FB: New Jersey Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

I see the NJAC being a safe bet for a 2 bid league every year starting in 2015. I see Wesley being the top team because they will continue their ways without having to change much. For William Paterson it will be tough for them since they are usually a 500 team but now have to lay much tougher competition.

This is interesting and I think I disagree.  The major advantage that Wesley has had and the E8 teams (specifically SJF twice) have had is gargantuan SOS numbers.  In a 10-team league with a full round robin, the days of .600+ SOS numbers for Wesley are done.  They'll gravitate down toward the middle now.  The most obvious comparison to make here is with the OAC.  Look at the OAC's SOS numbers.  They don't stand out at all.  I know we've come to accept the OAC as a near lock for two teams in the field, but it really isn't that easy.  Any second loss pretty much wipes out an OAC runner up's chance at invitation via Pool C.  I think you'll see that same thing come to fruition in the new NJAC. 

To give you an idea, John Carroll is a good example.  JCU played the OAC round robin plus St. Norbert who went 8-1 in games not involving JCU.  That's about as good as you can do.  JCU's SOS was .520, which isn't really a separator.  I think, given the current math, a team playing a 9-game league schedule can max out the SOS at about .530.  .530 with one loss is probably good enough for invitation, but .530 with two losses won't be.  The new E8 is also going to lose a bit of their SOS advantage with the extra game.  I don't think we'll see many .575s coming from there anymore. 

I think the really big winners from today's announcement (not including Wesley, the NJAC, and the E8...I'm in agreement that this is great and sensible for all involved), are runners up in the MIAC, CCIW, and NWC.  Those are the leagues that have the strength and depth to have a multi-loss runner up with enough non-league games to make their SOS a separation factor. 

[Teamski]

Wesley has been playing JV games . They have in the past played some club teams and prep squads. usually 4 or 5 games

Yes, but I don't think that the JV team was ever formalized.  It was rather a mishmash of whoever the coaches wanted to play.

-Ski

[Teamski]

This is interesting and I think I disagree.  The major advantage that Wesley has had and the E8 teams (specifically SJF twice) have had is gargantuan SOS numbers.  In a 10-team league with a full round robin, the days of .600+ SOS numbers for Wesley are done.  They'll gravitate down toward the middle now.  The most obvious comparison to make here is with the OAC.  Look at the OAC's SOS numbers.  They don't stand out at all.  I know we've come to accept the OAC as a near lock for two teams in the field, but it really isn't that easy.  Any second loss pretty much wipes out an OAC runner up's chance at invitation via Pool C.  I think you'll see that same thing come to fruition in the new NJAC. 

To give you an idea, John Carroll is a good example.  JCU played the OAC round robin plus St. Norbert who went 8-1 in games not involving JCU.  That's about as good as you can do.  JCU's SOS was .520, which isn't really a separator.  I think, given the current math, a team playing a 9-game league schedule can max out the SOS at about .530.  .530 with one loss is probably good enough for invitation, but .530 with two losses won't be.  The new E8 is also going to lose a bit of their SOS advantage with the extra game.  I don't think we'll see many .575s coming from there anymore. 

I think the really big winners from today's announcement (not including Wesley, the NJAC, and the E8...I'm in agreement that this is great and sensible for all involved), are runners up in the MIAC, CCIW, and NWC.  Those are the leagues that have the strength and depth to have a multi-loss runner up with enough non-league games to make their SOS a separation factor.

Regardless of the drop in the SOS, I could most definitely see a Pool C bid in the NJAC every year.  The teams are pretty strong and if they schedule their non-conference game smartly, they will get that quality game that they need outside the conference to grab the additional slot.  Just my opinion, of course.

-Ski

[ExTartanPlayer]

This is interesting and I think I disagree.  The major advantage that Wesley has had and the E8 teams (specifically SJF twice) have had is gargantuan SOS numbers.  In a 10-team league with a full round robin, the days of .600+ SOS numbers for Wesley are done.  They'll gravitate down toward the middle now.  The most obvious comparison to make here is with the OAC.  Look at the OAC's SOS numbers.  They don't stand out at all.  I know we've come to accept the OAC as a near lock for two teams in the field, but it really isn't that easy.  Any second loss pretty much wipes out an OAC runner up's chance at invitation via Pool C.  I think you'll see that same thing come to fruition in the new NJAC. 

To give you an idea, John Carroll is a good example.  JCU played the OAC round robin plus St. Norbert who went 8-1 in games not involving JCU.  That's about as good as you can do.  JCU's SOS was .520, which isn't really a separator.  I think, given the current math, a team playing a 9-game league schedule can max out the SOS at about .530.  .530 with one loss is probably good enough for invitation, but .530 with two losses won't be.  The new E8 is also going to lose a bit of their SOS advantage with the extra game.  I don't think we'll see many .575s coming from there anymore. 

I think the really big winners from today's announcement (not including Wesley, the NJAC, and the E8...I'm in agreement that this is great and sensible for all involved), are runners up in the MIAC, CCIW, and NWC.  Those are the leagues that have the strength and depth to have a multi-loss runner up with enough non-league games to make their SOS a separation factor.

