Pool C

[WUPHF]

I am truly fascinated by the bracketology conversations...

Thanks everyone for your hard work.

[fantastic50]

While I'm thinking of it, here's the list of potential multi-bid leagues.  (The 13 not listed will almost certainly have only their tournament champions in the field of 64.)

Expected number of bids, through 2/12
NESCAC 4.98
WIAC 2.39
UAA 2.14
OAC 2.12
CAC 2.05
NWC 2.01
LAND 1.98
HCAC 1.98
ASC 1.96
CSAC 1.75
CCIW 1.74
LEC 1.70
NJAC 1.67
SUNYAC 1.64
MIAC 1.51
NEWMAC 1.49
CCC 1.46
ODAC 1.46
LL 1.41
CC 1.40
IIAC 1.36
NCAC 1.30
SCIAC 1.29
MWC 1.28
MIAA 1.28
E8 1.26
MACC 1.23
NACC 1.08
MACF 1.06
PAC 1.01

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors. As a result, they are LESS likely to reward top SOS numbers in the NESCAC.

I HIGHLY doubt we will see 6 teams from the NESCAC. I think 5 is a pipe dream. That said, I think four is a distinct possiblility. The NESCAC is far better and far deeper than it has been in a long time, but teams like Amherst I think are putting themselves in danger of playing out of the tournament. I know that sounds crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amherst is 5th in the regional rankings this week... if not lower meaning they have to do more than lose in the first round of the conference tournament. If they lose to Williams (which Ryan's scenario would present), I think the committee would try and ignore their SOS a bit considering they would be 19-7 and dealing with a lot of losses against other teams in the regional rankings - their vRRO might actually be their Achilles heal in this case.

Yes... I am aware their SOS is knocking on .600... but that is my point about a "false SOS" ... if the committee does what they have been saying, Amherst could be in trouble. Even Tufts and Wesleyan are not locks (despite Wesleyan's two wins over Amherst, so far) because their SOS numbers are lower than Amherst. There is a chance Amherst gets in but Tufts and even Wesleyan are in trouble (though, Wesleyan not getting in compared to Amherst in this situation seems odd; I think they are safer than Amherst).

It is a really interesting situation in the Northeast and the NESCAC. This week's rankings will tell us a ton, but six teams in the tournament from the NESCAC? I don't see it happening.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I actually didn't think about the easier answer... Trinity isn't getting in unless it has an AQ... and based on the last rankings, Williams is the first one in trouble of being bounced and I am not sure they have done anything as of yet to improve that. Yes, getting to the finals makes an impact, but beating Amherst may not boost their resume (since Amherst is going in the wrong direction).. there is a real chance that the loser of Trinity-Williams is left out of the tournament... or sends another NESCAC team home for good.

[nescac1]

Note: if Amherst loses to Williams, they would finish out the season 17-7, not 19-7.  I wonder if that cancelled RIC game could come back to burn them in that situation.  Williams, it seems, really needs to beat Amherst to get in, unless everything else breaks right.  But if Williams, hypothetically, beats Amherst and then loses in the NESCAC semis, could Amherst really get in over them (the Ephs would then be 18-8, Amherst 17-7)?  That would strike me as pretty darn unfair.   

In that scenario, Amherst's best wins would be Babson, Tufts, Williams x2, St. Lawrence, Trinity, Bates.  Amherst though would have played 16 home games and only 8 road games in that scenario.
Williams' best wins would be, in that scenario, Middlebury, Hope, Wesleyan, Amherst, Eastern Conn, SUNY Oneonta, Bates.  Pretty much dead even there, but Williams would have one more win overall, and (again in that hypothetical scenario) the Ephs would have played only 11 home games, with 13 road games, and two neutral court games.  Seems like Williams would have the stronger resume should that occur.

I would bet Wesleyan, Midd and Tufts are in.  Amherst is probably in with one more win, on the bubble with one more loss.  Williams I think is likely in -- but far from a lock -- with one more win (in for sure with two), and probably out barring a miracle if they lose to Amherst.  So it's do-or-die for Williams and maybe do-or-die for Amherst on Saturday ...

It seems like right now the regional rankings are prob something like Babson, Midd, Tufts, Wesleyan, Amherst, Williams, Mass Dartmouth, MIT.  MIT has a good record but an extremely weak schedule -- not a single win over a regionally ranked team.   If Williams wins at Amherst on Saturday, wouldn't they sneak above Amherst in the final regional rankings?   And doesn't it seem likely that the top five from New England will all get in?

