East Region Playoff Discussion

[wesleydad]

frank, excellent post. +1.  now the east gets to beat on the east this week with the kean - salisbury and del val - fisher games.  that will guarentee 2 east teams in the quarters which would be one more than if they had stayed regional and moved mount in.  the east will get to show its strength or not when they likely play uww and st thomas.  if neither team makes it to the semis then the east is still where it was, just a step shy of that level that i think the east posters felt they should have had a chance to reach had the east stayed a true east region.  yesterday surely showed that the east teams can compete and any of us who have seen the top teams from the east already knew that.  can they take the next step?  in 2 weeks we at least get the chance to find out.  the second round games overall are better than they have been in years, only uww and mount look like they have no brainers, the rest look like they are all toss ups.

[Frank Rossi]

2008 was an anomaly year looking back.  Dr. Kaiser had a much different view of the world than the committees since, and the SoS back then was either the old SoS or the unrefined version of the current one.  Also, in 2008, were there any 1-loss teams left on the table?  This was the year that Curry (probably the best runner-up team the NEFC ever has touted) won a Pool C bid.  It also was the year that carnage occurred of the wildest kind on the final Saturday of the regular season over a 30-minute stretch (including RPI losing to MMA); about five or six teams fell during the stretch in shocking fashion.

Regardless of one-loss teams remaining on the board back then, it's been clear that the Committee has felt their hands were tied with such scenarios over the last couple years.  They were using SoS (objective) to only compare teams with equal losses for selection purposes.  They got the NCAA to approve a couple different changes, according to the Committee Chair, that made SJF possible.  Endicott and Case wondered aloud about how strong SJF really could be -- and a single win here against a potential 2/3 seed by SJF is enough to help validate the new changes.  I'd encourage you to listen to "In the HuddLLe" when we had Dr. Kaiser on in 2008 and compare it to Joy Solomen in 2011.  You'll see that the discussion felt a lot different and that the current Committee had to work with the higher-ups to make this happen.  With Endicott and Case upset, the higher-ups were likely watching the results and felt justified that the changes worked.

[Upstate]

With Wesley HOSTING Linfield this round the seeding debate from earlier should be settled now...

[Frank Rossi]

With Wesley HOSTING Linfield this round the seeding debate from earlier should be settled now...

No, since they could've been equally seeded -- or there could've been a mismatch seeding scenario because of the Linfield/Cal Lute necessity.  All we know is that Wesley was the #2 seed for sure.  Nothing else follows.

[Jonny Utah]

With Wesley HOSTING Linfield this round the seeding debate from earlier should be settled now...

No, since they could've been equally seeded -- or there could've been a mismatch seeding scenario because of the Linfield/Cal Lute necessity.  All we know is that Wesley was the #2 seed for sure.  Nothing else follows.

So Linfield could have been the #2 seed?

[Frank Rossi]

With Wesley HOSTING Linfield this round the seeding debate from earlier should be settled now...

No, since they could've been equally seeded -- or there could've been a mismatch seeding scenario because of the Linfield/Cal Lute necessity.  All we know is that Wesley was the #2 seed for sure.  Nothing else follows.

So Linfield could have been the #2 seed?

No, I was saying SJF and Hobart could've been equally seeded numerically.

[Jonny Utah]

With Wesley HOSTING Linfield this round the seeding debate from earlier should be settled now...

No, since they could've been equally seeded -- or there could've been a mismatch seeding scenario because of the Linfield/Cal Lute necessity.  All we know is that Wesley was the #2 seed for sure.  Nothing else follows.

So Linfield could have been the #2 seed?

No, I was saying SJF and Hobart could've been equally seeded numerically.

Yea I was going to say.  Wesley hosting Linfield doesn't really have anything to do with SJFs seed.

[AUKaz00]

2008 was an anomaly year looking back.  Dr. Kaiser had a much different view of the world than the committees since, and the SoS back then was either the old SoS or the unrefined version of the current one.  Also, in 2008, were there any 1-loss teams left on the table?  This was the year that Curry (probably the best runner-up team the NEFC ever has touted) won a Pool C bid.  It also was the year that carnage occurred of the wildest kind on the final Saturday of the regular season over a 30-minute stretch (including RPI losing to MMA); about five or six teams fell during the stretch in shocking fashion.

