FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[emma17]

Wally
In your explanations as to why a process along the lines I've suggested you almost always goes back to the regional rankings.
I'd get rid of the regional rankings in a heartbeat. I'd get rid of sos too.
Again, this is exactly why the goal of Pool C needs to be revised and clearly stated.
If the goal of Pool C is restated along the lines of: The AQ process allows for all teams to have a competitive opportunity to reach the playoffs. Recognizing the AQ process cannot ensure the most competitive teams make the playoffs, the goal of Pool C is to select teams that are most likely to raise the level of competition in the playoffs. Tbe most reliable method to do this is to compare the current year and 3 year prior history of potential Pool C teams degree of competitiveness vs the teams with the greatest playoff success over the past three years.

[wally_wabash]

Agree that it's probably time to do something different with the SOS, particularly as more and more of the division play in 10-team leagues and all of the SOS's converge on .500.  It's just not a good way to differentiate teams anymore (maybe a realization that the 2014 committee came to which helped Muhlenberg get in). 

Couldn't disagree more about giving teams credit for what happened in the prior three seasons.  The current season's tournament selection decisions should be based on what happened in the current season only.  Otherwise you've created a closed system that is basically inaccessible to teams trying to make the tournament for the first time or for the first time in a long time.  What those teams accomplish in a current season deserves to be scrutinized in the same way that any other team's accomplishments are.  It's not fair to spot points to teams that frankly shouldn't need the help.  We have to keep the comparisons amongst teams closed to the current season. 

[joehakes]

The philosophy of DIII is to emphasize regional play.  If you don't like that, your beef is with DIII presidents who crafted the philosophy statement.  The idea of choosing the best performances over the past three years makes no sense.  Each year and each tournament is it's own entity.  For years in various sports teams were picked on historical reputation and that doesn't reward teams for having a better season than they might normally have.  The SOS sort of evening out will make the other criteria more important just by process of elimination. 

When you have sat at the decision table, coming down the stretch with more teams that have had a really good year than spots left, believe me, you take it pretty seriously.  Sticking to the stated method of selection is important.  In every sport three will be some people left out that could have just as easily gotten in.  It's a tough situation and it should be.  In the time that I was on the DIII Men's Soccer Committee I never saw anyone who didn't do this with the best intentions.

[Gregory Sager]

I could definitely see a long-term CCIW/IIAC matchup series coming out of this.

I would love to see a CCIW/IIAC series, but to make it work the IIAC will need a tenth member after Wash U joins the CCIW as a football affiliate in 2018.  Perhaps they could let St. Norbert tag along as in the MIAA/CCIW series.   

Actually, I was thinking of Finlandia when I mentioned the subject. As an independent, the Lions will always be looking for games.

[wally_wabash]

I don't think this is the last addition to the IIAC.  Nine is a weird number to have and there is some language in the press release that makes me think they'll have ten teams there before too long. 

Moreover, as the Iowa Conference undertakes a comprehensive strategic planning process, Nebraska Wesleyan's participation will advance our work as we position the IIAC for the future.

Might just be me, but something about that quote makes me feel like this isn't a full stop for the IIAC.  Maybe Chicago is in play here? 

[emma17]

So as not to hijack this board on the subject of Pool C, I'll clarify a couple points and try to move on.
1.  I don't mean to paint a picture that the committee has failed to get highly competitive teams into Pool C.  They have done so.
2.  Regarding credit for prior seasons.  To be clear, the current season drives the decision.  But much like the committee wisely decided to look at the prior year results when seeding playoff teams (UWW in 2010), they can do the same when trying to differentiate between a 9-1 Muhlenberg and an 8-2 NCC. 
3.  By removing the regional silos from which Pool C teams are selected, the committee would be freed to pick the best teams, regardless of region.
4.  The AQ process for conference champions does provide access to all teams.  Adding greater scrutiny to the Pool C selection for 5 or so slots does not create a closed system.  Those teams looking for their chance should get in by winning the conference, and then performing well in the playoffs to give them a better chance in following years at Pool C.
5.  I don't have a real problem with emphasizing regional play.  I have an issue with using regional rankings at the end of the season to determine what teams should get the 5-6 Pool C slots.

