FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[hickory_cornhusker]

Wheaton's biggest problem is that WashU getting regionally ranked doesn't help them against Chicago because they both beat the Bears. There is a nightmare scenario for Wheaton possible if Lake Forest beats Monmouth and Chicago beats Lake Forest, there will be a three way tie for the MWC bid. If Chicago doesn't get it, they will be at 9-1, and LFC will almost certainly be regionally ranked at 9-1. Chicago will have an RRO of 1-0. If WashU is also ranked, they'll be at 2-0.  Monmouth would also have a 1-1 RRO so they could (though a long shot) possibly get ranked moving Chicago's RRO to 2-1. In that scenario it will be hard to justify Wheaton ahead of Chicago.

[hazzben]

Not sure if you are saying this, but I don't think there is much of a chance of Wheaton, at 9-1, to be ranked below a 9-1 MWC team in the Regional rankings. Wheaton's issue will be on selection Sunday when they are at the table with Pool C teams from other regions.

If "RRO results don't live in a vacuum," what other criteria are being considered?

I'm not making a case here, I'm asking a question. Say Chicago is 9-1, as is Wheaton. Say they are both winless vs. RRO (although Wheaton will have played one RRO). Say Chicago has a stronger SOS using the metrics that appear to be in use (and they would have the stronger SOS by a decent margin).

What criteria, without preseason bias or the "eye test", would trump SOS (or cause rankers to disregard it) and elevate Wheaton past Chicago?

RRO isn't in a vacuum, but not all RRO's are the same, even when they appear that way on paper. Say Chicago is 9-1 and 0-1 vs RRO Monmouth (assuming they beat LF) and Wheaton is 9-1 and 0-1 vs RRO NCC. They'll consider SOS of course (which won't be great for either, and also not a large delta when the dust settles IMO), but they will also examine the fact that Wheaton will have a loss to the likely Region 5 #1 team in NCC.

They will also consider common opponents, not official criteria, but they will certainly talk about it (at least they have on the RAC calls I sat silently on back in the day).

Wheaton's biggest problem is that WashU getting regionally ranked doesn't help them against Chicago because they both beat the Bears.

They will look at that Wash U game either way. But again, just because they both won doesn't necessarily mean it's a wash. Each RAC has a mind of its own and a subjective element we can't totally predict. If both had beat Wash U by 1-2 score margin, it's probably meaningless. But Wheaton won by 4 scores, with Wash U's only TD coming with :30 to play. That might get discussed outright. Even if it's not, the RAC will be aware of the disparity in game results, we just don't know how much that will weigh.

[hazzben]

Two random Regional Ranking questions:

- Is it 'once ranked, always ranked', or does a RR count only if it comes in the final rankings?  Or is this something that is opaque to us given how RRs will be done this year?

- I saw on the basketball board that the first set of RRs will list who is ranked alphabetically, but not actually numerically rank them.  ("These eight teams are ranked: Aurora, Benedictine, Coe, ...")  Presumably this is so that there is not an anchoring bias in the rankings before the second ranking, which is the first set of rankings that can take results versus RRO into account.  Setting aside whether we think this is a good ora bad approach, do we know if this approach is being used for football as well?

It is not once ranked, always ranked.  RROs come from the final two rankings (the rankings we see prior to week 11 and the rankings we'll get after the field is announced). 

Ranked teams, sorted alphabetically will be coming to the football rankings as well. Part of the reason for doing this in the first set of rankings is because the data set is incomplete- there are not RROs involved in the first rankings (there were no ranked teams prior to the first rankings, right?). 

There is a lot more conversation about this on the special Around The Nation / Hoopsville podcast crossover event^TM which I admittedly need to listen to myself!

If I'm remembering correctly from the ATN Podcast, there also isn't a uniform number of ranked teams across regions. It's a ratio of total teams in the region that determine the number. That's a fascinating little data point. Anyone have numbers on how many teams are now in each region since the reshuffle? Or what the number of ranked teams is per region?

[wally_wabash]

Not sure if you are saying this, but I don't think there is much of a chance of Wheaton, at 9-1, to be ranked below a 9-1 MWC team in the Regional rankings. Wheaton's issue will be on selection Sunday when they are at the table with Pool C teams from other regions.