In the end, assuming that Trinity/Bates/Hamilton don't win the tourney (I think that's a likely bet a this point), I think NESCAC probably gets four in -- Midd, Tufts, Wesleyan, and the winner of Williams/Amherst.  If everything breaks right, maybe the loser of Amherst/Williams (much more likely if it's Amherst) squeezes in, but four seems like a pretty safe bet at this point.   

[nescac1]

One more thing on NESCAC: I would like to think that if the committee was looking beyond numbers, they would also look collectively at how well the NESCAC has fared vs. strong non-NESCAC opponents, including strong out-of-region opponents.  Wesleyan beat Marietta.  Wiliams beat Hope.  Midd beat IWU.  Amherst gave Babson its only loss of the season.  It's not like NESCAC has just feasted on teams from weaker New England leagues -- NESCAC has beaten top teams from other leagues, and done it consistently.  It seems only fair -- if the committee is otherwise inclined to discount NESCAC's SOS numbers -- that would matter. 

[fantastic50]

Thanks, Dave, for the analysis on the NESCAC situation.

I have an unrelated question. What happens if all of the ranked teams from a region are chosen before Pool C selections end? Is that it for the region, or do they get another (unranked) team on the table? This scenario seems within the realm of possibility in the Central region this year.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Thanks, Dave, for the analysis on the NESCAC situation.

I have an unrelated question. What happens if all of the ranked teams from a region are chosen before Pool C selections end? Is that it for the region, or do they get another (unranked) team on the table? This scenario seems within the realm of possibility in the Central region this year.

I'm pretty sure I recall reading that the regional committees actually rank several more teams beyond those that appear on the public lists.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

One more thing on NESCAC: I would like to think that if the committee was looking beyond numbers, they would also look collectively at how well the NESCAC has fared vs. strong non-NESCAC opponents, including strong out-of-region opponents.  Wesleyan beat Marietta.  Wiliams beat Hope.  Midd beat IWU.  Amherst gave Babson its only loss of the season.  It's not like NESCAC has just feasted on teams from weaker New England leagues -- NESCAC has beaten top teams from other leagues, and done it consistently.  It seems only fair -- if the committee is otherwise inclined to discount NESCAC's SOS numbers -- that would matter.

Oh they absolutely will look at everything they can. "Results" versus regionally ranked opponents means exactly what it says. Not just a WL% or wins and loses or total games... but the actual results. However, that doesn't mean they will look at it the same way we all do. They will also look at results versus common opponents and other criteria.

Thanks, Dave, for the analysis on the NESCAC situation.

I have an unrelated question. What happens if all of the ranked teams from a region are chosen before Pool C selections end? Is that it for the region, or do they get another (unranked) team on the table? This scenario seems within the realm of possibility in the Central region this year.

Yes, there are more teams "ranked" then who appears on the rankings. They have to do this. It isn't that long ago the women actually selected someone off the rankings and I feel like in the last couple of years we have discussed who might be ranked outside of the rankings because we were running out of teams. That said, I don't think the Central goes off the board. I think the bottom couple of teams in the Central are in trouble to not make the tournament this year. Case in point, I suspect St. Norbert was just outside the rankings last week and they have no chance as an at-alrge team. I also don't think the final two teams in last week's rankings would make the tournament as of right now.

Just an FYI... teams off the rankings will not suddenly count as vRRO teams. None of the criteria will change or be altered because suddenly they are at the table.

[Smitty Oom]

I know it is not likely... But if RIC and Amherst are trying to reschedule the game, when is the last date a regular season game could be played? Is it Saturday?

[Gregory Sager]

I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors.

With regard to your "(and others)" parenthetical reference, D-Mac, I don't think it's fair to lump together with the NESCAC the leagues that play a truncated double round-robin. Leagues such as the ODAC, ASC, and (prior to this season, in which the league was pared down to ten teams) MWC that will feature two games between most opponents and one game between a couple of opponents per team each season still have very generously-sized league schedules (as they should, since the whole reason why they truncate the second round-robin at all is because the leagues are oversized to begin with). The ODAC plays a 16-game league schedule; the ASC plays a 15-game league schedule. The MWC played an 18-game league schedule in recent years with two opponents per team being only one-game affairs; this season it's still an 18-game league schedule, but with Carroll gone it's now a full double round-robin.