Regardless of the drop in the SOS, I could most definitely see a Pool C bid in the NJAC every year.  The teams are pretty strong and if they schedule their non-conference game smartly, they will get that quality game that they need outside the conference to grab the additional slot.  Just my opinion, of course.

-Ski

I think the issue is the speaking in absolutes of "every year" here.  The NJAC's runner-up may be in the conversation for a Pool C every year, but no league is a lock for a second bid every year with how stiff the competition is for a small number of at-large spots.  It's not just about whether the teams are generally strong or whether they have scheduled a strong nonconference game.  Check out wally's attempt to walk through the Pool C process from the final week this year, and look at how tightly bunched the competition was.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8060.330

Nobody was really a stone-cold lock.  To assume that the NJAC runner-up will get an at-large bid (I don't even know if it'll be called Pool C in the future, since I think Pool B should evaporate with <10 teams and just get dumped into the at-large mix) every year just because they added a couple of really strong teams (which they absolutely did, that is not in question) ignores how stiff the competition is for those spots.  As wally said: the best SOS number a team can possibly fetch in a 10-team conference is about .530; John Carroll had nearly the strongest possible resume for a one-loss runnerup in a 10-team conference (eight-point loss to Mount Union and a blowout win over an 8-2 team in its lone OOC game to perk the SOS a bit).  That's about the only "lock" for an at-large in a 10-team conference: being 9-1 with a strong OOC win.  What's the guarantee that the NJAC runnerup will always fit that description?  What happens if the league cannibalizes itself a little bit, as the WIAC, MIAC, and OAC have done for a couple years, and three or four teams end up 7-2 in conference play behind a dominant champion?  St. Thomas last year had about the strongest possible 8-2 resume (for a team in a big league; I'm well aware of SJF, but as wally said, that type of SOS number is not going to be possible for a team in a 10-team league) and was left home. 

Long way of saying that, yes, the NJAC is a terrifically strong conference with the addition of those teams and it will produce a couple of playoff-worthy teams every season, but that is far from actually guaranteeing an at-large entry every year. 

[Jonny Utah]

I think that (what is being discussed above) is one of the negatives of having all these large leagues.  You don't see the 2-3 non conference games a year.  Now we have to rely more on playoff results from last year, which might be unfair:

SJF beats JCU (so they derseved the pool C)
Wesley gives MUC a game. (so they deserved the pool C)
MUC gets blown out in Stagg (were the brackets seeded correctly?  Maybe MHB and UWW should have played in the Stagg?)
Wittenberg gets blown out (making SJF a better choice than Wabash),
etc, etc.

Are we going to look at these results above to help us decide pool C bids for next year?

[ExTartanPlayer]

You're right, Jonny, that is a problem with larger leagues.  Ultimately, I am fine with it; for the good of the Division III game overall, I think it's more important to have as many teams as possible in stable leagues with good conference rivalries and geographic fit than it is to wonder how those things will affect the last 2-3 teams selected for an at-large bid.  The at-large bids are necessary to round out the playoff brackets and it's nice to let some of the best runners-up into the tournament, but they are really just a bonus, a lottery ticket that can give a few good runners-up a chance to play in the postseason.

Let's not forget that Wesley's precarious position last year still led to plenty of teeth-gnashing as we tried to figure out whether they deserved a Pool B bid with a resume that was just really hard to compare to other teams.  Having large leagues may make it difficult to evaluate the conferences against one another, yes, but if the alternative is trying to figure out how a team with six Division III games across three regions stacks up against an 8-2 or 9-1 conference runnerup with zero intra-regional games, I'll still take this setup

(I agree with your overall point; I'm just saying that it's a problem I'm willing to accept)

[Bombers798891]

I'd prefer 8-team conferences (maybe 9) honestly. I like seeing new teams on the schedule, and having points of reference for comparing the league to others. One of my favorite IC games to attend was vs. Huntington in 2006. We didn't know anything about the team, except they were supposed to be good, and willing to take on anyone, anywhere. Losing games like that to play the same schedule year in, year out, would be a drag.

Yeah, it's probably good for the conference members and D-III as a whole, but I just hope it keeps things interesting from a scheduling standpoint

[wally_wabash]

Tournament performance doesn't validate or invalidate selection.  There are criteria based on the ten regular season games.  John Carroll and Illinois Wesleyan lost in their first tournament games.  Does that mean the committee screwed up by inviting them?  Of course not.  SJF won a couple of games, but that's not why the committee got it right by inviting them.  They got it right because SJF graded out better per the criteria (as applied by this particular committee) based on ten regular season games than the teams they were being compared to. 

[Jonny Utah]

Tourney performance should always validate selection criteria, especially with pool c bids.  That's the whole purpose of pool c bids isn't it? If you aren't getting the best teams in the tournament, then the criteria might need to be changed.

Now the criteria might become less relevant, since SOS numbers might be skewed from the larger leagues.  I imagine the SOS numbers may be so insignificant, that the pool committee may in fact look at last years tournament results, which can be factored if everything else is inconclusive.

[Bombers798891]

Tourney performance should always validate selection criteria, especially with pool c bids.  That's the whole purpose of pool c bids isn't it? If you aren't getting the best teams in the tournament, then the criteria might need to be changed.