Regardless of one-loss teams remaining on the board back then, it's been clear that the Committee has felt their hands were tied with such scenarios over the last couple years.  They were using SoS (objective) to only compare teams with equal losses for selection purposes.  They got the NCAA to approve a couple different changes, according to the Committee Chair, that made SJF possible.  Endicott and Case wondered aloud about how strong SJF really could be -- and a single win here against a potential 2/3 seed by SJF is enough to help validate the new changes.  I'd encourage you to listen to "In the HuddLLe" when we had Dr. Kaiser on in 2008 and compare it to Joy Solomen in 2011.  You'll see that the discussion felt a lot different and that the current Committee had to work with the higher-ups to make this happen.  With Endicott and Case upset, the higher-ups were likely watching the results and felt justified that the changes worked.

Frank,
  Do we know if it was the National Committee promoting Fisher over Endicott within the East Regional Rankings or was it the East RR Committee that submitted Fisher over Endicott in the final-final rankings?  I'm presuming it was the latter, meaning that the pressure will be on the regional committees in the future to present their rankings in order of which team they believe will be the best representative in the tournament rather than based on record.  If that were the case this year, would Wheaton have been on the board prior to Case (if they weren't)?  And would they have gotten in ahead or Fisher or Illinois College?  I guess I'm hoping that the Regional Rankings will start to look more like the Fan Rankings going forward, so that we have brackets as compelling as this year's every year.

[Upstate]

2008 was an anomaly year looking back.  Dr. Kaiser had a much different view of the world than the committees since, and the SoS back then was either the old SoS or the unrefined version of the current one.  Also, in 2008, were there any 1-loss teams left on the table?  This was the year that Curry (probably the best runner-up team the NEFC ever has touted) won a Pool C bid.  It also was the year that carnage occurred of the wildest kind on the final Saturday of the regular season over a 30-minute stretch (including RPI losing to MMA); about five or six teams fell during the stretch in shocking fashion.

Regardless of one-loss teams remaining on the board back then, it's been clear that the Committee has felt their hands were tied with such scenarios over the last couple years.  They were using SoS (objective) to only compare teams with equal losses for selection purposes.  They got the NCAA to approve a couple different changes, according to the Committee Chair, that made SJF possible.  Endicott and Case wondered aloud about how strong SJF really could be -- and a single win here against a potential 2/3 seed by SJF is enough to help validate the new changes.  I'd encourage you to listen to "In the HuddLLe" when we had Dr. Kaiser on in 2008 and compare it to Joy Solomen in 2011.  You'll see that the discussion felt a lot different and that the current Committee had to work with the higher-ups to make this happen.  With Endicott and Case upset, the higher-ups were likely watching the results and felt justified that the changes worked.

Frank,
  Do we know if it was the National Committee promoting Fisher over Endicott within the East Regional Rankings or was it the East RR Committee that submitted Fisher over Endicott in the final-final rankings?  I'm presuming it was the latter, meaning that the pressure will be on the regional committees in the future to present their rankings in order of which team they believe will be the best representative in the tournament rather than based on record.  If that were the case this year, would Wheaton have been on the board prior to Case (if they weren't)?  And would they have gotten in ahead or Fisher or Illinois College?  I guess I'm hoping that the Regional Rankings will start to look more like the Fan Rankings going forward, so that we have brackets as compelling as this year's every year.

Totally agree about the brackets, it was extremely interesting to see so many match ups between different regions early in the brackets...

I hope it continues going forward, made for a much more exciting tourney...

[SUADC]

2008 was an anomaly year looking back.  Dr. Kaiser had a much different view of the world than the committees since, and the SoS back then was either the old SoS or the unrefined version of the current one.  Also, in 2008, were there any 1-loss teams left on the table?  This was the year that Curry (probably the best runner-up team the NEFC ever has touted) won a Pool C bid.  It also was the year that carnage occurred of the wildest kind on the final Saturday of the regular season over a 30-minute stretch (including RPI losing to MMA); about five or six teams fell during the stretch in shocking fashion.

Regardless of one-loss teams remaining on the board back then, it's been clear that the Committee has felt their hands were tied with such scenarios over the last couple years.  They were using SoS (objective) to only compare teams with equal losses for selection purposes.  They got the NCAA to approve a couple different changes, according to the Committee Chair, that made SJF possible.  Endicott and Case wondered aloud about how strong SJF really could be -- and a single win here against a potential 2/3 seed by SJF is enough to help validate the new changes.  I'd encourage you to listen to "In the HuddLLe" when we had Dr. Kaiser on in 2008 and compare it to Joy Solomen in 2011.  You'll see that the discussion felt a lot different and that the current Committee had to work with the higher-ups to make this happen.  With Endicott and Case upset, the higher-ups were likely watching the results and felt justified that the changes worked.

