FB: Liberty League

[Machiavelli]

Yet another reason I prefer polls with actual, specified criteria, like the NCAA's regional rankings.  No clue if the D3F has any baseline "standard" pollsters are directed to use; suspect not.  Pat?

That's correct -- we don't require the voters to use any specific criteria. Rank the teams from 1-25 in order of how good they are and who would beat whom on a neutral field. That's the guiding principle we've used on this poll for two decades.

I believe our poll is more accurate than the regional poll at predicting first round playoff winners as well.

This might be a silly question, but what is a "neutral" field.  Giants or Yankee stadium?

Sure, or Salem or Canton or any field that is not the home field for either of the participants.

I didn't know the 'neutral field' criteria. If Hardin-Simmons played Endicott on a neutral field, I bet they overcome the 27 point deficit and win by at least a monkeystomp. That's just science. The rabid and very intimidating crowd in Beverly, combined with the wind gusts coming off the beautiful grassy beaches is basically like walking into the Thunderdome against Master Blaster. No one can compete, except for Mel Gibson, cause he's tough as nails. Not a single Mel Gibson in New England or Texas. Maybe a few from upstate NY, however. Something about cold winters and ugly women that battle test the Upstate squads.

[unionpalooza]

Yet another reason I prefer polls with actual, specified criteria, like the NCAA's regional rankings.  No clue if the D3F has any baseline "standard" pollsters are directed to use; suspect not.  Pat?

That's correct -- we don't require the voters to use any specific criteria. Rank the teams from 1-25 in order of how good they are and who would beat whom on a neutral field. That's the guiding principle we've used on this poll for two decades.

I believe our poll is more accurate than the regional poll at predicting first round playoff winners as well.

have to support Pat on this...at the end of the season the D3.com poll has been historically  better at predicting than NCAA regional rankings .......unfortunately the NCAA regional rankings impact Pool C selections.

Eh, I still like the regional rankings, because they're clear and objective in a way that facilitates transparency and accountability; that just seems to have more decisional integrity that X guys in a room speculating as to who would be beat.  I also believe that it doesn't have the predictive power that the D3F poll might, but again, it has the benefit of being transparent and fair.

I also like the regional poll because it provides a little bit regional parity in a D3 framework that otherwise lacks the level playing field rules that apply to all other divisions (roster limits, academic eligibility standards, financial assistance parity, etc.).  But I'm also a supporter of bringing back true regional brackets, which probably makes me an outlier.

[Machiavelli]

Yet another reason I prefer polls with actual, specified criteria, like the NCAA's regional rankings.  No clue if the D3F has any baseline "standard" pollsters are directed to use; suspect not.  Pat?

That's correct -- we don't require the voters to use any specific criteria. Rank the teams from 1-25 in order of how good they are and who would beat whom on a neutral field. That's the guiding principle we've used on this poll for two decades.

I believe our poll is more accurate than the regional poll at predicting first round playoff winners as well.

have to support Pat on this...at the end of the season the D3.com poll has been historically  better at predicting than NCAA regional rankings .......unfortunately the NCAA regional rankings impact Pool C selections.

Eh, I still like the regional rankings, because they're clear and objective in a way that facilitates transparency and accountability; that just seems to have more decisional integrity that X guys in a room speculating as to who would be beat.  I also believe that it doesn't have the predictive power that the D3F poll might, but again, it has the benefit of being transparent and fair.

I also like the regional poll because it provides a little bit regional parity in a D3 framework that otherwise lacks the level playing field rules that apply to all other divisions (roster limits, academic eligibility standards, financial assistance parity, etc.).  But I'm also a supporter of bringing back true regional brackets, which probably makes me an outlier.

I loathe the regional rankings. Nothing like seeing the Husson's of the world at 1-2.

[Pat Coleman]

It's only transparent in that you know who the people are. You don't know how they voted. You don't know if the national committee changed what the regional committee voted on.

And the trade-off is that it's less accurate?

The reason to prefer the regional rankings is, of course, that they're the ones that matter.