It's a one-game situation and wins and losses don't always indicate one team being better than the other.

Look at IC in 2007. Pool C team stuck with Mount Union. Regardless of what at-large team you put in slot in that spot opposite Mount, you're getting the same result, so how can the result tell you anything about how good those teams are?

Even deep runs that "validate" a selection are often made by the thinnest of margins.

Fisher was trailing in the 4th quarter of their opening playoff game and faced a 3rd and 14 with like 8 minutes to go. That game could have very easily been a loss. Ithaca made a deep run in the 2003 playoffs, narrowly missing a trip to the national semifinals. They also needed a pair of 4th quarter interceptions at their 2 and in the end zone to get out of the first round.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Tournament performance doesn't validate or invalidate selection.  There are criteria based on the ten regular season games.  John Carroll and Illinois Wesleyan lost in their first tournament games.  Does that mean the committee screwed up by inviting them?  Of course not.  SJF won a couple of games, but that's not why the committee got it right by inviting them.  They got it right because SJF graded out better per the criteria (as applied by this particular committee) based on ten regular season games than the teams they were being compared to.

I agree that tournament performance doesn't validate/invalidate selection, but I don't think that's what Jonny was saying.  I think he meant that with less OOC data available, previous years' playoff performance might become the only viable way to compare teams up for selection in the at-large process.  I know that you object to the generalized notion of "strong conferences" as a criteria to evaluate a team come playoff time, but with so little OOC play, can we really ignore that?

[Jonny Utah]

Tourney performance should always validate selection criteria, especially with pool c bids.  That's the whole purpose of pool c bids isn't it? If you aren't getting the best teams in the tournament, then the criteria might need to be changed.

It's a one-game situation and wins and losses don't always indicate one team being better than the other.

Look at IC in 2007. Pool C team stuck with Mount Union. Regardless of what at-large team you put in slot in that spot opposite Mount, you're getting the same result, so how can the result tell you anything about how good those teams are?

Even deep runs that "validate" a selection are often made by the thinnest of margins.

Fisher was trailing in the 4th quarter of their opening playoff game and faced a 3rd and 14 with like 8 minutes to go. That game could have very easily been a loss. Ithaca made a deep run in the 2003 playoffs, narrowly missing a trip to the national semifinals. They also needed a pair of 4th quarter interceptions at their 2 and in the end zone to get out of the first round.

I'm not saying that's the best, or only way to decide things, But is it better than taking a west coast team with a .7546 SOS  over an east team that has an .7502 SOS with no common opponents?

At some point those numbers don't really mean anything.

And at least with an actual game, you can't say that JCU was actually better than SJF because some number said so.  You have an actual game and score to look at.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you keep getting great playoff matches, your criteria might be valid.  If you get mismatched results and questions on whether the right teams got in or not, you might need to revaluate what criteria you are using I the first place.

[wally_wabash]

Tournament performance doesn't validate or invalidate selection.  There are criteria based on the ten regular season games.  John Carroll and Illinois Wesleyan lost in their first tournament games.  Does that mean the committee screwed up by inviting them?  Of course not.  SJF won a couple of games, but that's not why the committee got it right by inviting them.  They got it right because SJF graded out better per the criteria (as applied by this particular committee) based on ten regular season games than the teams they were being compared to.

I agree that tournament performance doesn't validate/invalidate selection, but I don't think that's what Jonny was saying.  I think he meant that with less OOC data available, previous years' playoff performance might become the only viable way to compare teams up for selection in the at-large process.  I know that you object to the generalized notion of "strong conferences" as a criteria to evaluate a team come playoff time, but with so little OOC play, can we really ignore that?

I think that's a slippery slope that leads to favoritism and a self-sustaining pool of tournament teams.  I think you have to treat each season as its own unique entity in order to be fair to everybody. 

I think the larger point here now is that the criteria seem to be inadequate for clearly resolving the top 5 teams out of the at-large pool.  They made a huge mistake by dropping the "once ranked, always ranked" application of the regional rankings (why create LESS data?).  So many of the criteria don't apply because the sample sizes are too small- h2h's and common opponents are extremely rare amongst teams from different regions and that's two out of five primary bullet points.  The committee really needs more data to assess- from the current season and not from a previous season.  I'm not totally sure what data that is exactly, but what is there isn't sufficient. 

[rams1102]

I like the expansion of the NJAC, but the travel for CNN and So.VA will be crazy. I'm glad to see the Up-State NY teams come together. Will CNN and So.VA last, time will tell. Finailly broke the 100 roster limit. Time to start recruiting Montclair. We need it.

[D3MAFAN]

I like the expansion of the NJAC, but the travel for CNN and So.VA will be crazy. I'm glad to see the Up-State NY teams come together. Will CNN and So.VA last, time will tell. Finailly broke the 100 roster limit. Time to start recruiting Montclair. We need it.

I know its going to be trouble for many of the New Jersey based teams to travel to Southern VA, but I doubt anyone is going to travel to Atlanta, GA to face CNN (Maybe Wesley if they team up with WDEL),  .