Top 25 rankings

[Ralph Turner]

If UMHB blows out UWW I would expect UMHB might pick up a first-place vote or two and UWW would slide a little. But frankly, other than St. John's, would we have confidence that teams are actually better than UWW? I'm not sure. It would just mean that UWW played two better teams than other teams have played.

Is it Capital, which would likely have two losses after playing Mount Union?
Is it Central, which keeps winning but dominates nobody?
Is it Wheaton, which is playing its third string quarterback and has three defensive ends out?
Is it St. John Fisher, which lost at Hartwick?
Is it Washington & Jefferson, whose opponents' winning percentage is in the low .400s?

That's the problem -- I would have a hard time believing all of those teams are better than UWW in this situation.

+1 Pat!

There is some insight for new readers as to why we respect the D3football.com Top 25!

Thanks!

[smedindy]

If UMHB blows out UWW I would expect UMHB might pick up a first-place vote or two and UWW would slide a little. But frankly, other than St. John's, would we have confidence that teams are actually better than UWW? I'm not sure. It would just mean that UWW played two better teams than other teams have played.

Is it Capital, which would likely have two losses after playing Mount Union?
Is it Central, which keeps winning but dominates nobody?
Is it Wheaton, which is playing its third string quarterback and has three defensive ends out?
Is it St. John Fisher, which lost at Hartwick?
Is it Washington & Jefferson, whose opponents' winning percentage is in the low .400s?

That's the problem -- I would have a hard time believing all of those teams are better than UWW in this situation.

If UWW loses a close game, and they drop like South Florida dropped in the polls, then I would scream.

South Florida lost a conference game on the road to a quality opponent on a non-traditional night. And they drop from 2 to 11 because, well, it proved the skeptics right. Insane.

If it's a close game, no matter who loses, I think the loser stays in the top 4.

[Toby Taff]

The other question I had was this:
If it's a close game and the Cru loses and then wins out, do both teams end up with a regional #1 with UWW being the overall 2 and MHB being the overall 3 setting a possible semifinal rematch?

[Ralph Turner]

The other question I had was this:
If it's a close game and the Cru loses and then wins out, do both teams end up with a regional #1 with UWW being the overall 2 and MHB being the overall 3 setting a possible semifinal rematch?

If UMHB loses to UWW, there is a chance that UMHB might end up as the #2 or #3 seed in the South, depending on the South Region action this week and the rest of the year.

[Toby Taff]

The other question I had was this:
If it's a close game and the Cru loses and then wins out, do both teams end up with a regional #1 with UWW being the overall 2 and MHB being the overall 3 setting a possible semifinal rematch?

If UMHB loses to UWW, there is a chance that UMHB might end up as the #2 or #3 seed in the South, depending on the South Region action this week and the rest of the year.

Who do you think would jump them? Especially given the scenario of a one point loss?

[Pat Coleman]

The Wesley/Salisbury winner.

[K-Mack]

I agree that UMHB is in more danger of losing the No. 1 seed in the South to Salisbury (or even a 10-0 Muhlenberg -- crazier things have happened)

Pat's list and Ralph's analysis of the strong top 6 (it's a strong 7 in my book, but I have Fisher at the back end of that and I understand why others wouldn't, since they have a loss to a not-traditional power) show you about how far UWW or UMHB would fall with a medium or even bad loss.

You really have to toss the UWW loss vs. St. Cloud. It tells us nothing about how good they are in relation to D3 teams, and it's basically just serves to show that they can be beat and they maybe aren't overconfident.

I assume that was why people thought UWW would fall further with a loss than UMHB would.

I would not expect UMHB to pick up any first place votes, even with a convincing win over the No. 3 team in the nation. Normally that would be a chance to leapfrog No. 1, but not this No. 1, who happens to be coming off five games allowing three points and plays No. 12 this week.

If 1 beats 12 the same week 2 or 3 beats the other, I expect 1 to hold its votes.

(knows a voter will now switch just to spite me)

[K-Mack]

Also, a gripe I was going to post on the Dose podcast thread, but felt was more appropriate here:

arnoldb Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 pm e

Why doesn't Wabash get any love...they are undefeated and have beat Franklin, Witt, and Allegheny

Pat Coleman Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm e

I believe last week, when they beat Witt, we talked about it in the podcast. This week we mainly focused on teams that got upset or nearly upset, or teams playing ranked teams next week. Wabash didn't really fit into either category this time.

We did talk about Wabash last week, I even inexplicably mispronounced the name, ever so slightly.

