FB: Liberty League

[redswarm81]

By the way, Jonny, here are the current SoS numbers for the teams in question:

Ithaca:  OWP - 0.613  OOWP - 0.626

Fisher:  OWP - 0.500  OOWP - 0.631   

Hartwick:  OWP - 0.688  OOWP - 0.517 

Presently, if the Committee had to distinguish these teams today, Hartwick would likely be chosen over SJF and Ithaca.  This could change as the season continues, but IN THE CURRENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, this is the present case. 

Note:  If one of these teams gets the AQ under this scenario, head-to-head might matter for the remaining two teams in an analysis.  But currently, to argue the issue of ballots placing Hartwick over Ithaca and SJF, I look to these numbers for some confirmation if I'm such a voter.

If you're talking about the E8 automatic bid, it's just OWP and so as of today, Hartwick Utica would get the bid, right?  (I got your back, dew  ).  Okay, okay--assuming a 3-way tie between SJF/Wick/IC at season end, with the OWP numbers shown, Hartwick gets the Pool A bid.

If you're talking NCAA Pool C, OWP and OOWP are secondary criteria, aren't they?  There are other primary criteria, including record v. regionally ranked opponents. . . . which raises a big issue: where/how/if SJF will be regionally ranked?  At this point, Ithaca looks to earn another primary criterion by playing Cortland, who will surely be ranked, barring some sort of cataclysmic event.  SJF's games against non-region teams again offer them no help.

[Pat Coleman]

If you're talking NCAA Pool C, OWP and OOWP are secondary criteria, aren't they? 

No.

http://www.d3football.com/faq.php?answer&category=Playoffs&id=25

[redswarm81]

If you're talking NCAA Pool C, OWP and OOWP are secondary criteria, aren't they? 

No.

http://www.d3football.com/faq.php?answer&category=Playoffs&id=25

Okay, so they were primary criteria in 2007.   

Here's my latest rumination:

State of the Conference:  Looking back over the Liberty League season to date, I note that judging by Hobart's scores, the Pumpkinheads haven't been dominating in any of their wins.  Their average margin of victory is 7.75 points.  Workmanlike wins, but a 6 pt. win v. St. Lawrence raises questions.

I have a hunch that both Rochester and especially Susquehanna are stronger teams than their records indicate.  Merchant Marine was hapless last year, but that 27 point win v. Coast Guard can't be totally discounted, since Coast Guard's never that bad.

This leads me to my latest thinking.  WPI has already played RPI, Union, and Merchant Marine.  They beat both the Dutchmen and the Kings Pointers.  They have yet to play (in order) Rochester, who beat Union in Schenecteheck; at Hobart--who lost to Union; and Susquehanna.  They're clearly not easy games, but I see a realistic possibility that WPI runs that table, and wraps their season at St. Lawrence.  That puts WPI at 9-1 overall.

A couple of questions then, along the way:

At what point does a 6-1, 7-1, 8-1 WPI catch anyone's attention?  Is there any way a 9-1 WPI fails to get a Pool C bid?

I could almost make the same analysis for Hobart, but their loss to Union was unexpected, whereas WPI's loss to RPI wasn't really a surprise.  Hobart plays WPI and RPI on consecutive saturdays.  RPI plays Union and Hobart on consecutive Saturdays.  Lots more excitement to come.

[Frank Rossi]

Ok, but the [regional] loss doesn't and shouldn't mean anything to anyone in terms of it being [regional] or not,  and I already said how I thought the IC/Wick and IC/SJF games were not flukes, while the wick/sjf game may be looked on as a fluke.  I mean, wasn't it you last week who was so against Hartwick in the first place?

IC dominated Hartwick

SJF dominated Ithaca

Hartwick beat SJF

There are the differences that I am looking at.  And Im taking into consideration that if IC played Salsbury and MUC they might be 3-3 as well.

I think Hartwick played a game since last week, and it was against a team many viewed as in the upper echelon of the E8.  So, as I said, adding a quality win to Hartwick's resume makes it much more understandable how people could place Hartwick at the top of the triangle right now, in my own view.  Would I?  Probably not -- I want to see one more week of good defense on the team's part, but it's certainly beginning to pass fluke stage.

By the way, since when is 69-42 a domination?  That's called a shootout where I came from.

