FB: Liberty League

Pat Coleman · October 23, 2007, 04:16:01 PM

Yes. They went away from that process because it was time-consuming to calculate and put an excessive burden on the members of the committee to compute, and on occasion, compile the information.

Since 1999, technology has changed considerably. The schools are required to report to the NCAA online rather than on paper. That's why we're able to go back to it. It's always been the better measure, Frank. But now it's more doable.

Apple Jack · October 23, 2007, 05:45:19 PM

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2007, 04:03:52 PM
In somewhat disappointing news, Tim Wakefield is being left off the Red Sox World Series roster due to a supposedly bum shoulder...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2007/news/story?id=3075978

Maybe its the fact the the knuckle ball wont float in the mile high...but on a selfish note this guy is glad because he would rather see Shil in game 2 than Wake because this guy has tickets!!!

Frank its nice to see you care about and missed us.

labart96 · October 23, 2007, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2007, 04:03:52 PM
In somewhat disappointing news, Tim Wakefield is being left off the Red Sox World Series roster due to a supposedly bum shoulder...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2007/news/story?id=3075978

Yeah - looking like Lester in Game 4. TGP is going to Denver this weekend for the Series. A bit easier (and cheaper) than flying all the way back to Boston.

Frank Rossi · October 23, 2007, 06:17:00 PM

Plymouth State at #35 and RPI #202 on the newest SoS Index still gives me no faith in it...at all.

Frank Rossi · October 23, 2007, 06:33:08 PM

Pool C
-------

(Edit: Note that there are 22 Pool A (Auto) Bids, 3 Pool B Bids and 7 Pool C (Runner-Up) Bids this season.)

After eliminating teams with more than two regional losses and eliminating teams that are in control of their own destiny with two regional losses -- and applying a subjective approach to a couple teams based on conference strength and schedule strength (namely, Thomas More and Albright -- I'll explain this later), there are 61 teams remaining in the Pool C hunt, including conference leaders who could fall back into Pool C positions. In the following chart, I have eliminated teams from conferences that will likely not have more than one representative (i.e., Pool A only) -- and those conferences are: 1) IBC, 2) MAC, 3) MWC, 4) MIAA and 5) USAC. That means that instead of 32 playoff slots below, there remain 27 slots.

In the "Notes" column, I have included an "A" for a team leading its conference, an "A*" for a team tied for its conference lead, a "B*" for Pool B teams that are likely ahead of the pack for consideration (only three of these teams will win Pool B slots, however) -- and whenever an "S" follows (whether or not in parentheses), there is a team not represented on this list that could play "spoiler." In this case, a spoiler could win the Pool A bid out from under the favorite(s) of that conference. In many cases, the team that is on this chart would default back to favorite for Pool C status based on the height most teams with "A" or "A*" are at on this chart currently. The conferences in which this could play out are: 1) ASC, 2) CCIW, 3) HCAC, 4) LL, 5) NCAC, 6) NEFC (less likely), 7) ODAC, and 8 ) SCIAC

The teams are not ranked by any power ranking, except that they are placed in Regional W/L% (reverse order), and then sorted by OWP (reverse order) to provide some relative comparison ability. However, as I continue to say, the OWP will either have to be abandoned in several instances by the Committee (such as in the Plymouth State case), or we're going to have some ugly debates after Selection Sunday based on how the numbers currently line up.

Summarizing, UP TO 27 of the following teams will reach the NCAA Playoffs, although it is likely that no less than 19 of these teams will be dancing after the final game. Here is the chart:

Team Conf. Reg. W/L % W/L % Conf. % OWP OOWP Note
-------------------- ------ -------- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Salisbury Pool B 4-0 1.000 8-0 1.000 2-0 1.000 0.692 0.458 B*

Wabash NCAC 7-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 5-0 1.000 0.605 0.539 A(S)

UW-Whitewater WIAC 6-0 1.000 6-1 0.857 5-0 1.000 0.604 0.562 A*

Wheaton (Ill.) CCIW 7-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 4-0 1.000 0.583 0.597 A*S

Central IIAC 7-0 1.000 8-0 1.000 6-0 1.000 0.538 0.599 A*

Mary Hardin-Baylor ASC 7-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 6-0 1.000 0.531 0.525 A*S

St. John's MIAC 7-0 1.000 8-0 1.000 6-0 1.000 0.519 0.615 A*

Alfred E8 7-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 4-0 1.000 0.467 0.601 A

Muhlenberg CC 7-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 5-0 1.000 0.454 0.615 A

Curry NEFC 8-0 1.000 8-0 1.000 5-0 1.000 0.440 0.545 A*S

Washington & Jeff. PAC 4-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 3-0 1.000 0.407 0.619 A*

Mount Union OAC 7-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 6-0 1.000 0.405 0.541 A

Waynesburg PAC 6-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 4-0 1.000 0.369 0.551 A*

