2007 Playoff Field

[Rick Akins]

As usual, right on the money, Ralph!!  Does anyone outside New York State really believe 3 of the 7 best at large teams in the country are in the Empire 8 and the LL?  Maybe so, but I seriously doubt it.

Yes, I am an ASC "homer" but I am not agitating for any other ASC team this year, but it just seems the criteria cannot be truly accurate and delivering the best at large teams to yield this result, especially since no east team (much less a 3rd place conference team) has been to the Stagg in a while.  Obviously, this is the best plan now:

1. Be in a 7 team league.

2. Schedule lots of out of conference but in region games against "good" teams from not so great conferences to build up wins against teams with good records, regardless of any actual competitive equality.

3. As you said, the recipe in 1 and 2 above can actually only be followed in certain locales.

4.Finally, I freely admit I do not fully understand all the AA criteria for these regional rankings but when UMHB loses its only game on the road to the number 2 team in the country (as acknowledged by the AA's own bracket today) and ends up 4th in its region, it is still hard to follow.  I know UMHB was whipped that day--I was there!!-- but UMHB is behind not only W & J  and Wesley but also Muhlenberg whose conference has not won a playoff game in a good while I believe. For playoff seeding purposes I do not see how playing that  UMHB/UWW matchup makes much sense! I know regional and overall record are critical in the process but then I would say schedule a top team from a not so top conference IF your goal is the best seed and home games! I also admit that may be the primary goal!

[ADL70]

http://www.ohsaa.org/sports/ft/boys/rankcalc.htm

[Toby Taff]

As usual, right on the money, Ralph!!  Does anyone outside New York State really believe 3 of the 7 best at large teams in the country are in the Empire 8 and the LL?  Maybe so, but I seriously doubt it.

Yes, I am an ASC "homer" but I am not agitating for any other ASC team this year, but it just seems the criteria cannot be truly accurate and delivering the best at large teams to yield this result, especially since no east team (much less a 3rd place conference team) has been to the Stagg in a while.  Obviously, this is the best plan now:

1. Be in a 7 team league.

2. Schedule lots of out of conference but in region games against "good" teams from not so great conferences to build up wins against teams with good records, regardless of any actual competitive equality.

3. As you said, the recipe in 1 and 2 above can actually only be followed in certain locales.

4.Finally, I freely admit I do not fully understand all the AA criteria for these regional rankings but when UMHB loses its only game on the road to the number 2 team in the country (as acknowledged by the AA's own bracket today) and ends up 4th in its region, it is still hard to follow.  I know UMHB was whipped that day--I was there!!-- but UMHB is behind not only W & J  and Wesley but also Muhlenberg whose conference has not won a playoff game in a good while I believe. For playoff seeding purposes I do not see how playing that  UMHB/UWW matchup makes much sense! I know regional and overall record are critical in the process but then I would say schedule a top team from a not so top conference IF your goal is the best seed and home games! I also admit that may be the primary goal!

The problem is getting those "good" teams from not so great conferences to play UMHB, HSU, UWW, Trinity etc.  It does them harm to lose those games.

[PA_wesleyfan]

cwru70

In Pa. they have a similar ranking system for H.S. but the differential is that they get different points for playing up or down a level. There are 4 classes in Pa. which are determined by enrollment. And those are all just for district seeding so there is no where near as many teams and how would break ties or rate out of division games?

I don't think any system is without flaws especially when you have the dreaded
human input..

[Ralph Turner]

http://www.ohsaa.org/sports/ft/boys/rankcalc.htm

Thanks for sharing that.

Unfortunately, I don't think that that works in D-3 in which all schools are in the same division.

(Makes me glad that we are in Texas for the finest high school playoff in the country.  It may not be the best teams, and the winners may not be the highest ranked nationally, but it is the most egalitarian system in the country.  There is no better value for your $20 ticket than to see 3 playoff games in 5A and 4A, the highest classifications with the best talent, on a Saturday in Texas Stadium.)   

[Pat Coleman]

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.

Playing good teams works under any system, I think. The other system was too easy to game, as it were, where you could play middling teams that had good records because they played bad teams.

[Ron Boerger]

There is no better value for your $20 ticket than to see 3 playoff games in 5A and 4A, the highest classifications with the best talent, on a Saturday in Texas Stadium.)   