That's a lot of league competition any way you look at it, full double round-robin or not. They're not in the same boat at all as the NESCAC and its single round-robin, ten-game league slate.

It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the committee taking steps to curb the NESCAC from garnering a bushelful of Pool C berths. Yeah, it's good to know that the people in charge of assigning Pool C berths are well aware of how the NESCAC colors outside the lines, so to speak. But, on the other hand, if the committee blockades a NESCAC team from garnering a Pool C bid that, by the numbers, it clearly deserves, then it calls into question the integrity of the process as being guided by objective, numbers-based criteria.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors.

With regard to your "(and others)" parenthetical reference, D-Mac, I don't think it's fair to lump together with the NESCAC the leagues that play a truncated double round-robin. Leagues such as the ODAC, ASC, and (prior to this season, in which the league was pared down to ten teams) MWC that will feature two games between most opponents and one game between a couple of opponents per team each season still have very generously-sized league schedules (as they should, since the whole reason why they truncate the second round-robin at all is because the leagues are oversized to begin with). The ODAC plays a 16-game league schedule; the ASC plays a 15-game league schedule. The MWC played an 18-game league schedule in recent years with two opponents per team being only one-game affairs; this season it's still an 18-game league schedule, but with Carroll gone it's now a full double round-robin.

That's a lot of league competition any way you look at it, full double round-robin or not. They're not in the same boat at all as the NESCAC and its single round-robin, ten-game league slate.

I am not grouping the NESCAC in with any of those conferences. I just didn't want to assume the NESCAC was the only one while writing off the top of my head. NESCAC is the only one in the country I am aware of that can have an out-of-conference schedule where they can play a lot of teams from the top of other conferences and it boosts their SOS numbers. Again, I wasn't putting them in any group, I was just making sure I didn't forget something. (I was writing it while kids were running around me, dinner was wrapping up, and I had ten things I was still trying to finish.

It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the committee taking steps to curb the NESCAC from garnering a bushelful of Pool C berths. Yeah, it's good to know that the people in charge of assigning Pool C berths are well aware of how the NESCAC colors outside the lines, so to speak. But, on the other hand, if the committee blockades a NESCAC team from garnering a Pool C bid that, by the numbers, it clearly deserves, then it calls into question the integrity of the process as being guided by objective, numbers-based criteria.

I don't think the committee would blockade them at all... I believe they have been pretty clear that they look into the numbers to understand them better. If a NESCAC school has a ridiculously high SOS, which isn't that hard to see on paper, they dive into the numbers and games to better understand exactly what it means. If when they have dived into the numbers and come out the other end feeling they should be in the tournament, that will be the choice. However, if they dive into the numbers and see something that doesn't add up or compare equally or as high as someone they are comparing to... they may choose to leave that team out.

My point is, just because a team especially in the NESCAC has a gaudy SOS doesn't mean they are a shoe-in for the tournament. The committee will look at as much information as they can to see what those SOS numbers mean and even the WL%. They have been pretty up-front about that. I think it is just dangerous to assume because someone has an incredible SOS means they are getting into the tournament. I have mentioned this prior, but look at Emory last year. A WL% of .681 with one of the best SOS numbers in the country... left out.

What I am saying per the NESCAC is that their is more in the resume than gaudy SOS numbers. Amherst's resume is starting to get sketchy especially in the vRRO category. Trinity can't make the tournament unless they win the AQ (their WL% if they lose in the NESCAC final will be .667, I believe). Williams is in trouble because they keep taking losses they can't afford. Their SOS is nice, but not in the Northeast or even the NESCAC this year. In no way do I think the committee will block the NESCAC from getting bids or a lot of them, but they will look at more than the SOS when making that decision - and a LOT of people on these boards get stuck looking at SOS and WL% with maybe vRRO. Can't blame anyone because it is so hard to truly dive into the numbers, but the committee has pointed out they dive further into the numbers than just about any other committee (that I know of).

The football committee chair a few years ago stated that "x" amount of teams from a region wasn't going to happen. People took that as if they wouldn't allow it to happen. In reality, he meant that it just wouldn't work out that way. I am saying the same. I just don't think when the committee dives into the numbers five or six NESCAC teams are tournament bound this year. This isn't lacrosse LOL.

