Pool C in 2016

[wally_wabash]

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:





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.   

[wally_wabash]

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

[art76]

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:





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!

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

[smedindy]

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.

[wally_wabash]

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. 

[wesleydad]

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:





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.

[Ralph Turner]

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

[wally_wabash]

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. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

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...

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...

[smedindy]

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.

[Ralph Turner]

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?   

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

[smedindy]

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.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Bluffton also gave Trine their only loss so far. Would be a big help if Trine ran the table and won the MIAA.