is one step closer, I think they go in automatically. Who isn't voting for a 10-0 team? There also remains the possibility that WashU winds up ranked (Centre or Berry has to lose and make a space for somebody). We also shouldn't discount the possibility of undefeated CWRU winding up ranked higher than Hardin-Simmons...which is interesting to think about. That could have domino potential. Maybe something to talk about Saturday night.
Round 6:
4N John Carroll - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.472 (173)
6S Muhlenberg - 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.481 (160)
7E Salisbury - 7-2, 1-1 RRO, 0.533 (62)
6W St. John's- 8-1, 0-1 RRO, 0.504 (115)
And back to the St. John's situation. This is not a good profile, gang. This is a Muhlenberg profile. Salisbury is maybe better, to be honest, especially with a win over Frostburg. But St. John's at 9-1 is playing in the tournament without question.
And after all of that, I've got the same six teams as last week, in basically the same order.
I think the way this thing shakes up this weekend is if we see the following:
-CWRU gets ranked ahead of H-SU
- John Carroll gets jumped by Wabash OR Franklin jumps Wabash and John Carroll
- C-M beats St. John's
- Alfred beats SJF
I'm not sure there's a whole lot else out there that is going to move this around much.
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2016, 05:46:08 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2016, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2016, 04:28:16 PM
What happens if JCU pulls the upset this weekend? UMU goes into pool C but has horrible criteria but a decent reputation as a playoff team. Chaos reigns?
No. Mount Union goes in super early, probably before Wheaton and we all gnash teeth because Mount Union is basically getting a wave-through despite having terrible criteria.
Does that scenario put Wheaton on the bubble and Wabash out?
It pushes Wheaton a little further down in the pecking order, but honestly if the IWU ranking sticks this weekend, I don't think Wheaton is under much stress. The teams they're getting grouped with don't compare favorably to the Thunder.
Wheaton will finish with around a .525-.532 SOS. If JCU wins and gets the AQ, then Where does Mt union go? And that result also potentially gets Wabash to the table in the late rounds?
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2016, 09:14:11 PM
Wheaton will finish with around a .525-.532 SOS. If JCU wins and gets the AQ, then Where does Mt union go? And that result also potentially gets Wabash to the table in the late rounds?
I'm doing weird things with these posts...thought I could sneak in an edit before you responded. Edit retracted and placed here:
Addendum- I think Mount Union moving into Pool C puts crazy stress on St. John's. Now, if for some reason that I don't see, St. John's is getting support over Wheaton (there is NO criteria argument for that to happen), then Wheaton could get bubbled out. Which would be a shame because, frankly, in that scenario, it's probably Mount Union that should be out. If we're playing this strictly by the criteria.
Now, as for how John Carroll winning the OAC dominos down to Wabash, it keeps Wabash totally out. Wabash is super fringe right now, even if everything kind of breaks their way. Wabash has to have John Carroll (the bigger, the better frankly) and then hope that the North RAC would be compelled to put the Streaks behind Wabash, something I'm not convinced of given that they've stubbornly held them at 4N despite having all kinds of criteria disadvantages to the two teams ranked directly behind them. The North RAC loves them John Carroll and I don't get it.
Interestingly enough, Wheaton alum and former defensive coordinator Rod Sandberg, HC at Withworth, is on the national committee and co-chair of the west. If it comes down to St Johns and Wheaton, I hope he steps up!
And I was thinking of a scenario where Mt Union is a pool C and, because of reputation, they go in round 2 right after UWO. Then Wheaton gets in for round 5 per criteria and Wabash surfaces. But your scenario of JCU getting pummeled by the Purple Raiders and Wabash moving ahead in the RAC, bringing them to the table in round 3 is more plausible and better for the LG's
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Ralph, what were UMHB's scores against their peers in (& around) Texas those years? Most of those scores seem pretty standard for UMHB even against the ASC runner-up/SCAC champ most years.
Thanks Hansen. I have given you pertinent regular season games to provide perspective of the Texas Sub-bracket.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2016, 09:16:55 PM
Thanks for the post ExTP.
IMHO, the upper echelon over the last decade as has been UWW and UMU followed closely by the second tier.
The teams that I have seen in the playoffs in the second tier have been UMHB, Wesley, and Linfield.
I have reviewed the playoffs for UMHB (who has been the survivor of the Texas Sub-bracket against HSU, McMurry, Louisiana College, Trinity and Texas Lutheran in various years). Here is my evidence that the ball in the ASC is just overwhelmingly that much better (until you get to our "nemeses", UMU, UWW, Linfield and Wesley). Here are the playoff games not involving the Texas Sub-bracket or the "nemeses" since 2007 (Year Round Team and score).
2015 2 Huntingdon 43-23 [Lost at HSU 26-29 in Week 9; won at H-SU 37-19 in Round 1].
2013 1 Redlands 35-7 [10-0 regular season; Beat LaCollege (7-3) 45-34]
2 Rowan 59-8
3 St John Fisher 45-23
2012 2 Franklin 63-17 [10-0 regular season; won at LaCollege 30-3; beat H-SU 45-32] Beat LaCollege 59-20 in round 1; beat Wesley in Round 3 32-20
2011 1 Redlands 34-13 [10-0 Regular season; beat McMurry 28-27 in week 2; McMurry & their #2 QB won at Trinity 25-16 in round 1; McMurry lost with a hobbled #1 QB in round 2 49-20]
2010 1 CNU 59-7 [10-0 in regular season; beat McMurry 43-31; HSU 42-28; at LaCollege 42-38; MissCollege 41-31; at ETBU 34-28]
2 Thomas More 69-7
2009 1 at Central 42-40 [Pool C; Won at HSU 23-7; Lost at Miss College 17-14; MissColl beat Huntingdon and lost to Wesley]
2008 3 Wash & Jeff 63-7 [9-1 in regular season; Beat HSU 20-18; Beat Miss College 26-14. Beat HSU in round 1 38-35; beat Wesley 46-14 in round 2]
2007 2 NCWC 64-0 [Romped thru ASC; Beat Trinity 52-23 in Round 1.]
Quote from: USee on November 09, 2016, 09:23:20 PM
Interestingly enough, Wheaton alum and former defensive coordinator Rod Sandberg, HC at Withworth, is on the national committee and co-chair of the west. If it comes down to St Johns and Wheaton, I hope he steps up!
And I was thinking of a scenario where Mt Union is a pool C and, because of reputation, they go in round 2 right after UWO. Then Wheaton gets in for round 5 per criteria and Wabash surfaces. But your scenario of JCU getting pummeled by the Purple Raiders and Wabash moving ahead in the RAC, bringing them to the table in round 3 is more plausible and better for the LG's
I think Wabash's only realistic path right now is to get ahead of John Carroll (Wabash has to get in early and then hopefully accumulate support) and then one of the two following things: CWRU loses or St. John's loses. It's difficult to see Wabash getting in unless one of those two teams takes themselves out.
The E8 runner up coming off the board second is more likely if Alfred finds themselves in Pool C purgatory rather than a 2 loss Fisher. I know these projections are done with an "if the season ended today" (on a Wednesday?!?) caveat, but I wonder which round Fisher would actually get selected if they are in the at large pool.
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2016, 11:10:12 PM
The E8 runner up coming off the board second is more likely if Alfred finds themselves in Pool C purgatory rather than a 2 loss Fisher. I know these projections are done with an "if the season ended today" (on a Wednesday?!?) caveat, but I wonder which round Fisher would actually get selected if they are in the at large pool.
I would guess that they slide back to the 3rd or 4th selection. This all presumes that SJF stays the top ranked at-large team in the region. It gets weird if, say, Salisbury beats Frostburg and for some reason jumps SJF in the rankings. I don't think that happens. Lets follow the dominos...Salisbury basically can't be ranked higher than Wesley. SJF is going to have an SOS advantage on Wesley, the same 8-2 record, and the same 1-1 record vs. RROs (Frostburg drops out in this scenario). They both carry a loss to an unranked team, which seems like a bit of a wash. I think SJF has enough of a head start on Wesley at the moment that I think they can absorb a loss to Alfred by a reasonable margin and stay ranked ahead of Wesley, and thus ranked ahead of Salisbury.
Now if SJF catches a beatemdown, all bets are off with respect to Salisbury. But I think it's a good game between two good teams that won't force a lot of movement at the top of the rankings in the East. The final East rankings should look something like: E8 champion, Hobart, E8 runner up, Wesley.
Speaking of Wesley and slightly off topic, Wesley's movement all the way up to 4 would bode well for those wondering if there would be a game in Dover in Week 12. Seems more likely than not right now, but also not a certainty. Depends on how the teams get paired off.
Wally, under that scenario, you'd have a potential 1-loss Frostburg with an improving SOS and a 1-1 RRO if Salisbury stays ranked vs. a 2-loss SJF team with an improving SOS and a 1-1 RRO. It's possible the "final 25% of season" tiebreaker applies there, giving Frostburg the edge. It will depend on SOS ultimately if this scenario plays out.
So, going to the next step - if Alfred wins this coming Saturday and are the number one team in the East Regional rankings, what's the likelihood of them being one of the top 4 seeds in the 32 team bracket?
Quote from: art76 on November 10, 2016, 07:16:17 AM
So, going to the next step - if Alfred wins this coming Saturday and are the number one team in the East Regional rankings, what's the likelihood of them being one of the top 4 seeds in the 32 team bracket?
IMHO, an undefeated #1 team in a Region should head a bracket.
You cannot ask a team to do more.
Using Wally's projected picks, and the D3 Top 25 Poll information I made the following table.
Some things to note:
1. The teams are listed in order of yesterday's Regional Rankings. If a team was not ranked, it simply got put to the bottom of the list. The East Region had two such teams.
2. The number to the right of the team's name is the D3 Top 25 Ranking. As in year's past, if a team received votes, I simply counted out to the end of all the teams. If a team received no votes, they tied at 43 this year.
3. Then I added up those numbers on the right and divided by the number of teams from each region to come up with an average ranking of a team from that region. The East is "weakest" and the West is "toughest" - no real surprises here.
Enjoy!
If the selection field were set now:
EAST
1. Alfred 14
2. St. John Fisher 18
3. Hobart 22
4. Wesley 20
5. Stevenson 23
6. Western New England 26
7. Husson 43
8. Bridgewater State 43
209 = 26.125
NORTH
1. Mount Union 1
2. North Central 6
3. Wheaton 12
4. Olivet 41
5. Wittenberg 19
6. Rose-Hulman 43
7. Lakeland 43
165 = 23.571
SOUTH
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor 2
2. Johns Hopkins 9
3. Hardin-Simmons 10
4. Case Western Reserve 21
5. Thomas More 13
6. Randolph-Macon 39
7. Huntingdon 28
8. Centre 40
162 = 20.250
WEST
1. Whitewater 3
2. St. Thomas 4
3. Oshkosh 5
4. Coe 15
5. Linfield 7
6. St. John's 8
7. Monmouth 24
8. Northwestern 43
9. Redlands 37
146 = 16.222
We all know that the brackets are fluid and not strictly placed by region only. but I sure would like to see Oshkosh go to the North region and have Mount Union play through both North Central and Oshkosh to move on.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 10, 2016, 02:56:57 AM
Wally, under that scenario, you'd have a potential 1-loss Frostburg with an improving SOS and a 1-1 RRO if Salisbury stays ranked vs. a 2-loss SJF team with an improving SOS and a 1-1 RRO. It's possible the "final 25% of season" tiebreaker applies there, giving Frostburg the edge. It will depend on SOS ultimately if this scenario plays out.
