FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

About that whole new team to the discussion getting all 3s and 4s... assuming that a north and a west went in the first two slots... that means that the 2nd team from one of those two regions didn't get discussed until the 3rd round yet still was selected pretty quickly so that seems to contradict that notion.

As I stated in the original post I made here, you might see a team rocket up after a first selection, but that effect dissipates in this type of voting system as the "no-brainer" mentality subsides.  Once you get to Rounds 3 and 4, it's not really a "no-brainer" as much for all the members, and you'll see this type of "rolling up" activity begin to dominate in my estimation.

There were two parts of the answer to the question.  First, the chairman said that you aren't getting three teams in from the same region.  He said it flatly and he said it without any hint or allusion to selection process mechanics.  And he said it as if part of the conversation was, "hey, that's enough North and West teams, guys".  And there was zero follow up to that in the interview, so we'll forever never know exactly what he meant.  The second part had to do with where teams are ranked in their regions by the RACs. 

So last week SJF was 7th in the region.  Wabash was 6th (in a better region).  Then in week 11 the East region wets the bed...which has not anything whatsoever to do with how good SJF is by the way...and they wind up ranked 4th (probably) and that's also part of why they go.  Again, that's not a criteria.  And that also shows how inequitable the regions are.  You have a full regional bloodletting in week 11 and somehow that makes SJF better?  That doesn't make sense.  That's viewing these rankings in a vacuum.  To simply say East 4 is better than North 6 because 4 is lower than 6 is wrong.  Worse than wrong, it's lazy. 

I was more or less fine with SJF being selected based on application of the criteria.  But there are enough questions raised by the chairman's comments that make me wonder how equitably the selection criteria were applied and how fairly teams like Wabash and St. Thomas/Oshkosh were treated in that final vote.  And that's what has my dander up.  It sounds to me like the committee decided to color outside the lines here and invent some of their own criteria.  That's how it sounds.  We'll never know otherwise at this point because we missed the chance in the moment to get that clarity. 

[ITH radio]

I can see both sides of the argument here and agree we could have pressed Duey on that statement more.

That said irrespective of the criteria, which has been gone over ad naseum, the Fisher faithful could simply argue the following:

They played a better schedule (#6 SOS overall vs. 106) and are in a better conference.  Yes the Region as a whole is down, but the E8 is considered one of the top 5 conferences in the nation.  The NCAC was ranked 20th in this ATN column.

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings

Put it this way, is the #2 team from the 20th ranked conference better than the #2 team from the fifth?

BTW Frank pls shoot me now for "defending" SJFC before my Hobart buddies do

On a more serious note, I think Frank is going to follow up to clarify Duey's statement and let us know what he comes back with, if anything.

Great discussion all k+

[waf56]

You would also think that the #2 team from the fifth ranked conference is better than than #4 team from the fifth ranked conference, but apparently that is not the case.

It will be interesting to see what kind of clarification Duey provides. Hopefully it will ease my frusturation and not shake my glass box of emotion I am currently trapped in.

[wally_wabash]

Put it this way, is the #2 team from the 20th ranked conference better than the #2 team from the fifth?

Oh boy.  You sure you want to light that fuse?  I have some "opinions" on what people can do with their "my league is better than your league" talk.  We can explore those opinions in depth if you want. 

[Frank Rossi]

ITH is correct -- seeing that I let my assumption of what Director Naatz meant trump the idea of a follow-up question, I've now requested an elaboration.  As someone who shares his faith in the process, I would expect that he'll respond once he gets some time.  He's just settling back in at home in Wisconsin after a long weekend in Indianapolis, so please don't expect an immediate answer.  That said, Wally, you could've simply suggested we reach back out to him before jumping off the ledge

[wally_wabash]

I do appreciate the follow up, Frank, and I'll be interested to see what comes back, but the moment was missed.  We've had two days to sit and think about what was said, how things can be sanitized, etc. etc.  I'm not saying we won't get truth back from the chairman, I'm just saying that we can't know for sure. 

