Pool C -- 2009

[pumkinattack]

Well Bob called it.  I think there's a couple of ways to look at it, but the consequence is you'll probably see more 1 loss NEFC teams as pool C's in the future (as well as possibly ECFC once they get their AQ).  They did, however, look at quality of loss as Dr. Joy mentioned in the in the HuddLLe interview (comparing SNC's loss to a lower regionally ranked team than W&J's loss to #2 regionally ranked TMC, ignoring any cross regional qualitative analysis), so Otterbine's loss to Marietta would've bitten them in the a** had they been competing for a spot (as a one loss team, or with a bunch of two loss teams).   

Flip side is that it probably creates more equal access (whatever that really means) than applying a cross regional subjective analysis, and who knows, maybe those conferences will improve faster with the added competition and exposure. 

[usee]

We just finished our "In the HuddLLe" interview with Dr. Joy Solomen, Chairwoman of the NCAA Division III Football Championship Committee.  I have to admit, I learned some things during the call -- and I'm sure readers will want to hear what she said about strength of schedule issues, the East as a whole and the way to avoid Mount Union at the top of the East Bracket every year.

Tune in at http://inthehuddlle.com at 7:30pm EST for the interview and a lot more.

Frank,
Anyway to hear it after the fact?

Check the NWC board - guy has it archived.

That's the selection show he has archived. I am loking for the intvw w Joy Solomen.

[Ralph Turner]

The Solomen interview is about 60 minutes into the program.

[Pat Coleman]

That interview is now on the Daily Dose. Thanks to Frank for providing me a copy I could easily post.

http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/

[Bill McCabe]

I don't see the need for it this year.

I see the criteria have seven 1-loss teams vying for six Pool C slots.  At least five of those seven have comparable SOS, OWP, OOWP with each other and with the discussed 2-loss teams.

Any subjectivity comes in only for what I see as the final spot--which 1-loss team gets in and which gets left out?

Does Norbert's blowout loss overshadow a better SOS as compared to W&J?
Does W&J's close loss (TMC) plus last year's playoff run make up for playing Oberlin?

Valid analysis. Committee appeared to agree with you.

Personally, I think W&J getting in would be something close to a travesty, in that it basically endorses playing pansies as a backup plan for not winning your AQ. But since my suggestion would be to schedule Mount Union anyway, it's sort of poetic justice.

And if they win ... holy schnikes!

(To be clear, I don't think 9-1 teams getting in is generally a travesty. So that's not really the right word. But I think it would be bad for Division III if we interpreted W&J getting in as an endorsement for good teams not taking opponents that challenge them)

Pat, Maybe some D1 people snuck into the selction process.  The top D1 teams do that all the time.  

[Bob.Gregg]

Here's one more point about the Pool C selections:

The D-3 Football.com Top 25 panel seems to agree with the selection of W&J as well.  The Presidents are the 6th Pool C eligible team in the final regular season Top 25 poll....

7 UMHB
10 St. Thomas
13 Ohio Northern
15 Wabash
17 North Central
20 W&J

Where's the questioning of Coe's inclusion?  And Albright's?

Maybe the D-3 Football.com panel has it right.
Maybe the AA Committee has it right.

Just some more discussion items...

[wally_wabash]

I wasn't aware that the top 25 and the selection process were connected. 

[Bob.Gregg]

They aren't, and I believe you know that.

My point was simply that the editors of d3football.com, perhaps rightly based on the criteria we all saw, spoke sharply and directly against the inclusion of W&J in the 6-team Pool C field.  The NCAA national committee tabbed the Presidents, apparently, as the 6th member of that field.

The panel of pollsters selected by those same editors ranked the Presidents as the 6th-best member of the field as well, though not directly.  W&J is, in fact the #20 team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll.  That happens to place them in the 6th-best position among Pool C-eligible teams in that poll.

And, just as a point of reference, I said pretty early in the late Saturday / early Sunday discussion that the Presidents didn't have the "stated criteria" to be selected but that there was a "human factor" in the evaluation process...

That's all, just points for discussion, or not.

[Pat Coleman]

They aren't, and I believe you know that.

My point was simply that the editors of d3football.com, perhaps rightly based on the criteria we all saw, spoke sharply and directly against the inclusion of W&J in the 6-team Pool C field.  The NCAA national committee tabbed the Presidents, apparently, as the 6th member of that field.

The panel of pollsters selected by those same editors ranked the Presidents as the 6th-best member of the field as well, though not directly.  W&J is, in fact the #20 team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll.  That happens to place them in the 6th-best position among Pool C-eligible teams in that poll.

And, just as a point of reference, I said pretty early in the late Saturday / early Sunday discussion that the Presidents didn't have the "stated criteria" to be selected but that there was a "human factor" in the evaluation process...

That's all, just points for discussion, or not.

They aren't, and I believe you know that.

My point was simply that the editors of d3football.com, perhaps rightly based on the criteria we all saw, spoke sharply and directly against the inclusion of W&J in the 6-team Pool C field.  The NCAA national committee tabbed the Presidents, apparently, as the 6th member of that field.

The panel of pollsters selected by those same editors ranked the Presidents as the 6th-best member of the field as well, though not directly.  W&J is, in fact the #20 team in the final regular season d3football.com Top 25 poll.  That happens to place them in the 6th-best position among Pool C-eligible teams in that poll.

