Pool C

[pg04]

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?

Yes.

Post 913 on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!

Good night to all!  It has been fun! 

Is there a reason why these links never take me to the right place?  Is it because I have the board inverted to put the newest replies at the top?

[Ralph Turner]

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?

Yes.

Post 913 on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!

Good night to all!  It has been fun! 

Is there a reason why these links never take me to the right place?  Is it because I have the board inverted to put the newest replies at the top?

I have my boards from old to new, and the post by boobyhasgameyo occurred

   
Re: East Region Playoff Discussion
« Reply #913 on: November 18, 2007, 09:09:27 pm »

Hope that helps.

(Dan Padanova also posted that he predicted Curry's victory last season in Post #914.)

[pg04]

Thanks Ralph. 

[K-Mack]

Red,
I missed one of your posts from earlier, the one that begins with your response to me asking if you're arguing just to argue. And despite the good points made since then, we're back at the same point.

The No. 1 seeds thing is something that we on the site and on the boards had clamored for for years. Now we finally get a committee that responds to common sense, and we're unhappy?

Does anyone have a problem with anything that took place? Or are we all worrying about what could have gone wrong "in theory?"

I don't think that the interpretation of the handbook as written or not written has led to any grave injustices, at least with regard to what we're discussing. The two most glaring things wrong with this bracket still boil down to penny-pinching, and by attempting to fly two teams to the West Coast (we think; did that get addressed on the LL show?), this particular committee showed that it gets it. They're just handcuffed by the flight rules.

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why are we advocating more impediments to common sense?

We might not want a completely subjective commitee, but a small degree of judgement on the committee's part (wiggle room, if you will) seems to be a good thing?

Does someone somewhere prefer North Central and Mount Union been jammed in the same "North" bracket, or North Central and Willamette in the "West," with Ithaca to be the 1 in the East, and if so, how is that "fair?"

[redswarm81]

Some consider it a minor point, but I liken it to government:  There's no law preventing the government from arresting you for dressing poorly, but the government can't arrest you for dressing poorly, because no law permits the government to arrest you for dressing poorly.

I get really uncomfortable when governing bodies (e.g. NCAA Selection Committees) are defended for doing things that they're not authorized to do, just because the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing those things.

I guess so.

Why are you against the practical use of common sense even if the common sense scenario hasn't been forecasted and written into the rules?

If you want to go back to talking about law ... if there were a rule in the book for every scenario, we'd be overrun with rules. At some point in law we refer to precedent, and good judgement, no?

No.  When there is no precedent and no law permitting government action, then government says "I am not permitted to do that."

The D-1 basketball handbook probably has a section on how the Selection Committee chooses the 4 No. 1 seeds.  The D-III Handbook says nothing.

If the law says "government may make the "practical use of common sense,"¹ then I have no basis for complaint.

¹Sheesh, talk about an oxymoron--when does government ever exercise common sense? 

I wish that Dr. Kaiser had pointed out that there was nothing for the committee to decide: 10-0 Cortland is a No. 1 Seed.

I worry that he doesn't understand that there was nothing to decide.  I worry that he thinks the committee can do whatever the handbook doesn't prevent it from doing.

Fair wish. And your first worry would be legitimate.

But the second ... what exactly are you "worried" about?

Give me a scenario.

Scenario:  10-0 Cortland gets seeded as No. 2 behind Mount Union.

If that weren't a realistic scenario, Dr. Kaiser would have said so, right?

By the way Pat, I can still PM you with questions anytime, right?

[K-Mack]

Yes, Keith, he's arguing just to argue. Nothing new. It's scroll-down territory.

I realize this is red's m.o.

I am susceptible to such tactics.

This is why I rarely post when there is an ATN or a Triple Take to be worked on. I bet 75% of my posts this year are on an early Thursday, or a Fri./Sat./Sun.

[redswarm81]

Red,

The No. 1 seeds thing is something that we on the site and on the boards had clamored for for years. Now we finally get a committee that responds to common sense, and we're unhappy?

I don't think that the interpretation of the handbook as written or not written has led to any grave injustices, at least with regard to what we're discussing. The two most glaring things wrong with this bracket still boil down to penny-pinching, and by attempting to fly two teams to the West Coast (we think; did that get addressed on the LL show?), this particular committee showed that it gets it. They're just handcuffed by the flight rules.

I'm not advocating impediments to "common sense."  I've suggested several simple amendments to the Handbook to define common sense.

Can any other loyal D-III football fan make such a claim?

I don't understand why you (or anybody else, for that matter) think I'm not on your side.  I want the NCAA to WRITE DOWN what it ought to do.  It would be easy.

Right now, they're using THEIR common sense, and it's okay with you.  Three years ago and prior, they also used THEIR common sense and it wasn't okay with you.

I'm not advocating against common sense.

I am noting that in the absence of a definition of "common sense," unpleasant outcomes are possible, as you clamored for years.