[ICAlum16]

Game of the week is obviously Ithaca at RPI in Troy. Three of the D3.com contributors pick RPI to upset the Bombers. Our Contributors pick RPI by a 4-3 vote to win by an average of 7.25 points. Two of the votes for RPI are IC supporters(including  IC7)...are they uber objective or is it "anti-jinx" votes for their team, or are they just intimidated by the sterile, unfriendly, engineering personality of the EVAC  facility? I am rooting for LL standings chaos and will be wearing RPI colors and yellow sneakers(support for the Jackets) at the Hobart-Buffy game.  Votes updated tomorrow for new and /or changed picks.

With rainy weather across New York state on Saturday I actually believe this favors the run heavy offense of the Bombers. RPIs new found offense has been primarily pass happy, from what I have seen (have not watched a ton of RPI film) so I actually think that hurts the Engineers. This is going to be the most physical game of either teams season. I think a lower scoring game actually favors the Bombrers more this year than in years past. I am unsure of the status of Jake Williams but if he is healthy enough to get some touches,  I think the combo of Osborn, Hines (who lest we forget was the 2021 ROY)  and Williams behind that big and experienced IC OL paves the way for a low scoring IC victory. I am taking the alternate under of 33.5 in this one. GO BOMBERS

[unionpalooza]

It's only transparent in that you know who the people are. You don't know how they voted. You don't know if the national committee changed what the regional committee voted on.

And the trade-off is that it's less accurate?

The reason to prefer the regional rankings is, of course, that they're the ones that matter.

Let's seperate the question of what makes a good poll from the question of how to decide playoff access for moment.

Purely as a poll, the regional rankings are transparent in the sense that I know the criteria, it's based on specific empirical facts, and if they ignore or misapply the criteria, they can be called on it.  (And the fact that they can be called on it means they probably they probably won't.) There is some judgment applied at the margins, but for the most point the poll results can evaluated against the relevant criteria, and be right or wrong.

On playoff access, I think the whole current Pool C process is bogus, and the national committee ignoring/changing the regional rankings has all the same problems you note.  The whole idea that you can credibly compare Pool C candidates across regions in most cases is total nonsense, which is why I support regional brackets for actual playoff access.

[Pat Coleman]

How would those regional brackets work when each region -- whether you are four regions, six or eight -- have a differing number of automatic bids?

[Jonny Utah]

How would those regional brackets work when each region -- whether you are four regions, six or eight -- have a differing number of automatic bids?

Simple.  Make the ECFC champ take an Amtrak to Linfield in the first round and force them to go d2.  (then have the other 8 region 1/2 teams battle it out for the other spots)

But I don't mind the system the way it works.  Gotta mix it up. 

[unionpalooza]

How would those regional brackets work when each region -- whether you are four regions, six or eight -- have a differing number of automatic bids?

I would also get rid of AQs and just make conf champ a highly weighted criterion. 

[Bartman]

Game of the week is obviously Ithaca at RPI in Troy. Three of the D3.com contributors pick RPI to upset the Bombers. Our Contributors pick RPI by a 4-3 vote to win by an average of 7.25 points. Two of the votes for RPI are IC supporters(including  IC7)...are they uber objective or is it "anti-jinx" votes for their team, or are they just intimidated by the sterile, unfriendly, engineering personality of the EVAC  facility? I am rooting for LL standings chaos and will be wearing RPI colors and yellow sneakers(support for the Jackets) at the Hobart-Buffy game.  Votes updated tomorrow for new and /or changed picks.

With rainy weather across New York state on Saturday I actually believe this favors the run heavy offense of the Bombers. RPIs new found offense has been primarily pass happy, from what I have seen (have not watched a ton of RPI film) so I actually think that hurts the Engineers. This is going to be the most physical game of either teams season. I think a lower scoring game actually favors the Bombrers more this year than in years past. I am unsure of the status of Jake Williams but if he is healthy enough to get some touches,  I think the combo of Osborn, Hines (who lest we forget was the 2021 ROY)  and Williams behind that big and experienced IC OL paves the way for a low scoring IC victory. I am taking the alternate under of 33.5 in this one. GO BOMBERS

It appears that ICAlum, following a detailed analysis of the weather forecast and the belief that the Bombers are better "mudders" than the Sliderulers , has changed his pick to a Bombers win(This of course will need an official confirmation), and now, if confirmed, the LL pickers consensus  gives the Bombers a 4-3 nod for the win tomorrow. Any other takers for picks/changes?(Jersey42 and Oline89 you both need 3 more weeks of picks to be considered for end of season prizes)....open voting til noon tomorrow.

