Pool B

hazzben · November 07, 2013, 06:12:48 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 06:11:10 PM
Pat just dropped a bombshell in the Pool C board: they are NOT using 'once ranked, always ranked' this year.

I haven't reviewed the discussion of Pool B options to see if anyone way assuming they were, but it could make quite a difference in results vs. RROs.

Since now the ONLY results against RROs that matter are those regionally ranked in the secret final rankings, good luck to those trying to project the field!!

Yeah, projections are a shot in the dark. Especially if there are some upsets on the final Saturday that would shakeup the Regional Rankings. CRAZY!!

Ralph Turner · November 07, 2013, 06:41:42 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 06:11:10 PM
Pat just dropped a bombshell in the Pool C board: they are NOT using 'once ranked, always ranked' this year.

I haven't reviewed the discussion of Pool B options to see if anyone way assuming they were, but it could make quite a difference in results vs. RROs.

Since now the ONLY results against RROs that matter are those regionally ranked in the secret final rankings, good luck to those trying to project the field!!

It also makes the last "super-secret" regional ranking the "be-all/end-all". That removes the transparency of the system.

Bob.Gregg · November 07, 2013, 06:51:33 PM

On the other hand, isn't the FINAL ranking (whether we get to see it or not is another discussion) the only one that REALLY matters?
Doesn't the FINAL Regional Ranking take into account the FULL BODY of work by teams?

For instance, in the "old" system, you could play an 8-0 regionally-ranked opponent, the BG's, this week, and beat them by say a touchdown. You would own a win over a RRO. Next week, in the BG's final game, they get smacked around by 2-3 touchdowns by a team you're battling for a final spot in the selection process. Because the BG's full body of work (final 'secret' regional rankings) is now seen, they are (rightfully) dropped from the Regional rankings. So, the team that beat the BG's in the final week of the season DOESN'T have a win over a regionally ranked opponent, even though they beat the same time you did. How is that right?

This new "twist" credits all teams who beat a regionally-ranked team with doing so.

jknezek · November 07, 2013, 06:53:32 PM

Yes, but how much does it really change? We have 4 teams for 3 spots right now in Pool B. I suppose Wash U could also sneak in and make it 5 teams for 3 spots. Depending on who is ranked in the second to last rankings, and how the games play out, you'll most likely be able to accurately name 2 of those 3 before the selection show. In Pool C we have 5 bids and we'll be able to reasonable guess at 3 of those after the last games given known criteria. Then you'll probably have 5 or so teams with a legitimate shot at 2 bids. So I'm thinking there will be 3 holes and about 8 teams affected.

I don't really think it changes much as far as projecting goes. There are only so many options until you get down to the very last picks. Does that mean there won't be a surprise? No, it just means I'm thinking before the selection show I'd be very surprised if you couldn't reasonably project 90% of the field. Not that much different from last year.

d-train · November 07, 2013, 07:07:40 PM

Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 07, 2013, 06:51:33 PM
On the other hand, isn't the FINAL ranking (whether we get to see it or not is another discussion) the only one that REALLY matters?
Doesn't the FINAL Regional Ranking take into account the FULL BODY of work by teams?

For instance, in the "old" system, you could play an 8-0 regionally-ranked opponent, the BG's, this week, and beat them by say a touchdown. You would own a win over a RRO. Next week, in the BG's final game, they get smacked around by 2-3 touchdowns by a team you're battling for a final spot in the selection process. Because the BG's full body of work (final 'secret' regional rankings) is now seen, they are (rightfully) dropped from the Regional rankings. So, the team that beat the BG's in the final week of the season DOESN'T have a win over a regionally ranked opponent, even though they beat the same time you did. How is that right?

This new "twist" credits all teams who beat a regionally-ranked team with doing so.

I agree that the regionally ranked "at the time of selection" works better in terms of understanding the full body of work. But I think the previous "once ranked, always counts as ranked" would have given both teams in your scenario credit for beating the BG's. It wasn't "were they ranked when team A beat them? how about when team B did?"

ExTartanPlayer · November 07, 2013, 07:18:06 PM

Oh, Bob, I agree that it makes more sense to use the FINAL ranking, I previously made that comment about how the first regional rankings are kind of influenced by timing and who you've played to date.

