Pool C

[PA_wesleyfan]

Ralph

Do you think that with all this choas that Salisbury gets another look? Their losses are to MAC co-camps and Wesley And beat CNU ,USAC champ 

[redswarm81]

Maybe the committees deliberation goes something like this.  Looks like team A (RR 9-0) is the best team in the region, but what about team B?  RR (6-0), but their OW% and OOW% are lower.  How about team C?  Their RR is 8-1, but they have a much higher OW% and OOW%.  The committee says "no clearly superior team." No other primary criteria apply, but team B has 2 non-region losses.  Committee ranks team C higher.

The way I read the Selection Criteria I'm not sure your scenario can happen as you've described it.  First, the comparison has to be between two teams (for a regional ranking or Pool B selection), or between four teams (for a Pool C selection).

Then, they certainly may reach the "no clearly superior team" conclusion, but they may only do so after they have evaluated all of the (2 or 4) teams based on ALL of the Primary Criteria.

While Kaiser mentioned a numerical evaluation, it may be wrong to infer that they are doing some kind of calculation with the various winning percentages.

You should advise politicians.   

[redswarm81]

Actually, I think that the word "results" is deliberately used instead of "winning percentage versus regionally ranked" teams. 

Or even "record v. regionally ranked team."  I think you're right.

I'm not so certain that they deliberately considered the unintended consequences, i.e. that a team can get bonus points for losing.

[SaintsFAN]

Ralph

Do you think that with all this choas that Salisbury gets another look? Their losses are to MAC co-camps and Wesley And beat CNU ,USAC champ 

yes.  But it goes without saying that Albright and SJF could've really helped their cause today.  Its going to be really interesting to see what the "theme" is behind the reasoning for the Pool C selections.  I know Pat is going to be busy tonight with predicting the regional rankings...

Would've been great if the committee would've allowed him to have some input on the selection process, he was in the area today with being in Crawfordsville.  Hopefully they are using the same information that Pat and d3.com have been using.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph

Do you think that with all this choas that Salisbury gets another look? Their losses are to MAC co-camps and Wesley And beat CNU ,USAC champ 

yes.  But it goes without saying that Albright and SJF could've really helped their cause today.  Its going to be really interesting to see what the "theme" is behind the reasoning for the Pool C selections.  I know Pat is going to be busy tonight with predicting the regional rankings...

Would've been great if the committee would've allowed him to have some input on the selection process, he was in the area today with being in Crawfordsville.  Hopefully they are using the same information that Pat and d3.com have been using.

Good morning, all.   

I don't think that Salisbury has separated itself sufficiently to stand out in a very crowded Pool C South Region.  Pat makes the case for DPU versus Millsaps and Wabash.

[Ralph Turner]

Here is the "cut and paste" from the 2008 Football Handbook for Primary Criteria.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2008/3_football_handbook.pdf

Primary Criteria. The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests
leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

[redswarm81]

Here is the "cut and paste" from the 2008 Football Handbook for Primary Criteria.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2008/3_football_handbook.pdf


Primary Criteria. The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests
leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

What if Husson were 7-0 in-Division, 9-0 overall, with the same overall OWP/OOWP numbers as their in-Region/in-Division numbers?  Would anyone justify keeping them out of the tournament?  The crazy thing is, even with a hypothetical 9-0 overall record, I don't see how their case improves significantly through the secondary criteria, at least not when compared to where they stand at 7-0 in-Division through the primary criteria.

Wasn't there some talk of forming what I would be tempted to nickname a "Great White North" Conference. that would include other extreme northern and eastern teams?

[redswarm81]

I have always interpreted "results" to permit any game outcome.

In baseball especially, you can see that some teams may have 6-9 games versus regionally ranked teams.  Going 3-6 versus other regionally ranked teams (and 25-8 in region) may tell more about a team than a team that is 32-2 in-region, but no games versus regionally ranked opponents.

Great discussion, thanks Ralph.

Pat Coleman on the Daily Dose:

I have a stock response for fans complaining about the Top 25 poll: It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat.

