Pool C -- 2009

[wally_wabash]

So based on the Dr. Solomen interview...W&J was selected because:
- Their OOWP was higher than SNC's (.499 vs. .473...nevermind that SNC OWP is .100 higher than W&J and a calculated SOS number .058 higher than W&J...it's the OOWP that matters most...apparently)
- W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 

Yikes.  I'm not sure that I'm terribly comfortable with this way of thinking. 

[Bob.Gregg]

K,

W&J is not dead in the water.  They had 9 wins.  That has to be worth more than 8 wins.  Not a trump card, ending the game, but it has value.

Then, factor the OWP, OOWP, SOS, FBI, CIA, CAA, DHS, UPS and all the other things and you're all set.

However, I do not believe THIS AA committee, or any successor to it, will allow for the HUMAN FACTOR to be removed.

I believe that there were several strong voices on this committee who held firmly that this was a 7-team race for 6 bids.  The 2-lossers were never seriously in the discussion.  You'll never get that from the committee members, but I believe that to be the case.

You raised the UMHB--their overall numbers weren't terribly impressive either, if we want to get right down to it.  They were better than W&J's, but I believe ONLY W&J's among the seven one-loss teams.  Yet, the HUMAN FACTOR, on the committee and on these boards, had UMHB as a LOCK...

more FWIW...

[Bob.Gregg]

...W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 

I believe what she said on the "how they lost" portion was that W&J lost by a touchdown to the #2 in the region while Norbert got pounded (28 points) by the #5 team in that region.  Not just that W&J lost to TMC and Norbert lost to Monmouth...

[wally_wabash]

...W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 

I believe what she said on the "how they lost" portion was that W&J lost by a touchdown to the #2 in the region while Norbert got pounded (28 points) by the #5 team in that region.  Not just that W&J lost to TMC and Norbert lost to Monmouth...

Ignoring the relative strength of one conference to another is annoying...ignoring the relative strength of an entire REGION is irresponsible. 

Using MOV as a factor in selection and seeding sets a dangerous precedent.  Nearly as dangerous a precedent as may be being set by telling everybody that your schedule doesn't matter (at least not as much as your opponent's schedules anyway). 

I was hoping to listen to the interview and come away with a "I disagree, but I see where you're coming from" feeling.  Unfortunately, I come away with a "I'm wondering if the committee chair wasn't in over her skis this year" feeling.  Not disclosing the first 3-4 teams out doesn't help the case either. 

[Bob.Gregg]

She did appear flustered, shall we say....
Pat certainly had her spinning for a few moments....

[jam40jeff]

Yikes.  I'm not sure that I'm terribly comfortable with this way of thinking. 

Or, apparently, lack of thinking.

[golden_dome]

Ignoring the relative strength of one conference to another is annoying...ignoring the relative strength of an entire REGION is irresponsible. 

Using MOV as a factor in selection and seeding sets a dangerous precedent.  Nearly as dangerous a precedent as may be being set by telling everybody that your schedule doesn't matter (at least not as much as your opponent's schedules anyway). 

I was hoping to listen to the interview and come away with a "I disagree, but I see where you're coming from" feeling.  Unfortunately, I come away with a "I'm wondering if the committee chair wasn't in over her skis this year" feeling.  Not disclosing the first 3-4 teams out doesn't help the case either. 

Just to add to the discussion. I don't know how you can factor in a subjective measure such as strength of a region, yet fail to look at MOV. The MOV is a direct indicator of strength and it's only fair to look at if you are also trying to identify a region is stronger. I know it was mentioned that the West region was stronger because of more undefeated teams, which I guess it is according to the handbook. But fewer undefeated South teams could be an indicator of greater overall depth in the region. There's no way to know IMO with so few cross-regional games played.

I think the "human factor" to this is a good thing IMO, I think it brings common sense in. For instance, like one poster said UMHB doesn't have particularly great SOS numbers but everyone knows they are strong. I realize it puts more decision-making into the hands of the regional committees rather than a strict guideline, but I'm more comfortable with that.

I think the criteria does a good job identifying worthy teams, for instance the 7-8 teams vying for the final 6 spots. But at that point I would trust the judgement of the committee more than just what the criteria indicates. UMHB could have been left out just based on criteria, but on some level you have to take into consideration their MOV and back to back semifinal appearances.

[Toby Taff]

nicely stated chrs.

[Pat Coleman]

...W&J lost to the #2 ranked team in one region while SNC lost to the #5 ranked team in a completely different region...with no comparison whatsoever to the relative strength of the regions. 

I believe what she said on the "how they lost" portion was that W&J lost by a touchdown to the #2 in the region while Norbert got pounded (28 points) by the #5 team in that region.  Not just that W&J lost to TMC and Norbert lost to Monmouth...

She didn't actually say that part, but I certainly wonder if margin of defeat was considered.

