FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[BashDad]

"Two years ago up in Alliance I had the opportunity to meet Reed Florence.  Reed and his dad had come up to watch the Wabash/Mount Union game and they found us on Friday night at the pregame spot.  Great kid.  It was cool to see him up there supporting the Little Giants and soaking in the quarterfinals."

In a week, someone--I'm looking at you Jablonski--should frame a profile of Florence with this. That's really cool.

[smedindy]

Reed will get his chance in Alliance, hopefully.

[formerd3db]

It was THIRTY GD YEARS AGO.  The entire process was different.  1982 is not relevant to any of this.  Not any of it.  Turn the page.

wally:

You are 100% correct in all aspects and I agree with you.  However, that said, that slight still "sticks in the craw" to this day and always will for many people, including me, and...I'm a former Hope player at that, had a lot of respect for Wabash then and now also!!!   Some things will be remembered forever. , although the only relevance to this is the similarity of the "pain of having one of your best teams not get selected" for whatever reason(s)!

Anyway, this has been a really great and interesting discussion as to the pros/cons of the selection system. I've enjoyed reading everyone's perspectives.  The two aspects that I think we all agree on regardless, is that a) there is no perfect system nor will there ever be and...b) we are all thankful that at least we have a playoff system and that "almost" every DIII team has a chance to make it.

P.S.  You are almost at +k1000 - awesome and congrats!

[smedindy]

Rounding back quickly to SOS - Witt is kind of our baseline SOS this year since they played no one outside the NCAC that counted. Of course they're a top team so they didn't play themselves.

(104) - Witt - .503

The others:

(67) - Wooster - .526
(100) - Oberlin - .504
(106) - Wabash - .503
(124) - DePauw - .498
(133) - Hiram - .494
(134) - Ohio Wesleyan - .493
(140) - Allegheny - .489
(160) - Denison - .479
(161) - Kenyon - .479

Somehow Wooster had a decent SOS. Still, nothing can replace the RR wins.

[Li'l Giant]

As for awards....I'd lean Fincham for COY.  Is it boring to give that thing to the guy picked to win the league?  Maybe.  But the coaching job he did on 11/9 was phenomenal.  That's a really, really good team that he put it on in a championship situation.  I can understand cases for Colaprete and Hatem as well, but for me it's Joe Fincham this year. 

OPOY is Reed Florence and it isn't close. 

DPOY is a tougher call.  I think it's a four way race between Valentine at OWU, Scola at Wabash, C. Buresh at Wabash, and Sullivan at Kenyon.  You could take either of those four I think.  I'm giving a lean to Cody Buresh.

Newcomer of the Year I think is a three horse race between Darrien Owens at Wooster, Tyson Vogel at Wooster, and Delon Pettiford at Wabash.  Any of the three are good choices. 

If I had a vote:

COY: Colaprete.

OPOY: Florence.

DPOY: I'd go with Buresh.

Newcomer: I was surprised not to see Matt Hunt mentioned. He would get my vote (and now I need a shower).

[wally_wabash]

Oh yeah...whiffed on Matt Hunt.  He could definitely win the NOTY award. 

[djabs7]

Thanks, BashDad. I will definitely ask Reed about that if the matchup happens.

[wabndy]

Rounding back quickly to SOS - Witt is kind of our baseline SOS this year since they played no one outside the NCAC that counted. Of course they're a top team so they didn't play themselves.

(104) - Witt - .503

The others:

(67) - Wooster - .526
(100) - Oberlin - .504
(106) - Wabash - .503
(124) - DePauw - .498
(133) - Hiram - .494
(134) - Ohio Wesleyan - .493
(140) - Allegheny - .489
(160) - Denison - .479
(161) - Kenyon - .479

Somehow Wooster had a decent SOS. Still, nothing can replace the RR wins.

I think the takeaway here is that the ncac is going to be hard pressed going forward to get any pool c consideration. Even if most of the league scheduled above .500 teams (and beat them) it's pretty hard to overcome the facts that 9/10ths of the schedule is round robin. For any team that wants to stay in the pool c picture, scheduling (and beating) a rro for the non conference game is going to be essential. Again- that's why Wabash scheduling HSC for the next two years makes darn good sense- especially since there is a greater likelihood that an east team can survive a few losses and remain in the rankings.

Who does Witt play next year?

[GRIZ_BACKER]

Rounding back quickly to SOS - Witt is kind of our baseline SOS this year since they played no one outside the NCAC that counted. Of course they're a top team so they didn't play themselves.

(104) - Witt - .503

The others:

(67) - Wooster - .526
(100) - Oberlin - .504
(106) - Wabash - .503
(124) - DePauw - .498
(133) - Hiram - .494
(134) - Ohio Wesleyan - .493
(140) - Allegheny - .489
(160) - Denison - .479
(161) - Kenyon - .479

Somehow Wooster had a decent SOS. Still, nothing can replace the RR wins.

