Pool C -- 2007

[altor]

KitchenSink, a couple thoughts....

Plymouth St was not on the East Region Rankings last week.  Somehow, I don't think they will be on it this week either.  They are not "on the list."

CWRU is not "in like Flynn win or lose."  Their OWP is so bad that many believe a loss drops them below 2-loss Capital in the North Region Rankings.  That puts them as the 3rd Pool C in that region alone (assuming they are the 4th Pool B...which I think is likely).

Finally, the results of St John Fisher and RPI are important to Pool C.  If these teams win, yet don't win the AQ, they stay "on the list."  I guess Pool C teams are rooting against Hartwick and Rochester.  If those teams lose, it doesn't matter what SJF and RPI do.

[KitchenSink]

These are the selection (and seeding) criteria for 2007:
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

My read on all of that is first they look at they way the teams are listed on the SOS page - wins/losses, then at the percentages.  Will there be exceptions to this process?  Maybe - I guess we'll find out Sunday.  Could they take a 2-loss team over a 1-loss team (which would inherently have the better W-L %) because the OWP is higher?  Is Case at some risk with a loss?  Maybe then Central would be, too.  Heck, Mount Union's OWP is near the bottom of all of the undefeated teams.  THEY BETTER NOT LOSE ON SATURDAY!  

I was scratching my head a little at Plymouth State.  But I don't see here why they would get the cold shoulder.

I don't claim to be the master of the domain of the strength of schedule Pool C process.  I'm only trying to offer my interpretation of what the NCAA has seemed to try and turn into a mathematical exercise.  (Not that I would 100% agree with doing it that way ever .... )

Thanks for the comments, fellas.  Just trying to nudge the discussion ...

[smedindy]

Wow. The debacle that is Averett's season may hurt Mt. Union? Is there a chance they will be the #2 seed??

Oh, wait...wishful thinking! 

[wally_wabash]

Wow. The debacle that is Averett's season may hurt Mt. Union? Is there a chance they will be the #2 seed??

Oh, wait...wishful thinking! 

Actually, per the objective criteria, there is actually a case to be made (same regional record, same record vs. regionally ranked teams, SOS favoring Wabash), but you have to keep in mind this little nugget tacked on to the end of the selection and seeding criteria:

"Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division III football committee."

So there is a little subjectivity built into the process which is probably good (as long as they let the objective criteria do 99% of the thinking) because the SOS numbers definitely need some context (there's no way that I could sit here and argue that Wabash has played a tougher schedule than MUC). 

[Bob.Gregg]

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

That's why I have said that "officially" the Waynesburg loss to Geneva doesn't count (Geneva a 1st-year transition school), it is a loss.  And whether it's written in front of the selection folks or not, somebody is going to know about it.  8-2 is not as solid as 9-1.

Does it get talked about?  Probably not.  Is it in there, somewhere, in ranking/voting?  Probably yes.

[retagent]

If the OAC is such a strong conference, as we have been led to believe, how can Mt Union's SOS be so low?

[wally_wabash]

If the OAC is such a strong conference, as we have been led to believe, how can Mt Union's SOS be so low?

Because the OAC plays a full round robin, everybody's OWP in the OAC is going to trend toward .500.  The difference will be in that one non-conference game that they get to play.  This year MUC played Averett who is 0-9. 

[HScoach]

I would LOVE to see MUC as the #2 seed in the North Region.  Nothing like kicking the bear to get his attention!

[smedindy]

And not only was Mt. Union hurt by Averett, but the rest of the OAC didn't help them much. Otterbein's lost to Defiance also hurts. Down years by Augustana (B-W's opponent), Wooster (John Carroll's opponent) and Millikin (Ohio Northern's opponent) hurt the OOWP. Marietta's trip to St. John's doesn't count, and that could have helped the OOWP.

But some of the OAC is helping them in OOWP - Wilmington lost to Mt. St. Joseph and Muskingum lost to Waynesburg.

I wonder if this new paradigm will change some scheduling policies - such as playing out of region games as their only non conference game, or perhaps not playing a full round robin.

Points to ponder as we go towards Sunday!

[altor]

You missed a key phrase in your research

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:

Generally, win-loss % is the first criteria.  But, that is where OWP/OOWP and the other criteria come into play.  They can take all of the criteria into consideration.

Look at the last week's South rankings.  Muhlenberg (8-0) is 4th in the South, behind two 1-loss teams.  The committee believes that Wesley and UMHB are better.  Even though Muhlenberg's OWP is actually pretty strong.  Wesley and UMHB's OWP are outstanding.

[retagent]

Since most conferences play a round robin, and most have around 8 - 9 teams, wouldn't that argue that all teams SOS be around .500? The SOS must be mostly dependant on non-conference games to determine the relative strengths of the teams you play the round robin with within your conference. Therefore, my question still is not answered to my satisfaction.

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.

[CardinalAlum]

Can someone give me an idea on North Central's chances for a pool C bid if they should beat Carthage on Saturday and assuming Wheaton beats IWU and grabs the Pool B bid for the CCIW?  What else has to happen around the region to help their cause?

[KitchenSink]

I did see that, of course.

As I mentioned before, I'm just trying to do the mathematical angle based upon one perspective - Win/Loss, then OWP.

Since this a new approach this year, no one can really know whether the NCAA will use the same kind of approach I did or use some sort of secondary math that melds two or three or four percentage numbers together to get some kind of "qualifying score".  Or something else ...

Add on top of that the seeding process, and it's easy to see why it has to be a tough job, no matter what criteria get published.  Sunday will see some interesting debate - and I'm curious to see how the final bracket matches up to the SOS numbers.  And to see if we can get a bead on how they sifted through everything.

You missed a key phrase in your research

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:

Generally, win-loss % is the first criteria.  But, that is where OWP/OOWP and the other criteria come into play.  They can take all of the criteria into consideration.

Look at the last week's South rankings.  Muhlenberg (8-0) is 4th in the South, behind two 1-loss teams.  The committee believes that Wesley and UMHB are better.  Even though Muhlenberg's OWP is actually pretty strong.  Wesley and UMHB's OWP are outstanding.

[usee]

Can someone give me an idea on North Central's chances for a pool C bid if they should beat Carthage on Saturday and assuming Wheaton beats IWU and grabs the Pool B bid for the CCIW?  What else has to happen around the region to help their cause?

cardalum,

if you read the top of page 14 the first two posts give you all the info you need. the actual regional rankings should be out this afternoon and we will know where NCC sits now. the key is where the committee sees them vs capital and then it becomes an issue of how many of the situations need to transpire to create spots for 2 loss teams.

[wally_wabash]

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.