Potential Playoff Selections / Seedings

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph, seems like the seeds in your initial projection were heavily based on conference strength, or perhaps (O)OWP ... which is very D3football.com, but the committee has seemed to reward unbeaten teams with home games.

I would not be surprised to see Monmouth play at home in the first round. Also, even for Case Western's awful schedule, if they were moved to the East and the East got considerably weaker with Cortland and RPI losses, I could see CWRU playing a home game.

Lot of options this year with

Also maybe UMHB to Millsaps if UMHB is 4 or lower, and Trinity (if they make it) to HSU? Pool C teams have hosted.

I guess SLIAC is the natural match for Millsaps by geography and seed if in fact their champion makes it.

Thanks for the response...

We get cynical down here this time of year, for several reasons.

"Geographic proximity" is why I think that we will see the pairings that we will.

Please see Post 149 on the South Region Fan Poll.  D3football.com Top 25 and the NCAA Regional Rankings are operationally defined as two different entities.  In some ways, it's like comparing apples and turnips.  However, the differences are readily apparent.

Also "O/OWP" locks UMHB into the .500 range because they could not find two D3 in-region non-conference opponents.

Analysis on non-conference in-region results for the ASC and SCAC

You can see how the geographic "non-proximity" of the ASC and the SCAC to the rest of D3 ties the  OWP/OOWP to .500.  The ASC has had resorted to playing NAIA schools and doubling up (TLU-SRSU) because of lack of D3 schools in a reasonable distance.

I have not seen the NCAA list, but I would guess that the highest OWP/OOWP's that we see amongst the regionally ranked teams are found in the upstate NY region, the CCIW in the Mid-Atlantic region.  These are conferences with only 7 or 8 members and where you can build the OWP/OOWP amongst all of the conference members on the weaker opponents in the area.  (I will be glad if/when we can see the NCAA's OWP/OOWP numbers as suggested in the Jan 2009 NCAA Legislation.)

[redswarm81]

Wow, no time to respond to everything on this thread today, but does anyone besides me think Millsaps' win over a regionally-ranked opponent in Trinity perhaps moves them ahead of Muhlenberg in the south, which was the SR No. 1 last week before the Trinity game but has no RRO on its sked?

I'm with you on this one.  Millsaps has a signature win, whereas Muhlenberg is struggling to beat poor teams.

Niether team has the reputation of being a consistent national contender, so the committee has nothing to go on other than the results of this season. 

An undefeated Mount Union, Whitewater or St John's has the name recognition to hold down a #1 seed without a win over a regionally ranked opponent.  Mary Harding Baylor could probably be put in that group too, but Millsaps and Muhlenberg don't have that historal benefit yet.

I think you're right about the analysis of this year's results.

But as I read the Selection Criteria, that's all the Selection Committee is permitted to use when ranking and seeding teams.  I'd be concerned if they were using reputation and name recognition to rank teams.

[HScoach]

Wow, no time to respond to everything on this thread today, but does anyone besides me think Millsaps' win over a regionally-ranked opponent in Trinity perhaps moves them ahead of Muhlenberg in the south, which was the SR No. 1 last week before the Trinity game but has no RRO on its sked?

I'm with you on this one.  Millsaps has a signature win, whereas Muhlenberg is struggling to beat poor teams.

Niether team has the reputation of being a consistent national contender, so the committee has nothing to go on other than the results of this season. 

An undefeated Mount Union, Whitewater or St John's has the name recognition to hold down a #1 seed without a win over a regionally ranked opponent.  Mary Harding Baylor could probably be put in that group too, but Millsaps and Muhlenberg don't have that historal benefit yet.

I think you're right about the analysis of this year's results.

But as I read the Selection Criteria, that's all the Selection Committee is permitted to use when ranking and seeding teams.  I'd be concerned if they were using reputation and name recognition to rank teams.

I'd be concerned if they didn't factor history into the equation. 