I think the takeaway here is that the ncac is going to be hard pressed going forward to get any pool c consideration. Even if most of the league scheduled above .500 teams (and beat them) it's pretty hard to overcome the facts that 9/10ths of the schedule is round robin. For any team that wants to stay in the pool c picture, scheduling (and beating) a rro for the non conference game is going to be essential. Again- that's why Wabash scheduling HSC for the next two years makes darn good sense- especially since there is a greater likelihood that an east team can survive a few losses and remain in the rankings.

Who does Witt play next year?

The Tigers host Butler.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Rounding back quickly to SOS - Witt is kind of our baseline SOS this year since they played no one outside the NCAC that counted. Of course they're a top team so they didn't play themselves.

(104) - Witt - .503

The others:

(67) - Wooster - .526
(100) - Oberlin - .504
(106) - Wabash - .503
(124) - DePauw - .498
(133) - Hiram - .494
(134) - Ohio Wesleyan - .493
(140) - Allegheny - .489
(160) - Denison - .479
(161) - Kenyon - .479

Somehow Wooster had a decent SOS. Still, nothing can replace the RR wins.

I think the takeaway here is that the ncac is going to be hard pressed going forward to get any pool c consideration. Even if most of the league scheduled above .500 teams (and beat them) it's pretty hard to overcome the facts that 9/10ths of the schedule is round robin. For any team that wants to stay in the pool c picture, scheduling (and beating) a rro for the non conference game is going to be essential. Again- that's why Wabash scheduling HSC for the next two years makes darn good sense- especially since there is a greater likelihood that an east team can survive a few losses and remain in the rankings.

Who does Witt play next year?

One quick correction - HSC is a South team, not an East team - and one additional thought:

I had previously said, and agree with, your point that getting an RRO win seems to be all you can hope for, and thusly that's what perennial contenders should try to schedule to increase Pool C odds. However, this brings up a sticky issue, one which I am definitely NOT an expert on since I have only been on the D3 scene for the last decade. I recall a prior conversation that mentioned the reason for the old designations about "in region" games having some root in trying to prevent teams from feeling undue pressure to schedule tough OOC games across the country...basically exactly what we are describing here with Wabash vs HSC.

Whether those games are a good thing or not is a different discussion, but I definitely remember Pat and Keith discussing this at one point.

[wally_wabash]

I think the takeaway here is that the ncac is going to be hard pressed going forward to get any pool c consideration. Even if most of the league scheduled above .500 teams (and beat them) it's pretty hard to overcome the facts that 9/10ths of the schedule is round robin. For any team that wants to stay in the pool c picture, scheduling (and beating) a rro for the non conference game is going to be essential. Again- that's why Wabash scheduling HSC for the next two years makes darn good sense- especially since there is a greater likelihood that an east team can survive a few losses and remain in the rankings.

This right here shouldn't be the case.  The win has either got to count for something or not regardless of what region.  The depth of quality from region to region is not the same...so the quality of each region's top ten is not the same.  One thing that I think has to be examined is how to recognize similar wins across regions...there's got to be some kind of way to normalize that part of the equation. 

And the other part of the deal here is that you don't know what a committee values from year to year.  In 2010 Wabash was 8-2 (8-1 in region if we're being completely accurate) with a 0.574 SOS and 2-1 vs RROs.  That résumé is IDENTICAL to the one that got SJF in this year.  Freaking identical.  Wabash didn't get picked.  Instead the committee picked Montclair State at their 9-1 record and .493 SOS.  The fact that the whims of the committee shift from year to year in ways that don't break in Wabash's favor won't do much to sway the sentiment that there is an anti-Wabash bias the exists (I don't believe that, but when the application of the rules change year to year in ways that bury Wabash, you can see where that thought comes from).  But the point is that you can't know what the committee values and what they don't.  We need more metrics...more tools for the committee to use to determine who the best teams available are.  Maybe we need an RPI or some mutation thereof...something that measures not just your strength of schedule but how you performed against that schedule.  Maybe we need to pay more attention to how teams actually perform and not just the W/L result.  I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that the current criteria don't do a particularly good job of identifying the best five teams available. 

[jknezek]

I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that the current criteria don't do a particularly good job of identifying the best five teams available.

Really? I think the criteria did a great job identifying 4 of 5, and the fifth is open to interpretation whether the better team got in or not. But that's pretty darn good. RPI is used in basketball (D1) and we still have this argument. It can't be solved. There are almost ALWAYS going to be 2-5 teams that can legitimately go in that last spot, regardless of what criteria you use.

Wabash got left out this year, so this board thinks the criteria was poorly applied. But if SJF had been left out, they would have said the criteria was poorly applied. And BOTH groups have perfectly reasonable and justifiable arguments. It simply cannot be absolutely resolved and the criteria we currently have did a darn good job of making sure that the 5 teams that got in, were 5 of the 6 or 7 teams that had a reasonable argument to get in. You can't ask for much more than that, unless you are the fanbase that got reasonably left out.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that the current criteria don't do a particularly good job of identifying the best five teams available.

