Pool C -- 2007

[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.

[old ends]

If you were to use that modification, then theoretically a team that gets a regional ranking, in the first week of rankings, could lose out the rest of their season and each team that beats them would have an argument for a pool C if they all win out.

I think it would add to a mathematical nightmare.

We all get upset when "OUR TEAM" does not make the playoff's. IF the team could have won that game, they lost, then all discussion would be a mute point

[Mr. Ypsi]

If you were to use that modification, then theoretically a team that gets a regional ranking, in the first week of rankings, could lose out the rest of their season and each team that beats them would have an argument for a pool C if they all win out.

I think it would add to a mathematical nightmare.

We all get upset when "OUR TEAM" does not make the playoff's. IF the team could have won that game, they lost, then all discussion would be a mute point

My modification was ranked AT THE TIME you beat them - if they lose out after being ranked the first week of rankings, and are STILL ranked by the time someone beats them in the final game, they must have been Mount Union!   Besides, record vs. regionally-ranked teams is only ONE criterion out of 5 (plus several more 'secondary' criteria).  But it just seems cruel that you can actually hurt your chances by winning (though not as much as by losing, of course)!

BTW, neither NCC or Carthage is my team.  IWU still could win the AQ (with help from Carthage), but with 3 losses has NO chance of a C.

[K-Mack]

Now, the SCIAC - If Oxy loses on Sat, the Redlands/Cal Luth winner goes in, and the other will be in the 2+ loss pile, and "off the list".  But we could also have a three way tie if Oxy and Redlands win, and all would be "on the list" or AQ because of the tiebreaker.  So we could see either 1, 2, or 3 from the SCIAC get into the bracket.

I only see one SCIAC team in the playoffs. If Redlands beats Cal Lutheran and Oxy beats Whittier, then there'll be a 3-way tie in the SCIAC. Under the conference tiebreaker, Cal Lutheran will get the AQ with a 5-4 record. That will leave Oxy and Redlands both at 8-1, and I believe both out of the playoffs. If Redlands beats CLU and Whittier beats Oxy, then Redlands gets the AQ.

OxyBob

I'm catching up on this thread still, but from what I can tell this wasn't all the way dealt with.

Here's what you won't see: Three SCIAC teams in the playoffs. Not gonna happen.

Since Cal Lu holds the tiebreaker in a 3-way deal, even with a loss, I'd pencil them in as the A. That stinks for Redlands because they have the best non-conference win of the three (vs. NWC champ Whitworth) but they lost h2h to Oxy.

Oxy would have a chance in C with a win and a Redlands loss. But with their very weak schedule, they could also be left home with 1 loss without too much argument from the peanut gallery.

If CLU is the A even if they lose, Redlands might have a chance over Occidental despite the h2h loss because of wins over common opponents (CLU) and regionally ranked opponents (Whitworth and CLU), but very rarely are the stats so lopsided an h2h is ignored.

Redlands or Oxy might get screwed no matter what happens on Sat., aside from a Cal Lu win and outright SCIAC championship.

[old ends]

Sorry, MT Union is not my team either.. I live about an hour from 3 Centennial Conference teams after moving there from New England. So I just picked up this year watching those games. But I only made a statement on yours. I am just a fan of DIII football with no real home team to cheer for( at this time).

[K-Mack]

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!

I don't think coaches think it through that much, especially with all the other stuff they have to go through just to fill schedules.

Those could be unintended consequences, but generally if you're in you're in, and if you're on the bubble, it's your own fault.

[K-Mack]

I think the main thing St. Olaf has working against it is the fact that it lost to Bethel!

I agree with this.

I also agree that Geneva's win over Waynesburg will be officially considered by the committee in the ways Pat points out.

They Yellow Jackets have played their way out of the discussion, IMHO.

[old ends]

K-Mack -- take a look at the South Region--Centennial Conference Post. Possible Muhlenberg to the East as a number 1
Thoughts??

[Mr. Ypsi]

Sorry, MT Union is not my team either.. I live about an hour from 3 Centennial Conference teams after moving there from New England. So I just picked up this year watching those games. But I only made a statement on yours. I am just a fan of DIII football with no real home team to cheer for( at this time).

Actually, I didn't think you were a Mount fan - it was just a joke that they're probably the only team that could lose 3 in a row and STILL be in the rankings (and perhaps deservedly so).

The added complexity would be minimal, but it only seems fair that if YOU knocked 'em out of the rankings, you oughta get some credit.

[K-Mack]

K-Mack -- take a look at the South Region--Centennial Conference Post. Possible Muhlenberg to the East as a number 1
Thoughts??

I could definitely see Muhlenberg being moved to the East if necessary, and since Pat projected TCNJ as the No. 1 there and the Mules beat them 15-0, I could see it.

The Texas matchup wouldn't be as tidy, with 5 going to 3 or 4 going to 3, depending on where Salisbury fits, but ... why not? As far as teams to move go Muhlenberg is a good fit in the East. They have been moved there before, hosting UMass-Dartmouth in 2002, the same year John Carroll was also in that bracket, and in '04 they went to St. John Fisher.

Both times they were a six seed though. The committees have seemed more likely to move lower-seeded teams out of their home regions, however, remember, nowhere does it say these must be East/South/North/West brackets ... teams can be grouped for geographic proximity no matter their home region.

[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]

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).

[K-Mack]

Does SJF have a shot at the #1 seed if they end up 9-1?

I think it depends on whether or not Wesley gets moved into the East Region bracket.  If Wesley comes over, then the best case scenario for SJF is probably a #2.  I do think, however that TCNJ will be seeded higher than SJF since their only loss was to Muhlenberg while SJF had the loss to Wick.

Or if Curry and TCNJ both lose.

[K-Mack]

It's an annual tradition for me.  I put together my 2007 Pool C Breakdown --

http://bigredlance.blogspot.com/2007/11/2007-d3-football-pool-c-playoff.html

I'm sure I've left someone important off the list, but this is pretty good considering I don't understand all the intricate ins-and-outs of every conference's tie-breaker system.

I left you a comment.

[retagent]

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?