[redswarm81]

Red,

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why are we advocating more impediments to common sense?

I missed this earlier.

If you can write what you did, then you really don't understand my point, which seems so simple to me--I'll paraphrase your language:

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why aren't we advocating better written rules?

Which is what I'm doing.  I've posted several suggested amendments.  Why is that so offensive to people who have complained bitterly about what has gone wrong with the rules as written?

[usee]

As for 10-0 Cortland, they would have gone thru the NJAC undefeated, a respectable accomplishment in its own right, and then to beat your fiercest rival, who was the Pool A bid in its conference, is quite a feat!  (The Cortaca Jug is one of the three to five best rivarly games in all of D-III!    )

I always have trouble not honoring a team that goes undefeated.  That ability to maintain concentration week after week and beat the teams on your schedule is quite an accomplishment for a group of young men.

I cannot denigrate that in any way.

Move the lower seeds around.   

I have no desire to argue this further and am happy with the result, but to go on record one final time.....this is not appropriate logic to argue Cortland over North Central as a #1 seed. Just to hilight the inefficiency: Your exact argument here could be used of North Central. They did everything they had to do. 10-0, beat the #4 team in the country, their arch rival, on the road and what we seem to be saying is its ok for them to be a #2 seed simply because they are in Mt Unions' "region"? (never mind that they are 32 miles further away from Alliance Ohio than Cortland) THAT doesn't make sense. I am glad it didn't come to that and all the deserving teams got #1 seeds. 

[redswarm81]

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?

Yes.

Post 913 on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!

That's a different sentiment than I was quoting.

Post 913 suggests that Curry could win its first round game.

Post 913 does not suggest that Curry should not have been demoted to a no.2 seed after doing everything that was asked of them in winning 11 games.  Post 913 did not defend Curry's "honor" (Ralph's very good word choice) for going undefeated.

I would think those who didn't defend Curry in 2007 but who were willing to defend Cortland in 2008 would want the Selection Criteria to be defined differently.  I seem to be the only one who wants clearly defined rules, consistently applied.

[altor]

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why aren't we advocating better written rules?

Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic
proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may
be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained.

Last year when MUC was sent East, I posted mileages from Alliance to various East and North qualifiers.  The distances weren't that different.  So geographic proximity has been maintained.  The committee simply used their authority to move a team to numerically balance the brackets.  So how could this rule be better written?

[altor]

And when I look at this map, if I were to group the 32 teams in clusters as suggested in the first sentence that I quoted, the oddball appears to be Randolph-Macon in the "East" when Wash & Jeff, Muhlenberg, and Wesley appear to be closer.  I assume the committee wanted to balance the brackets numerically by sending the Yellow Jackets to Alliance rather than one of those 9-1 teams.  Since it fits the "geographic proximity" part of the rule, I still don't see what the problem is.

[redswarm81]

Given what can go wrong with the rules as written, why aren't we advocating better written rules?

Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic
proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may
be moved to numerically balance the bracket, if geographic proximity is maintained.

Last year when MUC was sent East, I posted mileages from Alliance to various East and North qualifiers.  The distances weren't that different.  So geographic proximity has been maintained.  The committee simply used their authority to move a team to numerically balance the brackets.  So how could this rule be better written?

This rule is better written than the impression Dr. Kaiser left in his interview.

However, there's still the gap between ranking/selecting/seeding based on Regional rankings, and "grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity."

The Selection/Ranking/Seeding Criteria say nothing about "natural geographic proximity."  They only speak of Regions.  Thus, this rule still leaves open the possibility of a 2008 10-0 Cortland St. being seeded no.2 under no. 1 seed Mount Union, based on "natural geographic proximity."

I don't think it would be that difficult to bridge the gap by amending the Selection Criteria.  Some seem to think that such an amendment would be a travesty akin to amending the First Amendment to limit political speech.  Oh wait--we did that, didn't we?   

[Pat Coleman]

So we're having a big argument based on your impressions rather than actually reading the handbook? Sheesh.

[altor]

However, there's still the gap between ranking/selecting/seeding based on Regional rankings, and "grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity."

The Selection/Ranking/Seeding Criteria say nothing about "natural geographic proximity."  They only speak of Regions.

What does one have to do with the other?  They selected the 9 at-large teams based on regional criteria.  They grouped the 32 teams by geographic proximity (using their authority to move teams if it made sense).  They seeded those clusters using regional criteria.  They created first round match-ups based on geographic proximity.  That is exactly what they were asked to do by the member institutions.

Thus, this rule still leaves open the possibility of a 2008 10-0 Cortland St. being seeded no.2 under no. 1 seed Mount Union, based on "natural geographic proximity."

There are 8 undefeated teams as it is.  Some of them have to take a #2 or #3 seed.  There is no way around it.  At least a #2 Cortland wouldn't be playing an away game in the first round thanks to "geographic proximity" (see Occidental).