Pool C

[Pat Coleman]

That is a problem, why define a process with a set of criteria and then ignore it?

Conversely, why reward a team that ignores the criteria?

[ziggy]

That is a problem, why define a process with a set of criteria and then ignore it?

Conversely, why reward a team that ignores the criteria?

which criteria was ignored in this case? (by the team)

[Pat Coleman]

I think you and I both know and this is not a firestorm that's worth opening up.

[sac]

Conversely, why reward a team that ignores the criteria?

Good God Pat come on!

[Titan Q]

So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.

[KnightSlappy]

If you want teams to play a certain number of in-region games, say so.

[Ralph Turner]

So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.

Carleton makes a strong case, too.

[nwhoops1903]

So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2  region rank 5
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4   region rank 3
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2  region rank 5

I believe these were the last 3 of the above group on the table and St Joseph's sub 500 record against regionlly ranked opponents opened the door for the 5th rank teams.

In the head to head IWU vs Stevens, IWU came out on top based on what?  Regional strength, check for IWU; SOS, check for IWU.  IWU lost to Augustana, Stevens lost to Hartwick, check for IWU.  Checkmate. 

Not to mention perhaps needing a team to complete the last bracket, a non EAST bracket.  So in that case, Carleton would have been awfully close but a 6th rank couldn't overtake the 5th of IWU.  Carleton has my vote for most sympathy.  If they get regionally voted ahead of UW-River Falls, they could be in under my theory.

[Pat Coleman]

If you want teams to play a certain number of in-region games, say so.

Perhaps this is their way of saying it.

[KnightSlappy]

So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2  region rank 5
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4   region rank 3
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2  region rank 5

I believe these were the last 3 of the above group on the table and St Joseph's sub 500 record against regionlly ranked opponents opened the door for the 5th rank teams.

In the head to head IWU vs Stevens, IWU came out on top based on what?  Regional strength, check for IWU; SOS, check for IWU.  IWU lost to Augustana, Stevens lost to Hartwick, check for IWU.  Checkmate. 

Not to mention perhaps needing a team to complete the last bracket, a non EAST bracket.  So in that case, Carleton would have been awfully close but a 6th rank couldn't overtake the 5th of IWU.  Carleton has my vote for most sympathy.  If they get regionally voted ahead of UW-River Falls, they could be in under my theory.

They don't take regional positioning into consideration. Just becuase you're #11 in the west region, doesn't mean you'll be considered lower than #2 in the Atlantic.

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

[KnightSlappy]

If you want teams to play a certain number of in-region games, say so.

Perhaps this is their way of saying it.

I'm not interested in "ways of saying it". Either say it or don't. Use the criteria specified, or specify new criteria.

I'd be perfectly fine if they want to add "number of regional games" or "number of regional wins". Just say it, so everyone knows. Just don't punish teams for not playing your special number of games (especially while denying them a game or two each year that should be considered in-region).

[Titan Q]

Pool C's by region, in order of final regional ranking...

(In-region winning %/SOS/Record vs regionally ranked teams)

Northeast (5)
(2) Williams: .920/.558/5-2
(3) WPI: .846/.516/4-3
(4) Becker: .852/.505/4-2
(5) Amherst: .875/.464/4-3
(6) Western Conn: .800/.531/4-2

South (3)
(1) Virginia Wesleyan: .840/.506/4-1
(4) Mary Hardin-Baylor: .750/.508/3-1
(5) Texas-Dallas: .800/.485/202

Midwest (3)
(2) Concordia: .875/.501/5-1
(4) Hanover: .731/.542/4-4
(5) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.543/2-2

Great Lakes (2)
(4) Penn St - Behrend: .885/.481/4-3
(5) Wittenberg: .727/.486/3-3

East (2)
(1) Oswego St: .852/.507/5-1
(2) Ithaca: .760/.547/4-2

West (1)
(5) UW-River Falls: .750/.585/2-4

Atlantic (1)
(2) Ramapo: .826/.507/2-2

Mid-Atlantic (1)
(4) Gwynedd-Mercy: .800/.502/2-4

[Titan Q]

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

[nwhoops1903]

They don't take regional positioning into consideration. Just becuase you're #11 in the west region, doesn't mean you'll be considered lower than #2 in the Atlantic.

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Wow, I am surprised to hear this.  Seems Regional rankings has everything to do with pool C.  Why have them if they don't come into play?  I thought they wanted some geo balance in the tournament not just raw stats.  I don't think something is right with "They don't take regional positioning into consideration."

I think Titan's table suggest otherwise.  But hey, It's just my theory.

[Titan Q]

I'd be perfectly fine if they want to add "number of regional games" or "number of regional wins". Just say it, so everyone knows. Just don't punish teams for not playing your special number of games (especially while denying them a game or two each year that should be considered in-region).

I completely agree with this.  In this last decade, Division III has come up with some very transparent, black & white rules of play for selection.  If the powers that be want teams to play a certain # of in-region games, they just need to put that in the handbook.

(Note, I say this not having any idea if Hope was "penalized" or not...I just think any and all rules should be transparent.)