I don't care what the OWP/OOWP says in any one year, but history says Mount Union will be the top team in the North Region.  When you have to go back to 1994 to find a season where Mount didn't win the North Region, I think it's safe to say they're the top team in that region until proven otherwise.  Regardless what the regular season percentages/numbers say.

[Ralph Turner]

I'd be concerned if they didn't factor history into the equation. 

I don't care what the OWP/OOWP says in any one year, but history says Mount Union will be the top team in the North Region.  When you have to go back to 1994 to find a season where Mount didn't win the North Region, I think it's safe to say they're the top team in that region until proven otherwise.  Regardless what the regular season percentages/numbers say.

Respectfully, be concerned.

I believe that you are discrediting the efforts of previous MUC teams at the time of the selection process.

We must focus on 1999 to date for the current process.  Every year, MUC has earned its seeding on its performance in that current season.

If history were a factor, then should not  the conference with the second number of D3 championships in the Pool era have been given an at-large bid for the playoffs in 2007?  (Northwest Conference.)

[johnnie_esq]

I'd be concerned if they didn't factor history into the equation. 

I don't care what the OWP/OOWP says in any one year, but history says Mount Union will be the top team in the North Region.  When you have to go back to 1994 to find a season where Mount didn't win the North Region, I think it's safe to say they're the top team in that region until proven otherwise.  Regardless what the regular season percentages/numbers say.

Respectfully, be concerned.

I believe that you are discrediting the efforts of previous MUC teams at the time of the selection process.

We must focus on 1999 to date for the current process.  Every year, MUC has earned its seeding on its performance in that current season.

If history were a factor, then should not  the conference with the second number of D3 championships in the Pool era have been given an at-large bid for the playoffs in 2007?  (Northwest Conference.)

Ralph, you are forgetting one major part of the equation:  $$$

Last year's failure to give the NWC the at large bid could be seen as much about the NCAA not wanting to fly a team to/from the Pacific Northwest if they could help it.  There is no reason, given the strength of the West last year, that SJU deserved a home game even last year.  Yet they received one, even though the SOS and the regional winning records illustrated otherwise.

Last year's playoff selection and seeding taught me that the Playoff Selection was less about the objective criteria and more about the membership of the committee.  They have discretion to use the criteria in any way they want-- meaning they can give great weight to some factors and little to others.  This is good in that the committee can knock down teams that look good on paper but load up on patsies, while offsetting teams that play in tough conferences.  However, the danger comes when the committee does not apply the criteria consistently across the spectrum in a given year.

Last year, I feared the committee wandered too far into the latter territory.

[redswarm81]

Wow, no time to respond to everything on this thread today, but does anyone besides me think Millsaps' win over a regionally-ranked opponent in Trinity perhaps moves them ahead of Muhlenberg in the south, which was the SR No. 1 last week before the Trinity game but has no RRO on its sked?

I'm with you on this one.  Millsaps has a signature win, whereas Muhlenberg is struggling to beat poor teams.

Niether team has the reputation of being a consistent national contender, so the committee has nothing to go on other than the results of this season. 

An undefeated Mount Union, Whitewater or St John's has the name recognition to hold down a #1 seed without a win over a regionally ranked opponent.  Mary Harding Baylor could probably be put in that group too, but Millsaps and Muhlenberg don't have that historal benefit yet.

I think you're right about the analysis of this year's results.

But as I read the Selection Criteria, that's all the Selection Committee is permitted to use when ranking and seeding teams.  I'd be concerned if they were using reputation and name recognition to rank teams.

I'd be concerned if they didn't factor history into the equation. 

I don't care what the OWP/OOWP says in any one year, but history says Mount Union will be the top team in the North Region.  When you have to go back to 1994 to find a season where Mount didn't win the North Region, I think it's safe to say they're the top team in that region until proven otherwise.  Regardless what the regular season percentages/numbers say.

Then there ought to be explicit selection criteria related to history, reputation, and name recognition.  Teams need to know how they're being evaluated.

I'm sure the players at MIT would be excited about a name recognition selection criterion.