[Frank Rossi]

Why is this on two different pages???  Sorry but this whole conversation is becoming overwhelming and going nowhere..

God forbid, somebody talks football aside from the East Region Poll, eh?

[Frank Rossi]

At what point does a 6-1, 7-1, 8-1 WPI catch anyone's attention?  Is there any way a 9-1 WPI fails to get a Pool C bid?

Yes, they could miss even at 9-1 -- although I'd say that at this point, it wouldn't be likely (though it could change).  Right now, the WPI OWP and OOWP are 0.567 and 0.512, respectively.  They have the following teams to come:  Rochester, SLU, Susquehanna and Hobart.  There's a negative bias that will come over their OWP, potentially pushing it below 0.500.  If there are a number of 9-1, 8-1, 8-2 and even 7-2 teams (regional records) that miss their Pool A bids, there are only 6 Pool C bids this year to go around.  A very poor SoS could keep WPI on the outside looking in.  I think it would take a terrible OWP for this to happen, though.  Something at 0.500 or better probably doesn't get them shafted in this scenario.

[labart96]

In TGP's opinion, even at 9-1 WPI would fail to get a Pool C assuming that:

a) RPI wins the AQ for the LL (and the committee uses last season's play-off results as a reason to only invite one LL team)
b) Crazy E8's: Ithaca finishes 8-2 (beating Cortland) but not winning the E8, Hartwick going 9-1 (loss to IC, win over SJFC), sjfc finishing 7-3 and winning E8 due to tiebreaker over 'wick
c) NJAC gets two or three (Cortland getting the AQ, Montclair or Kean winning out)
d) same deal with the MAC (Del Val and Lyco)
e)  Muhlenberg gets rolled into the east bracket (highly likely)

Only scenario that might work is if WPI runs the table and has Hobart and Union beat RPI giving WPI the AQ.

It's pretty late, so TGP may be way off......

[dewcrew88]

The high point differntial in the IC/Hartwick game puts IC over the top in this 3 way tie at the moment. 

But the IC/SJF game was at least close for a half.  Thats why "ratios" cant always be looked at in all this.

Do you actually read your posts for consistency?  I mean, Pat was answering your own "differential" post with a "ratio" comparison.  C'mon, Jonny.  Step away from the Bomber, man.

I just don't like seeing terms like 6:1 or SOS is .98456456 versus .98346356.  Id rather watch the games, see for myself which team is better and then decide. 

And that's what this NON-Ithaca grad did.

And Im also saying that if you had SJF ranked over Hartwick, I would have been ok with that.  I didn't mean to infer that you were solely basing your rankings on numbers either.  But there is way too much numbers flying around in here.

I just couldnt rank Hartwick over Ithaca right now if they both have one loss and the head to head is in favor of Ithaca.

JU has horrible grammar tonight

 

In a 3-way triangle, you have an infinite loop, Jonny.  You have to take a stand on criteria other than head-to-head, or you have no basis for analysis and placement.

Let's take YOUR own words:

1. Ithaca Fan:  "I just couldnt rank Hartwick over Ithaca right now if they both have one loss and the head to head is in favor of Ithaca."

2. SJF Fan:  "I just couldnt rank [Ithaca] over [SJF] right now if they both have one [regional] loss and the head to head is in favor of [SJF].

3. Hartwick Fan:  "I just couldnt rank [SJF] over [Hartwick] right now if they both have one [regional] loss and the head to head is in favor of [Hartwick]."

In the old days of BASIC programming:  Goto 1.

Utica fan: Screw all of you. We're in first place.. woo hoo!   

[dewcrew88]

The high point differntial in the IC/Hartwick game puts IC over the top in this 3 way tie at the moment. 

But the IC/SJF game was at least close for a half.  Thats why "ratios" cant always be looked at in all this.

Do you actually read your posts for consistency?  I mean, Pat was answering your own "differential" post with a "ratio" comparison.  C'mon, Jonny.  Step away from the Bomber, man.

I just don't like seeing terms like 6:1 or SOS is .98456456 versus .98346356.  Id rather watch the games, see for myself which team is better and then decide. 

And that's what this NON-Ithaca grad did.