In a Frostburg beats Salisbury situation, definitely possible. My lean is still that 8-2 SJF would remain ranked ahead of the NJAC runner up, but you're also much more in phase with East region happenings than I am.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2016, 07:31:35 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 10, 2016, 07:16:17 AM
So, going to the next step - if Alfred wins this coming Saturday and are the number one team in the East Regional rankings, what's the likelihood of them being one of the top 4 seeds in the 32 team bracket?
IMHO, an undefeated #1 team in a Region should head a bracket.
You cannot ask a team to do more.
I think where Alfred gets stuck behind all of the other undefeateds is on the last year's championship record tiebreak. If they were going to displace somebody it would probably be St. Thomas and I'm not sure the committee would do that. Particularly seconds after they decide to ignore the criteria and make Mount Union the #1 overall seed. Now, if they were to evaluate the primary/secondary criteria completely before falling back to last year's championship record, We could definitely see Alfred as a #1 seed in a quadrant.
As it stands though, I think Alfred is likely to wind up as the #2 in a quadrant with Mount Union.
Week 10 2016 hypothetical regional brackets
EAST
Bridgewater State at Alfred
Husson at Western New England
Stevenson at St. John Fisher
Wesley at Hobart
NORTH
Lakeland at Oshkosh
Wittenberg at Wheaton
Olivet at North Central
Rose-Hulman at Mount Union
SOUTH
Hardin-Simmons at Mary Hardin-Baylor
Thomas-More at Case Western Reserve
Randolph-Macon at Johns Hopkins
Centre at Huntingdon
WEST
Redlands at Linfield
Northwestern at St. Thomas
St. John's at Coe
Monmouth at Whitewater
The highest Alfred would be at 10-0 would be a two seed and would get paired with a MU or maybe a UST like the 10-0 Hobart team of 2012 was back then. Until an E8 champ runs the table and gets to a final four, the best the East can hope for is a 2 in one bracket or 6-8 overall (compared to say the North or West).
Also, and we're checking on this, WNE may not be qualified to host given press box and other constraints, so even though they are higher in the rankings, WNE would probably be the road team in the Husson pairing (or any really).
Quote from: art76 on November 10, 2016, 10:24:32 AM
Week 10 2016 hypothetical regional brackets
EAST
Bridgewater State at Alfred
Husson at Western New England
Stevenson at St. John Fisher
Wesley at Hobart
NORTH
Lakeland at Oshkosh
Wittenberg at Wheaton
Olivet at North Central
Rose-Hulman at Mount Union
SOUTH
Hardin-Simmons at Mary Hardin-Baylor
Thomas-More at Case Western Reserve
Randolph-Macon at Johns Hopkins
Centre at Huntingdon
WEST
Redlands at Linfield
Northwestern at St. Thomas
St. John's at Coe
Monmouth at Whitewater
I am sure others have opinions but this looks like 9-1 UW-O would be seeded above 10-0 NCC (and maybe Mount Union?). Which would make NCC a 3 in their quad and Mount a 2 (or Mount 1 and NCC 4). At least that is how I read it if Wheaton is playing UW-O in second round. I don't see that as very likely, right?
I like that Art76.
I think that they are trying to move the WIAC teams apart.
Oshkosh cannot bus to Alliance.
Quote from: Neverwas on November 10, 2016, 10:57:29 AM
I am sure others have opinions but this looks like 9-1 UW-O would be seeded above 10-0 NCC (and maybe Mount Union?). Which would make NCC a 3 in their quad and Mount a 2 (or Mount 1 and NCC 4). At least that is how I read it if Wheaton is playing UW-O in second round. I don't see that as very likely, right?
Because of mileage constraints, true seedings were not really considered in this mock example. And as ITH has already alluded to, there is no way Alfred is going to stay a #1 seed in the East. He also shared info not available to most of us concerning the availability to host a game. Unfortunately, IMHO, because of mileage constraints we can't do a true #32 plays #1 kind of bracket. If we could be that objective, it would make things easier.
Quote from: art76 on November 10, 2016, 11:10:58 AM
Quote from: Neverwas on November 10, 2016, 10:57:29 AM
I am sure others have opinions but this looks like 9-1 UW-O would be seeded above 10-0 NCC (and maybe Mount Union?). Which would make NCC a 3 in their quad and Mount a 2 (or Mount 1 and NCC 4). At least that is how I read it if Wheaton is playing UW-O in second round. I don't see that as very likely, right?
Because of mileage constraints, true seedings were not really considered in this mock example. And as ITH has already alluded to, there is no way Alfred is going to stay a #1 seed in the East. He also shared info not available to most of us concerning the availability to host a game. Unfortunately, IMHO, because of mileage constraints we can't do a true #32 plays #1 kind of bracket. If we could be that objective, it would make things easier.
PS. I only had one flight in the first round - Redlands to Linfield.
Quote from: art76 on November 10, 2016, 10:24:32 AM
Week 10 2016 hypothetical regional brackets
EAST
Bridgewater State at Alfred
Husson at Western New England
Stevenson at St. John Fisher
Wesley at Hobart
NORTH
Lakeland at Oshkosh
Wittenberg at Wheaton
Olivet at North Central
Rose-Hulman at Mount Union
SOUTH
Hardin-Simmons at Mary Hardin-Baylor
Thomas-More at Case Western Reserve
Randolph-Macon at Johns Hopkins
Centre at Huntingdon
WEST
Redlands at Linfield
Northwestern at St. Thomas
St. John's at Coe
Monmouth at Whitewater
There's just no way the NCAA lets this happen. They already played in the regular season. Remember?
But if you are trying to limit the flights; HSU probably will end up playing UMHB; unless as Keith said HSU losses on Saturday
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 10, 2016, 01:24:31 PM
But if you are trying to limit the flights; HSU probably will end up playing UMHB; unless as Keith said HSU losses on Saturday
I was being a smarta$$
Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 10, 2016, 01:24:31 PM
But if you are trying to limit the flights; HSU probably will end up playing UMHB; unless as Keith said HSU losses on Saturday
We (McMurry) have beaten the Cowboys once since the series resumed in 1990.
Projection is interesting but I don't see three WIAC teams getting in.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 10, 2016, 07:15:30 PM
Projection is interesting but I don't see three WIAC teams getting in.
Sure as heck makes bracketing a lot easier though. I'm trying to mock something up with the teams I projected last night and one less team in the midwest and one more team in the northeast is making this very weird. I'm also not nearly as good at the bracketing as Pat is.
Here's my mock with the projection I made this week:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIkRc3E6.png&hash=c5456811806e81bd2371586c646b7295038c593a)
I have the ASC/West Coast sub bracket, but it's not really that outlandish. Linfield is sitting 5th in their region which makes them a probable road team in the second round anyway. Even if we think Linfield is better than the "seed" they'll get, the criteria kind of say they are in the 4/5 range which means a second round road game.
If I did anybody dirty it's probably Wesley/SJF in the first round. That's a rough draw. And the winner gets Mount Union! Can't say we're letting Mount Union off too easy though. And in case it isn't obvious, I would have UWW and UMHB host semifinal games if the seeds hold that far.
Don't like this nearly as much as Pat's :).. but I'd agree that Linfield going on the road to MHB in round two is likely
The Linfield/Redlands game for me is a #4/#6 game for me, so #4/#1 in the second round is not that bad.
Is HSU a #3 and would host the second round if they beat UMHB?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2016, 10:09:40 PM
The Linfield/Redlands game for me is a #4/#6 game for me, so #4/#1 in the second round is not that bad.
Is HSU a #3 and would host the second round if they beat UMHB?
My process was to identify the top four seeds and then the next four (Alfred, Hopkins, North Central, and Oshkosh) and then build 4-team pods around those eight teams. I didn't really look at seeding below the top two, per se. It looks to me like Linfield would go on the road to either UMHB or HSU. HSU is 3S and Linfield is 5W and while that's not the end-all, that's a good indicator. Also, HSU and Linfield have a common opponent result which pretty clearly favors HSU. So in my pretend bracket, yeah, Linfield goes to Texas either way if they win Round 1.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2016, 10:16:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2016, 10:09:40 PM
The Linfield/Redlands game for me is a #4/#6 game for me, so #4/#1 in the second round is not that bad.
Is HSU a #3 and would host the second round if they beat UMHB?
My process was to identify the top four seeds and then the next four (Alfred, Hopkins, North Central, and Oshkosh) and then build 4-team pods around those eight teams. I didn't really look at seeding below the top two, per se. It looks to me like Linfield would go on the road to either UMHB or HSU. HSU is 3S and Linfield is 5W and while that's not the end-all, that's a good indicator. Also, HSU and Linfield have a common opponent result which pretty clearly favors HSU. So in my pretend bracket, yeah, Linfield goes to Texas either way if they win Round 1.
Geographical proximity notwithstanding, I believe #1 thru #4 should host a first round game. I also have Linfield as a W5 being "seeded" as a S4.
I would love for UMHB to play the South #2, instead of JHU avoiding the ASC, again, and being sent up the east coast. Aside from Wesley, the ASC gets sent to the "West" Region after the second round more often than not.
FWIW I did put Hopkins in the same quadrant as UMHB. If you wanted to get goofy with it you could swap the Hopkins pod with the Alfred pod without causing problems. All of the Hopkins pod teams (except Huntingdon, who is flying after Round 1 no matter what anyway) can drive to Mount Union and whoever survives the UMHB pod either has to fly or be flown to. Alfred/UMHB do anything for you? Or is Hopkins the main target? :)
For selfish reasons I'd love to see Hobart where you placed them. Creates some interesting matchups.
Gang,
Wally's Pool C in order of picking:
1. Oshkosh
2. St. John Fisher
3. Wheaton
4. Hardin-Simmons
5. Case Western Reserve
6. St. John's
D3 Football's Pool C order of picking:
1. Oshkosh
2. Wheaton
3. Hardin-Simmons
4. Case Western Reserve
5. St. John's
6. Platteville
One big difference between the two is that D3 predicted St. John Fisher to lose to Alfred this Saturday, which for them muddies the waters in the East. Once again, it looks like this year that the secret final ranking is going to keep those of us on the outside wondering about the order of the Pool C picks. But, it looks fairly good like the West is going to get two teams in, the South is going to get two teams in, and the North will get one team in. Pecking order matters for that final spot.
Really looking forward to the Saturday night mock pick after Saturday's games are in the books.
I think the two games that are most likely to upset the apple cart for Pool C picks are the Carnegie Mellon (6-3) at Case Western Reserve (9-0) and the St. John's (8-1) at Concordia-Moorhead (7-1 NCAA, 7-2 all games) games. A lot of people will have vested interests in these games, as the outcomes will determine whether or not their teams get considered in the Pool C discussions.
