Top 25 rankings

[smedindy]

TC - We can all dream, can't we. Face it, it's going to take Mt. Union losing at Alliance in the playoffs (or an OAC regular season game) to make that happen.

[HScoach]

That was the case in 2005, but the East #2 couldn't hold up their end of the deal.

[JT]

Dutchfan said it best.  You want the home field advantage in the playoffs?  Win all your regular season games and start winning playoff games. 

St John's Fisher made huge strides in that last year by making it to the Semi-Finals and playing Mount very tough.  If they would have finished this season at 10-0, they most assuredly would have been the #1 seed in the East.  I would have then expected them to carry the East Region to being the #3 seed nationally behind the winner of the Whitewater/Mary Hardin Baylor game.  And one could possibly make the arguement (though I wouldn't buy it) for the the #2 seed nationally.

But SJF slipped up a few weeks ago and therefore it looks like the regional seedings will go like this (assuming no upsets the rest of the way):

1.  North (Mount Union)
2.  West/South (winner of MHB at WWW or St John's)
3.  West/South (loser of MHB at WWW or St. John's)
4.  East (St John Fisher)

I really don't think Fisher is a lock in the East at this point.

[Bob.Gregg]

I don't think (I hope anyway) anyone was saying SJF was an East #1 lock.  I think the point was that the East #1 is a lock for the #4 seed in the overall picture.

[repete]

Although I fully realize thast "repete's gut feeling" isn't part of the semi seeding formula,  I think that if had SJF gotten through unbeaten it wouldn't necessarily be a lock for the No. 2 or even No. 3 spot.

For instance, if MHB beats UWW and finishes unbeaten but an unbeaten SJU (or Central or Oxy) survives the West gantlet, then you could make a strong case for UMHB 2 and the West 3 -- even if SJF was unbeaten.

Of course, Hartwick turned this into solely a mental exercise ... and there's still plenty of football to be played.

The final week of the season is almost always huge and this year the West is especially ripe with SJU-Bethel, Wartburg-Central and the enticing possibility of a wounded LaCrosse team  hosting surprising Stevens Point.   

[section13raiderfan]

Consider this.....MUC is riding a 28 game win streak. Before the loss to ONU that broke their 54 game win streak. They also once had a 55 game win streak before that. All this means is that getting MUC off their own field is not likely to compell them to lose. They play one non conference game a year, so if you think you can beat them on YOUR field....schedule them for game 1 and take your chances. You could conceivably make the playoffs and play them twice in one year. That way you would have twice the chances of beating them!

[sjfcclimbing]

One more small thing ...

Neutral sites don't make sense. People are prone to biase. Random is worst. Rotating locations gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years. It could result in increasing fan base. Ok, I'm done.

Agree about Neutral sites, really only because of the travel aspect (people have trouble getting less-than-7-day-advance fares to the Stagg Bowl when flying is necessary) and because games on campus would probably draw better anyway.

Agree about people being generally prone to bias.

Rotating locations, as discussed earlier, was the previous system. I don't recall the reasons for the switch, if I even ever knew, but one thing that rotating locations could do is produce more unfairness. If we determined the East was the semifinal host this year no matter what, and an 8-2 East champ advanced, why exactly would they deserve a home game over a 10-0 (or 13-0 by then) North champ?

We could use the same seed caveat again to help there. But that doesn't explain how predeterming a site would produce the most fair outcome more than it wouldn't.

Also, influencing one season over something expected to produce fairness over multiple seasons ("gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years") doesn't match up.

Are you also saying it could increase the fan base because having a semifinal at home might draw in a significant number of people who hadn't followed the team up until then?

Are you still done? I'd kind of like to hear your answers, and clearly I have not yet dropped the subject.

Ok, since you asked:

Alright, I misunderstood the Handbook. It states that seedings are based on regional seeding criteria and then discusses the regional grouping. I understood this to mean the regions were seeded by the criteria rather then all the teams are first seeded, 32 teams selected and then regionally grouped. Not really clearly stated but I understand how it is meant now. My Bad (probably a result of my bias).

Nice to know we agree on the first two.

My problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2. I am sure if Alfred wins out, most will say that it is the East and say a Capital at 9-1 is still better. While it can be argued there is no real way to settle the issue. So why doesn't the 8-2 deserve a home game? Because we don't reward losers??? Are we really interested in absolutes? Let's go to a best of five series - oh wait, who gets home 3 games! (Sarcasm). Rotation is just as fair as guessing between regions. Maybe a decision after the region is decided would be better. My statement is that there isn't a fair way only various flawed ways and I prefer to remove bias and give everybody a shot.

The fan base comment stems from giving access to larger populations of these games. In the unfortunate case that Alfred wins out through the East region and had a home game, I would certainly attend and many fans in the region would do so. It is how you grow a product, give as many as you can access and hope the product sells itself. More fans, more money, more cross region games (maybe)

My answers, right or wrong.

[Ralph Turner]

The committee looks at in-region winning percentage, OWP and OOWP.

1.000 is better than .800.  Unless there is a big difference in OWP and OOWP, I think that the team with the 1.000 gets the higher seed. 

In the South, we may see the committee looking at UMHB and Salisbury with the only common opponent being CNU.

[K-Mack]

This may be a little off base K-Mack.  But this arguement seems more about politcal correctness (fairness) than about reality.  It isn't fair that MUC (the haves) and the East Region (the have nots) or the North or the West for that matter can be thrown into the have nots (the ones without the Walnut and Bronze) dont always get to host the semi finals.  I agree with you that MUC earns their spot with getting to host the home games.  UWW has earned that spot here in the West until someone can beat them.  That is a fact we in the West have to live with until the time comes that we can put up a team that can beat them.  I am sure that Hope College or some other North team would love to be able to host a game or get a shot at MUC at home, but that has to be earned.  The team here in the West that gets to travel every playoff has been ST Norberts of late.  Even at 10-0 they travel because they haven't overcome the first playoff game with a win.  To me it is kind of a moot point.  Central (my team) has to do the same thing.  Earn the respect with some playoff wins.  Then the tide will change until then we are just a playoff team.  Home field can help but it is not a part of winning.  Look at SJU last year.  They stumble with Bethel and then have to go on the road for two games and they come out with 2 wins and almost beat UWW last year.  If a team is truly a contender it does not matter where they play.  I think the past few years if MUC had all road games they still get the the Stagg.  If the committee was really bias as sjfcclimbing thinks they would have found a way to leave SJU at home to reap all that money from their fan base.  One thing I have found to be true that D3 is not money influenced like D1. 

Dutch,
You make some decent points, but if I'm reading you right, you are missing a big point about the playoffs.

Past success has virtually no influence on this year's brackets. So a team or conference getting playoff wins

Those things have a very big influence on the D3football.com poll. The poll's got a very different goal (to determine the 25 best/strongest D3 teams) than the playoff committee does (to seed the 21/22 automatic qualifiers, plus Pool B and C teams in a 32-team bracket).

Where seeding is concerned, "strength" has in the past been determined by the Quality of Wins index (QoWi) and this year and beyond will be determined by opponents winning percentage and opponents opponents winning percentage (OWP and OOWP). Ralph or Pat, correct me if I'm wrong.

So what this means is technically, St. Norbert or Hope could host a home game. Any team from any conference could, provided it plays a strong (as determined by OWP/OOWP) schedule and does well against it, and how that stacks up against the other seven teams in its bracket.

Sometimes in the West it's hard to tell because there are more undefeated teams than available home games. But the MIAA champ could earn a home game, it just never does because it always has two or three losses.

There are some examples of so-called weaker leagues hosting. In '04, Alma hosted Carthage, but I think that had to do with the Red Men's field not being playoff-ready. (bathrooms and press facilities or something have to meet certain requirements, and paperwork has to be filed mid-season)

In any case, even where strictly semifinals are concerned, regular-season performance determines that because of the way the bracket is seeded on the opening weekend of the playoffs.