If "RRO results don't live in a vacuum," what other criteria are being considered?

I'm not making a case here, I'm asking a question. Say Chicago is 9-1, as is Wheaton. Say they are both winless vs. RRO (although Wheaton will have played one RRO). Say Chicago has a stronger SOS using the metrics that appear to be in use (and they would have the stronger SOS by a decent margin).

What criteria, without preseason bias or the "eye test", would trump SOS (or cause rankers to disregard it) and elevate Wheaton past Chicago?

There's been a distinction drawn between "results vs. RRO" and "record vs. RRO".  That word "results" properly gives RACs and the national committee the ability to dig deeper than just who won or lost a game.  To whit, Wheaton losing 20-7 to the No. 1 regionally ranked team (and a team that has beaten everybody else by over 48+) lands differently than Chicago losing 40-37 to a team that may end up being ranked 4th or 5th in a region.  Those aren't equivalent results and probably shouldn't be viewed as such. 

If I'm remembering correctly from the ATN Podcast, there also isn't a uniform number of ranked teams across regions. It's a ratio of total teams in the region that determine the number. That's a fascinating little data point. Anyone have numbers on how many teams are now in each region since the reshuffle? Or what the number of ranked teams is per region?

My hunch is  7 or 8 ranked teams per region depending on size of region.  The numbers are:
R1: 41
R2: 41
R3: 34
R4: 35
R5: 38
R6: 40

Still waiting for that pre-championship manual to confirm a lot of the stuff that we think we think. 

[hazzben]

If I'm remembering correctly from the ATN Podcast, there also isn't a uniform number of ranked teams across regions. It's a ratio of total teams in the region that determine the number. That's a fascinating little data point. Anyone have numbers on how many teams are now in each region since the reshuffle? Or what the number of ranked teams is per region?

My hunch is  7 or 8 ranked teams per region depending on size of region.  The numbers are:
R1: 41
R2: 41
R3: 34
R4: 35
R5: 38
R6: 40

Still waiting for that pre-championship manual to confirm a lot of the stuff that we think we think. 

So we are predicting something around a 5:1 ratio. That breaks in Wheaton's favor if they round up.

[WW]

Not sure if you are saying this, but I don't think there is much of a chance of Wheaton, at 9-1, to be ranked below a 9-1 MWC team in the Regional rankings. Wheaton's issue will be on selection Sunday when they are at the table with Pool C teams from other regions.

If "RRO results don't live in a vacuum," what other criteria are being considered?

I'm not making a case here, I'm asking a question. Say Chicago is 9-1, as is Wheaton. Say they are both winless vs. RRO (although Wheaton will have played one RRO). Say Chicago has a stronger SOS using the metrics that appear to be in use (and they would have the stronger SOS by a decent margin).

What criteria, without preseason bias or the "eye test", would trump SOS (or cause rankers to disregard it) and elevate Wheaton past Chicago?

There's been a distinction drawn between "results vs. RRO" and "record vs. RRO".  That word "results" properly gives RACs and the national committee the ability to dig deeper than just who won or lost a game.  To whit, Wheaton losing 20-7 to the No. 1 regionally ranked team (and a team that has beaten everybody else by over 48+) lands differently than Chicago losing 40-37 to a team that may end up being ranked 4th or 5th in a region.  Those aren't equivalent results and probably shouldn't be viewed as such. 

If I'm remembering correctly from the ATN Podcast, there also isn't a uniform number of ranked teams across regions. It's a ratio of total teams in the region that determine the number. That's a fascinating little data point. Anyone have numbers on how many teams are now in each region since the reshuffle? Or what the number of ranked teams is per region?

My hunch is  7 or 8 ranked teams per region depending on size of region.  The numbers are:
R1: 41
R2: 41
R3: 34
R4: 35
R5: 38
R6: 40

Still waiting for that pre-championship manual to confirm a lot of the stuff that we think we think.