As long as it's not the first week, when you might see a 2-8 team play thanks to Texas now allowing FOUR teams from every 5A district to make the playoffs.

[PA_wesleyfan]

Ron

I just read that there is a 1-9 team that made one of the District playoffs in one of the smaller divisions here in Pa. They don't take into account that some of these schools in the Non-suburban areas have to play up one or even two divisions in there leagues. And the number of teams is a set # per division. And realistically you can not fill out the paper work to participate but who even thinks they would qualify. And if they don't play it goes to the 0-10 teams. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING

[old ends]

There may be faults in the system..some teams that feel they should have made the dance..some teams suprised they made the dance..in the end It is better then the BCS.

[Just Bill]

My favorite high school system has always been Arizona's.  You get 50 points for a win and 5 points for each game your opponents win.  Top 16 make the playoffs and the seeds are ordered according to points.

Not saying it would work for something as large as D-III, but I think it's a good, simple system.

[Ralph Turner]

There is no better value for your $20 ticket than to see 3 playoff games in 5A and 4A, the highest classifications with the best talent, on a Saturday in Texas Stadium.)   

As long as it's not the first week, when you might see a 2-8 team play thanks to Texas now allowing FOUR teams from every 5A district to make the playoffs.

I agree about the fourth team, especially in the urban school districts.  Usually the stadium rental is too high for the really bad teams from high schools that have no fan support.

However, the gate receipts do fund the entire athletic department in most districts statewide!

[Rick Akins]

I have  two questions for all the NCAA bracket experts--I am certainly not one!

1. Why is no one talking about Mount St. Joseph as the surprise last team rather than UWEC?  I know MSJ had only one loss, but  they are not from what anyone would call a "power conference" and their index was 152,  by far the lowest of any Pool C team who got in. I know this is supposedly so "objective" now but  the pool C berths seem to go to teams from power conferences (Capital, UWEC) or show respect from last year (SJF)  or history (St. John's) and at least Hobart and Ithaca had good OWP and OOWP numbers and were rolling at the end. I can rationalize and understand those but why MSJ?

2. Why is it a given that there were 4 "obvious" #1 seeds as the committtee stated?  I of course see MUC and I guess UWW but why are W & J and especially Central so clear?  I understand those last two are undefeated but so are Muhlenberg, St. Norbert and others. I  frankly have not seen that much recent playoff success from W & J or Central to justify all that respect. I know this is supposedly so "objective" now, and I don't want to come off as a "black helicopter" nut but I did note that the AD from Central is on the committee.  Are they really that obviously that #1 seed? Somebody make the case to me, or otherwise enlighten me.

3. If the answer is "number of losses" that  only partially answers both of my questions, IMHO.

[smedindy]

MSJ had a high regional ranking (#6 in the North as of last week) and when it was time to consider schools for the playoffs there was probably no question about them when you compare teams X and Y from other regions. Same with W & J and Central. W & J was the top ranked team in the South and Central was the highest ranked team in the West once you move UWW and St. John's lost. It was pretty much a no-brain decision.

Remember, they pick Pool C by looking at the top ranked team in the pool from each region, then when a team is selected, the next team in that region moves up.

[Pat Coleman]

MSJ wasn't even the last team in the North to get in. Capital was behind them, as evidenced by the seedings.

[smedindy]

Let's look at it this way - when it comes to Pool C, the top ranked contenders in each region (for assumptions sake based on Nov. 7 rankings and the results on Saturday):

East - St. John Fisher
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - St. John's

Taking SJF and St. John's with the first two picks (easy) leaves:

East - Hobart
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire (!) (I have to assume they jumped Whitworth, right??)

So, I bet Hobart's the pick. Leaving:

East - Ithaca
North - MSJ
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire

MSJ is the logical choice there.

Now the board is:

East - Ithaca
North - Capital
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire

I'd choose Capital.

East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Eau Claire

I would assume Eau Claire is next. The final board:

East - Ithaca
North - Wittenberg
South - Millsaps
West - Whitworth

Now here's the $64,000 question. These are all 8 or 9 in their regions, I assume. Why Ithaca instead of Whitworth or Witt or Millsaps?