Pool C -- 2007

[Pat Coleman]

Actually, guys, it CAN be considered....

"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."

I asked this week and was told it was not being considered.

It should be.  Or maybe its not needed? 

Interestingly enough, Johnny, after telling us that the committee isn't going to consider those tidbits of information, Pat used them to select Ithaca because they're playing better down the stretch...

It worked. We got it right.

[Bob.Gregg]

What didn't work is this:  You stated that the committee wasn't going to consider the "last 25% of the season" criteria, then they did, and so did you, by your own statement.

What worked is this:  The committee's geographic needs and the human element of the selection process that has been oft referenced hit the Criteria Override button at least twice.

The objective criteria did not put Ithaca in the dance.  There are six teams with identical or better in-region records with better, some much better, OWP.  Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents.  But, when it all came down to it, the committee needed another team in the East, and Ithaca had the best criteria IN THE EAST.

The objective criteria did not put Eau Claire in the dance.  There are twelve teams with identical or better in-region records with better, several with MUCH better, OWP.  Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents.  But, when it all came do to it, the committee needed another team in the West that did not need an airplane to get where they're going.  Wheaton (North), Wartburg (West) and St. Olaf (West) would have filled that bill, and done so with justifiable, actual criteria backup.

Student aid in Division III is based on need.  It has long been joked that the amount of aid provided is determined by whose need is being filled--the student's or the school's.

Aid was awarded, in this process, based on the Committee's needs.  There is not an objective evaluation of the criteria that would have selected Ithaca and Eau Claire to the field of 32.  It took the Division III grant-in-aid to do it.

That's one man's opinion.

[bulk19]

What position does this "grant" guy play?

[usee]

What didn't work is this:  You stated that the committee wasn't going to consider the "last 25% of the season" criteria, then they did, and so did you, by your own statement.

What worked is this:  The committee's geographic needs and the human element of the selection process that has been oft referenced hit the Criteria Override button at least twice.

The objective criteria did not put Ithaca in the dance.  There are six teams with identical or better in-region records with better, some much better, OWP.  Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents.  But, when it all came down to it, the committee needed another team in the East, and Ithaca had the best criteria IN THE EAST.

The objective criteria did not put Eau Claire in the dance.  There are twelve teams with identical or better in-region records with better, several with MUCH better, OWP.  Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents.  But, when it all came do to it, the committee needed another team in the West that did not need an airplane to get where they're going.  Wheaton (North), Wartburg (West) and St. Olaf (West) would have filled that bill, and done so with justifiable, actual criteria backup.

Student aid in Division III is based on need.  It has long been joked that the amount of aid provided is determined by whose need is being filled--the student's or the school's.

Aid was awarded, in this process, based on the Committee's needs.  There is not an objective evaluation of the criteria that would have selected Ithaca and Eau Claire to the field of 32.  It took the Division III grant-in-aid to do it.

That's one man's opinion.

Bob,

That is a great post. I have no idea if you are right but you have convinced me.

[Pat Coleman]

What didn't work is this:  You stated that the committee wasn't going to consider the "last 25% of the season" criteria, then they did, and so did you, by your own statement.

They may have changed their mind. Doesn't matter to me.

You seem to have a lot to complain about this season. Why is that?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Re: UWEC.  While I (subjectively) think they are definitely worthy of the playoffs, it does seem strange that they made it over several other teams if the criteria were followed verbatim.  Pat responded to my query about Capital over Wheaton by saying that the committee seems to discount losses to MUC (in other words, they weren't 'really' a 2-loss team in their eyes).  I wonder if UWW has also reached that status now, and EC was not 'really' a 2-loss team?

Just a conjecture, but I can't come up with any other explanation when their in-region winning% and SOS were so far below some teams omitted (well, other than the quality of the WIAC or the win over a d2, but neither of those supposedly is relevant either!).  Thoughts?

[Pat Coleman]

Those things are relevant in the secondary criteria, under overall winning percentage. Perhaps they decided to go to the secondary criteria down the stretch in Pool C.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Those things are relevant in the secondary criteria, under overall winning percentage. Perhaps they decided to go to the secondary criteria down the stretch in Pool C.

Just trying to understand the process, not meaning to argue the point (and I repeat that subjectively I believe that EC should be in).  But doesn't 'secondary' criteria supposedly mean that they come into play only if the primary criteria result in essentially a tie?  That simply doesn't seem to be the case here - several teams seem to be considerably ahead of EC on the primary criteria.

