Pool C - 2017

[RtSLl3100]

Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I don't understand the South; you move CWRU up 2 spots. I see the argument they are still undefeated, but such a weak SOS compared to centre and JHU. I think the committee is trying to cover themselves by hoping CWRU gets to the table before Centre, bc if they don't then they would be potentially leaving a 10-0 team out of the tournament(assuming they beat CMU). Also what would that do to a JHU team;hopefully a pool A selection but being 6S does that hurt their chances to potential to host a 1st round game? It seems like they are doing what everyone else feels the north has failed to do by keeping IWU behind DPU.

[HansenRatings]

I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here. The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here. The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.

FYI - the Lake Forest coach is not allowed to be involved in the call when his team is discussed. Furthermore, each member votes on their own on a computer after they have had conversations. So while you have a popular conspiracy theory used in a lot of sports, the NCAA has made a lot of efforts to remove that from the scenarios. Furthermore, he (or really the other co-chair) has to defend that pick with the national committee. If they don't like the reasoning (i.e. because he is co-chair), the national committee would quickly change it. I promise you, they aren't leaving it there because of any "boys network" per se.

[wally_wabash]

Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I don't understand the South; you move CWRU up 2 spots. I see the argument they are still undefeated, but such a weak SOS compared to centre and JHU. I think the committee is trying to cover themselves by hoping CWRU gets to the table before Centre, bc if they don't then they would be potentially leaving a 10-0 team out of the tournament(assuming they beat CMU). Also what would that do to a JHU team;hopefully a pool A selection but being 6S does that hurt their chances to potential to host a 1st round game? It seems like they are doing what everyone else feels the north has failed to do by keeping IWU behind DPU.

Being undefeated is a big deal.  I think there are 12 such teams left in the entire division.  Bad SOS or no, being undefeated matters. 

The committee isn't covering anything really.  The South RAC is setting the order here- CWRU and Centre will never be considered at the same time nationally. 

Hopkins is not hopefully a Pool A team, they're it.  Waaaait.  Nope- they have to win this week.  I need to fix that in my table.  But, if they do win this week, they qualify automatically.  No selection involved with Hopkins.  Now, Hopkins did lose to an unranked team and when you do that, you definitely open yourself up to playing on the road.  That's not games the committee is playing, that's just the razor thin margins for error that any team has when it comes to seeding. 

[HansenRatings]

I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here. The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.

FYI - the Lake Forest coach is not allowed to be involved in the call when his team is discussed. Furthermore, each member votes on their own on a computer after they have had conversations. So while you have a popular conspiracy theory used in a lot of sports, the NCAA has made a lot of efforts to remove that from the scenarios. Furthermore, he (or really the other co-chair) has to defend that pick with the national committee. If they don't like the reasoning (i.e. because he is co-chair), the national committee would quickly change it. I promise you, they aren't leaving it there because of any "boys network" per se.

I wasn't aware of the individual voting process, but I did know coaches weren't on the call when their team is discussed. Even with those caveats, I believe that the subconscious biases of the other coaches, knowing Catanzaro is on the committee with them, is the only reason they're ranked.

[RtSLl3100]

Quick reactions...

- East rankings are totally sensible.  I've got nothing here. 
- The North remains a mystery.  Not sure how you can justify DePauw ahead of IWU still when DPU has no RRO wins, a 52-6 RRO loss, and just got done trailing Kenyon in the 4th quarter of a non-exhibition game.  0.015 points of SOS doesn't cover that stuff up. 
- I thought the South might keep CWRU back another week, but they went ahead and pushed them up into playoff position today.  The optics are a little better for CWRU this week, but the game is the same- they need to win to be in. 
- Linfield went from t2 to 4 which probably sets them up to either host Chapman or go back to H-SU next week depending on whether or not the committee can talk their way out of a Texas rematch in round 1.  Wartburg stays at #2 and maybe in position for a top seed.  Interesting that La Crosse stayed ahead of Concordia-Moorhead.  Maybe the North region folks aren't the only ones ignoring Whitewater. 

Projection coming later!

