2007 Playoff Field

[downtown48]

I think the heartburn comes due to the the misconception that the selection people follow the criteria 100% of the time and do not waiver...the sooner that people realize that the numbers are open to interpretation and it's possible for a team or two to get screwed, the better everybody will be.  The key remains, don't put yourself in a position to be that 31st or 32nd team because you might just end up being the 33rd team before you know it! 

[Pat Coleman]

This is pretty much the first time we can't easily point to something that's written in black and white. So yeah, not 100% of the time, maybe.

[Ralph Turner]

This is pretty much the first time we can't easily point to something that's written in black and white. So yeah, not 100% of the time, maybe.

Therefore, find yourself a conference that has the Pool A bid!   

We can look at the Pool B teams in 2011, and possibly count them on our fingers.

[Jonny Utah]

Every time there is a playoff issue of the who dids and the who did nots, remember that of 283 Div III football teams only 22 get AQ. That leaves 261 teams trying to get in or 3.83% for 10 remaining spots. Sure the sub 500 % could cut the 261 in half to 131 teams or 7.63%.

So when the selection group sits down and runs the field and the D3 guys only miss 1 team from that selection. I think the Selection people did a bang up job. Some hearts were broken but they will mend.

Just and old mans thoughts.

Only 22 teams get a pool A bid but a LOT more have a chance to get the pool A bid.  Thats the difference.

[Knightstalker]

Simple solution, realign D-III into 32 conferences of 8 or 9 teams. (the math actually works out to 8.8 teams per conference) and then only the conference winners get to go to the playoffs.  Tell the teams that don't want to do it, tough, play our way or go home.   

[old ends]

Tell the teams that don't want to do it, tough, play our way or go home.   

Is that not what is basically happening now???

[K-Mack]

All the arguments about D-I going to a playoff system can be thrown out of the window after this year's D-3 selection committee proved to us that a playoff system also does not work. 

Um, no they can't.

I think the heartburn comes due to the the misconception that the selection people follow the criteria 100% of the time and do not waiver...the sooner that people realize that the numbers are open to interpretation and it's possible for a team or two to get screwed, the better everybody will be.  The key remains, don't put yourself in a position to be that 31st or 32nd team because you might just end up being the 33rd team before you know it! 

I agree with this for the most part. Definitely don't put yourself on the bubble and you won't have to worry. 10-0 Whitworth isn't on the bubble. 9-1 Whitworth probably isn't either. 8-2 everyone is on the bubble.

While I think the Pirates should have been in, when compared with UW-Eau Claire, neither team dominates the criteria overwhelmingly. In that case, numbers aren't open to interpretation, they must be interpreted somehow to come to a decision, and the team that the decision doesn't favor will feel "screwed."

Given that 99% of the heavy lifting re: decision-making is still done by the criteria, and given that we have readers who think the D3football.com poll influences the playoffs, I think harping on the points about criteria does more more clear up misconceptions than cause them.

[K-Mack]

Sorry I am going back to Page 1, but very valid post, esp the part in bold. +1.

RE:Whitworth
Bob, that is the only reason I can see.  I posted a short time ago that Whitworth played over half their D3 regional games against teams with a winning percentage of 23% which pretty much killed their OWP (.501/.510). It appears the committee put a lot of emphasis on SOS this year.  There are a lot of conspiracy theories about East Coast bias and losing to an NAIA school but I don't think those are the reason.  To me it appears the committee stuck to their criteria just putting more emphasis on OWP than regional winning percentage.  It is unfortunate that a little subjectivity didn't creep in like you would think might happen with reasonable intelligent people.  After all, the Rats had to play the people on their schedule and they had no control over how those teams played.  I guess the Rat management needs to start looking to schedule perennial winners so their SOS looks good for Pool C bids. 

I am probably closer to the Rat football program than most and this has been a crushing day. But I will recover as will the team and we will be ready for next year. 

[K-Mack]

Seemed you guys acknowledged most of the key points and, collectively, showed a clear undersatnding of the situation back on Page 2.

So it's one of the rare times I actually didn't chime in.

I feel empty. Useless even.

[smedindy]

Aw, Keith, it's OK. Go have a sandwich, a drink, and put your feet up. You deserve it!