I don't disagree with the committee's result, but I'm wondering if their process didn't violate the 'openness' of their criteria.

[PA_wesleyfan]

 Unfortunately the new rating systems obviously didn't make things any clearer because the HUMAN factor is never related to the public...

Pat
How often does the committee change personal? 

[K-Mack]

In addition, it would seem that the Conference strength article that appeared previously (Around The Nation?) didn't seem all that dependant on non-conference record. Just how is it determined.

I don't know where you got that impression, non-conference performance is a major factor, perhaps the most significant.

Not to mention I listed non-conference records right on the page, twice in each capsule.

Being that I can be subjective, I do factor in history and playoff results and look past the raw numbers to see who that non-conference record is built against, but I can't think of anything that would be more important to ranking the conferences with respect to each other.

K Mack. I made that comment because some conferences ranked highly don't have sterling non conference records - some even losing records, while others, MIAC, for example, seem to have a darn good non conference record, but are ranked lower. My point was, that SHOULD be the primary criteria, but are my lying eyes deceiving me?

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.

OK, retagent, fine.

If you are still not sure why each conference is ranked where it is, I suggest you read the article itself as closely as possible, and put that together with the information above.

Every conference's ranking is based on something, or -things, it's not done on a whim, and it's done with Pat and myself going back and forth about all the details. We do factor in the particular year we are talking about, but we also know the history of all these leagues insomuchas one really good non-conference record from the IBFC would not suddenly vault it ahead of the WIAC. In that sense, we have to go on more than just non-conference records.

Perhaps we (I) have more clearly explained the criteria in previous years/conference rank articles. The '04 one is the most thorough:

Updated the '07 Kickoff rankings with early-season non-conference action:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2007-09-26/How+we+ranked+the+conferences

Started doing them with Kickoff and sharing afterward:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2006-08-30/ATN%27s+2006+conference+rankings

Most through. Also took like 20 hours.
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2004-11-04/Ranking+the+conferences

First time we tried it, in 2002:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2002-11-07/Ranking+the+conferences%2C+top+to+bottom

[K-Mack]

My god, it was 2nd and 51.

And they ran a draw play that picked up 54.

Just another college football game.   

Did this really happen?

I admit it was my birthday weekend and I was trying to not be too much of a D3 geek by only checking the score occasionally while doing other things instead of listening live.

That's Year-in-review material though. I mean the game already is, but that play ... wow.

[Knightstalker]

My god, it was 2nd and 51.

And they ran a draw play that picked up 54.

Just another college football game.   

Did this really happen?

I admit it was my birthday weekend and I was trying to not be too much of a D3 geek by only checking the score occasionally while doing other things instead of listening live.

That's Year-in-review material though. I mean the game already is, but that play ... wow.

It was mine and Mrs Stalkers birthday weekend too.  Still trying to recover and seeing Van Halen tonight.  Woo Hoo!

happy birthday K-Mack

[KitchenSink]

The announcer called it as 2nd and 51, but in reviewing the game stats, it was 2nd and ONLY 41 when the draw play went for 54.  And a 1st down.

[smedindy]

Yeah, geez. BIG difference between 2nd and 41 and 2nd and 51. 

[Foss]

What worked is this:  The committee's geographic needs and the human element of the selection process that has been oft referenced hit the Criteria Override button at least twice.

The objective criteria did not put Ithaca in the dance.  There are six teams with identical or better in-region records with better, some much better, OWP.  Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents.  But, when it all came down to it, the committee needed another team in the East, and Ithaca had the best criteria IN THE EAST.

The objective criteria did not put Eau Claire in the dance.  There are twelve teams with identical or better in-region records with better, several with MUCH better, OWP.  Several of them have similiar records vs. ranked opponents.  But, when it all came do to it, the committee needed another team in the West that did not need an airplane to get where they're going.  Wheaton (North), Wartburg (West) and St. Olaf (West) would have filled that bill, and done so with justifiable, actual criteria backup.

Student aid in Division III is based on need.  It has long been joked that the amount of aid provided is determined by whose need is being filled--the student's or the school's.

Aid was awarded, in this process, based on the Committee's needs.  There is not an objective evaluation of the criteria that would have selected Ithaca and Eau Claire to the field of 32.  It took the Division III grant-in-aid to do it.

That's one man's opinion.

Bob, that is a truly outstanding post.