I wish it were so clear.

[usee]

One thing to consider that has never been an issue before (but I think is really important now) is the role of the regional advisory committee. It's not clear to me what criteria they are held to and what role they play. But it is clear that the how they rank their pool C candidates this year will be key. Particularly for the east and north regions. Wheaton will never be discussed unless they rank them ahead of Wooster and the logjam in the east will be resolved based on how the regional committee recommends them to the national committee. So Hartwick, Moravian, Curry, Rowan, etc will never get to the table in front of Montclair.

[Titan Q]

One thing to consider that has never been an issue before (but I think is really important now) is the role of the regional advisory committee. It's not clear to me what criteria they are held to and what role they play. But it is clear that the how they rank their pool C candidates this year will be key. Particularly for the east and north regions. Wheaton will never be discussed unless they rank them ahead of Wooster and the logjam in the east will be resolved based on how the regional committee recommends them to the national committee. So Hartwick, Moravian, Curry, Rowan, etc will never get to the table in front of Montclair.

How the regional committee ranks the Pool C candidates (in the final poll that is never released) is critical.  Remember in basketball last year, the Midwest regional committee ranked Wheaton ahead of IWU.  IWU (which beat Wheaton 3 times) never "got to the table" for discussion by the national committee as Wheaton was the final Pool C team selected by the national committee.  In talking to people in the know afterwards, they said the regional committee knew IWU did not have a chance at a Pool C (too many in-region losses) so they ranked Wheaton ahead, despite going 0-3 vs IWU, to give the region its best possible chance at another C bid.

So yes, the role of the regional advisory - and the order they rank the C candidates - is huge.

[redswarm81]

One thing to consider that has never been an issue before (but I think is really important now) is the role of the regional advisory committee. It's not clear to me what criteria they are held to and what role they play. But it is clear that the how they rank their pool C candidates this year will be key. Particularly for the east and north regions. Wheaton will never be discussed unless they rank them ahead of Wooster and the logjam in the east will be resolved based on how the regional committee recommends them to the national committee. So Hartwick, Moravian, Curry, Rowan, etc will never get to the table in front of Montclair.

Famous last words!     I think your (somewhat cynical) analysis had merit.

Ultimately, I think the Committee had to look at winning percentage.  Curry has it.

[Frank Rossi]

Brackets:

http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/footballbracket2008.pdf

[Frank Rossi]

D3Football.com's Selection Show Special is broadcasting:

http://www.d3football.com/notables/2008/01/14/1571/post-selection-selection-show.html

or directly into Windows Media Player:

http://win.1.c2.audiovideoweb.com/1c2winlive6881

[Frank Rossi]

Tonight on "In the HuddLLe," we have a very special show planned.  Joining Frank Rossi and Eric Ren will be:

- NCAA Division III Football Championships Committee Chairman and Defiance Athletic Director Dick Kaiser, to discuss the selection process used to arrive at this year's "Field of 32" released just a little while ago;

- Liberty League Commissioner Timothy Danehy, who will voice his thoughts on the 2008 Liberty League regular season, the selection process and the playoff teams of the League;

- Hobart Fifth-Year Senior Linebacker Jeff Sanders, whose team will make its fifth consecutive NCAA Playoffs appearance next weekend;

- Hobart Head Coach Mike Cragg, who is already hard at work learning exactly who Lycoming is and what got them to the success they've enjoyed this season; and

- Hobart Guru James Baker, who will give us his thoughts and predictions regarding next week's games involving Liberty League teams, including potential ECAC Bowl berths.

Please join us at 7:30pm EST and ask questions for any of our guests in the chatroom.  The link is at http://blogtalkradio.com/LLRecap -- It should be a great show!

[PA_wesleyfan]

Frank

  Ask him why they put the 2,3 and 4 seeds on one side of the bracket in the south.

  It would seem that there will be  2 flights in round 2 regaurdless of who wins and possibly one more in round 3. So putting Mules/Wesley on that side would not effect travel. So it appears they couldn't go with 2 or 3 more in the first round..