Quote from: art76 on November 11, 2016, 08:52:29 AM
One big difference between the two is that D3 predicted St. John Fisher to lose to Alfred this Saturday, which for them muddies the waters in the East. Once again, it looks like this year that the secret final ranking is going to keep those of us on the outside wondering about the order of the Pool C picks. But, it looks fairly good like the West is going to get two teams in, the South is going to get two teams in, and the North will get one team in. Pecking order matters for that final spot.
Indeed, what happens to SJF if they lose on Saturday isn't obvious. They
could get jumped by the Salisbury/Frostburg winner. From my personal run through the criteria and how I value the different pieces, I think SJF stays the top-ranked at-large team in that region. But there are 8 other people on the East RAC call Saturday night that might see it differently. Frank and ITH are both making solid points about the NJAC runner up, the possibility of invoking the "last 25% of the season" clause, etc.
For me, where the D3football.com projection is a little squirrely, is that they too have SJF as the top ranked at-large team in the East after a presumed loss to Alfred and did not select them at all, but did select UW-P which would have entered the discussion fairly late in the process. That's a thing that I don't think would happen. I think SJF would go in ahead of UW-P and perhaps even before UW-P ever got into play. Certainly, if you were to compare the 8-2 profiles of SJF and UW-P side by side without anything happening before or after that comparison, you could justifiably vote for UW-P. It's close, but either choice is reasonable. Add in the context of the round-by-round accumulation of support for a team that was part of the original 4 and by the time you get to round 5 or 6, when theoretically UW-P would appear, and I don't think UW-P has the profile that is so overwhelmingly better than SJF's that they would jump to the front of the line. I think they had that kind of profile last year and would have gone in as soon as they hit the board. This year they do not.
And just to clarify, that's not an anti-Platteville take. I'm on record here somewhere as saying that I think Platteville probably ought to be in the tournament. But the way selection works, they're buried too deep in their own region to have a good shot. Not impossible, but a longshot.
Quote from: art76 on November 11, 2016, 09:17:03 AM
I think the two games that are most likely to upset the apple cart for Pool C picks are the Carnegie Mellon (6-3) at Case Western Reserve (9-0) and the St. John's (8-1) at Concordia-Moorhead (7-1 NCAA, 7-2 all games) games. A lot of people will have vested interests in these games, as the outcomes will determine whether or not their teams get considered in the Pool C discussions.
Quote from: art76 on November 11, 2016, 08:52:29 AM
Gang,
Wally's Pool C in order of picking:
1. Oshkosh
2. St. John Fisher
3. Wheaton
4. Hardin-Simmons
5. Case Western Reserve
6. St. John's
D3 Football's Pool C order of picking:
1. Oshkosh
2. Wheaton
3. Hardin-Simmons
4. Case Western Reserve
5. St. John's
6. Platteville
One big difference between the two is that D3 predicted St. John Fisher to lose to Alfred this Saturday, which for them muddies the waters in the East. Once again, it looks like this year that the secret final ranking is going to keep those of us on the outside wondering about the order of the Pool C picks. But, it looks fairly good like the West is going to get two teams in, the South is going to get two teams in, and the North will get one team in. Pecking order matters for that final spot.
Really looking forward to the Saturday night mock pick after Saturday's games are in the books.
If (on the off chance) Concordia beats St John's, that would give UW Platteville a road in. SJU would be out, and I doubt that they would select Concordia, with 2 losses, even though one of those "shouldn't" count.
Quote from: retagent on November 11, 2016, 05:39:29 PM
If (on the off chance) Concordia beats St John's, that would give UW Platteville a road in. SJU would be out, and I doubt that they would select Concordia, with 2 losses, even though one of those "shouldn't" count.
retagent-
I think the West's regional rankings foreshadow a situation where they're going to jump C-M in front of UW-P if the Cobbers win. Despite the SOS disadvantage, an RRO win and an RRO result that was their near miss against St. Thomas I think gets them over the top of UW-P, if not in the tournament.
JCU 31 at UMU 28.
The Oshkosh win just got bigger.
Congratulations to the Blue Streaks
If their name wasn't Mt. Union, with their SOS they might not even make Pool C. But somehow I can't see the committee leaving them out.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2016, 04:24:05 PM
If their name wasn't Mt. Union, with their SOS they might not even make Pool C. But somehow I can't see the committee leaving them out.
Yes, my thoughts too.
However, CMU beat CWRU 26-21 so that took a little pressure off the committee.
So, if UMU replaces JCU in the projected Pool C list, does a two-loss team replace CWRU?
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 12, 2016, 05:04:15 PM
So, if UMU replaces JCU in the projected Pool C list, does a two-loss team replace CWRU?
Platteville may be the beneficiary of that scenario.
One thing is for sure: someone is going to be pissed off they were left out.
I can't wait to hear from Pat, Greg Thomas, et al at 11pm.
What we thought was going to be fairly simple just got a lot more interesting. Where to put Mt Union in the region could make a bunch more dominoes fall as far as seeding.
But essentially for bids I think Mt Union replaces CWRU and may go earlier but doesn't change much else?
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2016, 05:21:17 PM
What we thought was going to be fairly simple just got a lot more interesting. Where to put Mt Union in the region could make a bunch more dominoes fall as far as seeding.
But essentially for bids I think Mt Union replaces CWRU and may go earlier but doesn't change much else?
I think that UMU falls to 4th in the North Region with JCU being the #3.
The Dannies knocking off Wabash solidifies the strata in the North, UMU being better than Witt.
CWRU's loss drops the mid-region strata in the South. IMHO, it is HSU alone into Pool C from the South.
Alfred took care of business and SJF falls far enough down the regional ranking to let UMU be on the table in round 4,5 and 6.
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 12, 2016, 05:04:15 PM
So, if UMU replaces JCU in the projected Pool C list, does a two-loss team replace CWRU?
I think that Muhlenberg is at the table when the 6th bid is awarded.
Well, the north committee has an issue. Because if the north RAC puts UMU ahead of Wheaton in the rankings at 9-1 (which would necessitate moving JCU ahead of Wheaton too) then the National Committee could wait on UMU because of their weak criteria til later rounds, effectively blocking Wheaton. That may be doubtful but it really depends on where the North RAC puts the Raiders in the rankings. If Wheaton is blocked by UMU this process is a lot different.
So what do the four #1 seeds look like now?
UMHB, Whitewater, St. Thomas, and North Central???
Quote from: cubs on November 12, 2016, 05:53:03 PM
So what do the four #1 seeds look like now?
UMHB, Whitewater, St. Thomas, and North Central???
Either NCC or Alfred, both are 10-0. Alfred may get the nod because they need an east sort of pod
Second Regional Rankings (SOS prior to the 11th week)
East Region
1 Alfred 10-0 10-0 E8 .552
2 St. John Fisher 8-2 8-2 E8 Lost to Alfred today .563
3 Hobart 9-1 9-1 LL .605
4 Wesley 8-2 8-2 NJAC .584
5 Stevenson 9-1 9-1 MAC .501
6 Western New England 10-0 10-0 NEFC .500
7 Salisbury 7-3 7-3 NJAC Lost to Frostburg St today .533
8 Albright 7-3 7-3 MAC .571
9 Frostburg State 9-1 9-1 NJAC .504
10 St. Lawrence 9-1 9-1 LL .500
North Region
1 Mount Union 9-1 9-1 OAC .454
2 North Central (Ill.) 8-0 10-0 CCIW .527
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 9-1 9-1 CCIW .551
4 John Carroll 9-1 9-1 OAC .472
5 Olivet 8-1 8-1 MIAA .561
6 Wittenberg 8-1 8-1 NCAC .527
7 Wabash 8-2 8-2 NCAC .450
8 Rose-Hulman 7-2 7-2 HCAC .504
9 Franklin 8-1 8-2 HCAC .499
10 Illinois Wesleyan 7-2 7-2 CCIW .517
South Region
1 Mary Hardin-Baylor 9-0 10-0 ASC .581 Pool B
2 Johns Hopkins 10-0 10-0 CC .517
3 Hardin-Simmons 7-1 9-1 ASC .547
4 Case Western Reserve 9-1 9-1 Pres AC .475 Lost to CMU today.
5 Thomas More 9-1 9-1 Pres AC .527
6 Muhlenberg 9-1 9-1 CC .481
7 Berry 9-1 9-1 SAA .496
8 Randolph-Macon 9-1 9-1 ODAC .492
9 Huntingdon 8-1 9-1 .448 USA South
10 Centre 8-2 8-2 SAA
West Region
1 UW-Whitewater 10-0 10-0 WIAC .576
2 St. Thomas 10-0 10-0 MIAC .511
3 UW-Oshkosh 8-1 9-1 WIAC .617
4 Coe 10-0 10-0 IIAC .521
5 Linfield 8-1 8-1 NWC .527
6 St. John's 9-1 9-1 MIAC .504
7 Monmouth 10-0 10-0 MWC .527
8 UW-Platteville 7-2 8-2 WIAC .588
9 Concordia-Moorhead 7-2 7-3 MIAC .466
10 Northwestern (Minn.) 9-1 9-1 UMAC .466
Corrections appreciated.
Does Case Western Reserve get any benefit from defeating the SAA league champ / AQ playoff team?
Quote from: E.115 on November 12, 2016, 07:22:49 PM
Does Case Western Reserve get any benefit from defeating the SAA league champ / AQ playoff team?
HERE IS A BIG WET ONE. :-*
Mount union, pool c....never thought i'd see the day.
Quote from: E.115 on November 12, 2016, 07:22:49 PM
Does Case Western Reserve get any benefit from defeating the SAA league champ / AQ playoff team?
Actually, sort of...if WashU manages to slide into the RR's and give Case a win against a regionally-ranked opponent, that will indeed be a boost to their at-large resume.
Which brings us to a possibly verrrrry interesting final scenario. Although we all love to chat on here about how we "know" who the best teams are, the committee is supposed to go by the criteria. And we will all wonder tonight what this means for Mount Union, who is going to be 9-1, 0-1 against RRO's, with an SOS that is quite similar to Case Western...while Case Western could potentially end up 9-1, 1-0 against RRO. We've all been bagging on Case's schedule because they drew the softer lot in the PAC but since Westminster and CMU ended up equal/better than W&J that actually doesn't end up as bad as it originally looked, especially since WashU was so good, and that's brought their SoS number to be right around Mount Union's.
It's no slam-dunk, but I think you can argue that Case Western's criteria-based argument for a Pool C bid are equivalent to Mount Union's. If CWRU does make it onto the board (also depends on where the South RAC sticks Case and Muhlenberg) while Mount Union is on the board...
I think that Muhlenberg jumps CWRU.
I'd estimate it as at least 99.9% probable that UMU will make the tourney. But should they?
If a no-name team X had their criteria, they'd be sweatin' bullets at the bottom of the bubble. They have a VERY low SoS (though it rose somewhat today), and the nine teams they beat had a cumulative record of 35-54 (which was almost certainly inflated by playing each other - the OAC went 3-7 in non-con games). I don't know the SoS's following today's games, but UMU would surely be no higher by the criteria than 9-1 Case or 9-1 Frostburg St., neither of whom has much expectation of playing more games.
I can hardly imagine a tourney without UMU, but I'm not at all convinced they SHOULD be in this season.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2016, 08:28:00 PM
I'd estimate it as at least 99.9% probable that UMU will make the tourney. But should they?