[Pat Coleman]

How would those regional brackets work when each region -- whether you are four regions, six or eight -- have a differing number of automatic bids?

I would also get rid of AQs and just make conf champ a highly weighted criterion.

All of this still assumes that we have evenly weighted regions, and if you bracket them solely regionally, you have the risk that a lower-quality could advance by playing lower-quality regional opponents.

I really like that we don't do that in D-III. The D-II playoffs tend to be imbalanced because their system is pretty similar to that which you describe.

[unionpalooza]

How would those regional brackets work when each region -- whether you are four regions, six or eight -- have a differing number of automatic bids?

I would also get rid of AQs and just make conf champ a highly weighted criterion.

All of this still assumes that we have evenly weighted regions, and if you bracket them solely regionally, you have the risk that a lower-quality could advance by playing lower-quality regional opponents.

I really like that we don't do that in D-III. The D-II playoffs tend to be imbalanced because their system is pretty similar to that which you describe.

Well, eliminating AQs already gets the worse 4-5 teams out of the bracket.  And we already usually have at least one 30+ blowout in the quarters each year anyway; the problem is not so much parity between regions as it a huge cliff between 1-3 powerhouses and everyone else.

[Pat Coleman]

I think it's better to have those blowouts in the quarters rather than in the semis, when possible.

We're not likely to get rid of AQs -- they are literally in the Division III philosophy statement -- but we might be able to get that field expanded in the next couple of years.

[unionpalooza]

I think it's better to have those blowouts in the quarters rather than in the semis, when possible.

We're not likely to get rid of AQs -- they are literally in the Division III philosophy statement -- but we might be able to get that field expanded in the next couple of years.

I agree, but I don't think regional brackets really change much.  For example, I think Region 1 and 2 get a bad wrap for not going deep in the playoffs, which is why they frequently get jammed in NCC or Mt union brackets, but that's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Some historical review:

2016:  Regions 1 and 2 gets a 8 bids; 6 in the Mt. Union bracket and 2 in the UWW bracket.  Best performer is JHU, who loses to Mt. Union 28-21 in second round.  Mt. Union loses to eventual champ UMHB 14-12 in the semis.  Regional bracket would have produced a no worse result, with JHU clearly being able to compete gamely with anyone in the field.

2017:  R1/2 get 12 bids; 8 in an all-R1/2 bracket, the other 4 in the Mt. Union bracket. Brockport makes the semis and loses to runner-up Mt. Union 24-0.  Regional bracket would have produced same result.

2018:  R1/2 and get 11 bids; 8 in an all-R1/2 bracket, the other 3 in the Mt. Union bracket.  JHU makes the semis and loses to runner-up Mt. Union 28-20.  Again, regional bracket would have produced the same result.

2019:  R1/2 get 11 bids; 8 in an all-R1/2 bracket, the other three in the NCC bracket.  Muhlenberg makes the semis and loses to champ NCC 45-14.  In the third round, Del Valley actually gives NCC the second-toughest test of the tourney, losing 31-14.  Regional bracket would have produced an equal or better result.  (I say "better" because results suggest Del Valley would have made for a more competitive semis participant than Muhlenberg.)

2021:  R1/2 get 11 bids, 5 in the NCC bracket and 6 in the Mt. Union bracket.  Best R1/2 showing is Muhlenberg's 34-29 quarterfinal loss to a Mt. Union that loses in the semis.  You could argue a regional bracket would have put Muhlenberg in the semis to the unfair detriment of actual semis participant UWW, but  seems quite likely they'd have been competitive.