Podcast aside, I think Wabash, at No. 13, is getting a little too much love. I recognize them being unbeaten and all, and you can only play who you schedule, and certainly those are three nice wins you mention.

But the combined record of the opponents played is 25-24, and there two more 2-5 teams left (for a total of five) before the rivalry game.

You guys will probably finish 10-0 and ranked in or near the top 10, but I don't know if that schedule proves you're one of the 10 best teams in the country.

The Franklin win puts you there with, or maybe a shade ahead, of Occidental, W&J and RPI, as teams who are undefeated but have not played a that many strong opponents.

Still, it takes plenty to beat not-strong opponents, so I'm not completely discouting those feats.

But hey, that's why we have playoffs.

[retagent]

smed - Your lament on USF underscores what some people have talked about here regarding history playing a part in poll voters votes. It just shows how human nature works. I know the criteria says one thing, but how do you take human nature out of humans when making hard decisions that go into seeding/selection. I don't think you do, despite contrary opinions here by some of the very knowledgeable people here.

[Pat Coleman]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. What's the correlation between the Top 25 and playoff selections? Are there examples of "teams with history" being taken ahead of "teams with better numbers" that you can point to?

[retagent]

Since I don't have the desire to crunch numbers, I don't have any hard evidence to back up such an assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt. I do however, know people, and I just find it hard to believe that it doesn't affect people knowing such history, are able completely disregard it. Some people were making the point last year that St John's was one such beneficiary over one or two east region teams that, numbers wise could have had a case made for them over SJU. I'm just sayin'.

[DutchHawk]

If UWW loses I dont know that anyone below them now is better than WW. Wheaton, Central, and SJU all seem to belong where they are with UWW just ahead of them.

[K-Mack]

Since I don't have the desire to crunch numbers, I don't have any hard evidence to back up such an assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt. I do however, know people, and I just find it hard to believe that it doesn't affect people knowing such history, are able completely disregard it. Some people were making the point last year that St John's was one such beneficiary over one or two east region teams that, numbers wise could have had a case made for them over SJU. I'm just sayin'.

Since you're too uninterested to give us anything substantiative to chew on, remind us why we should care what you're "just sayin'?"

As for the assertion that St. John's got into last season's playoffs over Cortland State on name recognition and not criteria, please refer to last year's D3football.com playoff projections. They project St. John's in and Cortland out and if you scroll about halfway down the comments, there's a note from Gordon Mann that explains why. The "numbers" didn't favor Cortland, although they had a slightly stronger QoW. If they had, Cortland would have been in. Simple and plain.

The reason I refer you to those projections is because I know they are made not with name recognition in mind, but with the sole goal of projecting the exact 32 teams the committee would take. Pat and Gordon pore over the criteria trying to nail them (and usually do pretty well), and I've never once heard them say that anything but the criteria was a factor.

When teams as close as the last of the nine for seven Pool C spots were last year, they can all make a case. By the same token, they all had a direct route to the playoffs via Pool A.

Alas, Cortland and Franklin were 9-1 with 7-point losses to their conference champions and there was no room for them in the postseason. Tell "regular season matters" Herbstreit to stick that in his pipe and smoke it.

(sorry, just like that phrase)

Personally, I find it hard to believe why people find it so hard to believe that a professional person can put aside his bias and follow the pre-determined criteria. (granted, the inability to use MapPoint might not inspire much confidence) ... I don't have a hard time not voting for my alma mater in the top 25, for instance, even though they are 6-1, because I don't think they're a top 25 team compared with resumes of some other teams.

Don't see why a committee member wouldn't be able to do something similar.

It's not like Division III is going to reap major financial rewards by putting one team in the postseason over another, like say, Notre Dame always getting placed in a high-profile bowl they don't quite deserve because they draw well and ads during their broadcasts sell.

[redswarm81]

Since you're too uninterested to give us anything substantiative^© to chew on, . . .

My pro bono copyright work (pro bono publico, pro bono D3football.com-o, right, dewcrew?) is getting downright voluminious off of the ATN staff alone.

Personally, I find it hard to believe why people find it so hard to believe that a professional person can put aside his bias and follow the pre-determined criteria.

Not meaning to offend, Keith, but I can understand any person's reluctance to believe that an establishment media journalist will put aside his or her bias.

As for NCAA Playoff Selection Committee members and bias, that's a different kettle of fish.  There, I might just wonder about their intellectual capacity, when they study teams all year long, and spend hours in smoke filled rooms, to announce on national television that Al Guhainey (Allegheny) has been selected to play.

[Pat Coleman]

Swarm,

That was a talking head at ESPN who spoke that, not anyone associated with the NCAA.