Really? I think the criteria did a great job identifying 4 of 5, and the fifth is open to interpretation whether the better team got in or not. But that's pretty darn good. RPI is used in basketball (D1) and we still have this argument. It can't be solved. There are almost ALWAYS going to be 2-5 teams that can legitimately go in that last spot, regardless of what criteria you use.

Wabash got left out this year, so this board thinks the criteria was poorly applied. But if SJF had been left out, they would have said the criteria was poorly applied. And BOTH groups have perfectly reasonable and justifiable arguments. It simply cannot be absolutely resolved and the criteria we currently have did a darn good job of making sure that the 5 teams that got in, were 5 of the 6 or 7 teams that had a reasonable argument to get in. You can't ask for much more than that, unless you are the fanbase that got reasonably left out.

I actually think wally is in agreement with you here that both groups have perfectly reasonable arguments and that the five Pool C teams were among the eight or so best candidates (i.e. there was not an obvious "WTF?" selection, which maybe could have been argued about Bridgewater State last year).  You make a good argument that you can't ask for MUCH more than that, but wally also makes a good point that the different strengths/depth of each region and the accompanying emphasis on results vs. RRO creates a little imbalance which is very difficult to resolve or tease out.

[wally_wabash]

I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that the current criteria don't do a particularly good job of identifying the best five teams available.

Really? I think the criteria did a great job identifying 4 of 5, and the fifth is open to interpretation whether the better team got in or not. But that's pretty darn good. RPI is used in basketball (D1) and we still have this argument. It can't be solved. There are almost ALWAYS going to be 2-5 teams that can legitimately go in that last spot, regardless of what criteria you use.

Wabash got left out this year, so this board thinks the criteria was poorly applied. But if SJF had been left out, they would have said the criteria was poorly applied. And BOTH groups have perfectly reasonable and justifiable arguments. It simply cannot be absolutely resolved and the criteria we currently have did a darn good job of making sure that the 5 teams that got in, were 5 of the 6 or 7 teams that had a reasonable argument to get in. You can't ask for much more than that, unless you are the fanbase that got reasonably left out.

I don't think the criteria was poorly applied.  I've been saying for two weeks that the criteria will lead you into an either/or choice between Wabash and SJF for the last spot.  I think the criteria are incomplete.  I think the criteria are about counting wins and losses in a vacuum. 

And the criteria did not identify the five best teams.  Oshkosh, St. Thomas, Wabash...I think these are all better teams than Fisher and probably IWU as well, but there is more room for debate there.  But you can't know that when you are restricted to the selection criteria and don't place context around any of it. 

[jknezek]

I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that the current criteria don't do a particularly good job of identifying the best five teams available.

Really? I think the criteria did a great job identifying 4 of 5, and the fifth is open to interpretation whether the better team got in or not. But that's pretty darn good. RPI is used in basketball (D1) and we still have this argument. It can't be solved. There are almost ALWAYS going to be 2-5 teams that can legitimately go in that last spot, regardless of what criteria you use.

Wabash got left out this year, so this board thinks the criteria was poorly applied. But if SJF had been left out, they would have said the criteria was poorly applied. And BOTH groups have perfectly reasonable and justifiable arguments. It simply cannot be absolutely resolved and the criteria we currently have did a darn good job of making sure that the 5 teams that got in, were 5 of the 6 or 7 teams that had a reasonable argument to get in. You can't ask for much more than that, unless you are the fanbase that got reasonably left out.

I actually think wally is in agreement with you here that both groups have perfectly reasonable arguments and that the five Pool C teams were among the eight or so best candidates (i.e. there was not an obvious "WTF?" selection, which maybe could have been argued about Bridgewater State last year).  You make a good argument that you can't ask for MUCH more than that, but wally also makes a good point that the different strengths/depth of each region and the accompanying emphasis on results vs. RRO creates a little imbalance which is very difficult to resolve or tease out.

I don't know ExT, look at the part from Wally I quoted. He says the current criteria didn't identify the five best teams available. I disagree. I think it did, or at least it identified 4 of 5 and 1 of 3 possible that had equally good resumes. The statement I quoted is simply where I disagree with him. I also don't think that constant tinkering with criteria will create a better result. See MLS playoffs, BCS selections, computer polls, etc., all for different reasons, but all prove the point that tinkering with inputs does not provide an absolute outcome across a huge variety of often unlinked and incomparable variables. With a 10 game season unlinked and incomparable variables are all we will ever have. This year, at least, that last selection is simply NOT WRONG. Although I will allow it may not BE RIGHT, either, there isn't a way to know for sure and there never will be. Regardless of tinkering...