2009 Playoff Bracket & Reactions

[pumkinattack]

As was stated, there are five primary criterion, all of which can be weighed, apparently, at the discretion of the committee. 

• 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).
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

It's entirely possibly SJF was ahead of ONU on the bubble, since we don't know, but I'm presuming that ONU had a results vs. regionally ranked teams.  NCC is probably rated higher than Springfield or IC.  Also, As Dr. Salomon stated, they look at losses and, while (just using ONU for comparison) the loss to Otterbein is bad, their other loss is to in-region #1 (MUC) vs. SJF's loss to in-region 2-4 (not sure where they landed, but it is below DelVal, for sure).  So there's room within the criteria and thought process as explained to move ONU ahead of SJF even before getting to SJF in the primary criteria if they desired. 

I just think they didn't question the quality of W&J's schedule, saw the one loss by a TD to the conference champ and the recent history of W&J winning (sometimes) enough to not embarrass the committee in the playoffs and gave them the benefit of the doubt.  As Keith stated, they had a weak SOS last year and made the final 8. 

[Bob.Gregg]

W&J has a weak SOS this year.  If they make the final 8, perhaps the SOS will be completely removed from the criteria listing (not that it appears they follow that stuff anyway....)

[Bob.Gregg]

I just have to share this:

Maybe it's me....maybe I'm too black & white.
I see criteria, then I see teams that can't really measure up get selected and I wonder how can this happen.

I serve on a board of a non-profit.  I see guidelines, bylaws, then I see those guidelines/bylaws being ignored and I wonder how can this happen.

I question and I get blank stares, the deer-in-headlights look.
Pat questioned the committee chair and we seemed to get the audio equivalent of Bambi-in-the-highbeams....

And I wonder, is it me?  Is it JUST me?....FWIW

[wally_wabash]

I just think they didn't question the quality of W&J's schedule, saw the one loss by a TD to the conference champ and the recent history of W&J winning (sometimes) enough to not embarrass the committee in the playoffs and gave them the benefit of the doubt.  As Keith stated, they had a weak SOS last year and made the final 8. 

If the committee was concerned about selecting W&J and then having that selection get a result that makes the selection look brilliant, they probably shouldn't have sent them to Alliance (and they didn't have to). 

[pumkinattack]

I just have to share this:

Maybe it's me....maybe I'm too black & white.
I see criteria, then I see teams that can't really measure up get selected and I wonder how can this happen.

I serve on a board of a non-profit.  I see guidelines, bylaws, then I see those guidelines/bylaws being ignored and I wonder how can this happen.

I question and I get blank stares, the deer-in-headlights look.
Pat questioned the committee chair and we seemed to get the audio equivalent of Bambi-in-the-highbeams....

And I wonder, is it me?  Is it JUST me?....FWIW

Conversely I worked for a large German bank and I've seen how rigid rules can inhibit the correct decision from being made to the detrmient of all stakeholders of this institution and the reality is that the more explicit the rule the easier to maniuplate. 

It's really all about how much respnsibility to committee wants to take and transparency to allow for accountability.  I'm all for the committe picking however they want to as long as they take full accountability and provide full tranparency as to the process.  It's the mix of rules based and subjective with no accountability or transparency which is bothersome. 

I just think they didn't question the quality of W&J's schedule, saw the one loss by a TD to the conference champ and the recent history of W&J winning (sometimes) enough to not embarrass the committee in the playoffs and gave them the benefit of the doubt.  As Keith stated, they had a weak SOS last year and made the final 8. 

If the committee was concerned about selecting W&J and then having that selection get a result that makes the selection look brilliant, they probably shouldn't have sent them to Alliance (and they didn't have to). 

I meant that more as a justification of the weak SOS not meaning that W&J isn't playoff worthy.  MUC is crushing any of their first round opponents this year, as in most past years. 

[Toby Taff]

It dawned on me as I was filling out my bracket for the D3 pick'em 4 teams have been to the Stagg since 2004, 3 of them are on one side of the Bracket this year.   

[wally_wabash]

I can't get over this no seeds business.  As read from the championship handbook pertaining to site selection:

The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.

The highest seeded team...they have to have seeded the teams!  It's right there in the handbook! 

[Ron Boerger]

I can't get over this no seeds business.  As read from the championship handbook pertaining to site selection:

The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.

The highest seeded team...they have to have seeded the teams!  It's right there in the handbook! 

With all the errors that are in the handbook each year, maybe they decided to ignore it altogether this year.   

[Just Bill]

I can't get over this no seeds business.  As read from the championship handbook pertaining to site selection:

The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.

The highest seeded team...they have to have seeded the teams!  It's right there in the handbook! 

The Handbook doesn't say they have to publish the seeds.  The teams are seeded, we'll just never know for sure what they are.  Moves like this make people not trust the NCAA Commitees, more than they may already.

[Pat Coleman]

Gasp ... that would mean they lied when they said there were no seeds.

[K-Mack]

Gasp ... that would mean they lied when they said there were no seeds.

What I think this all means is that a pecking order exists, whether it's called seeding or not. That pecking order might not be the same order the teams would be in based solely on football-related factors. It also might mean that someone prominent did not file the paperwork to host, either accidentally or on purpose, and they do not want make an issue of it if the team doesn't advance anyway.

[Pat Coleman]

Yeah -- honestly, I didn't get that. Teams have forgotten to file before and it hasn't been swept under the rug. One year Western Connecticut forgot to file to host past round 2 and they were the No. 1 seed.

I specifically mentioned that possibility to the NCAA person on the phone as something that has happened in the past and that D-III fans understand. Perhaps they underestimate D-III fans' savvy.

[AUKaz00]

I'm digging how on the Scoreboard there are about 13 different ways that the playoff games are listed in the "Game Links" notation.  Did individual schools insert those or did you guys just decide to mess with us?

[Bill McCabe]

Gasp ... that would mean they lied when they said there were no seeds.

No. no. no... That can't possibly be right! 

[D O.C.]

that would mean they lied  misspoke when they said there were no seeds.