[Gregory Sager]

I am not grouping the NESCAC in with any of those conferences. I just didn't want to assume the NESCAC was the only one while writing off the top of my head. NESCAC is the only one in the country I am aware of that can have an out-of-conference schedule where they can play a lot of teams from the top of other conferences and it boosts their SOS numbers. Again, I wasn't putting them in any group, I was just making sure I didn't forget something.

OK, then, for the record -- you didn't forget something. The NESCAC is the only single round-robin league in D3, and it's thus the only league in D3 that plays 60% of its regular-season games out of conference.

It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the committee taking steps to curb the NESCAC from garnering a bushelful of Pool C berths. Yeah, it's good to know that the people in charge of assigning Pool C berths are well aware of how the NESCAC colors outside the lines, so to speak. But, on the other hand, if the committee blockades a NESCAC team from garnering a Pool C bid that, by the numbers, it clearly deserves, then it calls into question the integrity of the process as being guided by objective, numbers-based criteria.

I don't think the committee would blockade them at all... I believe they have been pretty clear that they look into the numbers to understand them better. If a NESCAC school has a ridiculously high SOS, which isn't that hard to see on paper, they dive into the numbers and games to better understand exactly what it means. If when they have dived into the numbers and come out the other end feeling they should be in the tournament, that will be the choice. However, if they dive into the numbers and see something that doesn't add up or compare equally or as high as someone they are comparing to... they may choose to leave that team out.

My point is, just because a team especially in the NESCAC has a gaudy SOS doesn't mean they are a shoe-in for the tournament. The committee will look at as much information as they can to see what those SOS numbers mean and even the WL%. They have been pretty up-front about that. I think it is just dangerous to assume because someone has an incredible SOS means they are getting into the tournament. I have mentioned this prior, but look at Emory last year. A WL% of .681 with one of the best SOS numbers in the country... left out.

What I am saying per the NESCAC is that their is more in the resume than gaudy SOS numbers. Amherst's resume is starting to get sketchy especially in the vRRO category. Trinity can't make the tournament unless they win the AQ (their WL% if they lose in the NESCAC final will be .667, I believe). Williams is in trouble because they keep taking losses they can't afford. Their SOS is nice, but not in the Northeast or even the NESCAC this year. In no way do I think the committee will block the NESCAC from getting bids or a lot of them, but they will look at more than the SOS when making that decision - and a LOT of people on these boards get stuck looking at SOS and WL% with maybe vRRO. Can't blame anyone because it is so hard to truly dive into the numbers, but the committee has pointed out they dive further into the numbers than just about any other committee (that I know of).

The football committee chair a few years ago stated that "x" amount of teams from a region wasn't going to happen. People took that as if they wouldn't allow it to happen. In reality, he meant that it just wouldn't work out that way. I am saying the same. I just don't think when the committee dives into the numbers five or six NESCAC teams are tournament bound this year. This isn't lacrosse LOL.

Well, that's more or less a roundabout way of saying that the committee is going to do its job the way that it's supposed to do its job.

The problem is that it didn't read that way in your previous post:

Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors. As a result, they are LESS likely to reward top SOS numbers in the NESCAC.

The confusing thing here is your use of the term "fake SOS". While statistical data doesn't always provide context -- one 19-8 opponent is not necessarily identical to another 19-8 opponent in anything besides wins and losses -- the committee is not charged with delving into that context (SOS quality beyond what the outlines of that particular criterion provide) in their deliberations. In other words, the committee isn't authorized to sift through details regarding the opponents of the opponents of the opponents. It only goes back one generation of opponents' opponents, and even that once-removed generation is only worth one-half (one-third of the total) of the opponents themselves in making SOS calculations. So I'm trying to figure out just what you mean by "fake SOS", since the word "fake" when applied to something as objective as a statistical datum implies either the committee going beyond its designated purview in terms of analyzing the data or else a subjective approach to objective numbers.