[Ralph Turner]

Good morning, johnnie_esq!

I thought the NWC omission was due to "East Coast Bias"!   

Others have given credit to the strength of the WIAC for the last "at-large team" at the table in the Pool C selection.

I covered geographic proximity and the Texas Sub-bracket on the South Region Fan Poll board.

Post 149.

[Pirat]

Discretion did not come down on the side of the NWC last year. But the fact they played in one the weakest conferences in the country probably hurt them more.

But Hey, the NWC has looked better this year because their opponents have had better seasons and the NWC OWP has risen to the middle of the pack but it still leaves them behind the mid west and east coast conferences which is why I am thinking the only west coast teams that will make it this year are the conference champions as the same kind of reasoning applies to the SCIAC. 

[Ron Boerger]

Regional Rankings are out

http://www.ncaa.com/photos/schools/ncaa/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/Nov.pdf


EAST REGION

1. Cortland State 8-0 8-0
2. Rensselaer 7-0 7-0
3. Ithaca 6-1 7-1
4. Montclair State 7-1 7-1
5. Rowan 7-1 7-1
6. Hartwick 6-1 6-1
7. Hobart 6-1 6-1
8. Plymouth State 7-1 8-1
9. Husson 6-0 6-2
10. Curry 7-1 8-1


NORTH REGION

1. Mount Union 7-0 8-0
2. North Central (Illinois) 8-0 8-0
3. Otterbein 8-0 8-0
4. Wabash 7-0 8-0
5. Trine 8-0 8-0
6. Case Western Reserve 7-0 8-0
7. Franklin 6-1 7-1
8. Adrian 6-1 7-1
9. Augustana (Illinois) 6-2 6-2
10. Wooster 4-2 6-2


SOUTH REGION

1. Millsaps 7-0 8-0
2. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 6-0 7-1
4. Hardin-Simmons 8-1 8-1
5. Thomas More 7-1 7-1
6. Huntingdon 7-0 8-0
7. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1
8. Washington and Jefferson 6-1 7-1
9. Catholic 6-1 7-1
10. Wesley 2-1 6-1


WEST REGION

1. Willamette 7-0 8-0
2. Occidental 7-0 7-0
3. Monmouth 9-0 9-0
4. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 4-1 7-1
5. Wisconsin-Whitewater 6-1 7-1
6. Redlands 6-1 6-1
7. Northwestern (Minnesota) 8-1 8-1
8. St. John's (Minnesota) 6-2 6-2
9. Gustavus Adolphus 6-2 6-2
10. Linfield 4-2 5-2

[HScoach]

Obviously there is no way to predict what will occur over the last 2 games, but here's my highly un-educated guess on the regional #1 seeds based on what we know today.  This topic came up with a Mount Union fan that wondered if I thought they'd be shipped east again.  The following is my e-mail to him on the subject.  I'm posting it here because I thought it'd be interesting to see how much glue the rest of D3 thought I was sniffing when I wrote it.  Have fun shooting holes in my guesses:




Subject:  Mount Union to the East?

As long as Cortland State wins out, I don't think we'll get sent east as that region will have an obvious #1 seed.  If Cortland finishes strong, what I expect is for North Central to be shipped west as the #1 seed there.  Right now I think the regional seeding goes like this:

1.   North Region = Mount Union 

2.   West Region = North Central (Willamette is undefeated, but I'm not convinced they're #1 material and NCC is close enough to the rest of the west that it wouldn't be travel issue.  And with the logjam in the North with Mount, NCC and Wabash all 10-0, the North Region needs to ship someone somewhere, so I'm guessing it's NCC going west.  That would put the West Region seeding as North Central, Willamette and Whitewater as the top 3.  What I expect to be very close is whether the West or East Regions would be the overall second seed as region.  A 10-0 Cortland would have a slightly better resume than a 10-0 North Central, but Willamette would be a stronger #2 seed than RPI would be from the east.)

