Pool C -- 2007

[Pat Coleman]

The one thing you should keep in mind is those rankings are entering the 2007 season. Surely the MAC will not keep its ranking entering 2008, for example.

[Carl Menist]

There will always be subjectivity as long as human beings are involved in the evaluation and selection.

I do believe that the subjectivity involved in this process is pretty minimal.  With a known and published set of objective criteria and rules that the committee is supposed to use to select and seed, you can remove most bias so long as the committee members are adhering to the rules.  And if they're not, there are a whole lot of bright people watching this closely who are ready to call the committee out for blatant oversights of said criteria.  Year in and year out D3football.com accurately predicts the field within one team and on their off years two teams which pretty much validates that the NCAA is following the rules and the criteria without too much subjectivity. 

They haven't missed two teams in years. They've missed zero, one, zero, one, one and three in 2001.

Pretty sure Pat (and maybe Gordon on the help-out) hit 32 of 32 last season, correctly predicting Franklin and Cortland State left at home.

Previously:

We did touch on it in the Around the Nation that ran the week of the playoff openers.

http://www.d3football.com/atn.php?id=84

The sorry for the false hopes award
When D3football.com tells you it's hit on 27 of 28 teams just about every year, and hit on 31 of 32 this year, that means one team out there read our projections and got their hopes up. Here's this year's 'one we missed' and past winners:
2005: We projected Alfred; the committee preferred Wilkes.
2004: We got them all.
2003: We projected UMHB; the committee took Simpson, who promptly gave the MWC its only NCAA playoff win since expansion.
2002: We projected Hartwick; the committee took W&J, which squeaked past second-year CNU and got routed at Trinity.
2001: We picked Menlo and Linfield in Pool B, the committee took Whitworth (0-1) and Ithaca (advanced to regional final). In Pool C, we chose UW-Eau Claire, the NCAA took Montclair State (0-1).

Do the above comparisons of actual to projected reflect comparisons to Pat's mid - week / initial projections or the final revised projections after the last games on Saturday. If the comparison reflects the later, what has the experience been to the initial mid-week projections?

I am sure they are both close, just wondering what changes we may see from what we are all working off now.

I think the change to the SOS / OWP basis as one of the selection criteria puts a bit of a twist on this year.

[redman04]

Yeah, it's kinda ironic (or perhaps cruel) - the winner of the NCC-Carthage game will be a pool C bubble team, but will have hurt themselves by knocking the loser out of their ranking (so no W over a ranked team).  I'd advocate a modification of the criterion to ranked at the end OR ranked at the time you  played them.

Since The winner of the North Central/ Carthage game will be a bubble team, how does their strength of schedule hurt/Help the winner???

[Pat Coleman]

We haven't done the math on the mid-week projections, no. Kind of busy working on playoff previews at that point.

The change in the criteria definitely makes things more interesting this year, no doubt. I am hopeful we can live up to our usual all-but-one standards.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Yeah, it's kinda ironic (or perhaps cruel) - the winner of the NCC-Carthage game will be a pool C bubble team, but will have hurt themselves by knocking the loser out of their ranking (so no W over a ranked team).  I'd advocate a modification of the criterion to ranked at the end OR ranked at the time you  played them.

Since The winner of the North Central/ Carthage game will be a bubble team, how does their strength of schedule hurt/Help the winner???

I wasn't talking about SOS.  Another primary criterion is record vs. regionally-ranked teams.  It (to me) is unfortunate that beating a team that was ranked going into the game won't get you any benefit on this criterion because YOU knocked them out of the rankings!

[Carl Menist]

We haven't done the math on the mid-week projections, no. Kind of busy working on playoff previews at that point.

The change in the criteria definitely makes things more interesting this year, no doubt. I am hopeful we can live up to our usual all-but-one standards.

Just thinking about it a little more, the above comparisons have to relate to your final projections. I have to believe that your initial projections for 2006 included Trinity  in there as the AQ from the SCAC.

I would like to see your final projections Saturday evening be 32 for 32. I just hope that your fine tuning of your mid-week work includes adding Millsaps in there someplace.

Thanks for your work!

[Bob.Gregg]

2006 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:

Projected Trinity sted Milsaps
Projected Wartburg sted Bethel


2005 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:

Projected RPI as a "C"
Projected St. John Fisher as a "C"
Didn't project Cortland State, #5 East
Didn't project Wilkes, #6 East

Projected Whitewater in North, went #2 West
Didn't project Capital at all, #5 North
Projected Hardin-Simmons (A), Mary Hardin-Baylor (C).  UMHB won the A, HSU didn't make it at all.
Projected W&J on the "B" bubble, went #6 South

Projected Willamette as a "B", didn't make it.

All in all, with many of these determinations made on the field, the GURU has projected very, very well.

Not 32 for 32, but pretty darn well.

[Ralph Turner]

2006 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:

Projected Trinity sted Millsaps   -- Millsaps beats Trinity. Trinity stays home.
Projected Wartburg sted Bethel-- Bethel beats SJU and gets the Pool A bid.  Wartburg upset in OT by Dubuque.