And Im also saying that if you had SJF ranked over Hartwick, I would have been ok with that.  I didn't mean to infer that you were solely basing your rankings on numbers either.  But there is way too much numbers flying around in here.

I just couldnt rank Hartwick over Ithaca right now if they both have one loss and the head to head is in favor of Ithaca.

JU has horrible grammar tonight

 

In a 3-way triangle, you have an infinite loop, Jonny.  You have to take a stand on criteria other than head-to-head, or you have no basis for analysis and placement.

Let's take YOUR own words:

1. Ithaca Fan:  "I just couldnt rank Hartwick over Ithaca right now if they both have one loss and the head to head is in favor of Ithaca."

2. SJF Fan:  "I just couldnt rank [Ithaca] over [SJF] right now if they both have one [regional] loss and the head to head is in favor of [SJF].

3. Hartwick Fan:  "I just couldnt rank [SJF] over [Hartwick] right now if they both have one [regional] loss and the head to head is in favor of [Hartwick]."

In the old days of BASIC programming:  Goto 1.

Ok, but the [regional] loss doesn't and shouldn't mean anything to anyone in terms of it being [regional] or not,  and I already said how I thought the IC/Wick and IC/SJF games were not flukes, while the wick/sjf game may be looked on as a fluke.  I mean, wasn't it you last week who was so against Hartwick in the first place?

IC dominated Hartwick

SJF dominated Ithaca

Hartwick beat SJF

There are the differences that I am looking at.  And Im taking into consideration that if IC played Salsbury and MUC they might be 3-3 as well.

Wait. Not to beat a dead horse, but why is Hartwick's win over Fisher a fluke? They've beat them two years in a row by the same score each time.

[dewcrew88]

In TGP's opinion, even at 9-1 WPI would fail to get a Pool C assuming that:

a) RPI wins the AQ for the LL (and the committee uses last season's play-off results as a reason to only invite one LL team)
b) Crazy E8's: Ithaca finishes 8-2 (beating Cortland) but not winning the E8, Hartwick going 9-1 (loss to IC, win over SJFC), sjfc finishing 7-3 and winning E8 due to tiebreaker over 'wick
c) NJAC gets two or three (Cortland getting the AQ, Montclair or Kean winning out)
d) same deal with the MAC (Del Val and Lyco)
e)  Muhlenberg gets rolled into the east bracket (highly likely)

Only scenario that might work is if WPI runs the table and has Hobart and Union beat RPI giving WPI the AQ.

It's pretty late, so TGP may be way off......

I think scenario B is off... Wick has the head-to-head over Fisher, not the other way around... I think a 7-3 Fisher's out.

[Frank Rossi]

In TGP's opinion, even at 9-1 WPI would fail to get a Pool C assuming that:

a) RPI wins the AQ for the LL (and the committee uses last season's play-off results as a reason to only invite one LL team)
b) Crazy E8's: Ithaca finishes 8-2 (beating Cortland) but not winning the E8, Hartwick going 9-1 (loss to IC, win over SJFC), sjfc finishing 7-3 and winning E8 due to tiebreaker over 'wick
c) NJAC gets two or three (Cortland getting the AQ, Montclair or Kean winning out)
d) same deal with the MAC (Del Val and Lyco)
e)  Muhlenberg gets rolled into the east bracket (highly likely)

Only scenario that might work is if WPI runs the table and has Hobart and Union beat RPI giving WPI the AQ.

It's pretty late, so TGP may be way off......

Muhlenberg coming into the East probably relies more on whether Cortland can run the table or not.  If Cortland misses, then Muhlenberg probably comes in as the 1 seed in the East -- and it probably caps the number of Pool C teams in the East to two.

By the way, Ithaca likely wins the 3-way tiebreaker in the E8 because SJF's MUC and SAL games were out of region.  The E8 retains a chance at a Pool C bid in one of two ways:  (1) Hartwick and Ithaca win out in the league games remaining and Hartwick wins all remaining non-league games; or (2) Hartwick loses and Ithaca wins all remaining games, including out of conference.

There are not many chances for teams in the 5 East Region Conferences to miss their conference's AQ with just one regional loss.  In fact, it is unlikely that it happens in the NJAC (Kean, Rowan and Montclair must all face each other still) -- and unlikely in the MAC if Del Val sweeps.  The NEFC likely doesn't get consideration here, even with a 10-1 Curry (although, this has been an issue of concern).  The best present potential for a one-loss-in-region team missing the conference AQ is Ithaca and/or WPI.