I'm fine with ditching once-ranked, always-ranked for just RRO's over teams in the final rankings. This matters a little less in Pool B as well; where it really matters is some of the Pool A teams at the TOP of the board, who are counting their wins over RR's as criteria for themselves as top seeds and whether they'll get to host. UW-Whitewater, for example, is currently holding three wins over RRO's but will lose one if WashU loses either of their next two games and falls out of the RR's. That may matter when splitting hairs for who gets to host between Bethel, UWW, and Linfield. No way more than two of those three will get to host a region.

Mr. Ypsi · November 07, 2013, 07:25:18 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2013, 07:18:06 PM
Oh, Bob, I agree that it makes more sense to use the FINAL ranking, I previously made that comment about how the first regional rankings are kind of influenced by timing and who you've played to date.

I'm fine with ditching once-ranked, always-ranked for just RRO's over teams in the final rankings. This matters a little less in Pool B as well; where it really matters is some of the Pool A teams at the TOP of the board, who are counting their wins over RR's as criteria for themselves as top seeds and whether they'll get to host. UW-Whitewater, for example, is currently holding three wins over RRO's but will lose one if WashU loses either of their next two games and falls out of the RR's. That may matter when splitting hairs for who gets to host between Bethel, UWW, and Linfield. No way more than two of those three will get to host a region.

And given UWP's weak SoS, UWW may lose another if UWO wins. They could easily fall from 3-0 to 1-0.

Mr. Ypsi · November 09, 2013, 05:11:56 PM

Not so fast - Millsaps rallied and won by a point in OT.

smedindy · November 09, 2013, 05:21:25 PM

You saw nothing. I saw Millsaps losing 27-22 on live stats. Ah, well, carry on.

MonroviaCat · November 09, 2013, 05:40:23 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2013, 05:11:56 PM
Not so fast - Millsaps rallied and won by a point in OT.

I saw Centre lose by a point

Ron Boerger · November 09, 2013, 06:01:22 PM

Texas Lutheran's huge fall from grace today (73-44 against a Hardin-Simmons team that had won but two games all season) is probably going to make someone like Wesley smile come selection time.

jknezek · November 09, 2013, 06:07:32 PM

Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2013, 06:01:22 PM
Texas Lutheran's huge fall from grace today (73-44 against a Hardin-Simmons team that had won but two games all season) is probably going to make someone like Wesley smile come selection time.

That's just a massive loss against a team that was going nowhere this season. Millsaps squeaked out the win and I have to believe the "B" board looks something like:

Millsaps
Wesley
Framingham St (lost to a ranked team close, not an unranked team in a blowout)
TLU
Wash U

I suppose Wesley should be ahead of Millsaps based on the prior rankings, but I just can't believe that will stick, even with Wesley's big, but technically unimportant, win today. Rhodes, who recovered from their stumble last week, has the last shot at playing spoiler for Millsaps. A Rhodes win would also help Wash U a bit.

TLU's seat just got real hot, but they would be a fairly good looking "C" from the south, though they may only see the board if TMC goes first (assuming W&J wins out).

jaybird44 · November 09, 2013, 07:37:36 PM

I have to believe that getting rung up by a 3-5 team to the tune of 73 points would put TL behind WashU...given the Bears' vastly superior SOS. Granted, Hardin-Simmons is 21st in SOS, but today's loss to a sub-500 team, while giving up 73 points, doesn't pass the smell test to keep TL ahead of WashU (IMHO).

ExTartanPlayer · November 10, 2013, 07:30:12 AM

I will be very, very interested to see the South RR's this week. Wesley (who I thought was badly over-ranked to begin with) may float up one spot further with TLU's loss and Millsaps' close escape (although I think Millsaps SHOULD have been above them to begin with). It'll be a crackup if they just put Millsaps in TLU's spot and keep Wesley fourth. I will be interested to see how far TLU falls.

If Centre had actually beaten Millsaps, that would have been a HUGE favor to WashU and might have been enough to put them in. As it stands now, I think they'll need Rhodes to beat Millsaps next week (although that could complicate things by bringing Rhodes themselves back into the equation). Or they should schedule Millsaps for a game real quick themselves

jaybird44 · November 10, 2013, 09:35:18 AM

I agree, ExTP...WashU has to take care of its own business and get a victory from Rhodes, just to have a chance to sit at the playoff table. The joy of the win over Case was dashed a bit when Centre fumbled away the 2-point attempt in OT. I would like to think that the Bears have moved ahead of TexLuth, but it all depends on the whims of regional ranking committee.