[Gregory Sager]

Might just be me, but something about that quote makes me feel like this isn't a full stop for the IIAC.  Maybe Chicago is in play here? 

I tend to doubt that. Chicago can only join the IIAC in one sport, football. If your suspicion is correct that these two sentences:

Moreover, as the Iowa Conference undertakes a comprehensive strategic planning process, Nebraska Wesleyan's participation will advance our work as we position the IIAC for the future.

... indicate further expansion on the part of the IIAC, my guess is that the league will look for another full member, a la Nebraska Wesleyan, as opposed to merely adding Chicago as an associate member for football. The CCIW is already committed to a model that uses associate members for various sports (Rose-Hulman in men's and women's swimming, Carroll and Dubuque in men's and women's lacrosse, and Wash U in football three seasons from now), but the IIAC isn't. Rather than simply fill in the gaps piecemeal the way that the CCIW does, I suspect that the IIAC would much rather opt for the tidier solution of simply add a tenth full member. The problem, though, is that wrestling is a required sport for the IIAC, and the number of D3 schools that offer wrestling has dwindled considerably over the past two decades.

[USee]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

You make my point better than I could have made it. I 100% agree. I was being nice when I said "...maybe, maybe not". NCC didn't make it last year because they lost to UWSP. If they beat Alma by 30 instead, they are in. The current system rewards NCC for beating Benedictine in a non-competitive game vs losing to Wesley by 2. The Wesley game doesn't help the program. It just introduces more risk and limits the upside, which is never a good choice.

[USee]

So as not to hijack this board on the subject of Pool C, I'll clarify a couple points and try to move on.
1.  I don't mean to paint a picture that the committee has failed to get highly competitive teams into Pool C.  They have done so.
2.  Regarding credit for prior seasons.  To be clear, the current season drives the decision.  But much like the committee wisely decided to look at the prior year results when seeding playoff teams (UWW in 2010), they can do the same when trying to differentiate between a 9-1 Muhlenberg and an 8-2 NCC. 
3.  By removing the regional silos from which Pool C teams are selected, the committee would be freed to pick the best teams, regardless of region.
4.  The AQ process for conference champions does provide access to all teams.  Adding greater scrutiny to the Pool C selection for 5 or so slots does not create a closed system.  Those teams looking for their chance should get in by winning the conference, and then performing well in the playoffs to give them a better chance in following years at Pool C.
5.  I don't have a real problem with emphasizing regional play.  I have an issue with using regional rankings at the end of the season to determine what teams should get the 5-6 Pool C slots.

Its July, hijacking is welcome.

I think you are onto something with the idea of recasting the entire process with subjectivity and transparency. I am not convinced your exact method is practical. I applaud your thought process and research into the idea. And, like Wally, it's a lot easier to poke holes in your plan than to come up with a better one.

It's hard to anticipate unintended consequences of a new plan, which is a big part of why these processes are difficult to change or amend. For instance, how to you get around the fact that national voters have geographic biases and may have seen Muhlenberg  play 3x but never saw NCC or UWSP, etc? Coaches and administrators just don't have the time to get a perspective outside their region of play.

[kiko]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

You make my point better than I could have made it. I 100% agree. I was being nice when I said "...maybe, maybe not". NCC didn't make it last year because they lost to UWSP. If they beat Alma by 30 instead, they are in. The current system rewards NCC for beating Benedictine in a non-competitive game vs losing to Wesley by 2. The Wesley game doesn't help the program. It just introduces more risk and limits the upside, which is never a good choice.

I think its fair to say that the Wesley game doesn't help the program get into the playoffs if the Cardinals lose.

But to make a blanket statement that it doesn't help the program, full stop, is IMO not fully accurate as it is a really narrow lens to look through.

