FB: Empire 8

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 04:58:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Frank Rossi

Quote from: joseqviper on October 25, 2006, 02:19:54 PM
By the way, I didn't have time to do it yesterday, but today I asked around about Frank's posts regarding the playoffs.  I hate to tweak the nose of the king after he deigned to grace us with his presence but, as I suspected (and I figure many of you also suspected), he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to what the committee considers for Playoff selection.

A perfect world equals four E8 teams in, 'Bart with the LL AQ and Union in Latin class by Thanksgiving.

Care to elaborate?  I don't think I even mentioned specific criteria.  I also don't agree with the Midwest bias that tends to permeate the selection process (Pat, the LLers and others have gotten into this before) -- I only comment about its general existence.  I read the Playoff Manual every year (this year's is released), so I'm wondering where I've misled someone on the selection process.  I've only discussed how that selection has panned out at the end of the seasons gone by...you can learn a lot by trends.

BTW:  Pat is the King...I am just a pee-on who crunches lots of numbers every year around this time.

Senor RedTackle

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 25, 2006, 02:39:18 PM
Quote from: joseqviper on October 25, 2006, 02:19:54 PM
By the way, I didn't have time to do it yesterday, but today I asked around about Frank's posts regarding the playoffs.  I hate to tweak the nose of the king after he deigned to grace us with his presence but, as I suspected (and I figure many of you also suspected), he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to what the committee considers for Playoff selection.

A perfect world equals four E8 teams in, 'Bart with the LL AQ and Union in Latin class by Thanksgiving.

Care to elaborate?  I don't think I even mentioned specific criteria.  I also don't agree with the Midwest bias that tends to permeate the selection process (Pat, the LLers and others have gotten into this before) -- I only comment about its general existence.  I read the Playoff Manual every year (this year's is released), so I'm wondering where I've misled someone on the selection process.  I've only discussed how that selection has panned out at the end of the seasons gone by...you can learn a lot by trends.

BTW:  Pat is the King...I am just a pee-on who crunches lots of numbers every year around this time.


Frank...don't sweat the ignoramuses...especially Bucs fans

JQV

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 25, 2006, 02:39:18 PM
I don't think I even mentioned specific criteria.

Hmmm....this looks like specific criteria.

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 24, 2006, 01:22:13 PM
I'll post a broader analysis later, but the Quality of Wins tiebreaker will only come in under one scenario:  Ithaca beats Springfield (Springfield wins out), Ithaca beats Alfred, St. John Fisher beats Alfred, St. John Fisher beats Utica.  That would be the three-teams-at-one-loss-who-lost-to-each-other scenario -- the only one.  In a four-way tie at two losses, there cannot be use of the lower tiebreaker because two teams will likely fall out after the head-to-head tiebreaker.  The E8 Playoff scenarios are actually simpler than you're making them out to be.

Also note that if the QoW scenario were to play out, Springfield would be severely damaged -- because the wins it would attain would hamper it's QoW average greatly, the loss would hamper it even more, and Ithaca would skyrocket with a 23 or 24 points added in its QoW tally.  I believe Ithaca would overtake Springfield under that scenario (assuming Ithaca beats Cortland).  However, again, QoW is an anamolous case in the E8 because of the intermixing of higher teams still to play each other (i.e., SOMEONE has to lose).


JQV

As does this...

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 24, 2006, 01:35:55 PM
Good collection of info.  However, remember that some teams can be chosen with three losses while some with one loss stay home.  You have to remember to add two-loss teams with out-of-division losses and treat similar one-loss teams as undefeated for purposes of Pool C.  The quality of the LOSS(es) also makes a huge difference.  Union with two losses (assuming, for argument, 10-0 Springfield and 9-0 Hobart) would be more likely to go than Wooster with one loss to a 2-7 team (hypothetical).  This is reflected by the fact that Union currently is the second-highest one-loss team in the QoW index.  Finally, the 2006 Playoff handbook is out.   While it appears 23 conferences would qualify since they have 7+ teams, only 21 are getting auto-bids.  I'm not sure if you did it, but the PAC and the NWC need to be looked at as "Pool B" -- It's unlikely that a fifth Pool B team would receive a Pool C bid this year.

'gro

lawyer fight!! lawyer fight!!

JQV

This too...

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 24, 2006, 01:42:23 PM
Then Cortland-Ithaca would likely determine the E8.

And as for Union, I think you should recognize by your one-loss assessment that there is a paucity of strong teams THROUGHOUT Division III this year.  Two losses for Union would actually keep it very much in the hunt.  Hobart with one loss to Union would be a near certainty to get a Pool C bid right now.

JQV

Here's another...

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 24, 2006, 01:54:29 PM
It's irrelevant how many one-loss teams there are if there are Midwestern two-loss teams or two-loss teams viewed as having quality losses.  You've watched this play out for a number of years...You know how the committee works.  It's not a simple "more losses" issue.

JQV

And one more for good measure...

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 24, 2006, 02:02:03 PM
The real problem could arise if any of the three-loss teams who are tied or close for their conference title pull Pool A bids (Kenyon/Oberlin/Wittenberg/Allegheny in the NCAC, Emory and Henry in the ODAC, Millsaps in the SCAC).  That'd turn Pool C on its head.

Maybe this could have read:

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 25, 2006, 02:39:18 PM
I don't think
before I post.

OR

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 25, 2006, 02:39:18 PM
I don't think
before I speak.

OR

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 25, 2006, 02:39:18 PM
I don't think
before I wipe.






fisheralum91

ya know what is better than watching two attorneys fight.......?





2 female attorneys fighting!

JQV

Quote from: fisheralum91 on October 25, 2006, 03:01:58 PM
ya know what is better than watching two attorneys fight.......?





2 female attorneys fighting!

+k for 2 female anythings fighting.  Except boxers.  That is just gross.

fisheralum91

hmmmmmmmmmmm, id agree except ive seen laila ali.......


minus the boxing of course!

JQV

also, female sumo wrestling seems like it would be pretty hard to watch as well.

fisheralum91

yes, but for every sumo match there is beach volleyball!

JQV

Quote from: fisheralum91 on October 25, 2006, 03:13:34 PM
yes, but for every sumo match there is beach volleyball!

How's the beach volleyball scene in New Harford these days?

fisheralum91