I don't understand the South; you move CWRU up 2 spots. I see the argument they are still undefeated, but such a weak SOS compared to centre and JHU. I think the committee is trying to cover themselves by hoping CWRU gets to the table before Centre, bc if they don't then they would be potentially leaving a 10-0 team out of the tournament(assuming they beat CMU). Also what would that do to a JHU team;hopefully a pool A selection but being 6S does that hurt their chances to potential to host a 1st round game? It seems like they are doing what everyone else feels the north has failed to do by keeping IWU behind DPU.

Being undefeated is a big deal.  I think there are 12 such teams left in the entire division.  Bad SOS or no, being undefeated matters. 

The committee isn't covering anything really.  The South RAC is setting the order here- CWRU and Centre will never be considered at the same time nationally. 

Hopkins is not hopefully a Pool A team, they're it.  Waaaait.  Nope- they have to win this week.  I need to fix that in my table.  But, if they do win this week, they qualify automatically.  No selection involved with Hopkins.  Now, Hopkins did lose to an unranked team and when you do that, you definitely open yourself up to playing on the road.  That's not games the committee is playing, that's just the razor thin margins for error that any team has when it comes to seeding.

I do think it is a fair and understandable argument, but what changed some much from the week 1 regional rankings to week 2 for them to move CWRU up to spots is more the question? If your saying being undefeated is more important than SOS, why not have them ranked higher in the first ranking?

[Pat Coleman]

I wrote about some of my thoughts on the regional rankings here. The a couple things confused me, most notably DePauw>IWU, UWL>C-M, & Lake Forest ranked at all. After a quick google search, I'm no longer confused about Lake Forest, because it appears their HC is the co-chair of the RAC.

I really hope IWU gets bumped ahead of DePauw. They're probably the most-deserving Pool C team this year. Really, really baffling stuff that they're not the top Pool C candidate in their own region.

FYI - the Lake Forest coach is not allowed to be involved in the call when his team is discussed. Furthermore, each member votes on their own on a computer after they have had conversations. So while you have a popular conspiracy theory used in a lot of sports, the NCAA has made a lot of efforts to remove that from the scenarios. Furthermore, he (or really the other co-chair) has to defend that pick with the national committee. If they don't like the reasoning (i.e. because he is co-chair), the national committee would quickly change it. I promise you, they aren't leaving it there because of any "boys network" per se.

I wasn't aware of the individual voting process, but I did know coaches weren't on the call when their team is discussed. Even with those caveats, I believe that the subconscious biases of the other coaches, knowing Catanzaro is on the committee with them, is the only reason they're ranked.

I was wondering if you felt the same about the West Region's other co-chair. You only singled out one when ...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Those on these committees (coaches and administrators, never less than 50% admins) take these jobs seriously. Do you really think the admins, especially, suddenly want to kiss the rear end of the co-chair and thus vote them higher?

Please can we leave these ideas in the past. There is a history in DIII of this. We can all talk about those days. However, the criteria, committee makeups, and data have pretty much eliminated these things. Each individual does vote on their own on a computer after the call and that has been in place for about five years or so. Driving this conspiracy theory is something I don't think does anything for anyone.

And personally, it is an easy way to make up a reason for the decision. When I find a decision that doesn't add up at first I do two things: I dive into the information to try and discover why the committee made the choice the way they did; I contact someone and simply ask the question and find out the answer (and question more if I have to). Maybe you can't do the second one, but to try and indicate that the reason behind the decision was because people wanted to be nice to the co-chair is a theory too far in my opinion.

[HansenRatings]

Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?

[USee]

I do know that Rod Sandberg, Whitworth HC, is the co-chair of the West RAC and a member of the national committee. It should be noted he played and then coached at Wheaton for  a dozen years or so. His best friend is also former Wabash HC Chris Creighton. I can assure you he is well aware of the quality of football in the North Region. While Rod has as much integrity as you would imagine, he is not un-informed. He is also just one vote.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?

I just think by entertaining the idea... it opens the door. By saying it is subconscious, you are giving it the idea of it happening.

