University Athletic Association

[Ralph Turner]

Wabash and DePauw are in Administrative Region 3. Therefore, the game is in region.   

[jam40jeff]

But would a win against a regionally-ranked opponent in the South region (DePauw) count as a win against a regionally-ranked opponent for purposes of the North-region regional rankings?  (Wow, I only used the root word "region" four times in that last sentence!!! --- clear as mud, I know  )

Actually, I counted 5 usages.  Impressive!

I would have to think Wabash would be ranked ahead of CWRU if they beat Witt and Depauw due to beating two regionally ranked opponents (and they would deserve it).  What CWRU needs to focus on, though, is just winning their UAA games.  None of the conference games will be easy.

[ExTartanPlayer]

The Wabash/CWRU hypothetical is very interesting, indeed.  Assuming they win out, the regionally-ranked opponent argument would go in favor of Wabash, but it would still be very hard (to me, anyway) to justify seeding 9-1 Wabash over 10-0 CWRU when Bash's loss would be against an opponent that CWRU defeated (again, the hypothetical assuming both teams win out, which is by no means a given).

This is the strongest four-deep that the UAA has been in a while.  CWRU's on a 37-game regular-season win streak, Chicago is 5-2, and WashU is 5-2 with wins over Wabash and Wooster.  Right now, I think a pretty good argument could be made that CMU is clearly #4 in the conference, and they're 4-3 and took highly-ranked Wittenberg to overtime last week, missing a chippy FG on the last play of regulation that would have WON the game.

[wally_wabash]

Worth reviewing the selection/seeding criteria here.  Yoinked straight from the championship handbook...

Primary criteria:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/2.
See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

Secondary criteria:
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.
• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last
25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt
such criteria with approval from the championships committee.

Let me preface everything I'm about to say by noting that whether it makes sense or not, the NCAA is supposed to use these criteria to select and seed teams in the tournament (although seeding also becomes an issue of geography...if the commitee actually decides to officially seed teams at all, which last year they did not).  With that caveat out of the way...

I don't see how, based on the criteria, that CWRU would be seeded ahead of Wabash if we're assuming that Wabash wins their last three games (no safe assumption, for sure).  What completely jams CWRU in this instance is the AA's emphasis on regional competition, and that Wabash's blemish as well as CWRU's would-be ace in the hole (the Washington result), technically isn't to be factored in by the comittee unless they need secondary criteria.  I expect that the gap in the SOS numbers will shrink or even swing into Wabash's favor by the end of week 11 (primary criteria), results versus regional common opponents will be a push (primary criteria), regional win percentage will be a push (primary criteria), but Wabash would own a win over a regionally ranked opponent (primary criteria) while CWRU would not.  The advantage, based on an objective analysis of the primary criteria, belongs to Wabash.  If the Washington game were regional, CWRU would grab an edge in a couple of the primary criteria (win% and results vs. common regional opponents) and would be a no brainer to be seeded higher than Wabash.  But it isn't, and they aren't. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Excellent post, wally.  Thanks for posting the criteria.  Given the official criteria, I agree with you that Bash probably should be seeded ahead of CWRU - this appears to be one of those "DOH!" cases where the seeding criteria screws with what otherwise appears to be a common-sense seeding.

[jam40jeff]

Let's both win out before we worry too much about this.

[Pat Coleman]

I would say that secondary criteria come into account in almost every football decision because of the relatively small number of games.

[wally_wabash]

I would say that secondary criteria come into account in almost every football decision because of the relatively small number of games.

If so, then why break the criteria down into primary and secondary?  Just to make sure that everyone knows that D-III is all about regional competition?  When I read "primary" and "secondary" my instinct is to say that primary criteria are to be used exclusively to make decisions, and then the secondary criteria should be used if the primary criteria do not produce a clear choice.  In fact, I think there is some verbiage in the handbook...

Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a
decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated
(not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-ofregion
Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents
from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

For the record, I think that it should matter that Wabash lost that game and I think that it should matter that CWRU and Wabash have different results against a common opponent (hypothetically), but that's not consistent with the directions in the handbook.  The handbook would tell you that the Wabash/WashU result is not admissable in the court of primary criterion.  I would personally favor a de-emphasis of regional competition (however an emphasis on in-Division play should remain) for football because, you're right, there aren't enough games to easily differentiate between a handful of teams with identical records. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Isn't CWRU/WashU an in-region game, since they are in the same conference?  Or does that rule not apply if they are not an AQ conference?

[ADL70]

CWRU/WashU is in region.  Wabash/WashU isn't.

[ADL70]

North Region
1. Wheaton (Ill.) 7-0 7-0
2. North Central (Ill.) 7-0 7-0
3. Mount Union 6-0 7-0
4. Ohio Northern 5-1 6-1
5. Case Western Reserve 6-0 7-0
6. Trine 6-0 7-0
7. Baldwin-Wallace 6-1 6-1
8. Franklin 5-1 6-1
9. Wittenberg 6-0 8-0
10. Wabash 6-0 6-1

MtUnion #3 seems based on SoS as does ONU #4
Wabash #10 says out of region loss still hurts

[ADL70]

Back to this week.

Chicago may actually present CWRU's greatest challenge this season.  The Massey ratings actually predict a one point Chicago win. 

Chicago scored 24 points against the Spartans each of the last two seasons and its defense is first in UAA in sacks and TFL this season.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Well...this week kicks off what I think will be an interesting UAA season.  I believe that the overall quality of the UAA teams is better this year than any time in recent memory.  All four teams have played some very good football in nonconference play.

CWRU (7-0) @ Chicago (5-2)

No doubt an intriguing matchup here.  CWRU is a solid 7-0 squad, probably not as dominant as the past few seasons, but the offense can still rack up some points.  Chicago's offense, also, has been pretty darned good this year.  Hard to see Chicago toppling the defending champs, but they are playing at home and this is Chicago's best team since their 2005 title season.

CMU (4-3) @ WashU (5-2)

WashU comes in flying high on a four-game winning streak, for the most part riding a pretty solid defense and getting just enough offense to win.  The run defense has been pretty stingy...will CMU get anything going on the ground?

CMU offense has been surprisingly effective this year - scoring 30 points per game despite breaking in a freshman QB.  The running game keeps churning out yards (an impressive 307 yards last week vs. #8 Wittenberg, allowing a mere 59 ypg on the ground).  The defense, however, has been a little suspect against run and pass.

Good matchups, both.

[WashUDad]

Case Loses. Wash U wins

[bashbrother]

Score of Case Chicago game?