Top 25 rankings

[DutchFan2004]

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

Well to a point don't you think this is wrong.  The conferences at least from reading on the boards here need to prove themselves somewhat in the past.  The discussions about the best conferences are like the NWC is better than the IIAC because of Linfield and PLU winning it all.  Or the MIAC being better than the IIAC.  Yes St Johns has success in the playoffs and beat us last year but as a whole how does the conference stack up.  The OAC is tuff because of MUC and granted the second place team it seems like there is some references to the past.  Now having said that I believe that by the end of the year or at least by week 9-10 the polls have a good idea as to who is good and that is based on the current year but I dont know how much of that is true at week 1-5.  The current case for that IMO is UW Lacrosse.  I know the WIAC as a whole is a tuff conference and maybe no one will come through undefeated but that is a point I think.  Past does play a role until things get sorted out. 

[Ralph Turner]

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

Well to a point don't you think this is wrong.  The conferences at least from reading on the boards here need to prove themselves somewhat in the past.  The discussions about the best conferences are like the NWC is better than the IIAC because of Linfield and PLU winning it all.  Or the MIAC being better than the IIAC.  Yes St Johns has success in the playoffs and beat us last year but as a whole how does the conference stack up.  The OAC is tuff because of MUC and granted the second place team it seems like there is some references to the past.  Now having said that I believe that by the end of the year or at least by week 9-10 the polls have a good idea as to who is good and that is based on the current year but I dont know how much of that is true at week 1-5.  The current case for that IMO is UW Lacrosse.  I know the WIAC as a whole is a tuff conference and maybe no one will come through undefeated but that is a point I think.  Past does play a role until things get sorted out. 

I respectfully disagree with you.     

--Past performance has nothing to do with the selection process.  (That is clearly absent from the rule books as of several years ago.)

--Strong teams from strong conferences usually rise to the top each season.


When I was in school, the answer to those 2 statements was:

"B"  True/True Unrelated



Or maybe I don't comprehend that we are talking apples (Top 25 Rankings) and oranges (NCAA Post-season Selections)!

Thanks.

[DutchFan2004]

Sorry Ralph,

I am talking about top 25 not post season. 

[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.

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. 

Agreed. I almost considered posting something very similar last night, but I actually held back for fear the conversation would devolve into mincing of the highest order.

The truth is, there's no perfect way to compare teams.

But one of the reasons we like sports, and a playoff system, is that there are absolutes: At the end of the game, you've either won or lost, you either advance or go home.

[K-Mack]

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

Well to a point don't you think this is wrong.  The conferences at least from reading on the boards here need to prove themselves somewhat in the past.  The discussions about the best conferences are like the NWC is better than the IIAC because of Linfield and PLU winning it all.  Or the MIAC being better than the IIAC.  Yes St Johns has success in the playoffs and beat us last year but as a whole how does the conference stack up.  The OAC is tuff because of MUC and granted the second place team it seems like there is some references to the past.  Now having said that I believe that by the end of the year or at least by week 9-10 the polls have a good idea as to who is good and that is based on the current year but I dont know how much of that is true at week 1-5.  The current case for that IMO is UW Lacrosse.  I know the WIAC as a whole is a tuff conference and maybe no one will come through undefeated but that is a point I think.  Past does play a role until things get sorted out. 

If the question is do I think not considering past year's success in the formula for this year's playoffs is wrong, the answer is no. I think that's right.

It's OK for history to have a bearing on the polls, but even the pollsters' views of the strong conferences change as inter-conference results come in.

The postseason spots need to be determined on this season alone, at least as much as possible. Or rather, they need to be determined by actual accomplishments, with as little subjectiveness as possible.

That's where the regional rankings and the OWP/OOWP (basically a strength-of-schedule rating) come in. The strongest teams from the strongest conferences (or playing the strongest schedules) should usually grade out best.

And, even if 9-1 or 8-2 teams are matched up and some get in and some don't, at least we know the reasons why, rather than the feelings of someone who likely would never reveal their reasons.

