Around the Nation board

[Mr. Ypsi]

The NCAA never states that the 32 best teams will be selected.  That would violate the equal access provision (i.e., pools A and B).  And for pool C they have guidelines that 'strive' for best, but any long-time watcher will realize do not always achieve it.

[Ralph Turner]

The NCAA never states that the 32 best teams will be selected.  That would violate the equal access provision (i.e., pools A and B).  And for pool C they have guidelines that 'strive' for best, but any long-time watcher will realize do not always achieve it.

And, (I think that Mr. Ypsi will agree) that each sport has peculiar quirks when it comes to Pool C's.

Men's Hoops is one sport.

Football is another.

Baseball is another...

[K-Mack]

The NCAA never states that the 32 best teams will be selected.  That would violate the equal access provision (i.e., pools A and B).  And for pool C they have guidelines that 'strive' for best, but any long-time watcher will realize do not always achieve it.

That's funny, I have come to the realization over the years and have said either in print or on-air or both that it's not necessarily about the 32 "best," but for fair access. In other words, every participating team in the nation has a path to the national championship, via the playoff structure, and understands to some degree what it must do to get there.

Before you say you'd rather have the 32 best instead of fair access, go back to the 16-team system, when more than four teams could go unbeaten in a region and only four could get in. The way the four were selected was subjective, for the most part, and the fifth and sixth had no recourse.

Under the AQ system, those teams are in via their automatic bids (and granted there are more spots so there are more happy teams)

If we honestly created a 32 best scenario, wouldn't we take four OAC teams and no MIAA teams each year, or something like that? What then of a conference that hasn't had playoff success but has a special team capable of going far?

I think the AQ system strikes a balance between open access for everyone, which helps because even who we "think" is strongest is not always who wins ... and it keeps subjectivity to a limit, although some might inevitably seep in no matter how much criteria is laid out.

I know there are other remarks to respond to, just only had time for one now. Will get back to the others

[redswarm81]

Hartwick (1-1, 0-1 E8) at No. 10 St. John Fisher (3-1, 1-0): This clash looked a lot better before the Cardinals' convincing win last weekend against Ithaca, which beat Hartwick 69-42. There is hope for a good game, as the Hawks are the national leaders in scoring offense at 52.5 points per, and might be able to hang with St. John Fisher on that alone.

I imagine that Hartwick is among the leaders in points allowed, at 53 points per.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The NCAA never states that the 32 best teams will be selected.  That would violate the equal access provision (i.e., pools A and B).  And for pool C they have guidelines that 'strive' for best, but any long-time watcher will realize do not always achieve it.

That's funny, I have come to the realization over the years and have said either in print or on-air or both that it's not necessarily about the 32 "best," but for fair access. In other words, every participating team in the nation has a path to the national championship, via the playoff structure, and understands to some degree what it must do to get there.

Before you say you'd rather have the 32 best instead of fair access, go back to the 16-team system, when more than four teams could go unbeaten in a region and only four could get in. The way the four were selected was subjective, for the most part, and the fifth and sixth had no recourse.

Under the AQ system, those teams are in via their automatic bids (and granted there are more spots so there are more happy teams)

If we honestly created a 32 best scenario, wouldn't we take four OAC teams and no MIAA teams each year, or something like that? What then of a conference that hasn't had playoff success but has a special team capable of going far?

I think the AQ system strikes a balance between open access for everyone, which helps because even who we "think" is strongest is not always who wins ... and it keeps subjectivity to a limit, although some might inevitably seep in no matter how much criteria is laid out.

I know there are other remarks to respond to, just only had time for one now. Will get back to the others

Just for the record, Keith, that was exactly my point!  We are not in disagreement.

[K-Mack]

Just for the record, Keith, that was exactly my point!  We are not in disagreement.

That was my understanding too, just fleshing it out some. Sorry if I made it seem like so.

[K-Mack]

Hartwick (1-1, 0-1 E8) at No. 10 St. John Fisher (3-1, 1-0): This clash looked a lot better before the Cardinals' convincing win last weekend against Ithaca, which beat Hartwick 69-42. There is hope for a good game, as the Hawks are the national leaders in scoring offense at 52.5 points per, and might be able to hang with St. John Fisher on that alone.

I imagine that Hartwick is among the leaders in points allowed, at 53 points per.

Ah yes, a classic case of only half the story told. 

[Ralph Turner]

Handbook is out!

Pool B gets 2 bids this year!

[redswarm81]

Handbook is out!

Pool B gets 2 bids this year!

Man, that's good reading for a d3football geek.

Question 1: What are the global implications of 2 out of 9 available bids reserved for Pool B?  Show your work and use examples.  (I can see two different potential sources of anxiety, I'll expound later.)

Question 2: Mid-season regional rankings list ten ranked teams per region, right?

