2007 Playoff Field

johnnie_esq · November 11, 2007, 04:20:36 PM

If you haven't noticed, I brought up the UWEC issue a week ago, pointing out that St. Olaf should have been in front of them on the objective criteria when the last rankings came out. But they weren't.

UWEC had a win over a D-2 school on the road. That's all I can figure. They must have used that, plus the WIAC's reputation, in computing UWEC's entry. I don't know if I like that policy-- obviously, UWW wasn't hurt by losing to a D-2 school, and it seems to have helped UWEC by winning such a game, so doesn't that encourage D3 teams to schedule D-2 teams in the future? Is that the policy we want to encourage?

I think Whitworth is the real surprise here. With the strength of the NWC in the recent past, their omission is glaringly obvious. That will be remedied next year when they move to a pool A slot, but it doesn't help the sting of this year. Maybe the policy is "winning/losing to D2 is good; winning/losing to NAIA is bad." That could explain the Whitworth situation.

Foss · November 11, 2007, 04:32:16 PM

What is more is that the scholarship school Whitworth lost to, Azusa Pacific, was on the road and by 4 points. Azusa Pacific ended the year ranked #21 in NAIA. So basically, the Pirates lost to a top 25 scholarship school on the road by 4 points. They lost one game to a D3 team (who made the playoffs) and went undefeated in the NWC. Undefeated in a conference that has produced two different national champs in the last few years, has the second highest playoff winning percentage, and has three different teams who have won at least one playoff game in the last six years. Unbelievable.

Foss · November 11, 2007, 04:36:43 PM

And before anyone says "past accomplishments aren't part of the criteria", I'm aware of that. But a team from the NWC losing only one D3 game being snubbed and a number of Pool C bids being given to other teams with two D3 losses is simply ridiculous.

repete · November 11, 2007, 04:53:06 PM

Quote from: Foss on November 11, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
What is more is that the scholarship school Whitworth lost to, Azusa Pacific, was on the road and by 4 points. Azusa Pacific ended the year ranked #21 in NAIA. So basically, the Pirates lost to a top 25 scholarship school on the road by 4 points. They lost one game to a D3 team (who made the playoffs) and went undefeated in the NWC. Undefeated in a conference that has produced two different national champs in the last few years, has the second highest playoff winning percentage, and has three different teams who have won at least one playoff game in the last six years. Unbelievable.

Foss,
Feel your pain but UWEC beat the No. 20 NAIA school .... also on the road.

And UWEC was Whitworth's main opponent for the spot, I believe.

Foss · November 11, 2007, 04:59:48 PM

I hear ya repete, but games against non D3 competition isn't even supposed to be part of the main criteria. Whitworth had a better D3 in-region win % (one loss vs. UW-Eau Claire's two) and was ranked ahead of UW-Eau Claire in the regional rankings last week. Something must have happened this weekend for the committee to boost them ahead (OWP, etc.) I suppose.

repete · November 11, 2007, 05:11:10 PM

Quote from: Foss on November 11, 2007, 04:59:48 PM
I hear ya repete, but games against non D3 competition isn't even supposed to be part of the main criteria. Whitworth had a better D3 in-region win % (one loss vs. UW-Eau Claire's two) and was ranked ahead of UW-Eau Claire in the regional rankings last week. Something must have happened this weekend for the committee to boost them ahead (OWP, etc.) I suppose.

Perhaps the NCAA's bracket brain trust now sees UWW as a Division 2.5 team ....

I was really surprised to see Whitworth out. The way the brackets fell, they'd be one of the teams with a chance to win the "Central." The big question, even though it's completely academic, is how many teams in the field are the Rats better than? My guess: probably at least 10 and maybe 15 ... (or none if 509 is posting)

Ron Boerger · November 11, 2007, 05:18:20 PM

You can watch Pat's preview by going to

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/espnu/index

The D3 Playoff preview is one of the videos listed on the right (sorry, no direct link). You do have to sit through a commercial first.

smedindy · November 11, 2007, 05:19:03 PM

Wow. But still this is MUCH better than the clusterflop that is the current BCS system after the neutered the computers to take out SOS and MOV.

Eau Claire? I can see Wheaton not getting in, but certainly Wartburg would have been a good choice. And St. Olaf as well. I couldn't see three from the SCIAC but three from the MIAC isn't that out of bounds.

downtown48 · November 11, 2007, 05:20:45 PM

Quote from: Foss on November 11, 2007, 04:59:48 PM
I hear ya repete, but games against non D3 competition isn't even supposed to be part of the main criteria. Whitworth had a better D3 in-region win % (one loss vs. UW-Eau Claire's two) and was ranked ahead of UW-Eau Claire in the regional rankings last week. Something must have happened this weekend for the committee to boost them ahead (OWP, etc.) I suppose.