Case Western Reserve Pool B 5-0 1.000 7-0 1.000 1-0 1.000 0.357 0.558 B*

RPI LL 6-0 1.000 6-0 1.000 4-0 1.000 0.344 0.559 A*S

Occidental SCIAC 6-0 1.000 6-0 1.000 4-0 1.000 0.261 0.551 A*S

St. John Fisher E8 7-1 0.875 7-1 0.875 3-1 0.750 0.483 0.588

Plymouth State NEFC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 4-1 0.800 0.616 0.482

Washington U. Pool B 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 1-0 1.000 0.609 0.542 B*

Wartburg IIAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 5-0 1.000 0.569 0.598 A*

Franklin HCAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 4-0 1.000 0.569 0.506 A*S

Capital OAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 5-1 0.833 0.552 0.563

Bethel MIAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 5-0 1.000 0.538 0.592 A*

Millsaps SCAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 5-0 1.000 0.514 0.490 A

Mt. St. Joseph HCAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 4-1 0.800 0.500 0.523

Dickinson CC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 4-1 0.800 0.476 0.596

Randolph-Macon ODAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 3-0 1.000 0.433 0.649 A(S)

Bridgewater (Va.) ODAC 6-1 0.857 6-1 0.857 2-1 0.667 0.407 0.564

Wesley Pool B 5-1 0.833 7-1 0.875 3-0 1.000 0.767 0.547 B*

New Jersey NJAC 5-1 0.833 6-1 0.857 4-0 1.000 0.633 0.496 A*

Trinity (Texas) SCAC 5-1 0.833 6-1 0.857 3-1 0.750 0.483 0.513

Cortland State NJAC 5-1 0.833 6-1 0.857 5-0 1.000 0.433 0.577 A*

Ursinus CC 5-1 0.833 6-1 0.857 4-1 0.800 0.234 0.624

Redlands SCIAC 4-1 0.800 5-1 0.833 2-1 0.667 0.640 0.436

UW-Stevens Point WIAC 3-1 0.750 6-1 0.857 3-1 0.750 0.512 0.561

Rockford Pool B 6-2 0.750 6-2 0.750 0-0 0.000 0.382 0.447

Moravian CC 6-2 0.750 6-2 0.750 4-2 0.667 0.321 0.573

St. Olaf MIAC 5-2 0.714 6-2 0.750 4-2 0.667 0.648 0.582

North Central CCIW 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 3-1 0.750 0.633 0.543

Dubuque IIAC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 3-2 0.600 0.627 0.530

Wittenberg NCAC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 3-1 0.750 0.617 0.550

Hartwick E8 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 2-1 0.667 0.585 0.480

Montclair State NJAC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 2-2 0.500 0.576 0.581

Pacific Lutheran Pool B 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 2-2 0.500 0.557 0.506

Ohio Northern OAC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 4-2 0.667 0.552 0.538

Carthage CCIW 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 2-2 0.500 0.531 0.541

Northwestern (Minn.) Pool B 5-2 0.714 6-2 0.750 0-0 0.000 0.522 0.444

Hobart LL 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 4-1 0.800 0.510 0.521

Maryville (Tenn.) USAC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 2-2 0.500 0.476 0.471

John Carroll OAC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 4-2 0.667 0.457 0.548

Mississippi Colllege ASC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 3-2 0.600 0.446 0.553

Ithaca E8 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 2-2 0.500 0.432 0.592

Allegheny NCAC 5-2 0.714 5-2 0.714 3-1 0.750 0.362 0.527

Rhodes SCAC 4-2 0.667 5-2 0.714 3-1 0.750 0.594 0.511

DePauw SCAC 4-2 0.667 5-2 0.714 3-2 0.600 0.489 0.480

Washington and Lee ODAC 4-2 0.667 4-2 0.667 2-2 0.500 0.486 0.496

Chapman Pool B 4-2 0.667 4-2 0.667 0-0 0.000 0.464 0.544

Rowan NJAC 4-2 0.667 4-3 0.571 2-2 0.500 0.444 0.542

Sul Ross State ASC 4-2 0.667 5-2 0.714 3-2 0.600 0.434 0.510

Crown Pool B 4-2 0.667 5-2 0.714 0-0 0.000 0.337 0.404

UW-Eau Claire WIAC 3-2 0.600 6-2 0.750 3-2 0.600 0.470 0.591
-------------------- ------ -------- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Team Conf. Reg. W/L % W/L % Conf. % OWP OOWP Note

Senor RedTackle · October 23, 2007, 07:31:39 PM

Frank...where do you get all your playoff info and rankings from? The font tells RT you copy it from somewhere.

Pat Coleman · October 23, 2007, 07:38:51 PM

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2007, 06:17:00 PM
Plymouth State at #35 and RPI #202 on the newest SoS Index still gives me no faith in it...at all.

QOW would've done the same thing, without the second level of OOWP.

