FB: Liberty League

[Bartman]

Exactly, any component of SOS that involves what your opponent does subsequent to when you play them OWP or even more irrelevant IMO what's their OOWP, (opponents opponents winning percentage) does seems to be totally out of your control and ultimately meaningless.

Out of control doesn't equate to meaningless, though. Even if you can't control the record of who you played against, nonetheless, you played against them.

The only way to make that meaningless is to run the table/win your automatic bid.

Bartman likes UfanBill but must say he supports Pat's comments because Bartman loves all of the stats, SOS, OWP,OOWP and every other statistic that makes the team comparisons for the NCAA tournament....although, Bartman thinks total tonnage of the teams' largest 50 players plus the 10 highest player SAT scores should be considered as this statistic has predicted success in the playoffs on a more consistent basis than SOS(this has actually been documented by Hansen...I think)

[wally_wabash]

I agree with UFanBill that teams shouldn't actively create OOC schedules in order to chase SOS.  First, as noted, you can't control what those opponents are going to do.  Maryville(TN) was a playoff team in 2018 and have not won a game yet in 2019.  I don't think Maryville's OOC opponents expected them to be an anchor, but here we are.  Additionally, the weight given to SOS w/r to at-large consideration changes from year to year and committee to committee (both regional and national).  If you set a 2021 schedule based on inferred feedback from the 2018 ranking/selection process, you're playing to an audience that isn't going to be there by the time those games are played.  That target is always moving and almost never where you think it's going to be 2-4 years down the road. 

But that doesn't make the SOS useless.  We do have to have some way to differentiate the various 9-1 teams that have to be evaluated for at-large consideration and we have to do it with very little intersecting data due to the division's highly regionalized nature.  One way is to see which 9-1 team played a more difficult schedule.  SOS as it is now, attempts to do this but certainly isn't perfect.  In fact, it often fails extraordinarily, but it's the crude and unbiased metric that everybody has agreed to.  So that's what we've got. 

[UfanBill]

What I actually said was "the SOS factor is bogus. The definition of bogus is: not genuine, fake...something that is not what it appears or claims to be.

As the playoff committee currently uses it, I think the definition fits. Explain how the current NCAA DIII champ Mary Harden Baylor could or should be judged based on their current SOS...it's 222 out of 247.

Here's what it says:
"Records and winning percentage are based on all games vs. full Division III opponents. Only games which have been played so far are counted here. OWP: Opponents' winning percentage. OOWP: Opponents' opponents' winning percentage. SOS: two-thirds OWP and one-third OOWP."... It's the OOWP I have the most problem with. Pat, I know this has been repeatedly discussed before and I think it's always something that should be on the table. 
 
Certainly the strength of a team's body of work in games they play is relevant.

[Mr. Ypsi]

What I actually said was "the SOS factor is bogus. The definition of bogus is: not genuine, fake...something that is not what it appears or claims to be.

As the playoff committee currently uses it, I think the definition fits. Explain how the current NCAA DIII champ Mary Harden Baylor could or should be judged based on their current SOS...it's 222 out of 247.

Here's what it says:
"Records and winning percentage are based on all games vs. full Division III opponents. Only games which have been played so far are counted here. OWP: Opponents' winning percentage. OOWP: Opponents' opponents' winning percentage. SOS: two-thirds OWP and one-third OOWP."... It's the OOWP I have the most problem with. Pat, I know this has been repeatedly discussed before and I think it's always something that should be on the table. 
 
Certainly the strength of a team's body of work in games they play is relevant.

OOWP is relevant to get a handle on the quality of wins/losses of your opponents.  An opponent who is 0-4 might well be as good or better than an opponent who is 4-0 - it depends on who THEY played.  (While it would never happen, theoretically a team could go 0-10 and be the 11th best team in the country!)  It might well be that OOOWP would also be a good inclusion, though as 'inbred' as D3 is, there are pretty rapidly diminishing returns on information gained.

[bleedpurple]

The Hobart - IC game will come down to who scores more

The rest of the analysis was good, but you nailed it right out of the box! 

[skunks_sidekick]

The Hobart - IC game will come down to who scores more

The rest of the analysis was good, but you nailed it right out of the box! 

Scintillating analysis!   

[Doid23]

I agree with UFanBill that teams shouldn't actively create OOC schedules in order to chase SOS.  First, as noted, you can't control what those opponents are going to do.  Maryville(TN) was a playoff team in 2018 and have not won a game yet in 2019.  I don't think Maryville's OOC opponents expected them to be an anchor, but here we are.  Additionally, the weight given to SOS w/r to at-large consideration changes from year to year and committee to committee (both regional and national).  If you set a 2021 schedule based on inferred feedback from the 2018 ranking/selection process, you're playing to an audience that isn't going to be there by the time those games are played.  That target is always moving and almost never where you think it's going to be 2-4 years down the road. 