I don't think even subconsciously it happens. I especially point out the admins not because they are free from bias, but that they aren't usually wrapped up in the games that coaches play themselves. I am certainly not saying they are perfectly logical, but I have found admins to sometimes be so out of touch (to some degree) that the idea that their subconscious would push them to reward the co-chair a stretch.

Honestly if anything, I think more people would be keen to vote in the opposite direction and try as hard to keep a bias from being formed as to look for any possible reason NOT to vote for said team. I think in these cases, it is harder for them to achieve a position because they have to explain it to said coach when he returns to the call or when the vote comes in.

[tf37]

On the North RR, my problem is the apparent inconsistency. If SOS is so important between IWU and DePauw, why is Wheaton ahead of Hope?

And for that matter, what did Hope do to jump Millikin?  Both teams won handily against a lower tier members of their respective conferences.

[Ralph Turner]

Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?

I just think by entertaining the idea... it opens the door. By saying it is subconscious, you are giving it the idea of it happening.

I don't think even subconsciously it happens. I especially point out the admins not because they are free from bias, but that they aren't usually wrapped up in the games that coaches play themselves. I am certainly not saying they are perfectly logical, but I have found admins to sometimes be so out of touch (to some degree) that the idea that their subconscious would push them to reward the co-chair a stretch.

Honestly if anything, I think more people would be keen to vote in the opposite direction and try as hard to keep a bias from being formed as to look for any possible reason NOT to vote for said team. I think in these cases, it is harder for them to achieve a position because they have to explain it to said coach when he returns to the call or when the vote comes in.

I am with Dave on this one. I believe that the members on the committee want to be remembered as having served on the committee honorably and having the best intentions of improving the playoffs each year.

[HansenRatings]

Yeah... Dave, that's not what I said at all. I said subconscious, which means they don't know they're doing it. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say humans are easily biased, often by things we aren't aware of. That sort of thing would be especially amplified by groupthink if the vote takes place after the call, amd nkt before. Can we leave the idea that athletic administrators are somehow perfectly logical and free from bias in the past, too?

I just think by entertaining the idea... it opens the door. By saying it is subconscious, you are giving it the idea of it happening.

I don't think even subconsciously it happens. I especially point out the admins not because they are free from bias, but that they aren't usually wrapped up in the games that coaches play themselves. I am certainly not saying they are perfectly logical, but I have found admins to sometimes be so out of touch (to some degree) that the idea that their subconscious would push them to reward the co-chair a stretch.

Honestly if anything, I think more people would be keen to vote in the opposite direction and try as hard to keep a bias from being formed as to look for any possible reason NOT to vote for said team. I think in these cases, it is harder for them to achieve a position because they have to explain it to said coach when he returns to the call or when the vote comes in.

By saying the mere acknowledgment that people are biased is somehow taboo, you lost me. We're not going to be able to come to any sort of common ground if you truly believe that. The process wouldn't be as thorough or robust as it is if it weren't for such discussion.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I have worked in the media for a very long time. My wife likes to smile and joke with me when I sit watching a game of my favorite team and I don't even react in a big play. The first season I went to NFL games as a fan, I would just sit there until I remember I was allowed to stand and cheer. I was so used to sitting in a press box, not reacting, doing my job, and not being bias.

The point? I don't think bias plays as strong a role as you and others like to make it out to be. I feel those who sign up for these committees check not only their egos at the door, but also their biases. I feel they work very hard to do their jobs with honor and not even let subconscious results.

You want to clearly ride that harder than most (most don't bring it up no matter what). To say that because I actually believe, in my many years of talking to committee members of all levels, they can actually leave their bias at the door is somehow a disqualifying measure to discuss these things with you is disappointing.

How about not looking for conspiracy theories even if they are subconscious and try and discover reasons why the results actually happened. If you can't find an answer, than ask the appropriate questions. I find we either get the answers or we discover mistakes were made - mistakes do happen. However, there just isn't enough evidence to approach someone and say, "looks like the rest of the committee's subconscious biases made sure Lake Forest was ranked where they were, huh?" I'd lose more respect with that move than I can think. If that is your line of demarkation in terms of "common ground" ... like I said, disappointing.