3.   East Region = Cortland State (obvious choice as an undefeated east team with a good resume after beating Montclair, Rowan and Ithaca.  If they can beat Rowan and Ithaca in back-to-back weeks, they're easily the East Region's #1 seed.  And might be the overall #2 seed behind Mount Union.  Where it will get interesting is if they lose to either Rowan on Saturday or Ithaca next week.  If that happens, see below as the only other undefeated team in the east would be RPI.....yuck.)

4.   South Region = Millsaps or Muhlenberg  (neither team has played a great schedule, but both are undefeated and at least Millsaps has beaten a 1-loss Trinity to help their standing, so I'll guess Millsaps gets the #1 even though Muhlenberg was ahead of them in last week's regional rankings.   Regardless of Millsaps or Muhlenberg, it is perfectly clear is that the South is by far the weakest region.)



If Cortland State loses one of their last 2 games, then I think the following:

1.   East Region = Mount Union ( I think Mount moves east because RPI isn't worthy a #1 seed in the east, especially with North Central, Mount and Wabash all in the North Region)

2.   North Region = North Central (this would be the best case for NCC as they get to stay in region, avoid Mount Union and not have to see any ofhte physical WIAC teams until the semi-finals at the earliest)

3.   West Region = Willamette  (without the logjam in the north, 10-0 Willamette gets the top seed)

4.   South Region = Millsaps or Muhlenberg 



Now that I think about it a little more, I think a 10-0 Cortland State would be the overall #2 seed ahead of a 10-0 North Central.

[Knightstalker]

HScoach, pretty good, but Cortland beat Rowan in week 2, they play Brockport State this week and Ithaca next week.  Neither game is a gimme for Cortland.  I agree if they win out they are the East #1 and #2 overall.

[dc_has_been]

hscoach, would Whitewater get seeded over Stevens Point in the west based upon head-to-head competition?  Other than that I agree w/ you fully on the #1 seeds, even though I'm skeptical about Cortland State winning both of their final games.  

[d-train]

hscoach, would Whitewater get seeded over Stevens Point in the west based upon head-to-head competition?  Other than that I agree w/ you fully on the #1 seeds, even though I'm skeptical about Cortland State winning both of their final games.  

In addition to a S.P. loss, Whitewater would have to jump Monmouth and Oxy in order to be a #3 in the 'West' (behind NCC and Willamette as you suggest in your scenario). I think the committee follows the region rankings closer than you suggest.

[The Forgotten Man]

Help me understand this ranking business.

Regional Rankings are out

SOUTH REGION

1. Millsaps 7-0 8-0
2. Muhlenberg 8-0 8-0
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 6-0 7-1
4. Hardin-Simmons 8-1 8-1
5. Thomas More 7-1 7-1
6. Huntingdon 7-0 8-0
7. Trinity (Texas) 6-1 7-1
8. Washington and Jefferson 6-1 7-1
9. Catholic 6-1 7-1
10. Wesley 2-1 6-1

I know the only thing that really matters is what happens in head-to-head competition, so I am eagerly / anxiously awaiting the November 15th game matching up Huntingdon and LaGrange.

However, just for the sake of discussion, why does LC not get any love?

Both play in the SLIAC and have had fairly comparable performances against conference opponents. 

Both have played an NAIA team--HC beat a relatively inferior foe (Faulkner is 2-7) and LC narrowly lost to a ranked team (Shorter is 7-2, and ranked 21st).

Outside of the conference they have a common opponent (Maryville) which HC beat by 6 at home and LC beat by 24 on the road at Maryville two weeks later.

Yes, I know that HC spanked LC the past two years, but that was when LC had only freshmen and sophomores.

What am I missing here? 

Don't get me wrong--I'm glad for HC, but why disparity between them and LC?

[crufootball]

I don't see how the South Region is the weakest, unless maybe you are talking about the weakest #1 seed. Out of the 10 teams listed in the regional rankings, 8 of them are in the Top 25 according to D3football.com and 4 of them are in the Top 10.