But that doesn't make the SOS useless.  We do have to have some way to differentiate the various 9-1 teams that have to be evaluated for at-large consideration and we have to do it with very little intersecting data due to the division's highly regionalized nature.  One way is to see which 9-1 team played a more difficult schedule.  SOS as it is now, attempts to do this but certainly isn't perfect.  In fact, it often fails extraordinarily, but it's the crude and unbiased metric that everybody has agreed to.  So that's what we've got.

Very well stated!

[Jonny Utah]

What I actually said was "the SOS factor is bogus. The definition of bogus is: not genuine, fake...something that is not what it appears or claims to be.

As the playoff committee currently uses it, I think the definition fits. Explain how the current NCAA DIII champ Mary Harden Baylor could or should be judged based on their current SOS...it's 222 out of 247.

Here's what it says:
"Records and winning percentage are based on all games vs. full Division III opponents. Only games which have been played so far are counted here. OWP: Opponents' winning percentage. OOWP: Opponents' opponents' winning percentage. SOS: two-thirds OWP and one-third OOWP."... It's the OOWP I have the most problem with. Pat, I know this has been repeatedly discussed before and I think it's always something that should be on the table. 
 
Certainly the strength of a team's body of work in games they play is relevant.

I think they (or any team) is judged by beating those teams 77-0, 65-0, 50-14, and 56-15.  Their SOS is based on.....games they play right?  I'm betting if MHB was 5-0 and only had a 3 point margin of victory in their games, they would not be ranked #1.  And their "SOS" would be a factor.

SOS also has various contexts.  You can assign real numbers to it (winning %) but if the NCAA makes it a "criteria" then it becomes even less scientific.

[Ice Bear]

Ice Bear is curious...any idea why teams don't have many...if any night games? The U has this beautiful field with lights.

Ice says the small amount of night games they have had have been well attended and super ****ing enjoyable.

Ice Bear's guess is it comes down to $ and teams don't want to pay to spend the night or they don't feel like driving back late at night. Any other reasons?

Ice Bear would love Union to host at the very least one night game a year.

[Bombers798891]

Ice Bear is curious...any idea why teams don't have many...if any night games? The U has this beautiful field with lights.

Ice says the small amount of night games they have had have been well attended and super ****ing enjoyable.

Ice Bear's guess is it comes down to $ and teams don't want to pay to spend the night or they don't feel like driving back late at night. Any other reasons?

Ice Bear would love Union to host at the very least one night game a year.

I'd also suspect that students prefer day games

[ITH radio]

Hobart switched it's final home game / Sr day to a night game vs. Buff St (unfortunately student support the team is lukewarm at best per feedback I've heard from families). It'll probably be pretty chilly that night, but a fun experience for the players I'd think.

As an aside, can IC fans / alums chime in on the best place for tailgating by Butterfield? I seem to recall Lots F & L being the closest, but defer to the experts as I haven't been to Ithaca in some time.

[Jonny Utah]

Hobart switched it's final home game / Sr day to a night game vs. Buff St (unfortunately student support the team is lukewarm at best per feedback I've heard from families). It'll probably be pretty chilly that night, but a fun experience for the players I'd think.

As an aside, can IC fans / alums chime in on the best place for tailgating by Butterfield? I seem to recall Lots F & L being the closest, but defer to the experts as I haven't been to Ithaca in some time.

I have always heard that Friday night high school football games were for Friday nights and that was the main reason that colleges and the NFL don't play on Friday nights.  Also gives HS students to visit college games and for college coaches to visit HS games.  But I'm betting that is the main reason you don't see many Friday night college games. 

[Jonny Utah]

Ice Bear is curious...any idea why teams don't have many...if any night games? The U has this beautiful field with lights.

Ice says the small amount of night games they have had have been well attended and super ****ing enjoyable.

Ice Bear's guess is it comes down to $ and teams don't want to pay to spend the night or they don't feel like driving back late at night. Any other reasons?

Ice Bear would love Union to host at the very least one night game a year.

I'd also suspect that students prefer day games

And I don't know about that one.  I think students would show up more for night games.

[AUPepBand]

Ice Bear is curious...any idea why teams don't have many...if any night games? The U has this beautiful field with lights.

Ice says the small amount of night games they have had have been well attended and super ****ing enjoyable.

Ice Bear's guess is it comes down to $ and teams don't want to pay to spend the night or they don't feel like driving back late at night. Any other reasons?

Ice Bear would love Union to host at the very least one night game a year.

I'd also suspect that students prefer day games

Alfred's night game with UR was well attended by students at AU. But then, not a lot to do in Alfred, New York on a Saturday night.....

[Oline89]

Ice Bear is curious...any idea why teams don't have many...if any night games? The U has this beautiful field with lights.

Ice says the small amount of night games they have had have been well attended and super ****ing enjoyable.

Ice Bear's guess is it comes down to $ and teams don't want to pay to spend the night or they don't feel like driving back late at night. Any other reasons?

Ice Bear would love Union to host at the very least one night game a year.

I'd also suspect that students prefer day games

And I don't know about that one.  I think students would show up more for night games.

For some reason, Hobart's day home games always start at noon.  Good luck getting half the student body up by noon on a Saturday.  Thinking that the Saturday night game may attract more students