2005 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:

Projected RPI as a "C"
Projected St. John Fisher as a "C"
Didn't project Cortland State, #5 East
Didn't project Wilkes, #6 East

Projected Whitewater in North, went #2 West
Didn't project Capital at all, #5 North
Projected Hardin-Simmons (A), Mary Hardin-Baylor (C).  UMHB won the A, HSU didn't make it at all (losing the last game with their 3rd string QB to TLU)  That changed the Regional Rankings allowing W&J to "creep" up.
Projected W&J on the "B" bubble, went #6 South

Projected Willamette as a "B", didn't make it.

All in all, with many of these determinations made on the field, the GURU has projected very, very well.

Not 32 for 32, but pretty darn well.

I can speak to those last week upsets, and how they changed the playoffs.

[short]

Question, why does an 8-2 CCIW team get in the Playoffs over an 8-2 Wittenburg team?  Witt's SOS is 13th in the Nation.  They have 2 wins over the MIAA Tri-Champs, and both losses were to National and Regional Ranked teams. Pus the NCAC has a better playoff winning % then the CCIW.

[Pirat]

Agreed, over the years Pat and company have done a great job with their projections and hoping they are "in the zone" with their projections for this year. 

And Bob.Gregg, I would like to give a shout out to you.  Over the past 3-4 years(not sure how long you have been posting) come playoff time, I never skip over a Bob.Gregg post.

And Ralph, what can I say but Thanks for what you continue to bring to the site.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Question, why does an 8-2 CCIW team get in the Playoffs over an 8-2 Wittenburg team?  Witt's SOS is 13th in the Nation.  They have 2 wins over the MIAA Tri-Champs, and both losses were to National and Regional Ranked teams. Pus the NCAC has a better playoff winning % then the CCIW.

1. The projections currently do not have an 8-2 CCIW team getting in.

2. Witt's week 9 OWP (NOT SOS, which also includes OOWP) is 13th.  It will be FAR lower after meeting 0-9 Hiram on Saturday!  After week 10, the total SOS of any of the CCIW 8-2 teams will likely be higher than Witt's.

3. The NCAC winning % in the playoffs IS higher than the CCIW, but you are ignoring that the CCIW has played 22 games to the NCAC's 19.  It could be argued either way as to which is superior.  The only h-to-h meeting of the NCAC and CCIW in the 'modern' playoffs was in 2004: Carthage 14, Wooster 7.  But past conference playoff history is (officially, at least) irrelevant to selection ayway.

[Carl Menist]

2006 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:

Projected Trinity sted Millsaps   -- Millsaps beats Trinity. Trinity stays home.
Projected Wartburg sted Bethel-- Bethel beats SJU and gets the Pool A bid.  Wartburg upset in OT by Dubuque.


2005 midweek projection vs. actual bracket:

Projected RPI as a "C"
Projected St. John Fisher as a "C"
Didn't project Cortland State, #5 East
Didn't project Wilkes, #6 East

Projected Whitewater in North, went #2 West
Didn't project Capital at all, #5 North
Projected Hardin-Simmons (A), Mary Hardin-Baylor (C).  UMHB won the A, HSU didn't make it at all (losing the last game with their 3rd string QB to TLU)  That changed the Regional Rankings allowing W&J to "creep" up.
Projected W&J on the "B" bubble, went #6 South

Projected Willamette as a "B", didn't make it.

All in all, with many of these determinations made on the field, the GURU has projected very, very well.

Not 32 for 32, but pretty darn well.

I can speak to those last week upsets, and how they changed the playoffs.

Thanks to both Bob and ralph as well as Pat ofcourse.

Question and comments regarding last week matchups and upsets / impact of new system ---

- How does week 10 of 2007 compare to 2006? It looks like there was only one upset last year with Bethel coming in.

- Do the slate of games for tomorrow look to provide a more volatile / up in the air situation compared to last year or are they about the same?

- How do you think the fact that the new SOS basis is inplace for the first time and there is no specific track record of the NCAA for Pat to completely base his picks on?

Having a national playoff is the only way to go. Could you imagine the intrigue and interest if D1 had a 32 team playoff???

[Bob.Gregg]

And Bob.Gregg, I would like to give a shout out to you.  Over the past 3-4 years(not sure how long you have been posting) come playoff time, I never skip over a Bob.Gregg post.

With your permission, I'll use that information in the Property Distribution phase of my upcoming proceedings.  The loss of my notebook computer will have far-reaching consequences....

Thanks, pirat, for the shout-out, but be careful...

I've been smitten at least once today already.  Must have peed in somebody's cornflakes...

Maybe the New Jersians didn't like my idea of moving Mules East...or maybe somebody else didn't...

[sju56321]

Carl-I will just speak for the West and more middle west, Bethel is in the same position as last year, win and in and SJU would still probable make the playoffs, so one pool C bid gone.
Wartburg plays Central, Wartburg win and they are win and probably Central, so another pool C bid gone. Plus, having read about the rest of regions, seems like more possibilities this year than last.

[Bob.Gregg]

Waynesburg is the only "C" possible in the South, far as I can see.

At least, barring an '03 style collapse tomorrow.