Frank,
  Do we know if it was the National Committee promoting Fisher over Endicott within the East Regional Rankings or was it the East RR Committee that submitted Fisher over Endicott in the final-final rankings?  I'm presuming it was the latter, meaning that the pressure will be on the regional committees in the future to present their rankings in order of which team they believe will be the best representative in the tournament rather than based on record.  If that were the case this year, would Wheaton have been on the board prior to Case (if they weren't)?  And would they have gotten in ahead or Fisher or Illinois College?  I guess I'm hoping that the Regional Rankings will start to look more like the Fan Rankings going forward, so that we have brackets as compelling as this year's every year.

Totally agree about the brackets, it was extremely interesting to see so many match ups between different regions early in the brackets...

I hope it continues going forward, made for a much more exciting tourney...

I agree, it especially allows teams in that upper echelon of Division III to play each other, for example we would have never seen Wesley v. Linfield, Salisbury v. Wisconsin-Whitewater, St. John Fisher v. St. Thomas, and Mount Union v. Wabash based on recent year's models. Honestly, not taking money into account, I am all for having the whole playoff a free for all, not having 'regionality' in effect (seeding still in effect). Possibly seeing games between Kean v. MHB, Illinois College v. H-SC, and SJF v. Trinity and seeing which of those come out on top.  Even though I was hoping for a different Stagg this year, I enjoyed what the committee did this year with the cross-regional matchups.  Also, some season games that I was pleased to see were N.C. Wesleyan v. Ohio Northern, Wittenberg v. Huntingdon, and Mount Union v. UW-Oshkosh (Seem as though Ohio teams are willing to go either West, South, or East).  Nevertheless, the team that I give credit to playing the most interesting schedule was Wesley College.

[Frank Rossi]

2008 was an anomaly year looking back.  Dr. Kaiser had a much different view of the world than the committees since, and the SoS back then was either the old SoS or the unrefined version of the current one.  Also, in 2008, were there any 1-loss teams left on the table?  This was the year that Curry (probably the best runner-up team the NEFC ever has touted) won a Pool C bid.  It also was the year that carnage occurred of the wildest kind on the final Saturday of the regular season over a 30-minute stretch (including RPI losing to MMA); about five or six teams fell during the stretch in shocking fashion.

Regardless of one-loss teams remaining on the board back then, it's been clear that the Committee has felt their hands were tied with such scenarios over the last couple years.  They were using SoS (objective) to only compare teams with equal losses for selection purposes.  They got the NCAA to approve a couple different changes, according to the Committee Chair, that made SJF possible.  Endicott and Case wondered aloud about how strong SJF really could be -- and a single win here against a potential 2/3 seed by SJF is enough to help validate the new changes.  I'd encourage you to listen to "In the HuddLLe" when we had Dr. Kaiser on in 2008 and compare it to Joy Solomen in 2011.  You'll see that the discussion felt a lot different and that the current Committee had to work with the higher-ups to make this happen.  With Endicott and Case upset, the higher-ups were likely watching the results and felt justified that the changes worked.

Frank,
  Do we know if it was the National Committee promoting Fisher over Endicott within the East Regional Rankings or was it the East RR Committee that submitted Fisher over Endicott in the final-final rankings?  I'm presuming it was the latter, meaning that the pressure will be on the regional committees in the future to present their rankings in order of which team they believe will be the best representative in the tournament rather than based on record.  If that were the case this year, would Wheaton have been on the board prior to Case (if they weren't)?  And would they have gotten in ahead or Fisher or Illinois College?  I guess I'm hoping that the Regional Rankings will start to look more like the Fan Rankings going forward, so that we have brackets as compelling as this year's every year.

By new rule this year, the National Committee could not change the positioning of the Regional Subcommittee.  Thus, the East Regional Subcommittee submitted Fisher over Endicott.

[XREDDRAGON77]

Red Dragons over Framingham .....by a good margin!

[Bartman]

Congratulations to Cortland on win over Ithaca and Playoff opportunity. I see you winning a couple . Good luck

[XREDDRAGON77]

Not looking past round 1,....although my last snap was in 2000, round 2 looks interesting as it should take place at Wesley.  Would love to be in Cortland next Saturday but weight certifications for the wrestling season are a priority!

[Bartman]

You are right, one at a time... and ,yes Wesley is very tough