I'm also a person who has a large amount of faith in the process.  But I have to admit that I've been very disheartened by what I've read and heard today.  It doesn't seem like Wabash was given as equal a shot as they ought to have had.  It sounds like by the time Wabash was in the game there was a strike against them because they were the third team up from the North region.  It sounds like there was a strike against Wabash because SJF backed into a higher rank in their decimated region.  Those things are not criteria and those are things that, as far as I can tell, were factors.  And when we start coloring outside the lines with the criteria and the process, it's easy to see how my fellow Wabash fans can get all conspiracy-bent.

[Frank Rossi]

Wally, remember one of my original points, though -- how can the Committee use relative strengths between regions when there aren't data points.  While I agree that there may be missing data points inside regions, you're usually no more than two steps removed from some level of data.  The RAC is enlisted to name the top ten in each region, regardless of perceived decimation in a region.  Then the criteria includes results vs. RROs without differentiation of how good or bad that #10 team might be in each region.  Maybe they discuss those issues, maybe they don't.  However, the criteria specifically do not require that level of discussion because the criteria treat the system in a regional sense.  There is faith, most likely, that every region, in total, has the same general level of strength, and that the cream of each region rises to the top or near top.  There's no way to reasonably counter those notions -- otherwise, you're actually reversing the region bias in the other direction.  That's not the NCAA's aim, from what I can tell.  Else, they'd eliminate the regions entirely.

[firstdown]

Wally - To paraphrase Coach Raeburn's comments, any time you put your fate in the hands of the "Committee" ...   you can't help but be a little bit trepedacious.  In 2010, the facts were reversed and Wabash got left out.  In 2013, Wabash was left out again.    While I don't like it, I have taken comfort that having taken the time to carefully study the criteria, you were comfortable that they were applied correctly.  Now that you have voiced doubts, I and not doubt many others have gotten a lot more uncomfortable.

Perhaps my notion of a group of potential at large teams playing for the available spots and settling it on the field, and not  in secret with other, previously unstated criteria manufactured out of whole cloth isn't as far out as it once seemed. 

[jknezek]

Perhaps my notion of a group of potential at large teams playing for the available spots and settling it on the field, and not  in secret with other, previously unstated criteria manufactured out of whole cloth isn't as far out as it once seemed.

Yes it is. Extra games will not be added and it would still require selection of potential at large teams by some criteria which would put us right back in the current bind.

[Schwami]

SOS is a virtually meaningless statistic for football playoff selections.  It punishes teams that are in a 10-member conference and play a round-robin schedule.  Even Mount Union has an SOS that is just #84.  Wabash at #106 is higher than either North Central (#112) or UMHB (#118).

Director Naatz's suggestion that teams who are disappointed about not getting selected "schedule Mount Union or Whitewater" is, ahem, interesting.  No doubt true that if you did beat them, you would get in through Pool C if you were 9-1 but did not win your conference.  But that's not what any Pool C team needed to do this year.  4 Pool C teams got wins against an RRO by beating another team in their own conference.  The only out of conference wins against RROs (as far as we can surmise about the seceret final rankings) were Pacific Lutheran against Redlands and SJF against W&J.

In short, for Wabash or Witt to make the playoffs this year as a Pool C team (given that one was going to lose to the other), they needed to schedule and beat Whitewater and Mount Union.  That would have knocked Illinois Wesleyan (or John Carroll) out of the playoffs, assuming only two Pool C teams from the North.

Just trying to figure out what Witt and Wabash need to do schedule-wise going forward . . . 

I also want to echo my appreciation for Frank's contributions to this discussion.

[ITH radio]

Put it this way, is the #2 team from the 20th ranked conference better than the #2 team from the fifth?

Oh boy.  You sure you want to light that fuse?  I have some "opinions" on what people can do with their "my league is better than your league" talk.  We can explore those opinions in depth if you want.

No, not really, was just kidding.  On a serious note, our interview with Duey did demonstrate how much weight SOS factored in and with SJFC having the sixth best in all D3, certainly had to be a big reason for their selection.

Interestingly enough, the real issue is it points to team's having 2-3 OOC games being in better position IF they schedule well.  Leagues that allow only 1 OOC game will hamstring their #2 team b/c SOS will always be around .500 (a point I notice Schwami already covers so I'll leave it at that). 

Basically points to its AQ or bust, especially when the 25th and 26th Pool A bids get in the next few years.

[wally_wabash]

You would also think that the #2 team from the fifth ranked conference is better than than #4 team from the fifth ranked conference, but apparently that is not the case.