The answer is...nothing happened this week that warranted UWEC passing Whitworth in the regional rankings and that paired with the better in-region win% should have been enough. If they thought EC was better than Whitworth, they should have been ranked ahead of them last week. I think the NCAA simply wanted to avoid getting in the business of handing out Pool C's to Pool B's. Please stop with all the "they don't use any other criteria" or the "they don't ever get subjective" stuff...I don't care how many regional polls, win%'s or OWP%'s you throw out there, you can massage the numbers however you see fit and this is a perfect example of conference reputation and subjectivity at work, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing all the time. The BEST teams should get in the playoffs and I'm not sure that's the case with EC vs. Whitworth, EC didn't even win their conference! I can't believe I'm honking for the Rats, cuz I probably would have been rooting for them to get beat in the first round anyway unless they were playing Redlands.

That said I think it's cool that they spread the good teams across the brackets, I think that is great and hopefully they continue with that philosophy!

smedindy · November 11, 2007, 05:26:13 PM

Well, Mt. Union going east makes that bracket rough for teams 2-8, and the North now has to deal with Whitewater and really, the North is pretty weak thanks to injuries. There's also a relatively unproven Case in the #2 seed.

The West and South ought to be interesting to forecast.

Curry a #3? Wow. I know the criteria, but...

Gray Fox · November 11, 2007, 05:27:39 PM

Quote from: downtown48 on November 11, 2007, 05:20:45 PM
That said I think it's cool that they spread the good teams across the brackets, I think that is great and hopefully they continue with that philosophy!

Me too.

Ralph Turner · November 11, 2007, 05:47:44 PM

I actually think that Ithaca, the #8 seed in the MUC bracket might have been the 32nd. Have we heard otherwise? I find it hard to believe that Whitworth was not the 10th best at-large team in D3.

Are the Strength of Schedule calculations inherently disadvantageous to or discriminate against geographically isolated conferences such as the ASC, the NWC and the SCIAC?

Look at how the Empire 8 and the Liberty League were able to get 3 of the 7 Pool C bids. The E8 and the LL are small conferences (7 members) but more importantly, there are numerous conferences in the area against which to get non-conference games that will boost the SOS (OWP and OOWP). Those schools can get favorable in-region match-ups against the Centennial, the NJAC, the MAC and even the Pres AC and ACFC.

The other concentration of Pool C occurs in the WI, IA and MN. In this area, the teams in these conferences can build their OWP and OOWP against the CCIW, UAA, the IIAC, the MIAC, the WIAC, the MIAA and next year, the SLIAC and NAthCon (the former members of the IBC.) That being said, the SJU Pool C bid and Capital from the OAC are not that out of line from what we would expect. MSJ is similar in nature.

I hope that the NCAA will look at this discrepancy.

ADL70 · November 11, 2007, 05:59:54 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2007, 05:47:44 PM

Are the Strength of Schedule calculations inherently disadvantageous to or discriminate against geographically isolated conferences such as the ASC, the NWC and the SCIAC

I hope that the NCAA will look at this discrepancy.

I wonder if NCAA has considered a system such as that used by Ohio HS. You get points for who you beat and who you beat defeated. This seems a better measure of strength the the owp and oowp. That awards points based on who you played not who you beat.

Not sure it would solve the geographic isolation situation. But if I understand the current system, Otterbein gets the same value whether or not they lose to Capital.

I'm not suggesting using it the way Ohio does, but rather in the same way NCAA uses the currecnt SOS.

With a new system every year, it's clear the NCAA realizes they are still trying to get it right.

Gray Fox · November 11, 2007, 06:08:18 PM

Quote from: cwru70 on November 11, 2007, 05:59:54 PM
With a new system every year, it's clear the NCAA realizes they are still trying to get it right.

When teams have to schedule several years in advance, it's hard for them to adjust to ever changing criteria.

Ralph Turner · November 11, 2007, 06:10:17 PM

cwru70, you basically have the same thing here.

In the OWP and OOWP you get a certain number of points between .000 and 1.000 in both categories.

Last year, the system had just 16 gradations, between 0-15 of points whom you beat and what their record had shown.

Can you give a specific example of the Ohio system?