And, just as a point of reference, I said pretty early in the late Saturday / early Sunday discussion that the Presidents didn't have the "stated criteria" to be selected but that there was a "human factor" in the evaluation process...

That's all, just points for discussion, or not.

Keith and I ... and the W&J strength of schedule and results on the field, to be honest ... disagree with W&J's inclusion in the Top 25 poll. Enough of the other 23 voters disagree with us to put them in the poll.

[smedindy]

W&J may have enough of a 'name' and a 'reputation' to carry water with some voters. It happens.

W&J is 30th in Massey using MOV - SOS 141
St. Norbert is 66th with a SOS of 179

Massey thinks W & J was a better choice. The dregs of the Midwest Conference really affect St. Norbert in that calculation.

Of course, Ohio Northern was 18th with a SOS of 24.

[wally_wabash]

Taking 1-loss teams over ONU is fine...we may not agree that 1 loss should always trump 2 losses, but I can understand the point and accept it.  What I don't get is why W&J would have been selected in front of St. Norbert.  I think that the explanation that W&J played their loss closer than St. Norbert is dubious, at best.  Looking strictly at those two results (and really just the scores) and saying one is better than the other is extremely subjective.  Who's to say that Monmouth isn't a much, much better team than Thomas More?  How do you look at those scores and not factor in things like injuries, road or away, etc. etc.?  And then the ramification of that selection...if regional record trumps all, there is nothing to gain by scheduling stronger opponents.  Why would a team like W&J bother upgrading their schedule?  Oberlin and Frostburg State are safe plays for them.  Why gamble with Del Valley?  

On the other side of the coin, I'm not one that thinks that the OAC's #2 has a right to be in the field just because they are the #2 from the OAC.  In 2009, I think ONU had an intriguing case because they had actually beaten somebody and carried a very strong SOS.  Should we be comparing scores in games that were lost, or should we look and consider teams that have actually beaten a good team?  It's an interesting debate and one that I think is going to end with different results from year to year depending on the composition of the selection committee.  Some years the committee is going to favor strong wins and SOS and some years the committee is going to favor win%.  

The whole thing is a fascinating process, even if it can be head scratching and controversial at times.  

[Bob.Gregg]

From the noon hour yesterday: 

Here are your Pool C's, by the criteria (at least the listed criteria):

Albright
St. Thomas
Wabash
Coe
St. Norbert
UMHB

That's the way I see.

I wasn't disagreeing with you Pat.  I had Norbert in, W&J out (via published criteria).  Did find the 23 pollsters disagreement interesting.

[Bob.Gregg]

Norbert had better stated criteria numbers than did W&J.  I felt that way, Pat Coleman felt that way, many people felt that way....so how did the Presidents get in?

HUMAN FACTOR.

So, let me re-post a question K-Mack asked yesterday:  Do we want a cut & dried, no debate, crunch the numbers system for selection to the national tournament?

If the answer is YES, teams who are thought to schedule "cupcakes" would likely be forced to upgrade their out-of-conference games or be willing to risk it all on the AQ road to the tournament.  Otherwise, that Oberlin or Frostburg game would DEFINITELY put you out.

At the same time, ONU wouldn't be in the discussion in this year's circumstances since any compilation of numbers would have to put heavier weight on your own WINS & LOSSES (the Bears had two of the latter).

[K-Mack]

Here's one more point about the Pool C selections:

The D-3 Football.com Top 25 panel seems to agree with the selection of W&J as well.  The Presidents are the 6th Pool C eligible team in the final regular season Top 25 poll....

7 UMHB
10 St. Thomas
13 Ohio Northern
15 Wabash
17 North Central
20 W&J

Where's the questioning of Coe's inclusion?  And Albright's?

Maybe the D-3 Football.com panel has it right.
Maybe the AA Committee has it right.

Just some more discussion items...

I've made those arguments, on the other board, I guess. (playoff reactions?)

And I'm with you, I'm not necessarily invested in this except that I don't like the message it sends about nonconference scheduling ... but otherwise these are just discussion items, and there's more than one way to look at things.

[K-Mack]

Norbert had better stated criteria numbers than did W&J.  I felt that way, Pat Coleman felt that way, many people felt that way....so how did the Presidents get in?

HUMAN FACTOR.

So, let me re-post a question K-Mack asked yesterday:  Do we want a cut & dried, no debate, crunch the numbers system for selection to the national tournament?

If the answer is YES, teams who are thought to schedule "cupcakes" would likely be forced to upgrade their out-of-conference games or be willing to risk it all on the AQ road to the tournament.  Otherwise, that Oberlin or Frostburg game would DEFINITELY put you out.

At the same time, ONU wouldn't be in the discussion in this year's circumstances since any compilation of numbers would have to put heavier weight on your own WINS & LOSSES (the Bears had two of the latter).

Well, if we put heavier weight on WINS (i.e. the who you beat argument), W&J is dead in the water on that one. Coe and UMHB didn't have any particularly impressive wins either. ONU and NCC would be among the first one- or two-loss teams in if QoW (Quality of Wins ... see what I did there?) was a major part of the discussion.

It's clear that this year, among this committee, it was not.

FWIW as far as the discussion goes.