It will be interesting to see what kind of clarification Duey provides. Hopefully it will ease my frusturation and not shake my glass box of emotion I am currently trapped in.

You didn't get stuck in the empty box DePauw keeps for the Bell did you? 

[Schwami]

I'm also a person who has a large amount of faith in the process.  But I have to admit that I've been very disheartened by what I've read and heard today.  It doesn't seem like Wabash was given as equal a shot as they ought to have had.  It sounds like by the time Wabash was in the game there was a strike against them because they were the third team up from the North region.  It sounds like there was a strike against Wabash because SJF backed into a higher rank in their decimated region.  Those things are not criteria and those are things that, as far as I can tell, were factors.  And when we start coloring outside the lines with the criteria and the process, it's easy to see how my fellow Wabash fans can get all conspiracy-bent.

It's deja vu all over again (and here I thought I was over my grudge from 1982) 

[wally_wabash]

Wally, remember one of my original points, though -- how can the Committee use relative strengths between regions when there aren't data points.   While I agree that there may be missing data points inside regions, you're usually no more than two steps removed from some level of data.  The RAC is enlisted to name the top ten in each region, regardless of perceived decimation in a region.  Then the criteria includes results vs. RROs without differentiation of how good or bad that #10 team might be in each region.  Maybe they discuss those issues, maybe they don't.  However, the criteria specifically do not require that level of discussion because the criteria treat the system in a regional sense.  There is faith, most likely, that every region, in total, has the same general level of strength, and that the cream of each region rises to the top or near top.  There's no way to reasonably counter those notions -- otherwise, you're actually reversing the region bias in the other direction.  That's not the NCAA's aim, from what I can tell.  Else, they'd eliminate the regions entirely.

That's a problem and one that I've brought up as I've been thinking out loud about this for the last couple of days.  I don't know how you normalize the regions and what counts as a quality win.  I know that Alfred doesn't get ranked in the North region.  Or Brockport.  I don't know if Wooster or Denison could get ranked in the East at some point.  Maybe.  The bigger point is that I don't know how much difference there is between a 41-13 home win against Alfred and a 48-14 road win against Wooster.  I don't think there is a big difference.  I'm sure you'll laugh at that notion because the NCAC is a joke to most people, and that's fine, but the question remains: how different are those results, really?  Probably not that much different.  But when one region is blown up to the point that 6-3 teams can be ranked, and then they become designated as RROs, those results become very different.  Even though one accomplishment really isn't any different than the other, SJF gets into the tournament because they have a good RRO result and Wabash doesn't.  And it's all because the relative strength of the regions allow for one 7-3 team to be ranked and the other doesn't. 

We have to find a different way to define quality wins.  Something that's equitable and recognizes equivalent results across regions.  I don't know what the answer is.  I'm thinking about it a lot though. 

[Frank Rossi]

My pleasure to jump in here a bit, Guys.  I hear your concerns, and you're not off base with your ideas.  James (ITH Radio) and I really work hard to ensure everyone understands the process fully.  What ends up happening is that each year, new takeaways develop while we ask about previous issues we've heard from the prior Chairs.  We'd love to get two hours to fully discuss all issues fully, but that's not fair to a Chair who had three hours sleep and countless phone calls the day of the selection show.  In fact, we asked for 20 minutes, and he held on for 35-40 minutes with us and even sent us a thank you note the next day before we even had a chance to thank him.  These interviews over the last six years have honestly provided an enormous amount of transparency for nuances we'd otherwise never know, like the seeding of the Top 8 before the bracketing of the teams.  The idea is that we don't want to crucify the Chair for something he plainly stated without realizing the implication -- I think we all know the idea he was trying to present, but some people want to latch onto some ulterior motive.  I've known the members of the Committee for years now, and what impresses me most is their selflessness in volunteering for this thankless process.  Notice one thing -- there was less anxiety and upset about this year's lead up and actual brackets because we knew what to expect overall.  That's a lot better than in 2007 and 2008, when we didn't have much feedback from the Committee.

Next year, we really invite everyone to listen live and tweet us questions.  James was watching the feed in real time Sunday and only saw a couple questions.  These interviews are as much for you as they are for us, and we are really thankful for six straight years of trust from the Chairs.