[Greek Tragedy]

Here are last week's results for the regionally ranked teams

RNK	REG   SCHOOL	IN-REG	OVER	CON	RESULTS
1	ATL   Neumann	20-1	20-1	CSAC	L at Rosemont, W vs Cairn
2	ATL   Ramapo	20-2	20-2	NJAC	W vs Rutgers-Camden, W vs NJCU
3	ATL   Cabrini	16-4	16-5	CSAC	W vs Cairn, W at Clarks Summit
4	ATL   TCNJ	16-6	16-5	NJAC	W at William Paterson, L at Montclair St
5	ATL   NJCU	17-5	17-5	NJAC	W vs Montclair St, L at Ramapo
6	ATL   DeSales	15-6	15-6	MACF	W at Wilkes, W at King's
7	ATL   Rowan	14-8	14-8	NJAC	W at Kean, W at Rutgers-Newark
8	ATL   Staten Island	17-5	17-6	CUNYAC	W at Brooklyn, W vs Lehman
1	CENT   River Falls	17-2	19-2	WIAC	W at Stout, W vs Whitewater
2	CENT   Wash U	17-3	17-3	UAA	W vs Emory, L vs Rochester
3	CENT   Whitewater	17-3	18-3	WIAC	W at Stevens Point, L at River Falls
4	CENT   Augustana	17-4	17-4	CCIW	W vs NCC, L at Carroll
5	CENT   Eau Claire	14-6	15-6	WIAC	W vs Platteville, W vs La Crosse
6	CENT   Benedictine	18-3	18-4	NACC	W at Con-Chi, W at Edgewood
7	CENT   NPU	15-5	15-5	CCIW	L at Carthage, L at Wheaton IL
8	CENT   IWU	14-6	14-6	CCIW	W vs Elmhurst, W at Carthage
1	EAST   Rochester	19-1	19-1	UAA	L at Chicago, W at Washington U
2	EAST   St. Lawrence	17-4	17-4	LL	W vs Vassar, W vs Bard
3	EAST   Oswego	17-4	17-4	SUNYAC	L at Fredonia, W at Buffalo St
3	EAST   SJF	15-5	15-5	E8	W vs Alfred, W vs Nazareth
5	EAST   Brockport	16-5	16-5	SUNYAC	W at New Paltz, W at Oneonta
6	EAST   Cortland	15-6	15-6	SUNYAC	L at Buffalo St, W at Fredonia
7	EAST   Oneonta	13-8	13-8	SUNYAC	W vs Geneseo, L vs Brockport
8	EAST   Skidmore	15-6	15-6	LL	W vs Hobart, W at Union
1	GL   Marietta	17-4	17-4	OAC	W vs Capital, W at Wilmington
2	GL   Hope	16-3	17-4	MIAA	W vs Trine, W at Adrian
3	GL   Mt St Joseph	17-3	17-4	HCAC	L at Transylvania, W vs Franklin
4	GL   Hanover	15-3	17-3	HCAC	W vs Franklin, W vs Earlham
5	GL   John Carroll	14-6	14-6	OAC	W at Baldwin Wallace, W vs Ohio Northern
6	GL   Wooster	15-6	15-6	NCAC	W vs Allegheny, L at OWU
7	GL   ONU	14-7	14-7	OAC	W vs Heidelberg, L at JCU
8	GL   Ohio Wesleyan	15-6	15-6	NCAC	W vs Hiram, W vs Wooster
9	GL   Denison	17-4	17-4	NCAC	W at DePauw, W at Allegheny
1	MA   CNU	19-2	19-2	CAC	W vs Marymount, W vs Wesley
2	MA   Susquehanna	17-3	18-3	LAND	W vs Catholic, W vs Drew
3	MA   Salisbury	17-4	17-4	CAC	W vs PS-Harrisburg, W vs S. Virg
4	MA   Lycoming	17-4	18-4	MACC	W vs Albright
5	MA   Swarthmore	17-4	17-4	CC	W vs Ursinus, W vs JHU
6	MA   Scranton	16-5	16-5	LAND	W vs Drew, L at Catholic
7	MA   Catholic	15-6	15-6	LAND	L at Susquehanna, W vs Scranton
8	MA   F&M	15-6	15-6	CC	L vs Johns Hopkins, W at Wash C
1	NE   Babson	20-1	20-1	NEWMAC	W vs Springfield, W at Clark
2	NE   Middlebury	18-3	18-3	NESCAC	W vs Amherst, W vs Trinity (CT)
3	NE   Amherst	16-4	16-4	NESCAC	L at Wesleyan, L at Middlebury, W @ Hamilton
4	NE   Tufts	17-5	17-5	NESCAC	W vs Pine Manor, W vs Williams
5	NE   Wesleyan	16-5	16-5	NESCAC	W at Amherst, W vs Bowdoin, W vs Colby
6	NE   Williams	16-6	16-6	NESCAC	L at Tufts, W at Bates
7	NE   E Conn	14-7	14-7	LEC	W vs W. Conn, L at Mass-Dartmouth
8	NE   Mass-Dartmouth	14-7	14-7	LEC	W at RIC, W vs E. Conn
9	NE   MIT	16-5	16-5	NEWMAC	W at WPI, W vs Wheaton (Mass.)
10	NE   Keene St	14-7	14-7	LEC	W vs Plymouth St, W vs W. Conn
11	NE   Bates	15-8	15-8	NESCAC	L vs Williams
1	SOUTH   Guilford	18-3	18-3	ODAC	L at Roanoke, W vs Randolph-Macon
2	SOUTH   Con Tex	13-5	15-6	ASC	W vs HPU, W vs SRS
3	SOUTH   HSU	15-6	16-6	ASC	W at McMurry
4	SOUTH   VWC	15-6	15-6	ODAC	L at Hampden-Sydney, L at Lynchburg
5	SOUTH   LeTourneau	16-4	17-5	ASC	W vs Belhaven
6	SOUTH   Emory	14-6	14-6	UAA	L at Washington U, W at Chicago
7	SOUTH   Randolph-Macon	15-6	15-6	ODAC	W vs Shenandoah, L at Guilford
8	SOUTH   Maryville	16-5	16-5	USAC	W vs Piedmont, W vs Ferrum
1	WEST   Whitman	21-0	21-0	NWC	W at Puget Sound, W at Pacific Lutheran
2	WEST   Whitworth	18-3	18-3	NWC	W at Pacific Lutheran, W at Puget Sound
3	WEST   St Thomas	16-4	16-4	MIAC	W at Hamline, L vs Carleton
4	WEST   Loras	15-6	15-6	IIAC	W vs Central, W at Luther
5	WEST   CMS	15-0	17-1	SCIAC	L vs Ponoma-Pitzer, W vs Whittier, L at La Verne
6	WEST   Neb Wes	15-5	15-6	IIAC	W vs Coe, L at Dubuque
7	WEST   St Johns	14-5	14-6	MIAC	L vs Augsburg, W vs GAC
8	WEST   BVU	14-8	14-8	IIAC	L vs Coe