2022:  R1/2 get 11 bids, 5 in the NCC bracket and 6 in the Mt. Union bracket.  Best R1/2 showing is Del Valley's 22-6 loss to runner-up Mt. Union.  Regional bracket would have probably produced a better result, as Del Valley likely would have showed better in the semis than UMHB, who lost to NCC 49-14.

I think the trickier question is precisely how you break up R1/2, as presumably part of it would need to be a "South" bracket.  But there is probably a good answer somewhere that hits a nice balance in parity (as no R3 team other than UMBH has made it out of the second round in years, I think).

Again, I'm not arguing that regional brackets are the magic end all, be all.  I just think they facilitate more objective playoff selections, and the idea that they would produce less competitive later round games is more myth than fact.

[Bartman]

I think it's better to have those blowouts in the quarters rather than in the semis, when possible.

We're not likely to get rid of AQs -- they are literally in the Division III philosophy statement -- but we might be able to get that field expanded in the next couple of years.

I agree, but I don't think regional brackets really change much.  For example, I think Region 1 and 2 get a bad wrap for not going deep in the playoffs, which is why they frequently get jammed in NCC or Mt union brackets, but that's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Some historical review:

2016:  Regions 1 and 2 gets a 8 bids; 6 in the Mt. Union bracket and 2 in the UWW bracket.  Best performer is JHU, who loses to Mt. Union 28-21 in second round.  Mt. Union loses to eventual champ UMHB 14-12 in the semis.  Regional bracket would have produced a no worse result, with JHU clearly being able to compete gamely with anyone in the field.

2017:  R1/2 get 12 bids; 8 in an all-R1/2 bracket, the other 4 in the Mt. Union bracket. Brockport makes the semis and loses to runner-up Mt. Union 24-0.  Regional bracket would have produced same result.

2018:  R1/2 and get 11 bids; 8 in an all-R1/2 bracket, the other 3 in the Mt. Union bracket.  JHU makes the semis and loses to runner-up Mt. Union 28-20.  Again, regional bracket would have produced the same result.

2019:  R1/2 get 11 bids; 8 in an all-R1/2 bracket, the other three in the NCC bracket.  Muhlenberg makes the semis and loses to champ NCC 45-14.  In the third round, Del Valley actually gives NCC the second-toughest test of the tourney, losing 31-14.  Regional bracket would have produced an equal or better result.  (I say "better" because results suggest Del Valley would have made for a more competitive semis participant than Muhlenberg.)

2021:  R1/2 get 11 bids, 5 in the NCC bracket and 6 in the Mt. Union bracket.  Best R1/2 showing is Muhlenberg's 34-29 quarterfinal loss to a Mt. Union that loses in the semis.  You could argue a regional bracket would have put Muhlenberg in the semis to the unfair detriment of actual semis participant UWW, but  seems quite likely they'd have been competitive.

2022:  R1/2 get 11 bids, 5 in the NCC bracket and 6 in the Mt. Union bracket.  Best R1/2 showing is Del Valley's 22-6 loss to runner-up Mt. Union.  Regional bracket would have probably produced a better result, as Del Valley likely would have showed better in the semis than UMHB, who lost to NCC 49-14.

I think the trickier question is precisely how you break up R1/2, as presumably part of it would need to be a "South" bracket.  But there is probably a good answer somewhere that hits a nice balance in parity (as no R3 team other than UMBH has made it out of the second round in years, I think).

Again, I'm not arguing that regional brackets are the magic end all, be all.  I just think they facilitate more objective playoff selections, and the idea that they would produce less competitive later round games is more myth than fact.

In 2016, Mount Union actually travelled to Hobart for the first round game. Hobart was tied with Mount Union 21-21 late in
the third quarter until the wind really picked up impacting All American QB Shane Sweeney and our passing game that had kept Hobart in the contest. That was a great Hobart team that would have done very well in a competitive regional bracket instead of losing a first round game.Instead a "down" Mount Union team that finished second to John Carroll in the OAC that year made it to the final and lost to MHB by 14-12 . I would love to have played Alfred that year in the playoffs and hopefully a chance for a regional "final" against Johns Hopkins. 
I'd love it if we could figure out how to have a more regional bracket.