If a no-name team X had their criteria, they'd be sweatin' bullets at the bottom of the bubble. They have a VERY low SoS (though it rose somewhat today), and the nine teams they beat had a cumulative record of 35-54 (which was almost certainly inflated by playing each other - the OAC went 3-7 in non-con games). I don't know the SoS's following today's games, but UMU would surely be no higher by the criteria than 9-1 Case or 9-1 Frostburg St., neither of whom has much expectation of playing more games.
I can hardly imagine a tourney without UMU, but I'm not at all convinced they SHOULD be in this season.
A lot of whether or not UMU (or anybody else really) goes in or doesn't go in depends on the depth in your region and where you are at in the at-large line. I don't think I'm spoiling anything here saying that Mount Union's position, at worst, is going to be behind Wheaton. So, at worst, Mount Union is going to sit down at that four-sided table and get discussed. Whether they go in or not, who knows, but a lot of other teams, even 9-1 teams, don't get that far for no reason other than their region is deep. The North isn't super deep in 2016, which is a plus for Raiders fans.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2016, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2016, 08:28:00 PM
I'd estimate it as at least 99.9% probable that UMU will make the tourney. But should they?
If a no-name team X had their criteria, they'd be sweatin' bullets at the bottom of the bubble. They have a VERY low SoS (though it rose somewhat today), and the nine teams they beat had a cumulative record of 35-54 (which was almost certainly inflated by playing each other - the OAC went 3-7 in non-con games). I don't know the SoS's following today's games, but UMU would surely be no higher by the criteria than 9-1 Case or 9-1 Frostburg St., neither of whom has much expectation of playing more games.
I can hardly imagine a tourney without UMU, but I'm not at all convinced they SHOULD be in this season.
A lot of whether or not UMU (or anybody else really) goes in or doesn't go in depends on the depth in your region and where you are at in the at-large line. I don't think I'm spoiling anything here saying that Mount Union's position, at worst, is going to be behind Wheaton. So, at worst, Mount Union is going to sit down at that four-sided table and get discussed. Whether they go in or not, who knows, but a lot of other teams, even 9-1 teams, don't get that far for no reason other than their region is deep. The North isn't super deep in 2016, which is a plus for Raiders fans.
Since they are humans, don't you think the committee will see Mt Union at the table and just give each other a knowing nod before selecting them? Or will actual words have to be spoken?
I think the discussion for Oshkosh and Mt. Union will be as brief as any discussion ever.
My gut for the Pool C:
Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's
SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 09:37:50 PM
My gut for the Pool C:
Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's
SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.
I like Frosty in. Co champs of the NJAC. I hope Mount gets a bid and they should go on the road for all three games.
They probably win too. At JHU and Wesley for the first two rounds sounds fair.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 09:37:50 PM
My gut for the Pool C:
Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's
SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.
You mean, Frostburg, Muhlenberg, Franklin and Platteville at the end with Frostburg selected? I agree with you. 5 unanimous and a cluster funk for the 6th spot.
Yeah, that's right - Frostburg on the table at the end. I think Frostburg's got a decent profile now and that may trump Platteville's advantages on all but record.
It's been a long day. The CWU game was entertaining, but long (1,078 yards and 67 total points), it was senior day, and STATCREW had a fluky quirky hiccup that caused the Time of Possession to be screwy in the second half. It took 10 minutes to figure out a fix! So I ain't firing on all synapses.
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 09:37:50 PM
My gut for the Pool C:
Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's
SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.
+1! smed for seeing thru the murkiness to post a pretty good group.
You, too, SaintsFan
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 09:37:50 PM
My gut for the Pool C:
Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's
SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.
I would love to see Frostburg get in. They played great after the loss to Wesley. The defense seems to be really improved holding opponents under 20 almost every game. Not sure if they jump that high, but Albright losing really helps, but they should have jumped them anyway with the h2h2h chain of Salisbury beating Albright and Frostburg beating Salisbury. They have a chance.
I thought they'd jump SJF after they got hammered and the other results in the East seemed to open up a path.
CWRU losing helps their cause as well for sure. Had CWRU won and since St. John's proved their mettle today, I don't think there'd be any Pool C drama. Now, we gots drama.
Taking a stab at the pool C bids (in order):
1) UWO
2) SJU
3) Hardin Simmons
4) UMU - all the selction criteria gets tossed aside and common sense prevails
5) WHEATON
6) UWP - Wset is too loaded, 2 losses to 2 of the top 4 teams in the country, strong SOS, they're in!
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 10:15:42 PM
Yeah, that's right - Frostburg on the table at the end. I think Frostburg's got a decent profile now and that may trump Platteville's advantages on all but record.
It's been a long day. The CWU game was entertaining, but long (1,078 yards and 67 total points), it was senior day, and STATCREW had a fluky quirky hiccup that caused the Time of Possession to be screwy in the second half. It took 10 minutes to figure out a fix! So I ain't firing on all synapses.
No worries - sounds like a long day! I hate to be that guy, so I almost didn't point it out.. Also thought maybe you felt Frostburg was in before the last round.
Mock Pool C from D3 Bracketology Selection show:
1. UWO
2. Wheaton
3. HSU
4. Mount Union
5. SJU
6. SJF
UWP, SJF, Franklin, CWR
Final spot was really a debate over UWP and SJF. UWP didn't get on the board for consideration until the final round.
Quote from: hazzben on November 13, 2016, 12:09:55 AM
Mock Pool C from D3 Bracketology Selection show:
1. UWO
2. Wheaton
3. HSU
4. Mount Union
5. SJU
6. SJF
UWP, SJF, Franklin, CWR
Final spot was really a debate over UWP and SJF. UWP didn't get on the board for consideration until the final round.
SJF had the 52-10 win over Olivet, the North #5
What was the rationale to rank SJF over Frostburg? (Sorry, I had other things...)
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 12:50:12 AM
What was the rationale to rank SJF over Frostburg? (Sorry, I had other things...)
Paraphrasing for Frank, but basically Frostburg had to overcome a giant SOS disadvantage with something more than just win percentage. They kind of needed Salisbury to be ranked, which in his mock East RRs, they were not- basically there was not a good reason to rank 7-3 Salisbury ahead of 7-3 Brockport and then there wasn't a particularly compelling reason to rank 7-3 Brockport ahead of either Del Val (that Wesley win is pretty nice right now) or 9-1 Husson (this is no doubt where there is controversy).
All of that being said, it isn't out of the question that Salisbury gets ranked and Frostburg gets ranked ahead of SJF. Or that Frostburg goes ahead of SJF even without the Salisbury RRO result. From my POV, whether the East region wants to have Frostburg or SJF hit leadoff, either probably are in a last in/first out situation.
My 2016 mock bracket
Quadrant One
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
3. Hardin-Simmons
5. Western New England
8. Husson
7. Randolph-Macon
4. Wesley
6. Redlands
2. Linfield
Quadrant Two
1. Whitewater
8. Lakeland
6. Wittenberg
4. Mount Union
3. Wheaton
7. Washington U.
5. Coe
2. St. John's
Quadrant Three
1. St. Thomas
8. Northwestern
5. Hobart
4. St. John Fisher
3. Thomas More
7. Huntingdon
6. Monmouth
2. Oshkosh
Quadrant Four
1. North Central
8. Rose-Hullman
4. Alfred
5. Stevenson
3. Johns Hopkins
7. Bridgewater State
6. Olivet
2. John Carroll
Notes: I did not look at D3's bracket before putting this together. I have two flights in the first round, no surprises there. For quarter finals I have quadrant one playing quadrant four, as that is how the first four seeds worked out. I tried as hard as I could to keep flying to a minimum and yet keep integrity to how the teams were ranked 1 through 32. I think this bracket has more flying in the second and third rounds than the NCAA is willing to spring for, but who knows? The nice thing about it from my point of view is that it appears as "equitable as it can be" from someone with no horse in the race. Lastly, once a team was put in the quadrant, then they were ranked one through eight. Hopefully I got all the initial mileages right. I welcome comments. It'll be interesting to see later tonight who does get in in Pool C and then how the NCAA does the brackets. Enjoy!
Not making Alfred U a 4 seed is a pretty big knock on them, especially since you have Fisher a 4 seed as well...
I think AU is a 2 seed at minimum and you can easily build a bracket around them as a #1 seed...
Quote from: Upstate on November 13, 2016, 10:29:06 AM
Not making Alfred U a 4 seed is a pretty big knock on them, especially since you have Fisher a 4 seed as well...
I think AU is a 2 seed at minimum and you can easily build a bracket around them as a #1 seed...
FWIW - I used the D3 Top 25 Poll for setting this bracket, and the new one hasn't been released. I tried to guesstimate how far Mount Union would drop in relationship to John Carroll. I did not change any other team's position in the poll. I know that the committees do not look at the poll, but it's history has been pretty good at predicting how good a team is relative to other teams around the country.
If the week 11 poll had been released already, this mock bracket would probably look a little different.
The scenario that gives me fear is the North Region keeping Mt Union ranked above Wheaton, based on reputation alone, and then Mt Union sitting at the table for the National committee and getting selected last thereby blocking Wheaton from the tournament. I know it's unlikely but its plausible and it will have me on edge today as we wait it out.
I think the committee has a tough task and the last couple picks when choosing between one loss teams and two loss teams will be difficult. I for one hope Platteville makes it in as I think its a better tournament with them involved this year.
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2016, 10:35:57 AM
The scenario that gives me fear is the North Region keeping Mt Union ranked above Wheaton, based on reputation alone, and then Mt Union sitting at the table for the National committee and getting selected last thereby blocking Wheaton from the tournament. I know it's unlikely but its plausible and it will have me on edge today as we wait it out.
I said as much in the broadcast yesterday when we learned of the outcome of the UMU game. I sure hope not.
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2016, 10:35:57 AM
The scenario that gives me fear is the North Region keeping Mt Union ranked above Wheaton, based on reputation alone, and then Mt Union sitting at the table for the National committee and getting selected last thereby blocking Wheaton from the tournament. I know it's unlikely but its plausible and it will have me on edge today as we wait it out.
I think the committee has a tough task and the last couple picks when choosing between one loss teams and two loss teams will be difficult. I for one hope Platteville makes it in as I think its a better tournament with them involved this year.
The North Region committee can alleviate this if they recognize the potential implication of putting Mount above the Wheaties and rank accordingly. So the real question is whether the North committee aims for a pure ranking, irrespective of Pool C implications, or whether they aim for a ranking that gives them the best chance to get an additional team in.
I should mention -- in a pure ranking, IMO you can make a case for either Wheaton-then-Mount or for Mount-then-Wheaton.
No you can't. If it's based on the criteria Wheaton is clearly ahead of Mt. In fact so,is Olivet and it's close with Franklin.
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2016, 10:35:57 AM
The scenario that gives me fear is the North Region keeping Mt Union ranked above Wheaton, based on reputation alone, and then Mt Union sitting at the table for the National committee and getting selected last thereby blocking Wheaton from the tournament. I know it's unlikely but its plausible and it will have me on edge today as we wait it out.
And this is why it's so important for the regional committee to get the order right. In basketball, we have seen situations where the regional committee's order blocked a team with a strong Pool C resume from getting selected. So had the order been A then B, A would have gotten in for sure...and B would have had an decent chance. But by going B then A, neither gets in because B just sits there on the board forever.