[fantastic50]

Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors.

With regard to your "(and others)" parenthetical reference, D-Mac, I don't think it's fair to lump together with the NESCAC the leagues that play a truncated double round-robin. Leagues such as the ODAC, ASC, and (prior to this season, in which the league was pared down to ten teams) MWC that will feature two games between most opponents and one game between a couple of opponents per team each season still have very generously-sized league schedules (as they should, since the whole reason why they truncate the second round-robin at all is because the leagues are oversized to begin with). The ODAC plays a 16-game league schedule; the ASC plays a 15-game league schedule. The MWC played an 18-game league schedule in recent years with two opponents per team being only one-game affairs; this season it's still an 18-game league schedule, but with Carroll gone it's now a full double round-robin.

That's a lot of league competition any way you look at it, full double round-robin or not. They're not in the same boat at all as the NESCAC and its single round-robin, ten-game league slate.

It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

The fact that the NESCAC chooses to play only 8 football games, declining both non-conference games and playoff opportunities, speaks to their commitment to keeping intercollegiate athletics in perspective, as is part of the D3 philosophy.  I think that the same is true of the league's hesitance to schedule midweek athletic contests.

I'm not convinced that the NESCAC's lack of a double-round-robin (or something close to it) is quite that big a deal.  Consider that about half the league plays two extra rivalry games against NESCAC opponents (Amherst/Wililams/Wesleyan and Bates/Bowdoin/Colby), and that their tournament has a quarterfinal round.  This means that if Amherst or Williams makes the semifinals, they would have played 14 games against other NESCAC teams.  That's the same number as a UAA team, and only one less than a WIAC team with a first-round bye.

Certainly, there should be benefits to how much SOS can benefit a team, in terms of tournament selection.  However, if a team with a very strong schedule (whether due primarily to in-conference or non-conference games) wins about 70% of their games, it seems hard to deny them a Pool C berth.