[kiko]

So as not to hijack this board on the subject of Pool C, I'll clarify a couple points and try to move on.
1.  I don't mean to paint a picture that the committee has failed to get highly competitive teams into Pool C.  They have done so.
2.  Regarding credit for prior seasons.  To be clear, the current season drives the decision.  But much like the committee wisely decided to look at the prior year results when seeding playoff teams (UWW in 2010), they can do the same when trying to differentiate between a 9-1 Muhlenberg and an 8-2 NCC. 
3.  By removing the regional silos from which Pool C teams are selected, the committee would be freed to pick the best teams, regardless of region.
4.  The AQ process for conference champions does provide access to all teams.  Adding greater scrutiny to the Pool C selection for 5 or so slots does not create a closed system.  Those teams looking for their chance should get in by winning the conference, and then performing well in the playoffs to give them a better chance in following years at Pool C.
5.  I don't have a real problem with emphasizing regional play.  I have an issue with using regional rankings at the end of the season to determine what teams should get the 5-6 Pool C slots.

Its July, hijacking is welcome.

I think you are onto something with the idea of recasting the entire process with subjectivity and transparency. I am not convinced your exact method is practical. I applaud your thought process and research into the idea. And, like Wally, it's a lot easier to poke holes in your plan than to come up with a better one.

It's hard to anticipate unintended consequences of a new plan, which is a big part of why these processes are difficult to change or amend. For instance, how to you get around the fact that national voters have geographic biases and may have seen Muhlenberg  play 3x but never saw NCC or UWSP, etc? Coaches and administrators just don't have the time to get a perspective outside their region of play.

I tend to agree with this.  What's to say that a committee member representing an East Coast region doesn't view North Central or Wheaton as simply one of several schools that, due to geographic proximity, has had many many shots at Mount and Whitewater over the years and has never gotten over the hump?

[wally_wabash]

So as not to hijack this board on the subject of Pool C, I'll clarify a couple points and try to move on.
1.  I don't mean to paint a picture that the committee has failed to get highly competitive teams into Pool C.  They have done so.
2.  Regarding credit for prior seasons.  To be clear, the current season drives the decision.  But much like the committee wisely decided to look at the prior year results when seeding playoff teams (UWW in 2010), they can do the same when trying to differentiate between a 9-1 Muhlenberg and an 8-2 NCC. 

I think there's a difference between using prior championships results under the limited scope of only undefeated teams and only for determining seeding of teams already qualified (which the NCAA pretty routinely says they don't do anyway) and using it for selection of teams.

3.  By removing the regional silos from which Pool C teams are selected, the committee would be freed to pick the best teams, regardless of region.

The regional thing just isn't going away, however the rules have been relaxed to the point now where it's really hard not to play a regional game.  In fact, as long as you play 3/4 of your games in region (which in football basically means belonging to a conference), all of your results count as in-region play.  It's a distinction that has more impact in a sport like basketball, but here in 2015 we get a chance to leverage this rule- North Central and Wesley are one of the few combinations of teams that aren't either within the geographical mileage limit, in the same geographic region, or the same administrative region.  As such, a few years ago, this game wouldn't have counted in the primary critieria or would have been calculated at all in the SOS math.  The game will count as primary criteria because both teams play most of their games in-region.  This was an important change- previously we were throwing away perfectly useful data from an already limited data set. 

4.  The AQ process for conference champions does provide access to all teams.  Adding greater scrutiny to the Pool C selection for 5 or so slots does not create a closed system.  Those teams looking for their chance should get in by winning the conference, and then performing well in the playoffs to give them a better chance in following years at Pool C.
5.  I don't have a real problem with emphasizing regional play.  I have an issue with using regional rankings at the end of the season to determine what teams should get the 5-6 Pool C slots.

The AQ process does provide access to all teams- including the ones that you want to grant favored nations status to.  Why should UW-O and NCC get a free pass while everybody else "should get in by winning the conference"?  North Central and UW-O have conferences they can and should win also. 

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

You make my point better than I could have made it. I 100% agree. I was being nice when I said "...maybe, maybe not". NCC didn't make it last year because they lost to UWSP. If they beat Alma by 30 instead, they are in. The current system rewards NCC for beating Benedictine in a non-competitive game vs losing to Wesley by 2. The Wesley game doesn't help the program. It just introduces more risk and limits the upside, which is never a good choice.