It would be tough for the Committee to deny WPI if their only loss was to RPI, if RPI goes undefeated.  However, a very poor SoS would be a problem, as discussed.

My point here is that there will not be many one-loss-in-region teams in the East Region conferences -- giving WPI some chance of securing a Pool C bid if it runs the table and fails to win a Pool A bid.

[Jonny Utah]

The high point differntial in the IC/Hartwick game puts IC over the top in this 3 way tie at the moment. 

But the IC/SJF game was at least close for a half.  Thats why "ratios" cant always be looked at in all this.

Do you actually read your posts for consistency?  I mean, Pat was answering your own "differential" post with a "ratio" comparison.  C'mon, Jonny.  Step away from the Bomber, man.

I just don't like seeing terms like 6:1 or SOS is .98456456 versus .98346356.  Id rather watch the games, see for myself which team is better and then decide. 

And that's what this NON-Ithaca grad did.

And Im also saying that if you had SJF ranked over Hartwick, I would have been ok with that.  I didn't mean to infer that you were solely basing your rankings on numbers either.  But there is way too much numbers flying around in here.

I just couldnt rank Hartwick over Ithaca right now if they both have one loss and the head to head is in favor of Ithaca.

JU has horrible grammar tonight

 

In a 3-way triangle, you have an infinite loop, Jonny.  You have to take a stand on criteria other than head-to-head, or you have no basis for analysis and placement.

Let's take YOUR own words:

1. Ithaca Fan:  "I just couldnt rank Hartwick over Ithaca right now if they both have one loss and the head to head is in favor of Ithaca."

2. SJF Fan:  "I just couldnt rank [Ithaca] over [SJF] right now if they both have one [regional] loss and the head to head is in favor of [SJF].

3. Hartwick Fan:  "I just couldnt rank [SJF] over [Hartwick] right now if they both have one [regional] loss and the head to head is in favor of [Hartwick]."

In the old days of BASIC programming:  Goto 1.

Ok, but the [regional] loss doesn't and shouldn't mean anything to anyone in terms of it being [regional] or not,  and I already said how I thought the IC/Wick and IC/SJF games were not flukes, while the wick/sjf game may be looked on as a fluke.  I mean, wasn't it you last week who was so against Hartwick in the first place?

IC dominated Hartwick

SJF dominated Ithaca

Hartwick beat SJF

There are the differences that I am looking at.  And Im taking into consideration that if IC played Salsbury and MUC they might be 3-3 as well.

Wait. Not to beat a dead horse, but why is Hartwick's win over Fisher a fluke? They've beat them two years in a row by the same score each time.

Im not saying it was a fluke.  But it was not as convincing as the IC/Wick or IC/SJF games.

[Lyco80]

Wow - I just spent the last fifteen minutes reading some fairly detailed attempts to figure out rankings and post-season play when we are only mid-way through the year.  It sort of reminds me of the line in the movie "The Princess Bride" where Carey Elwes says, "clearly you have a dizzying intellect."  To which Fazinni responds, "what until I really get going."

Call me old fashioned but I just prefer to watch it all unfold and then read about the outcomes and save my analysis for things like the box scores.

As a true blue and gold Warrior I am proud of my alma mater's return to the winning side of things and wish they had executed that extra point try against IC in the first game of the season.

Go Warriors!

ATB

[Lyco80]

Editor's note:  should say "wait" instead of "what" in previous post.

ATB

[redswarm81]

Editor's note:  should say "wait" instead of "what" in previous post.

ATB

The "modify" button (that appears above your own posts) permits you to edit your posts.

I appreciate your approach as a d3 football spectator, but I think you're confusing spectating with prognosticating.  I like watching the games too, but I also occasionally like to analyze the present and gauge how that might affect the future.  In some ways, that's old fashioned too--I bet even some old fashioned coaches look at their upcoming schedules, analyze them based on the results to date, and adjust their practices and game plans accordingly.

Since you're here, what is a Lycoming, anyway?  And It's pronounced "Lie coming?"  Not "Lie combing?"  And is it "LIE coming," or Lie COMing?"