Yeah, there's definitely some ambiguity about the process. Re your results vs. record distinction, that's an interesting point, although it does wander into "eye test" territory. Sure, depending on how deep you dive into "results," you can build a case that Wheaton should be ranked higher than any other Region 5 pool C candidate. I guess it's not clear to me that they've given themselves that latitude.

[USee]

What's not clear? What's clear about Chicago's resume that it's better than Wheaton?

[hazzben]

Yeah, there's definitely some ambiguity about the process. Re your results vs. record distinction, that's an interesting point, although it does wander into "eye test" territory. Sure, depending on how deep you dive into "results," you can build a case that Wheaton should be ranked higher than any other Region 5 pool C candidate. I guess it's not clear to me that they've given themselves that latitude.

I think history shows us that this is the case to a certain degree. This RAC isn't the historic North RAC, but the members will be well aware of the CCIW, NCC, Wheaton, and their historic bodies of work. They just aren't going to view a 10-0 CCIW champ they same way they will a 10-0 MWC or NACC Champ. Same goes for those 9-1 teams from each conference. There are data points like RRO and SOS that have legitimate bearing. But when those pieces are equal or close (a SOS difference under say .015), the people in the room are aware of history. And it's not inappropriate that they have a sense of Wheaton's standing in D3, especially in the last 3-5 years (as most relevant).

The question IMO isn't really will Wheaton get buried in the Region 5 rankings. I think they will be the top at large team in the region. It's how will the national committee view them compared to the other 1 loss candidates on the board. There are still a lot of games that pit 0/1 loss vs. 1/2 loss teams down the stretch. I think as Wheaton's SOS starts to devolve, so too will the list criteria rich 1 loss options for Pool C.

[WW]

What's not clear? What's clear about Chicago's resume that it's better than Wheaton?

Chiacgo's SOS will be better.

[Pat Coleman]

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

[wally_wabash]

The difference between "results" and "records" vs RRO is something that has been discussed by committee chairs previously, so not conjecture on our part.  That distinction is understood. 

To give an idea of how finely you might see a RAC or the national committee view and apply the criteria, here is an excerpt of how our analysis landed on North Central as our final projected team in to the tournament in 2019:

Susquehanna's lone loss is an overtime loss to S2 Muhlenberg. North Central's lone loss is a 35-21 defeat to N2 (and a tournament No. 1 seed) Wheaton. Muhlenberg's 10-0 record came against an SOS of .504, while Wheaton's 10-0 record came against an SOS of .546. That's a significant difference in our view, significant enough to give the fifth and final spot to North Central. That is stretching the criteria, but it illustrates how thin the differences between teams at this stage of the process really are.

What's not clear? What's clear about Chicago's resume that it's better than Wheaton?

Chiacgo's SOS will be better.

Results vs. common Division III opponents is also a primary criteria.  The result vs. the common opponent does not favor Chicago in a direct comparison to Wheaton.  But that's just one piece, as is SOS, as are RRO results.  Ranking Region 5 is going to be difficult and not without differing points of view. 

[WW]

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

[Pat Coleman]

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

It is absolutely more nuanced than that, especially in football where there are only 10 games and often only one non-conference game.

[WW]

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

It is absolutely more nuanced than that, especially in football where there are only 10 games and often only one non-conference game.

Well, if nuance, preseason biases, 2019 results and historic "standing" all have bearing on their RR, Wheaton really has little to worry about.

[kiko]

Their SOS number may be better but will their actual schedule?

Oh, h*ll no. But my understanding is they'll consider the number, not the "eye test," politicking, or third-layer analysis of who beat whom.

It is absolutely more nuanced than that, especially in football where there are only 10 games and often only one non-conference game.

Well, if nuance, preseason biases, 2019 results and historic "standing" all have bearing on their RR, Wheaton really has little to worry about.

Wheaton's resume will look a lot like North Central's resume circa 2019.  While they won the Big Doorstop, the Cardinals were by virtually all estimates the last Pool C team selected, and as Wally noted above, making choices at that point can mean splitting hairs.  Given this history, and the many unknowns around who may trip up and unexpectedly tumble into the Pool C pot, 'little to worry about' is not where I would rate that resume.