Pool C

[smedindy]

But them's the berries.

[formerbant10]

Sac,

I understand your pain about the NESCAC, but maybe the other conferences should model after the NESCAC because the one round robin schedule seems to help a lot when it comes to Pool C's.

Obviously having played in the NESCAC I'm biased towards those guys.  But one bad night on the road in Maine can end a Pool C bid pretty quickly.  Trinity last year lost its last 2 conference games on the road against teams they most likely would've beaten at home.  Trinity ended up not getting a Pool C bid mostly in part to those losses.  Had they split with Tufts and Bates last year, they would've been in the regional rankings at the end.

So it does have its downfalls as well, but they may not be equal to the upside of the schedule. 

Again, I feel your pain.  And no matter what happens, some teams are going to get snubbed and be upset about it. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Based on the postings that OS made, I've compiled it in a slightly different way, plus my assessments (in most cases I have NOT updated in light of last night's carnage):

IF 'PRESUMED' AQs FALTER:

IN as Cs, but might not matter in the C pool):

  Wooster (IF Wittenberg is the winner)
  Carnegie Mellon (if NYU?)
  Calvin (if Hope [or if Albion?])
  Lawrence (if Carroll)
  Augustana (if IWU)
  Amherst (if Tufts? or Trinity?)
  Virginia Wesleyan (if R-MC?)
  UW-Whitewater (if UW-Stout?)

EXPLANATION: IF's are teams I think will be Cs anyway, if they don't become AQs,  ? indicateIs teams I am not dead-certain about]

IN as Cs (with questions noted) where it WOULD reduce the C-pool:

  Baruch
  Farmingdale?
  Cortland
  St John Fisher
  Hamilton?
  Baldwin-Wallace (though I'm with Greg - Bald Wally is MUCH cooler!)
  York
  Widener?
  Ursinus?
  Transylvania
  Lakeland?
  WPI
  Gordon
  Miss College
  Trinity (TX)
  Howard Payne?
  Occidental
  Puget Sound?
  Wartburg?
  St. Thomas?

Question marks are due to a marginal in-regional record/questionable schedule and/or a borderline QOWI (and in most cases, I would think they are VERY questionable).  All other presumed AQs I believe to be out of the running for C slots.

Corrections and/or rebuttals are welcomed.  It is still borderline too early to even attempt this prognostication, but I had some time to kill!

[Ralph Turner]

Sac,

I understand your pain about the NESCAC, but maybe the other conferences should model after the NESCAC because

1)   the one round robin schedule seems to help a lot when it comes to Pool C's ...

2) and being in a region of 69 teams, many of them very, very  bad by the computerized ranking systems, from which to cherry-pick a customized schedule that boosts the QOWI.

3)   and having 5 other very weak conferences in which really medicore teams can beat up on really bad teams and get an in-region percentage above .500 or .667.  Then a NESCAC team blows away a really mediocre team and gets the same QOWI credit for Hope/Calvin or Augie/IWU or Witt/Woo.

4)  and having really lousy in-region non-conference teams that allow the really lousy NESCAC teams, like Connecticut College and Middlebury, to boost their own non-conference in-region records so they look like the WIAC-Northeast.

Don't take this rant personally formerbant10, but the system is rigged in favor of situations that favor the NESCAC.  Most of us would concede one Pool C bid, but 3 or 4 Pool C bids will enrage a lot of people in D3.

[smedindy]

All we ask is to act like a real conference!

[sac]

I understand your pain about the NESCAC, but maybe the other conferences should model after the NESCAC because the one round robin schedule seems to help a lot when it comes to Pool C's.

Yeah no kidding, it inflates teams records because they only play a good team once.



......and what would be the point of playing in a conference ?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph,

AMEN!!!

They are gaming the system in a perfectly legal way, and since most regional committees seem to apply the criteria pretty much by rote, it works.

We COULD follow their example and 'play the system', or we could advocate for REAL conferences (i.e., one's who actually play games against each other - what a concept!) - my vote is for the latter.  I think it was you who had an excellent suggestion for a d3 rule change: play a double-round robin or at least 12 games, whichever is less (I seem to recall it was worded better before, but I've forgotten which thread it was on)!

[Ralph Turner]

Mr Ypsi, here it is, from the CCIW board

While we proposing legislation to submit to the competition committee, an official conference may have only 6 members, and we might need to make the legislation sport specific.

I would recommend

"double round-robin or a minimum of 12 scheduled conference games".

That would give some latitude.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph,

No wonder I couldn't find it - on CCIW Chat two-and-a-half days ago is, what, 20 pages?!

[Greek Tragedy]

Ypsi,

I would guess that La Crosse would also be put into your equation for a Pool C bid.  They play Stout this weekend and may win that one.  They've also beaten the MIAC's best (St. Thomas) and the LMC's best (Lakeland).  If they win on Saturday, they woud've also swept #2 west region team Stout.  Despite Stout losing against Point last weekend, they actually moved up!  Ironically, conference leading Whitewater has the least chance to get a Pool C bid.  I'm hoping for a La Crosse win this weekend and a Whitewater tourney conference championship in hopes of getting 3 WIAC teams in!    I can dream!  La Crosse and Stout should avoid each other in the first round, so one could go 1-1 in the tourney and the other could go 2-1, losing to Whitewater in the conference tourney final.  With Point out of the running for both the WIAC regular season title and a Pool C bid, I've turned into a WIAC fan...I also don't think Point can run the table in the WIAC tourney (probably facing Platteville, Stout and then Whitewater, ouch). 

[Mr. Ypsi]

OS,

I was making no attempt to list pool C candidates - just a preliminary look at 'putative' AQs who need to be watched to see how large the C pool actually is for 'putative' runners-up.

[Gregory Sager]

All we ask is to act like a real conference!

I don't consider the NESCAC to be a conference. I consider it to be an organized conspiracy of too-clever-by-half independents. As Ralph pointed out in detail this evening, playing only a single round-robin while residing in an overcrowded region means that the NESCAC's teams get to kick the golfball onto the fairway. Unfortunately, the NCAA doesn't agree with me.

I think it was you who had an excellent suggestion for a d3 rule change: play a double-round robin or at least 12 games, whichever is less (I seem to recall it was worded better before, but I've forgotten which thread it was on)!

That was actually me, on CCIW Chat [pats self on back]. I based the 12-game minimum upon the fact that a conference needs at least seven member schools to have an automatic qualifier, and 12 games is the number that a seven-school circuit plays in a double round-robin. Ralph proposed the idea of adding the words "double round-robin" to the legislation, which I think is a good idea.

[Greek Tragedy]

OS,

I was making no attempt to list pool C candidates - just a preliminary look at 'putative' AQs who need to be watched to see how large the C pool actually is for 'putative' runners-up.

Oh, ok.  Got it.  Opps.

[Ralph Turner]

With respect to Albion, Tri-State is 2nd year provisional.

Games with Tri-State don't count towards Pool C, In-Region, etc., until next year.

Albion gets a break.

[Knightstalker]

The NJAC next year is not going completely the NESCAC way but they are going back to two divisions.  Each division will play a double round robin and then the other division teams once.  This gives them a chance for five more non-conference games.  Some teams will schedule tougher teams, some will schedule the bible school league.  The NESCAC could do the same thing, they have enough teams.