[Ralph Turner]

I still think that Whitworth (West Region record of 8-1) deserved to be in.

Record against regionally ranked teams was 0-1 (Redlands loss).

Laverne win did not help.

I think that Azusa was a game wasted.  Being 9-1 versus the West Region would have been even stronger.

Ithaca acquitted itself nicely as did SJF.  The AQ in the E8 going to Hartwick was mud-face ugly!  Ithaca (East Region record of 8-2) was the third team from the E8.  I just do not judge (subjective comment) the 3rd team from the E8 out of the weak East Region to be better than the first team out of the NWC from the West Region.

Earn the AQ or join a conference that has one!

[K-Mack]

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.

After reading this set of messages, it occurred to me why the NCAA might have been so hard on low SOSes.

We want to encourage aggressive scheduling like Hardin-Simmons, who opened with UW-LaCrosse at home and a road trip to Linfield. Had they won those two games, their two-loss slate with the positive SOS gets them in.

You're always in danger of losing too many games if you schedule strong, but we don't want a situation where Hardin-Simmons can schedule two patsies instead of UWL and Linfield, beat them, having a weak OWP/OOWP and get in, seeing as that's clearly preferable to scheduling games you're in danger of losing.

But for the good of everyone, that's what we want to see.

The good teams in island leagues are at a disadvantage, but the in-region rules were relaxed to help there, no?

I definitely agree that there is no perfect system, so some level of human interpretation is a good thing. But if you go back to the 16-team system, too much human interpretation meant certain conferences had little to no change to get in no matter what they do.

The entire system is built to support the AQ system. That way everyone's path to the playoffs is clearly defined, and you can open up your non-con schedule without completely blowing your playoff chances. For the 4th Pool B team, it's not clearly defined ... although I don't think there was any reason not to put a B in as a C, as someone suggested. Doesn't seem to be any advantage to exclude Bs per se.

[K-Mack]

I still think that Whitworth (West Region record of 8-1) deserved to be in.

Record against regionally ranked teams was 0-1 (Redlands loss).

Laverne win did not help.

I think that Azusa was a game wasted.  Being 9-1 versus the West Region would have been even stronger.

Ithaca acquitted itself nicely as did SJF.  The AQ in the E8 going to Hartwick was mud-face ugly!  Ithaca (East Region record of 8-2) was the third team from the E8.  I just do not judge (subjective comment) the 3rd team from the E8 out of the weak East Region to be better than the first team out of the NWC from the West Region.

Earn the AQ or join a conference that has one!

Imagine the outrage if Cal Lutheran had also earned the AQ ... if Oxy didn't blow it vs. Whittier.

The weird thing is all these 8-2 teams that got in or missed aren't even in the discussion last year, when two 9-1s got left home.

So everything really is relative, and all you can do his handle your own business and then hope everything shakes out. I think any team, once it loses its second game (apparently even out of division) is in at-large trouble.

[K-Mack]

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?

Well, SmedIndy's 'who was on the Pool C board' post on p. 3 covered it, but also I think it's true that having only 1 loss this season made teams Pool C no-brainers.

SJU, SJF and MSJ were all 1-loss teams with no knock on their credentials given they all lost by one score to the Pool A conference champ.

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.

Who said the four No. 1s were obvious? Central at 10-0 I thought was obvious, but W&J and Muhlenberg both would have worked for me.

In the case of Al Dorenkamp, he is not the first to be on the committee when his team is in the mix. Jim Collins (Capital), Dan McNeill (Cortland) and Bob Berezowitz (UWW) are or have been on the committee, for instance. I think they recuse themselves from the selection process, or at least the parts which directly affect their teams, but I don't know for sure. They will be at the Stagg Bowl and I can ask.

I am certain I have asked before and there is some sort of procedure in place.

[K-Mack]

Thanks for the insights. I understand if you look at the last regional rankings it all makes sense, but I am still not convinced how those regional rankings themselves exactly can be totally quantified even using all the designated criteria.

Any system that has a Curry ranked up that high has flaws and holes in it, but it is what it is...

If you don't go by pre-established criteria though, then what are you going by?

I'm telling you guys (and some of you played way back and remember), the old system left far more room for interpretation, in my opinion, although they surely had criteria too, we just didn't know about it b/c there was no D3football.com