I have always felt the regional committee's duty is to order their Pool C candidates in the manner that maximizes Pool C selections from that region (seems obvious to me but I have seen some head-scratchers). In this case, they should
clearly have Wheaton ahead of Mount Union.
Quote from: Titan Q on November 13, 2016, 04:32:20 PM
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2016, 10:35:57 AM
The scenario that gives me fear is the North Region keeping Mt Union ranked above Wheaton, based on reputation alone, and then Mt Union sitting at the table for the National committee and getting selected last thereby blocking Wheaton from the tournament. I know it's unlikely but its plausible and it will have me on edge today as we wait it out.
And this is why it's so important for the regional committee to get the order right. In basketball, we have seen situations where the regional committee's order blocked a team with a strong Pool C resume from getting selected. So had the order been A then B, A would have gotten in for sure...and B would have had an decent chance. But by going B then A, neither gets in because B just sits there on the board forever.
I have always felt the regional committee's duty is to order their Pool C candidates in the manner that maximizes Pool C selections from that region (seems obvious to me but I have seen some head-scratchers). In this case, they should clearly have Wheaton ahead of Mount Union.
Yes, of course, I agree, BUT...
They shouldn't monkey with the non Pool C rankings blatantly just to get a team a RR win.
Quote from: USee on November 13, 2016, 04:08:20 PM
No you can't. If it's based on the criteria Wheaton is clearly ahead of Mt. In fact so,is Olivet and it's close with Franklin.
Apples and oranges. Those criteria are used to pick Pool C teams -- they are not necessarily the criteria used to formulate regional rankings, and the regional committees are not under any obligation to use the criteria for this purpose.
I think the North Committee would be smart to elevate Wheaton above Mount to maximize Pool C opportunities. But I would have no issue if they kept Mount higher because they think that is where they deserve to be ranked.
Actually neither committee is okiated to use the criteria but both are supposed to use it
My 2016 mock bracket – updated after the release of week 11 Top 25
Quadrant One
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
3. Hardin-Simmons
5. Western New England
8. Husson
6. Randolph-Macon
4. Wesley
7. Redlands
2. Linfield
Quadrant Two
1. Whitewater
8. Lakeland
7. Washington U.
4. Wheaton
5. Coe
3. St. John's
6. Wittenberg
2. Mount Union
Quadrant Three
1. St. Thomas
8. Northwestern
6. St. John Fisher
4. Hobart
3. Thomas More
7. Huntingdon
5. Monmouth
2. Oshkosh
Quadrant Four
1. North Central
8. Rose-Hullman
5. Stevenson
4. Alfred
3. Johns Hopkins
7. Bridgewater State
6. Olivet
2. John Carroll
Notes: All the previous pairings were OK for mileage and were in appropriate quadrants. The seeds are based on the latest D3 Top 25 rankings. We all know that the different committees don't care about that, but some of us have an itch to get the brackets as close as we can within the mileage limitations imposed by the NCAA.
The biggest shifting from my earlier posting this morning is that Mount Union didn't drop as far as I thought they might, so they become the #2 seed in that quadrant, so an adjustment had to be made so that if the higher seeds won that #2 would play #3 and #1 would play #4. (Of course, that line of thinking gets thrown out the window with UMHB and Hardin-Simmons, but the remainder of the quadrants that works out.)
Huh - got four of the pairings the same as the NCAA.
Platteville in over probably Muhlenberg (maybe CWRU), either SJF or Frostburg, and probably Franklin.
I have no complaints.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 06:22:35 PM
Platteville in over probably Muhlenberg (maybe CWRU), either SJF or Frostburg, and probably Franklin.
I have no complaints.
Nope. No complaints. And the extra flight in the UMHB bracket. This will be fun.
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 13, 2016, 06:28:33 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 06:22:35 PM
Platteville in over probably Muhlenberg (maybe CWRU), either SJF or Frostburg, and probably Franklin.
I have no complaints.
Nope. No complaints. And the extra flight in the UMHB bracket. This will be fun.
Love that they split up UMHB and HSU in round 1.
For anyone who cares, I just went back through the process of ranking the teams in their quadrants by the D3 Top 25 criteria and have posted it below.
1. UMHB vs. 7. Redlands
3. Linfield vs. 4. Hardin-Simmons
5. Wheaton vs. 6. Huntingdon
2. North Central vs. 8. Rose-Hulman
1. St. Thomas vs. 8. Northwestern
5. Coe vs. 6. Monmouth
3. St. John's vs. 4. Platteville
2. Oshkosh vs. 7. Washington U.
1. Whitewater vs. 8. Lakeland
3. Thomas-More vs. 4. Wittenberg
5. Wesley vs. 6. Stevenson
2. John Carroll vs. 7. Olivet
2. Johns Hopkins vs. 6. Randolph-Macon
1. Mount Union vs. 4. Hobart
5. Western New England vs. 8. Husson
3. Alfred vs. 7. Bridgewater State.
Sure looks different than what the NCAA is using for setting the brackets. (Not that I am complaining.)
How great that the last team in (assuming UWP) has a realistic shot at going on a deep run. And could also get bounced by a really good Rd 1 opponent. This is gonna be fun!
Quote from: art76 on November 13, 2016, 06:58:26 PM
For anyone who cares, I just went back through the process of ranking the teams in their quadrants by the D3 Top 25 criteria and have posted it below.
1. UMHB vs. 7. Redlands
3. Linfield vs. 4. Hardin-Simmons
5. Wheaton vs. 6. Huntingdon
2. North Central vs. 8. Rose-Hulman
1. St. Thomas vs. 8. Northwestern
5. Coe vs. 6. Monmouth
3. St. John's vs. 4. Platteville
2. Oshkosh vs. 7. Washington U.
1. Whitewater vs. 8. Lakeland
3. Thomas-More vs. 4. Wittenberg
5. Wesley vs. 6. Stevenson
2. John Carroll vs. 7. Olivet
2. Johns Hopkins vs. 6. Randolph-Macon
1. Mount Union vs. 4. Hobart
5. Western New England vs. 8. Husson
3. Alfred vs. 7. Bridgewater State.
Sure looks different than what the NCAA is using for setting the brackets. (Not that I am complaining.)
Probably because the NCAA does not care about the D3 top 25.
Quote from: art76 on November 13, 2016, 06:58:26 PM
For anyone who cares, I just went back through the process of ranking the teams in their quadrants by the D3 Top 25 criteria and have posted it below.
1. UMHB vs. 7. Redlands
3. Linfield vs. 4. Hardin-Simmons
5. Wheaton vs. 6. Huntingdon
2. North Central vs. 8. Rose-Hulman
1. St. Thomas vs. 8. Northwestern
5. Coe vs. 6. Monmouth
3. St. John's vs. 4. Platteville
2. Oshkosh vs. 7. Washington U.
1. Whitewater vs. 8. Lakeland
3. Thomas-More vs. 4. Wittenberg
5. Wesley vs. 6. Stevenson
2. John Carroll vs. 7. Olivet
2. Johns Hopkins vs. 6. Randolph-Macon
1. Mount Union vs. 4. Hobart
5. Western New England vs. 8. Husson
3. Alfred vs. 7. Bridgewater State.
Sure looks different than what the NCAA is using for setting the brackets. (Not that I am complaining.)
Mount Union wasn't a 1; they are the road team. Looks like a 5
Hard to believe that 1 team from the East was not good enough to get into the field as a Pool C. It would be nice to know who was first up to see why they did not get in. Any ideas as to who would have been first up, but not good enough to get in? Seems to me that it would be Frostburg or St. Lawrence. D3 folk were pretty sure that if Fisher made the table they would get in.
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 13, 2016, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: art76 on November 13, 2016, 06:58:26 PM
For anyone who cares, I just went back through the process of ranking the teams in their quadrants by the D3 Top 25 criteria and have posted it below.
Mount Union wasn't a 1; they are the road team. Looks like a 5
We agree - the NCAA seeded them lower than the pundits on D3 Top 25 poll.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 13, 2016, 07:11:33 PM
Hard to believe that 1 team from the East was not good enough to get into the field as a Pool C. It would be nice to know who was first up to see why they did not get in. Any ideas as to who would have been first up, but not good enough to get in? Seems to me that it would be Frostburg or St. Lawrence. D3 folk were pretty sure that if Fisher made the table they would get in.
That's a great question. And underscores the stupidity of the unseen final RR.
Platteville vs. SJF may have been a draw, but I think the final table was Frostburg, Muhlenberg, and Franklin along with Platteville.
We posted our interview with the NCAA Committee Chairman as a stand-alone podcast for now -- the rest of the show will be posted over the next day, as explained in the show's prologue.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/14/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Quote from: wesleydad on November 13, 2016, 07:11:33 PM
Hard to believe that 1 team from the East was not good enough to get into the field as a Pool C. It would be nice to know who was first up to see why they did not get in. Any ideas as to who would have been first up, but not good enough to get in? Seems to me that it would be Frostburg or St. Lawrence. D3 folk were pretty sure that if Fisher made the table they would get in.
If UMU wins the Alfred bracket, then the committee was correct in not giving an East Region team a Pool C bid, IMHO.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2016, 08:39:11 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 13, 2016, 07:11:33 PM
Hard to believe that 1 team from the East was not good enough to get into the field as a Pool C. It would be nice to know who was first up to see why they did not get in. Any ideas as to who would have been first up, but not good enough to get in? Seems to me that it would be Frostburg or St. Lawrence. D3 folk were pretty sure that if Fisher made the table they would get in.
If UMU wins the Alfred bracket, then the committee was correct in not giving an East Region team a Pool C bid, IMHO.
Well they didn't even put the team with a better shot at being selected for a pool C up for it...
So of course they don't get a pool C...
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2016, 08:31:17 PM
We posted our interview with the NCAA Committee Chairman as a stand-alone podcast for now -- the rest of the show will be posted over the next day, as explained in the show's prologue.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/14/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Postscript: the tournament committee chair mentioned in this podcast that Mount was ranked fourth in the final North Region rankings. (Presumably behind Wheaton.)
He also said that the final region rankings will be made public later tonight.
Edit: they are now available here:
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional-rankings (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional-rankings)
Quote from: kiko on November 13, 2016, 10:13:45 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2016, 08:31:17 PM
We posted our interview with the NCAA Committee Chairman as a stand-alone podcast for now -- the rest of the show will be posted over the next day, as explained in the show's prologue.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/14/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Postscript: the tournament committee chair mentioned in this podcast that Mount was ranked fourth in the final North Region rankings. (Presumably behind Wheaton.)
He also said that the final region rankings will be made public later tonight.
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2016/final-regional-ranking
Kudos to the committee for releasing the final rankings.
That Salisbury ranking is funky. Not sure how Salisbury with three losses and bad common opponent result with 8-2 Del Val. And losing their last two? Hmmm. SJF got not just sorta hosed, iyam.
Think Frostburg blocked SJF all day?
TBH, Platteville vs. SJF vs. Berry vs. Franklin may have spun the same result. The first five were going to be selected no matter what.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2016, 11:11:26 PM
That Salisbury ranking is funky. Not sure how Salisbury with three losses and bad common opponent result with 8-2 Del Val. And losing their last two? Hmmm. SJF got not just sorta hosed, iyam.
wow
Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU? It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket. With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria. The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules. Am I missing something?