Margin of victory without a common opponent being involved is fairly nebulous. It's not like these were similar style teams playing a similar kind of game.

[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.

K,

W&J is not dead in the water.  They had 9 wins.  That has to be worth more than 8 wins.  Not a trump card, ending the game, but it has value.

Then, factor the OWP, OOWP, SOS, FBI, CIA, CAA, DHS, UPS and all the other things and you're all set.

However, I do not believe THIS AA committee, or any successor to it, will allow for the HUMAN FACTOR to be removed.

I believe that there were several strong voices on this committee who held firmly that this was a 7-team race for 6 bids.  The 2-lossers were never seriously in the discussion.  You'll never get that from the committee members, but I believe that to be the case.

You raised the UMHB--their overall numbers weren't terribly impressive either, if we want to get right down to it.  They were better than W&J's, but I believe ONLY W&J's among the seven one-loss teams.  Yet, the HUMAN FACTOR, on the committee and on these boards, had UMHB as a LOCK...

more FWIW...

I don't think you followed what I meant with the "dead in the water" comment. I was twisting your use of "heavier weight on WINS & LOSSES" to point out that if the committee indeed placed a heavy weight on wins, W&J might have 9 of them, but they are against no one of consequence, save for 7-3 Geneva.

They most certainly are dead in the water if a heavy weight was placed on the quality of the wins. We know that not to be the case, it was the quality of the loss and the number of wins.

I've pointed out more than once the ways you could unfavorably compare UMHB, Coe and Albright in the Pool C discussion, so I don't know why we're continuing down that path. We see eye to eye on that.

You might be right that the 2-loss teams were never in the dicussion. I think I'd have to go on record as not being in favor of that, but it doesn't mean that didn't happen. Solid observation.

[D O.C.]

I transpose this whole scenario to Division I and really, really roll my eyes.

"Ain't gonna happen there"

[Bob.Gregg]

D O.C., you're right.

They just go about their merry way, sending teams to bowl games with no meaning, having teams sit for over a month between contests, and no real, definitive championship is determined.

Unless either W&J goes on to win the title this year, or exposes some flaw that Norbert/ONU/NCC/SJF/OTT ad infinitum could have better exploited, at least D-3 crowns a champion totally determined by on-field play.

IF W&J wins, Norbert et al can claim that they should have been in instead.
IF W&J exposes that flaw in someone who goes on to win it, they can all claim how they would have won the title had they only been given the chance.

Short of either of those circumstances (neither of which I'm expecting), we're protected at the D-3 level from the BSC BS of the D-I world.

For that, I believe we're all thankful.

[Bob.Gregg]

Mentioned earlier that W&J would play Delaware Valley in the 2010 season.
PAC/MAC offices released the complete schedule earlier:


September 11, 2010 (MAC default home team unless switched by mutual agreement)
PAC #1 Washington & Jefferson (9-1, 5-1 PAC) at MAC #1 Delaware Valley (9-1, 7-0 MAC)
PAC #2 Geneva (7-3) at MAC #2 Albright (9-1, 6-1 MAC)
PAC #3 Grove City (5-5, 4-2 PAC) at MAC #3 Lebanon Valley (8-2, 5-2 MAC)
PAC #4 Waynesburg (5-5, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #4 Wilkes (6-4, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #5 Westminster (4-6, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #5 Lycoming (4-6, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #6 Bethany (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #6 King's (3-7, 2-5 MAC)
PAC #7 Thiel (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #7 Widener (3-7, 1-6 MAC)
PAC #8 Saint Vincent (0-10) at MAC #8 FDU-Florham (2-8, 1-6 MAC)

[MUCheats]

D O.C., you're right.

They just go about their merry way, sending teams to bowl games with no meaning, having teams sit for over a month between contests, and no real, definitive championship is determined.

Unless either W&J goes on to win the title this year, or exposes some flaw that Norbert/ONU/NCC/SJF/OTT ad infinitum could have better exploited, at least D-3 crowns a champion totally determined by on-field play.

IF W&J wins, Norbert et al can claim that they should have been in instead.
IF W&J exposes that flaw in someone who goes on to win it, they can all claim how they would have won the title had they only been given the chance.

Short of either of those circumstances (neither of which I'm expecting), we're protected at the D-3 level from the BSC BS of the D-I world.

For that, I believe we're all thankful.

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

[Mr. Ypsi]

What you say is true, and we need look no further back than last year to see it.  Wheaton got a Pool C with two losses, and made it all the way to the national semis.  This year they would apparently not have even been seriously considered.

I very much like Pool A, giving every conference champion a shot at the title (despite knowing full well that many of them are destined to lose by 4+ TDs).  And it is not a problem in many sports, where there are still plenty enough at large spots to assure that no legitimate threats to go very far get left out.  But with only 32 total slots, and 23 (soon to be 25) Pool A teams, it IS a problem in d3 football.

Alas, I have no solution to offer.