Question 3: Results v. Regionally Ranked Opponents is a primary selection criterion.  However, "[r]anked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only."   This seems to me to have two big effects:

• mid-season rankings are misleading at best, and ultimately meaningless for selection purposes; and
• late season big games--particularly out of conference rivalries (e.g. Cortaca) can turn a set of regional rankings on its head.
  
  Since we've seen how the Primary Criteria can produce very difficult/close calls, it seems to me that this regional-ranking-only-counts-at-the-end-of-the-season factor could provide cover for a wide range of unexpected outcomes.

[Ralph Turner]

Handbook is out!

Pool B gets 2 bids this year!

Man, that's good reading for a d3football geek.

Question 1: What are the global implications of 2 out of 9 available bids reserved for Pool B?  Show your work and use examples.  (I can see two different potential sources of anxiety, I'll expound later.)
...

I have looked at the numbers for the Pool B bids, and I cannot calculate how they got there!

There are 23 conferences with 199  197 participating members.  That gives an access ratio of 1:8.30  1:8.21.

There are 27 Pool B teams.  That should give 3 Pool B bids, if we use the usual calculations that are in the other Handbooks.

Errata--

My review shows only 50 West Region teams, and not 52!  I count 51 North Region teams, 48 South Region teams and 48 East Region teams.

The reason this is not 239 teams is that there are provisionals in the SCAC (B'ham Southern), the NJAC (SUNY-Morrisville) and the Pres AC, (Geneva and St Vincent), and the 10-team NESCAC does not compete for the title.

[redswarm81]

Handbook is out!

Pool B gets 2 bids this year!

Man, that's good reading for a d3football geek.

Question 1: What are the global implications of 2 out of 9 available bids reserved for Pool B?  Show your work and use examples.  (I can see two different potential sources of anxiety, I'll expound later.)
...

I have looked at the numbers for the Pool B bids, and I cannot calculate how they got there!

There are 23 conferences with 199 participating members.  That gives an access ratio of 1:8.30.

There are 27 Pool B teams.  That should give 3 Pool B bids, if we use the usual calculations that are in the other Handbooks.

Well, what happens if we use the calculation that's in the DIII handbook?

• The number of berths available for Pool B institutions is determined by dividing the
  number of institutions eligible in Pool B by the access ratio for Pool A (total number
  of institutions in conferences with automatic qualification divided by the number of
  Division III conferences with automatic qualification).
  Pool B = (number of independents and non-qualifying conference members) divided
  by (the access ratio for Pool A) - with the result truncated to the nearest whole number
  (e.g., 5.61 truncates to 5).

So, 27 divided by 8.3^* = 3 (truncated).

By golly, you're right!

^* My calculation produces a 1:8.65 ratio, but the truncated outcome is the same.

[Ralph Turner]

I cannot figure out how they got to 2 bids.   

I have not seen a bid calculation method that has been used in any other Handbook that can give 2 bids.

I think that they got it wrong by anything other than fiat.

I can get it to 2 Pool B bids by doing it this way.

23 participating Pool A conferences that have 197 eligible teams that compete in the playoffs, plus 10 more teams that compete in a Pool A eligible conference (the NESCAC) equals 207 teams that comprise Pool A.

23 conferences divided into 207 teams will give an access ratio of 1:9.00.
If Neb Wesleyan has declared for the NAIA playoffs, that gives only 26 Pool B teams.

26 divided by 9 = 2.89 which truncates to 2 bids.

I don't know!  I give up.

[redswarm81]

Moving to Pool B board.

[usee]

Keith and Pat,

Nice work on the conference rankings. Its always a favorite and promotes good discussions. I would like to see perhaps a regional ranking analysis? N,E,W,S. That would make for some good discussions/debates. Plus it would allow us North people to us MUC's success as and advantage instead of an obstacle every year! 

A few years ago the West was stacked with 4 of the top 10. On the boards you would see discussions of how the west was robbed by the seedings, they should move west teams to other regions, etc. we have had our share of this discussion in the North in years past and now this year you see several North teams in the top 10. The South has had some great teams too. All this to say it would be interesting to hear the gurus wax poetic on the various strengths of the regions.

just a thought.

[voice]

Keith and Pat,

Nice work on the conference rankings. Its always a favorite and promotes good discussions. I would like to see perhaps a regional ranking analysis? N,E,W,S. That would make for some good discussions/debates. Plus it would allow us North people to us MUC's success as and advantage instead of an obstacle every year! 

A few years ago the West was stacked with 4 of the top 10. On the boards you would see discussions of how the west was robbed by the seedings, they should move west teams to other regions, etc. we have had our share of this discussion in the North in years past and now this year you see several North teams in the top 10. The South has had some great teams too. All this to say it would be interesting to hear the gurus wax poetic on the various strengths of the regions.

just a thought.

Isn't that what the NCAA did last year, moving UWW to the North and MUC to the East?

By the way, do not consider me a D3 guru - not even close!!