-Ski
I think geographic proximity split the East.
A North #4 UMU got sent to East #2 Hobart.
We can make the case that a #4 seed should have gotten a first round home game.
The 3 most difficult first round games for the home teams are IMHO:
Linfield at HSU
UMU at Hobart
UWP at Johnnies.
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 12:47:29 AM
Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU? It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket. With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria. The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules. Am I missing something?
-Ski
He said more than that.
He said the eye test plays a part and the name matters.
Using this info, (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2016/final-regional-ranking) I ascertained the following probable seedings:
1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
2. North Central
3. Hardin Simmons
4. Wheaton
5. Linfield
6. Huntingdon
7. Redlands
8. Rose-Hulman
1. St. Thomas
2. Oshkosh
3. Coe
4. St. John's
5. Monmouth
6. Platteville
7. Washington University
8. Northwestern
1. Whitewater
2. John Carroll
3. Wesley
4. Thomas More
5. Stevenson
6. Olivet
7. Wittenberg
8. Lakeland
1. Alfred
2. Johns Hopkins
3. Hobart
4. Mount Union
5. Western New England
6. Randolph-Macon
7. Bridgewater State
8. Husson
Thomas More and Stevenson were both ranked 4 in their regions, so I went with SOS to split hairs for those seedings.
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2016, 09:56:57 AM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 12:47:29 AM
Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU? It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket. With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria. The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules. Am I missing something?
-Ski
He said more than that.
He said the eye test plays a part and the name matters.
I like what Keith said in the podcast: (Paraphrasing) "If you want to make a case for a different Pool C team to get in...who would you take out?" All the Pool C teams that made it were ranked relatively high in the poll, where as all the bubble teams that didn't get in where ranked much lower.
The committee got it right. They went with common sense (UWP , Mount Union, etc. getting in) over just looking at the data.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2016, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2016, 09:56:57 AM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 12:47:29 AM
Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU? It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket. With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria. The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules. Am I missing something?
-Ski
He said more than that.
He said the eye test plays a part and the name matters.
I like what Keith said in the podcast: (Paraphrasing) "If you want to make a case for a different Pool C team to get in...who would you take out?" All the Pool C teams that made it were ranked relatively high in the poll, where as all the bubble teams that didn't get in where ranked much lower.
The committee got it right. They went with common sense (UWP , Mount Union, etc. getting in) over just looking at the data.
I understand why they picked MU. What I want to know is did they break the rules to do so. And, if that is the case, will we see a rewrite allowing the committee to allow for consideration of one or two loss teams based on their playoff history and not just undefeated teams..... or is there allowance within the guidelines already to do so. Just a clarification.
-Ski
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 10:51:19 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2016, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2016, 09:56:57 AM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 12:47:29 AM
Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU? It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket. With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria. The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules. Am I missing something?
-Ski
He said more than that.
He said the eye test plays a part and the name matters.
I like what Keith said in the podcast: (Paraphrasing) "If you want to make a case for a different Pool C team to get in...who would you take out?" All the Pool C teams that made it were ranked relatively high in the poll, where as all the bubble teams that didn't get in where ranked much lower.
The committee got it right. They went with common sense (UWP , Mount Union, etc. getting in) over just looking at the data.
I understand why they picked MU. What I want to know is did they break the rules to do so. And, if that is the case, will we see a rewrite allowing the committee to allow for consideration of one or two loss teams based on their playoff history and not just undefeated teams..... or is there allowance within the guidelines already to do so. Just a clarification.
-Ski
They used the "Eye Test" to make the decision. I would like clarification if this is what we are going to do going forward. I have know problem using the "Eye Test" when there are AQ chances as well. Everyone has an equal opportunity (unless restricted) to make the National playoff, just win the conference. If you do not, your subjected to the Criteria and now "Eye Test", which from listening to podcast, it appears that those at-large teams were the best. Now as an ERFan, I do have some bias, but this year is the perfect opportunity for our representatives to beat Mount Union or at least be competitive through 4 quarters and if Mount Union was to come out, win the Stagg or lose in a competitive way.
Quote from: D3MAFAN on November 14, 2016, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 10:51:19 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2016, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2016, 09:56:57 AM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 12:47:29 AM
Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU? It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket. With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria. The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules. Am I missing something?
-Ski
He said more than that.
He said the eye test plays a part and the name matters.
I like what Keith said in the podcast: (Paraphrasing) "If you want to make a case for a different Pool C team to get in...who would you take out?" All the Pool C teams that made it were ranked relatively high in the poll, where as all the bubble teams that didn't get in where ranked much lower.
The committee got it right. They went with common sense (UWP , Mount Union, etc. getting in) over just looking at the data.
I understand why they picked MU. What I want to know is did they break the rules to do so. And, if that is the case, will we see a rewrite allowing the committee to allow for consideration of one or two loss teams based on their playoff history and not just undefeated teams..... or is there allowance within the guidelines already to do so. Just a clarification.
-Ski
They used the "Eye Test" to make the decision. I would like clarification if this is what we are going to do going forward. I have know problem using the "Eye Test" when there are AQ chances as well. Everyone has an equal opportunity (unless restricted) to make the National playoff, just win the conference. If you do not, your subjected to the Criteria and now "Eye Test", which from listening to podcast, it appears that those at-large teams were the best. Now as an ERFan, I do have some bias, but this year is the perfect opportunity for our representatives to beat Mount Union or at least be competitive through 4 quarters and if Mount Union was to come out, win the Stagg or lose in a competitive way.
No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based. If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2016, 11:18:45 AM
No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based. If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.
....If you exclude MU.
-Ski
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2016, 11:18:45 AM
No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based. If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.
....If you exclude MU.
-Ski
A last minute loss to the #2 team in the region as your only loss was their superior criteria argument. That's not "eye test".
I am guessing the movement on the board was as follows:
Oshkosh
Hardin-Simmons
Wheaton
St. John's
Board: Frostburg / Mt. Union / Berry / Platteville
I think 90% of us would have chosen Mt. Union.
Frostburg and Berry had wins against the #10 regionally ranked teams, but got pounded in their losses. I think the committee has leeway to go, "Hmmm...I think the East and South ranked those teams at #10 to help Frostburg and Berry".
The SOS difference isn't huge. For teams with only one non-conference game, you try your best to schedule well and sometimes you whiff (see Wabash vs. Albion). NC Wesleyan wasn't a bad team (beat Huntingdon), and they probably lost a win thanks to the hurricane. That win may have normalized the SOS a little more for Mt. Union.
I'm pretty certain now ranking Frostburg instead of SJF trapped SJF and the Committee would have chosen them over Platteville.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2016, 11:51:28 AM
I am guessing the movement on the board was as follows:
Oshkosh
Hardin-Simmons
Wheaton
St. John's
Board: Frostburg / Mt. Union / Berry / Platteville
I think 90% of us would have chosen Mt. Union.
Frostburg and Berry had wins against the #10 regionally ranked teams, but got pounded in their losses. I think the committee has leeway to go, "Hmmm...I think the East and South ranked those teams at #10 to help Frostburg and Berry".
The SOS difference isn't huge. For teams with only one non-conference game, you try your best to schedule well and sometimes you whiff (see Wabash vs. Albion). NC Wesleyan wasn't a bad team (beat Huntingdon), and they probably lost a win thanks to the hurricane. That win may have normalized the SOS a little more for Mt. Union.
I'm pretty certain now ranking Frostburg instead of SJF trapped SJF and the Committee would have chosen them over Platteville.
Agree Smed, it looks like Frostburg was not good enough to get in at any point. Hard to argue with who is in in the end. I don't think Frostburg or Fisher would win more than one game, well if you put them where mount is maybe they would.
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2016, 11:51:28 AM
Frostburg and Berry had wins against the #10 regionally ranked teams, but got pounded in their losses. I think the committee has leeway to go, "Hmmm...I think the East and South ranked those teams at #10 to help Frostburg and Berry".
Unfortunately for Fisher, the East committee just as easily could have moved 7-3 Brockport into 10 allowing the Cards to be 2-1 against RRO and have a more compelling Pool C case.
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 11:56:15 PM
Think Frostburg blocked SJF all day?
TBH, Platteville vs. SJF vs. Berry vs. Franklin may have spun the same result. The first five were going to be selected no matter what.
100% Frostburg blocked SJF. In our mock we kept SJF ahead of Frostburg- we also didn't rank Salisbury. In any case, at the end, it was basically a toss up between UWP and SJF. I think SJF won 2-1 in our voting, but it would have been totally reasonable to pick UWP. I think UWP crushes Frostburg no matter how long Frostburg is sitting around, and that would appear to be how this went down. If this was calculated by the East RAC, they missed badly. I think leveraging SJF's SOS was by far the best opportunity to put one of the region's at-large teams in the field.
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2016, 11:18:45 AM
No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based. If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.
....If you exclude MU.
-Ski
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2016, 11:48:48 AM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2016, 11:18:45 AM
No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based. If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.
....If you exclude MU.
-Ski
A last minute loss to the #2 team in the region as your only loss was their superior criteria argument. That's not "eye test".
Perhaps it's not "eye test", but I believe the director used that term and the "name" idea when discussing Mt's inclusion. Maybe he should have just said they had the best criteria results.
As I'm in favor of including recent history to help inform Pool C selections, I'm in favor of Mt's inclusion even if they didn't have the criteria.
I think that UMU may enjoy the Road Warrior meme. They have the opportunity that most UMU teams "avoided".
The 2005 UMU team lost to ONU in regular season, but still played 4 playoff games at home on the way to their Stagg Bowl win over UWW.
The 2004 UMHB went on the road against 4 Top 10's on the Road to Stagg.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice. It is ultimately silly to think otherwise. My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team. If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens? Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.
-Ski
I really don't think so. They were on the board with three other teams, and considered fairly. The two one-loss teams may have had a RR win, but pedestrian results even with a slightly higher SOS. Mt. Union had one slip and rolled through an OAC that was down, but perhaps better than the SAA and a step below the NJAC.
When you get on the board, it's not rote.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 11:56:15 PM
Think Frostburg blocked SJF all day?
TBH, Platteville vs. SJF vs. Berry vs. Franklin may have spun the same result. The first five were going to be selected no matter what.
100% Frostburg blocked SJF. In our mock we kept SJF ahead of Frostburg- we also didn't rank Salisbury. In any case, at the end, it was basically a toss up between UWP and SJF. I think SJF won 2-1 in our voting, but it would have been totally reasonable to pick UWP. I think UWP crushes Frostburg no matter how long Frostburg is sitting around, and that would appear to be how this went down. If this was calculated by the East RAC, they missed badly. I think leveraging SJF's SOS was by far the best opportunity to put one of the region's at-large teams in the field.
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Quote from: AO on November 14, 2016, 11:18:45 AM
No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based. If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.
....If you exclude MU.
-Ski
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
If the committee picked UWP over Fisher it would have been completely justified, the fact that Fisher didn't make it to the discussion showed that the East had no clue about pool C possibilities.