Anyway, I think we've about beat this topic to death; However, Ralph, I think we got on it because someone was questioning the link between the rankings and particular seeds in a particular part of the playoffs.

[billrt66]

All of this points to the need for an expanded field of teams.....32 just simply isn't enough when you have as many automatic qualifiers from conferences.  Last year only 8 at large teams??  There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....it would just help to end the arguements over lack of common opponent data.  Obviously D III schools don't travel across country during the season, and in an expanded field there might be more travel but it is an opportunity to ignite fan bases that have traditionally not had to travel....could wake up a sleeping giant in terms of renewed interest for all programs!

[d-train]

There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....

Really?! No impact?

The move from 28 teams to 32 made a lot of sense and had very little impact...but I don't know how you just slip another week in there without anyone noticing.

[Pat Coleman]

All of this points to the need for an expanded field of teams.....32 just simply isn't enough when you have as many automatic qualifiers from conferences.  Last year only 8 at large teams??  There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....it would just help to end the arguements over lack of common opponent data.  Obviously D III schools don't travel across country during the season, and in an expanded field there might be more travel but it is an opportunity to ignite fan bases that have traditionally not had to travel....could wake up a sleeping giant in terms of renewed interest for all programs!

Win your conference and there isn't a problem. Pretty simple, really.

[smedindy]

If you go to 40 then you have those byes. 32 is perfect for D-3. The playoffs are the right length, too.

[sju56321]

Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?
Woops, for some reason I thought SJU was a higher seed that year-but I do remember the 2000 season. How about, was PLU the last team to win the Stagg as a 7 or 8 seed?

[d-train]

Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?

Um...no. Your own Johnnies made it all the way to the Stagg Bowl as a 7 seed the very next year (2000). UMHB (in 2004) was a lower seed as well.

[Ralph Turner]

Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?

Um...no. Your own Johnnies made it all the way to the Stagg Bowl as a 7 seed the very next year (2000). UMHB (in 2004) was a lower seed as well.

Here is what UMHB played in 2004.

UMHB's schedule in the playoffs... On the road to  #7, #3, #5, #1, and #2

2004 Week #11 Top 25.

[Pat Coleman]

I think the committee has learned better how to seed, a little bit.

[Ralph Turner]

I think the committee has learned better how to seed, a little bit.

Johnnies and PLU, yes!

But the Trinity and HSU games were "geographic proximity games", and HSU had the #1 seed and the bye! 

[redswarm81]

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 than bias can say the 10-0 is better than the 8-2?

I find this question kind of amusing.  I don't see any bias even possible in claiming that a 10 - 0 team has a better record than an 8 - 2 team.  If you want to look past the records, then the two most common techinques--and arguably the two most reliable techniques--are common opponent analysis and Strength of Schedule analysis.

In the 10 - 0 v. 8 - 2 comparison, if there are any common opponents, that can only strengthen the case that the 10 - 0 team has a better record than the 8 - 2 team (unless you're going to look at margin of victory v. common victories, which is a pretty tenuous statistic for analyzing relative team strengths).

As for Strength of Schedule analysis, it's clearly an inexact science.  First of all, the NCAA formula for OWP is essentially the purest form of SoS analysis--at its core, it simply asks "how many games did your opponents win?"  In the case of an undefeated 10 - 0 team, the answer is simple.  In the case of the 8 - 2 team, there's an automatic secondary consideration, namely "including the games that they beat us, or not?"  So SoS analysis is really difficult to use when comparing teams with different records.

But, even if you were to rely on SoS analysis to compare a 10 - 0 team against an 8 - 2 team, you're going to run into the situation where there's no clear cut way to decide who should get a boost from having a high Strength of Schedule.  [Erroneous Example Deleted]  A team could claim that it's lost every game, but to really good teams, but so what?

Comparing records head to head without further analysis is not bias.  It might--only might--be an incomplete analysis, but it's clearly the best statistic for comparing relative team strength.  No other statistic by itself is as meaningful.

As of today (end of week 8, right?), how many undefeated teams are there in D3?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?