I think maybe more accurately, the current system doesn't penalize North Central for thumping on Benedictine whereas it might (probably) would penalize them for losing by 2 to Wesley.  But this isn't for sure.  I think it would be an interesting case to see how the North RAC treats North Central if they were carrying losses to Wesley and Wheaton.  I don't think it's a slam dunk that they'd necessarily be stuck behind two other 1-loss runner ups in the region.  Definitely possible, but not an absolute.  Particularly if Wheaton and Wesley perform over the course of the year as their preseason rankings say they should. 

[USee]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

You make my point better than I could have made it. I 100% agree. I was being nice when I said "...maybe, maybe not". NCC didn't make it last year because they lost to UWSP. If they beat Alma by 30 instead, they are in. The current system rewards NCC for beating Benedictine in a non-competitive game vs losing to Wesley by 2. The Wesley game doesn't help the program. It just introduces more risk and limits the upside, which is never a good choice.

I think its fair to say that the Wesley game doesn't help the program get into the playoffs if the Cardinals lose.

But to make a blanket statement that it doesn't help the program, full stop, is IMO not fully accurate as it is a really narrow lens to look through.

It doesn't help the program any more than playing Benedictine helps. Not in any way that can be quantified. You can argue playing a good team makes you better but, in the CCIW, there is not data that supports that conclusion. In fact the data says the opposite.

[emma17]

Wally,
I will move away from your politically charged terminology and get to the bottom line.
Pool C is entirely about selecting the most competitive of the failed teams.  All Pool C candidates failed to win their conference.
That said, and as you agree, SOS doesn't work well when comparing which failed team should get in.
I suggest, quite strongly, that the committee consider how each failed team fared against highly competitive teams, in the current season and in the recent past. 
I think there is a great deal to learn about a team, which is part of a program, by looking at how they matched up with known playoff successful teams.

Thus,
If I am a committee member and my job is to select the most competitive failed teams into Pool C, I need evidence that the failed team can play with the best.
Muhlenberg has shown no ability to play with the best.  Del Val has shown little ability.  Bridgewater State has shown little ability.
NCC, UWO, St. Thomas, St. John Fisher and some others have shown an ability to play with the best. 
I don't care what region he/she is from, if a committee member cannot see an obvious track record of the teams mentioned above, and use it to support a decision about filling 5-6 slots, then perhaps the committee member isn't cut out for the job.

[wally_wabash]

Wally,
I will move away from your politically charged terminology and get to the bottom line.
Pool C is entirely about selecting the most competitive of the failed teams.  All Pool C candidates failed to win their conference.
That said, and as you agree, SOS doesn't work well when comparing which failed team should get in.
I suggest, quite strongly, that the committee consider how each failed team fared against highly competitive teams, in the current season and in the recent past. 
I think there is a great deal to learn about a team, which is part of a program, by looking at how they matched up with known playoff successful teams.

Thus,
If I am a committee member and my job is to select the most competitive failed teams into Pool C, I need evidence that the failed team can play with the best.
Muhlenberg has shown no ability to play with the best.  Del Val has shown little ability.  Bridgewater State has shown little ability.
NCC, UWO, St. Thomas, St. John Fisher and some others have shown an ability to play with the best. 
I don't care what region he/she is from, if a committee member cannot see an obvious track record of the teams mentioned above, and use it to support a decision about filling 5-6 slots, then perhaps the committee member isn't cut out for the job.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  We don't know what Muhlenberg would have done with North Central's spot in tournaments past.  Muhlenberg is located in an area where they don't get the same opportunity to play the powerful teams in the midwest and north that we've sort of come to accept as the upper crust of the division.  I don't think they deserve to be penalized for that.  Or, approaching it from the other side, it doesn't seem right to me to give 2014 North Central (sans Stanek) credit for what the 2013 North Central team did (with Stanek).  And not that Spencer Stanek was the only reason North Central won a region in 2013, but not having the best non-Kevin Burke QB in the division matters and a committee shouldn't approach any team based on things done with players that have moved on.