They even kept a 7-3 SU team in the rankings to help FSU and it blew up in their face. The committee probably didn't take into account their poor SOS and figured since that they were 9-1 and 1-1 vs RRO that it would be a good case.
The East region missed out on a legitimate opportunity, and maybe even an actual bid, because they completely misread the lay of the land.
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice. It is ultimately silly to think otherwise. My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team. If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens? Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.
-Ski
I think you're misreading that Mount Union got selected this year because they were good last year. They got selected this year because they were really good this year.
Quote from: Upstate on November 14, 2016, 03:06:15 PM
If the committee picked UWP over Fisher it would have been completely justified, the fact that Fisher didn't make it to the discussion showed that the East had no clue about pool C possibilities.
They even kept a 7-3 SU team in the rankings to help FSU and it blew up in their face. The committee probably didn't take into account their poor SOS and figured since that they were 9-1 and 1-1 vs RRO that it would be a good case.
The East region missed out on a legitimate opportunity, and maybe even an actual bid, because they completely misread the lay of the land.
They definitely didn't help themselves. My question is whether this was cluelessness or a an attempt to get 2 Pool C bids that blew up in their faces. Did they assume that ranking SU would be enough to nudge FSU in, and then hoped that SJF could get in on their merits in a tossup for the last spot with UWP? It obviously didn't work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the first time the East Region Committee has played with who gets the last ranking spots in order to bolster the resume of its Pool C candidates is it (work it so a team gets an extra RRO)? I seem to recall them doing something similar a few years back and that it was more effective.
Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2016, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: Upstate on November 14, 2016, 03:06:15 PM
If the committee picked UWP over Fisher it would have been completely justified, the fact that Fisher didn't make it to the discussion showed that the East had no clue about pool C possibilities.
They even kept a 7-3 SU team in the rankings to help FSU and it blew up in their face. The committee probably didn't take into account their poor SOS and figured since that they were 9-1 and 1-1 vs RRO that it would be a good case.
The East region missed out on a legitimate opportunity, and maybe even an actual bid, because they completely misread the lay of the land.
They definitely didn't help themselves. My question is whether this was cluelessness or a an attempt to get 2 Pool C bids that blew up in their faces. Did they assume that ranking SU would be enough to nudge FSU in, and then hoped that SJF could get in on their merits in a tossup for the last spot with UWP? It obviously didn't work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the first time the East Region Committee has played with who gets the last ranking spots in order to bolster the resume of its Pool C candidates is it (work it so a team gets an extra RRO)? I seem to recall them doing something similar a few years back and that it was more effective.
I don't know, I can't remember if they did or didn't....
They could have easily put Fisher above Frostburg and then Port at #10 (7-3 with losses to Hobart, Fisher, Alfred by 11 total points) to give Fisher a 2-1 record vs RRO and a .590 SOS....
Buuut the committee chair from Kean thinks that the NJAC and E8 are comparable (without Wesley from last year the NJAC has not made it past the 2nd round in 8 years) so let's try and get the NJAC runner up in that has a SOS that's below Fisher and St. Lawrence....
I do think there was some thought they ranked a team in the Top 10 to get a team in. I think it was 2013 Framingham, perhaps? (I think the MASCAC was Pool B then...)
And it wasn't very long ago that a one loss team almost always went before a 2 loss team, despite the criteria.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice. It is ultimately silly to think otherwise. My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team. If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens? Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.
-Ski
I think you're misreading that Mount Union got selected this year because they were good last year. They got selected this year because they were really good this year.
This is the part I think the Mount detractors are missing. Mount is down this year -- but only if you measure them by Mount standards. They are still fully capable of earning their way to Salem, and that would be true if they were in any of the four quadrants of the bracket. Their selection wasn't charity.
One thing to keep in mind when looking at Mount Union's relatively weak SOS number and lack of RRO victories is that they controlled only 1/10 of what went into that calculation. Their number was weak largely because their conference mates fared poorly in the one out-of-conference swing each got at the piñata. The committee chair noted in the HuddLLe interview that football has the weakest set of data to work with, and because of this the committee chose to look beyond the numbers as part of their discussions. Personally, I am glad to see this. The numbers are there to aid the discussion, not to make the decision for you.
I read Mount's poor SOS and lack of RRO victories as 'the OAC was a bit down' and not 'Mount played a weak schedule that I should penalize them for'. They're still Mount effing Union -- a living breathing version of that program and all of its acumen, and not a pale shadow of faded glory. Absent additional losses on the field, it would be a huge miss to ignore their body of work over the past quarter-century (including this year) and simply fall back on an imperfect mathematical exercise for selection purposes. Selecting them and putting them on the road from the get-go was a very fair set of choices for the committee to make.
Quote from: kiko on November 14, 2016, 09:06:01 PM
This is the part I think the Mount detractors are missing. Mount is down this year -- but only if you measure them by Mount standards. They are still fully capable of earning their way to Salem, and that would be true if they were in any of the four quadrants of the bracket. Their selection wasn't charity.
One thing to keep in mind when looking at Mount Union's relatively weak SOS number and lack of RRO victories is that they controlled only 1/10 of what went into that calculation. Their number was weak largely because their conference mates fared poorly in the one out-of-conference swing each got at the piñata. The committee chair noted in the HuddLLe interview that football has the weakest set of data to work with, and because of this the committee chose to look beyond the numbers as part of their discussions. Personally, I am glad to see this. The numbers are there to aid the discussion, not to make the decision for you.
I read Mount's poor SOS and lack of RRO victories as 'the OAC was a bit down' and not 'Mount played a weak schedule that I should penalize them for'. They're still Mount effing Union -- a living breathing version of that program and all of its acumen, and not a pale shadow of faded glory. Absent additional losses on the field, it would be a huge miss to ignore their body of work over the past quarter-century (including this year) and simply fall back on an imperfect mathematical exercise for selection purposes. Selecting them and putting them on the road from the get-go was a very fair set of choices for the committee to make.
Very good post. +K. I'll reiterate teams what a very smart person said (either WallyWabash or ExTartanplayer), teams with 9 league games; they trend toward a .500 SOS.
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 14, 2016, 09:23:27 PM
I'll reiterate teams what a very smart person said (either WallyWabash or ExTartanplayer), teams with 9 league games; they trend toward a .500 SOS.
You can read more about that here. (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/single-post/2016/03/13/A-Treatise-on-Strength-of-Schedule)
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 14, 2016, 11:09:42 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 14, 2016, 09:23:27 PM
I'll reiterate teams what a very smart person said (either WallyWabash or ExTartanplayer), teams with 9 league games; they trend toward a .500 SOS.
You can read more about that here. (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/single-post/2016/03/13/A-Treatise-on-Strength-of-Schedule)
Ah yes! It was you! Apologies.
Hey thx for listening to the show!
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 14, 2016, 11:09:42 PM
Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 14, 2016, 09:23:27 PM
I'll reiterate teams what a very smart person said (either WallyWabash or ExTartanplayer), teams with 9 league games; they trend toward a .500 SOS.
You can read more about that here. (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/single-post/2016/03/13/A-Treatise-on-Strength-of-Schedule)
+ k for the University of Okoboji example!
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice. It is ultimately silly to think otherwise. My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team. If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens? Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.
-Ski
I think you're misreading that Mount Union got selected this year because they were good last year. They got selected this year because they were really good this year.
Well just not quite as good as a team that lost to Oshkosh by 19.
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2016, 04:01:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice. It is ultimately silly to think otherwise. My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team. If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens? Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.
-Ski
I think you're misreading that Mount Union got selected this year because they were good last year. They got selected this year because they were really good this year.
Well just not quite as good as a team that lost to Oshkosh by 19.
I see this is still a thing. If the argument is that 2016 Mount Union is somehow ordinary or average, make the case. Because it isn't there, particularly when you stack them up against the other 9-1's that didn't make it in. I can't be more direct here- There is not a reasonable argument to be made to exclude Mount Union from this tournament. Not one.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2016, 06:35:34 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2016, 04:01:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice. It is ultimately silly to think otherwise. My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team. If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens? Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.
-Ski
I think you're misreading that Mount Union got selected this year because they were good last year. They got selected this year because they were really good this year.
Well just not quite as good as a team that lost to Oshkosh by 19.
I see this is still a thing. If the argument is that 2016 Mount Union is somehow ordinary or average, make the case. Because it isn't there, particularly when you stack them up against the other 9-1's that didn't make it in. I can't be more direct here- There is not a reasonable argument to be made to exclude Mount Union from this tournament. Not one.
I didn't mean to suggest that Mount Union didn't belong in the field, only that based on this season alone we don't have a lot of evidence that they are "really good this year." Good yes, really good? We shall see.
Mr. Hansen, I don't know if you take requests, but if you do, I'm curious to see a comparison of the odds of a Pool C team winning the Stagg in 2016 compared to some number of previous years.
The Pool C group looks to be so strong this year while the Pool A group looks less dominant than previous years.
Thank you in advance.
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2016, 12:05:42 PM
Mr. Hansen, I don't know if you take requests, but if you do, I'm curious to see a comparison of the odds of a Pool C team winning the Stagg in 2016 compared to some number of previous years.
The Pool C group looks to be so strong this year while the Pool A group looks less dominant than previous years.
Thank you in advance.
I love requests, then I know at least one person will read what I have to say.
Here's the pre-tournament odds for the last 10 years according to my model:
| Year | Pool C Team w/ Best Odds | Any Pool C Team Odds |
| 2016 | Mount Union: 20.2% | 32.2% |
| 2015 | UW-Whitewater: 3.1% | 3.5 |
| 2014 | John Carroll: 4.6% | 4.8% |
| 2013 | John Carroll: 8.4% | 8.7% |
| 2012 | Heidelberg: 0.5% | 0.5% |
| 2011 | McMurry: 0.03% | 0.1% |
| 2010 | Ohio Northern: 0.5% | 0.7% |
| 2009 | Mary Hardin-Baylor: 0.4% | 0.8% |
| 2008 | UW-Whitewater: 19.5% | 20.1% |
| 2007 | St. John Fisher: 0.05% | 0.1% |
In 2008, the only other years with comparable odds, UWW made the finals as a 4 seed (lost to UWSP in reg. season, Wartburg beat UWSP 1st round), but every other Pool C team combined only had 0.5% odds of winning the title. Outside of UMU this season, the other 5 Pool C teams combined would have the best odds for any year but 2008.
Quote from: HansenRatings on November 16, 2016, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2016, 12:05:42 PM
Mr. Hansen, I don't know if you take requests, but if you do, I'm curious to see a comparison of the odds of a Pool C team winning the Stagg in 2016 compared to some number of previous years.
The Pool C group looks to be so strong this year while the Pool A group looks less dominant than previous years.
Thank you in advance.
I love requests, then I know at least one person will read what I have to say.