Again, the top seeds in the four brackets are chosen, and then they are seeded using the same criteria used to pick at-large teams and seed teams once the 32 are determined. Then, in the case of equal seeds advancing, the team from the higher-seeded bracket gets the game on their campus. In teh case of a 2 seed from a higher-seeded bracket playing a 1 seed, the 1 seed hosts regardless.

Make sense?

Here's that '05 bracket that had Mount Union seeded second in the North behind Wabash, and the North seeded third behind the East. No. 2 Union could've hosted Mount Union that year too if it had made the semis.

[K-Mack]

On to the top 25

Not surprised that the Dutch fell but I was surprised that they fell two spots.  Having said that Capital must not have had the confidence until their win last week.  Understandable that that might give some voters clarity in their position on voting.  I was listening to a local radio show last night driving home from the grandkids home.  Jim Walden (former Iowa State coach) was ranting on how Ohio State was #1 and that an Arizona State team was #12 with a similar record from a similar conference as Ohio State and that how could there be that much difference in those two spots.  I have learned from Pat and you K-Mack that voters take many other things into their voting.  In ASU case they haven't played the meat of their schedule yet and the voters dont think they can beat USC, Cal, and Oregon.  So after pondering that I came to the conclusion that the voters had Capital to low last week and they deserved the bump past Central and Wheaton.  Polls should be taken with a grain of salt anyway cause the only thing that matters is the W's any way.  If a team keeps winning it all takes care of itself. 

This is very on-point.

One way to explain Capital last week is that they played ONU, ranked No. 11 and won more convincingly (24-6) than either Wheaton or Central did against unranked teams (though Augie and Coe are actually pretty good)

Also, they both have had multiple squeakers now, and voters might also have taken that into account, cumulatively.

Rockies are going to the WS, back to work

[K-Mack]

but just once I'd like to see the Purple Raiders travel to Collegeville.

I'm sure Kehres would take a home-and-home if he ever saw (320) 363-3387 come up on his caller ID.

[K-Mack]

My problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2.

QoWi or OWP and OOWP.

I agree, a common opponent is preferable, but not always possible.

In that case, at least with some kind of strength-of-schedule rating they are trying to get it right. Because not all schedules are the same, and therefore all performances against said schedules shouldn't be judged the same, at least when some reason to judge them (seeding) is necessary.

[DutchFan2004]

My problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2.

QoWi or OWP and OOWP.

I agree, a common opponent is preferable, but not always possible.

In that case, at least with some kind of strength-of-schedule rating they are trying to get it right. Because not all schedules are the same, and therefore all performances against said schedules shouldn't be judged the same, at least when some reason to judge them (seeding) is necessary.

The one problem I see with looking at common opponents is that the common opponents may not be the same.  Here is why.  If  Team A plays Team B at the first game of the season and beats them by 21 and then Team B plays Team C in week 11 and Team C Beats them by 42 on paper it says that Team C is the better team.  Do they take into consideration that Team B has lost 8 starters to injury or fill in blank that they are not the same teams.  Team B has lost the starting back field or some other scenario. 

[Ralph Turner]

My problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2.

QoWi or OWP and OOWP.

I agree, a common opponent is preferable, but not always possible.

In that case, at least with some kind of strength-of-schedule rating they are trying to get it right. Because not all schedules are the same, and therefore all performances against said schedules shouldn't be judged the same, at least when some reason to judge them (seeding) is necessary.

The one problem I see with looking at common opponents is that the common opponents may not be the same.  Here is why.  If  Team A plays Team B at the first game of the season and beats them by 21 and then Team B plays Team C in week 11 and Team C Beats them by 42 on paper it says that Team C is the better team.  Do they take into consideration that Team B has lost 8 starters to injury or fill in blank that they are not the same teams.  Team B has lost the starting back field or some other scenario. 

Dutch, margin-of-victory is not included in the OWP or OOWP calculations! 

[DutchFan2004]

Ralph my comment was to the line common opponents is preferable but not always possible.  Common opponents only tell what team you played not who (the players on the field) you played and can be misleading.  I have no opinion on the OWP or the OOWP.  I have not researched it enough to render an opinion on that or not sure I can even figure out what it all means.  I am sure that there is some sound reasoning and basis for the switch.