Frank Rossi · October 23, 2007, 08:06:55 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2007, 07:38:51 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2007, 06:17:00 PM
Plymouth State at #35 and RPI #202 on the newest SoS Index still gives me no faith in it...at all.

QOW would've done the same thing, without the second level of OOWP.

OOWP is a tiebreaker according to the manual...No OWP is tied in these numbers. And actually, you're wrong about the spread that the QoW would have caused since RPI is being especially hindered by USMMA and Susquehanna (1-14 --> 1-12 adjusted off the top of my head, might be off by a loss). Teams that were this poor would've been lumped with teams in the bottom quarter for the same number of points in the QoWI. At the very least, PSU and RPI would be much less severe.

Ralph Turner · October 23, 2007, 08:11:48 PM

The tendency by many fans is to latch onto the OWP or the OOWP as the "be-all/ end-all" of all measurements.

The Handbook specifically lists all of the primary criteria and does not rank them in order.

The OWP has 1001 gradations between .000 and 1.000.

The QOWI was a very simple hybrid of OWP and OOWP that had been reduced to 4 levels of percentages, rewarding a win and penalizing for a loss, and providing for home and away, 16 levels from 0-15.

Pat Coleman is right that the OOWP is what will modulate the OWP value, but let's give the selection committee some credit for working thru all of the primary criteria.

Frank responded while I was posting.

Frank Rossi · October 23, 2007, 08:18:42 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2007, 08:11:48 PM
The tendency by many fans is to latch onto the OWP or the OOWP as the "be-all/ end-all" of all measurements.

The Handbook specifically lists all of the primary criteria and does not rank them in order.

The OWP has 1001 gradations between .000 and 1.000.

The QOWI was a very simple hybrid of OWP and OOWP that had been reduced to 4 levels of percentages, rewarding a win and penalizing for a loss, and providing for home and away, 16 levels from 0-15.

Pat Coleman is right that the OOWP is what will modulate the OWP value, but let's give the selection committee some credit for working thru all of the primary criteria.

Frank responded while I was posting.

From Appendix J of the 2007 Playoff Manual:

"It is important to note that the OOWP will support the OWP (i.e., if Teams A and B have the same OWP of .5692; Team A has a OOWP of .6125 and Team B has a OOWP of .4567; it would indicate team A has the stronger strength of schedule)."

To me, this reads that only if OWP is tied (or potentially, if it is statistically close), OOWP will apply. There is no discussion in the Manual stating that there is any other computation or use for the OOWP. So until the Committee itself says otherwise, then I fear that these OWP issues may play out in an ugly manner. That's using the only OFFICIAL words of the Committee.

Frank Rossi · October 23, 2007, 08:25:09 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2007, 08:11:48 PM
The tendency by many fans is to latch onto the OWP or the OOWP as the "be-all/ end-all" of all measurements.

The Handbook specifically lists all of the primary criteria and does not rank them in order.

The OWP has 1001 gradations between .000 and 1.000.

The QOWI was a very simple hybrid of OWP and OOWP that had been reduced to 4 levels of percentages, rewarding a win and penalizing for a loss, and providing for home and away, 16 levels from 0-15.

Pat Coleman is right that the OOWP is what will modulate the OWP value, but let's give the selection committee some credit for working thru all of the primary criteria.

Frank responded while I was posting.

QoWI had 16 gradations for each team another team played. Last time I checked, a team with 10 opponents, when any of 16 values could be applied to that team, would have 1,099,511,627,776 (1 trillion +) potential outcomes, or, taking decimals out to three places on a 16-point scale, 16,001 gradations.

SoS employs a one-point scale in which the denominator is no greater than 90 and no less than 72. There are only 19 different denominators and up to 90 different numerators. Thus, there are only 1,720 different gradations for SoS.

In other words, it really ain't all that.

superman57 · October 23, 2007, 08:27:34 PM

Damn, Frank, may I ask do you do work at your job, or do you infact work for the NCAA.

No matter what thank you and I think I will make a campaign for for Frank the Tank for the HOF

Knightstalker · October 23, 2007, 08:36:42 PM

Frank, I would have given Rowan an S, they could throw a monkey wrench into Cortlands season.

Frank Rossi · October 23, 2007, 08:38:35 PM

Quote from: Knightstalker on October 23, 2007, 08:36:42 PM
Frank, I would have given Rowan an S, they could throw a monkey wrench into Cortlands season.

But Rowan is on that list already. "S" is only used when a team wasn't on that list but could still win a conference (i.e., record was too bad for Pool C consideration, but conference record could support a Pool A bid).

Pat Coleman · October 23, 2007, 08:48:12 PM

Frank, dude, you need to breathe just a bit. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

BTW, QOWI for Plymouth State, 10.857
QOWI for RPI, 10.000

Just to point out how big a gap that is, Franklin did not get in last year at 10.400. The next two Pool C contenders were 10.222 and 10.200.

FB: Liberty League

labart96