Here's the pre-tournament odds for the last 10 years according to my model:
| Year | Pool C Team w/ Best Odds | Any Pool C Team Odds |
| 2016 | Mount Union: 20.2% | 32.2% |
| 2015 | UW-Whitewater: 3.1% | 3.5 |
| 2014 | John Carroll: 4.6% | 4.8% |
| 2013 | John Carroll: 8.4% | 8.7% |
| 2012 | Heidelberg: 0.5% | 0.5% |
| 2011 | McMurry: 0.03% | 0.1% |
| 2010 | Ohio Northern: 0.5% | 0.7% |
| 2009 | Mary Hardin-Baylor: 0.4% | 0.8% |
| 2008 | UW-Whitewater: 19.5% | 20.1% |
| 2007 | St. John Fisher: 0.05% | 0.1% |
In 2008, the only other years with comparable odds, UWW made the finals as a 4 seed (lost to UWSP in reg. season, Wartburg beat UWSP 1st round), but every other Pool C team combined only had 0.5% odds of winning the title. Outside of UMU this season, the other 5 Pool C teams combined would have the best odds for any year but 2008.
Wow, even more dramatic than I thought.
Thanks so much.
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Wow, even more dramatic than I thought.
Thanks so much.
A lot of that has to do with the lack of a truly dominant squad this season. In some of those years, UMU and UWW combined for about 90% of the pre-tournament championship odds. This season, UMHB has the best odds at ~30%, and UMU/UST have the second best odds @20%, with a bunch of teams in the 1-10% range.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwTEIbb9.png%3F1&hash=ef8384a7b214c86a38f2ad407f3a597e40a6ad5d)
Quote from: ADL70 on November 16, 2016, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2016, 06:35:34 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2016, 04:01:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Teamski on November 14, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 14, 2016, 12:36:34 PM
You're going to have come off of this at some point. I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong. We all know what Mount Union's criteria said. If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results. They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3. That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs. It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.
In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice. It is ultimately silly to think otherwise. My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team. If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens? Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.
-Ski
I think you're misreading that Mount Union got selected this year because they were good last year. They got selected this year because they were really good this year.
Well just not quite as good as a team that lost to Oshkosh by 19.
I see this is still a thing. If the argument is that 2016 Mount Union is somehow ordinary or average, make the case. Because it isn't there, particularly when you stack them up against the other 9-1's that didn't make it in. I can't be more direct here- There is not a reasonable argument to be made to exclude Mount Union from this tournament. Not one.
I didn't mean to suggest that Mount Union didn't belong in the field, only that based on this season alone we don't have a lot of evidence that they are "really good this year." Good yes, really good? We shall see.
You can look at the numbers- scoring margins, offense/defense efficiencies, etc. I know the schedule they played wasn't strong, but they played EXCELLENT against that schedule. Maybe Logan can put a number on it- like how probable it is for the average tournament team (or even the average at-large team) to perform that well against that same schedule- not just wins and losses vs the schedule but the actual statistical outputs against the schedule. I think that's the point that people are really missing on the Mount Union thing. Their performance was way above and beyond what basically anybody else would do against the same schedule.
In terms of pure W-L%, Mount Union had the 7th most impressive record in the country. The only team with a loss ahead of them is Oshkosh. An average Top 25 team could only be expected to do at least as well against that schedule 35% of the time. It would be harder to go 9-1 against Mount Union's schedule than it would be against Wheaton's. If you throw in the MOV, which is essentially what my overall ratings try to do, Mount Union is the second-best team in the country.
They have 8 mutual opponents with JCU, and on average outscored those opponents by nearly 2 touchdowns (12.75 ppg) more than JCU did. None of this matters on the field, JCU still won that game (and the OAC), but let's get real, had JCU not scored late to win that game, our perception of the "untouchable Mount Union" would hardly be tarnished.
In 2011, McMurry won at Trinity in the first round and lost at UMHB in the second round.
How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run.
So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.
On its opening drive, the HSU running back had a striving driving tackle-breaking run to the 1-yd line that ended in a strip-fumble.
That may have been a momentum changer. The Linfield QB is everything he is mentioned to be.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2016, 05:21:27 PM
How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run.
So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.
Eh, it was a good margin on paper but I wouldn't call it comfortably in the MUC-Hobart game. It was a game well into the 4th until the back to back picks. Frankly Hobart played a pretty undisciplined and unprepared game (major 2nd half penalties and allowing a unintentional 30yd insides kick turnover) and this MUC may have deserved a pool C but they aren't so outstanding as to be head and shoulders above the field as some have suggested.
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 19, 2016, 08:38:29 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2016, 05:21:27 PM
How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run.
So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.
Eh, it was a good margin on paper but I wouldn't call it comfortably in the MUC-Hobart game. It was a game well into the 4th until the back to back picks. Frankly Hobart played a pretty undisciplined and unprepared game (major 2nd half penalties and allowing a unintentional 30yd insides kick turnover) and this MUC may have deserved a pool C but they aren't so outstanding as to be head and shoulders above the field as some have suggested.
They are also playing with a freshman QB who didn't play half the year. They have another week to get better. Their game at Hopkins will be telling.
Agreed. This was a Hobart team maybe on par w 06-08 vintages and didn't play an "A" game though so a typical MUC team should've been up by 28 midway through the third instead of tied though. While I don't think much of the CC (and actually think the LL is a little better), I will not be surprised if JHU beats MUC. I actually think this is the "important" game for the east (BMore and the CC are really eastern region by function of not NCAA designation when considering who they recruit and who they play) in that I'm pretty sure the D3fotball world has vastly overrated the E8 this year and while Alfred has had a nice season they're probably not any better than Hobart or any non-Wesley (who's not great this year) team.
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 19, 2016, 08:38:29 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2016, 05:21:27 PM
How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run.
So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.
Eh, it was a good margin on paper but I wouldn't call it comfortably in the MUC-Hobart game. It was a game well into the 4th until the back to back picks. Frankly Hobart played a pretty undisciplined and unprepared game (major 2nd half penalties and allowing a unintentional 30yd insides kick turnover) and this MUC may have deserved a pool C but they aren't so outstanding as to be head and shoulders above the field as some have suggested.
Ok? Hobart had exactly three plays in the fourth quarter with a chance to tie, and spend the last 10 minutes chasing two scores. I'm calling that comfortable, but we can differ on that view.
Ask the MUC fans if they felt comfortable. I don't really want to argue this point except to make sure everyone realizes this was much closer than the consensus would've expected. Tied well into the third, Hobart had two back to back picks in the 4th that sealed it, but how often is MUC playing a first round game where they have to hit a Fg that late to feel good (4th quarter). And when have you seen them attempt a onside kick in q3 and then get a freebie later that quarter on a semi squib Ko (around the 4min mark of Q3).
I'll say this. As a Hobart fan and alum former player from a long time ago I expected us to get waxed and even at a ten point game getting the ball with around 7min left I felt like we were still in it (and again their last TD was off a tipped pass INt that gave them the ball around the 30 and scored w2min left). This was a team who's had 7-8 4th quarter come from behind wins and an AA QB and WR. I figured I'd be barely focused on the game in the 4th quarter so this was a serious surprise. They demonstrated their "earned access" pool C sure if you believe Hobatt is half decent this year, especially over the alternatives, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as "yawn, MUc walked away with the game the way everyone expected". Either anyone watching the game has to believe Hobart is far better than they thought going in (esp being -2 and a sh**load of penalties if you want to just look at box scores) or this MUC team isnt your fathers Mt Union. My view is a little of north but more that this MUC team wouldn't make the final four unless they get by JHU I next week (I've thought the E8 has been overrated all year personally)
It may be 'comfortable', but it's not typical Mt. Union comfortable.
A ten point lead w over 9 minutes left in the game is not what I believe the overwhelming majority of football coaches would consider "comfortable".
UWP had that lead, I doubt they ever felt comfortable.
The problem with talking about comfortable is that it is a relative term. Each person has a different view of what comfortable is.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2016, 05:21:27 PM
How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run.
So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.
My gut tells me that only one Pool C team advances this next week - the winner of the St. John's - Oshkosh game. I think Johns Hopkins and North Central will beat the other two Pool C teams, Mount Union and Wheaton, respectively.
So the two underdog road teams lose while only of of the two pool C teams who play each other will advance? That is a gutsy call! 8-)
Quote from: USee on November 20, 2016, 09:31:09 AM
So the two underdog road teams lose while only of of the two pool C teams who play each other will advance? That is a gutsy call! 8-)
They don't call me "Mr. Obvious" for nothing! :D
Quote from: matblake on November 20, 2016, 08:34:30 AM
The problem with talking about comfortable is that it is a relative term. Each person has a different view of what comfortable is.
Pep might have been "comfortable" yesterday with his Saxons leading 42-7 at halftime and Pep going home to take a nap, curled up on his comfy sofa with a comforter, listening to the second half on the radio.
Instead, Pep, at first sweating with just a tee-shirt while setting up for the band pre-game, donned first his sweatshirt then at halftime went to the car to add another jacket. Shortly thereafter, the band was forced to assemble the (not-so) EZ-Ups for the second half with every kind of precipitation imaginable pelting uncovered fans with gusts of wind, flying music stands, and, to top it off, a wind-aided 40+ yard ugly field goal with less than a minute to go that somehow went through to force OT...but not before the Saxons had a chance to win it in regulation on a field goal attempt that was turned back by that same wind.
Pep seldom feels comfortable. And Pep has never argued that his Saxons should be ranked higher. Quite frankly, Pep is slightly amused that d3football.com would label it the "Alfred Bracket" when Pep believes that Johns Hopkins may, in fact, be the highest seed. But a matter of geography landed the Saxons a home game with the Massachusetts champ, which is no chump. There's a reason the Bears won eight straight conference games. They played us better than any E8 opponents this season. Kudos to Bridgewater State.
It will be interesting to see whether the Saxons can pull it together this week, with Thanksgiving and all, to give Western New England (11-0) a fight in "The Pit."
On Saxon Warriors!
Still 3 Cs left in Oshkosh, Wheaton and Mount Union. While I may be "Mr. Obvious", it seems apparent that I obviously can't pick 'em.
Oshkosh and Mount Union remain. And with UMHB as an at-large team as well, only John Carroll remains of the field's 25 automatic qualifiers. I don't know what that means, but it sounds interesting.
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 07:00:53 PM
Oshkosh and Mount Union remain. And with UMHB as an at-large team as well, only John Carroll remains of the field's 25 automatic qualifiers. I don't know what that means, but it sounds interesting.
I don't know any easy way to check it out (maybe one of the gurus will simply know), but I would think having only one AQ is the final four has got to be unprecedented.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2016, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 07:00:53 PM
Oshkosh and Mount Union remain. And with UMHB as an at-large team as well, only John Carroll remains of the field's 25 automatic qualifiers. I don't know what that means, but it sounds interesting.
I don't know any easy way to check it out (maybe one of the gurus will simply know), but I would think having only one AQ is the final four has got to be unprecedented.
I cannot remember 3 at-larges in the semis. +1 Wally!
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 07:00:53 PM
Oshkosh and Mount Union remain. And with UMHB as an at-large team as well, only John Carroll remains of the field's 25 automatic qualifiers. I don't know what that means, but it sounds interesting.
I was wondering about this myself last night at a Christmas Concert - yeah, kind of a dull moment when my mind wandered. :)
Pat will probably know, but when, if ever, have two "at large" teams played in the Stagg bowl?
Quote from: art76 on December 10, 2016, 09:20:06 PM
Pat will probably know, but when, if ever, have two "at large" teams played in the Stagg bowl?
I believe that PacLu and Rowan were both Pool B schools in 1999.***
PacLu 42-13
***Referencing the information found on the D3football.com website...