Pool C

[rams1102]

Using this, here is how I would line up the board for each region:

South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)

North: 1) Wheaton; 2) Ohio Northern; 3) Illinois Wesleyan (or Wittenberg/Trine if a loss occurs)

East: 1) Rowan; 2) Montclair; 3) Springfield (I know the first two are troublesome, but the Committee may use the "last quarter of the season" principle to justify this ordering over the head-to-head in Week 2)

West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)

And when they go to picking:

1) Wheaton
2) Hampden-Sydney
3) Ohio Northern
4) Hardin-Simmons
5) Bethel
6) Rowan

Why would you put Rowan ahead of Montclair? Just curious. Thanks.

[Frank Rossi]

Using this, here is how I would line up the board for each region:

South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)

North: 1) Wheaton; 2) Ohio Northern; 3) Illinois Wesleyan (or Wittenberg/Trine if a loss occurs)

East: 1) Rowan; 2) Montclair; 3) Springfield (I know the first two are troublesome, but the Committee may use the "last quarter of the season" principle to justify this ordering over the head-to-head in Week 2)

West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)

And when they go to picking:

1) Wheaton
2) Hampden-Sydney
3) Ohio Northern
4) Hardin-Simmons
5) Bethel
6) Rowan

Why would you put Rowan ahead of Montclair? Just curious. Thanks.

Would I personally?  No.  However, the Committee seems to be doing some gymnastics right now to place Rowan at the top of the triangle (#2E).  There are a few ways to justify the move.  First, Rowan beat a team already in the playoffs at that point (Cortland).  Montclair lost to that team.  Rowan will have a slightly better SoS.  Finally, the Handbook allows the Committee to focus on the final 25% of the season when in a bind.  When the 3rd-to-last game is included (rounding out), Rowan is 3-0, while Montclair is 2-1.

PERSONALLY, I feel the head-to-head, even though it was in Week 2, should dominate here.  Yet, I'm really not getting the feeling that the Committee is going to pay full honor to it right now.  Call it a hunch -- but it's not so much a stretch that it's a wacky call.

[wally_wabash]

9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO.  H2H has to matter. 

[Frank Rossi]

9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO.  H2H has to matter. 

Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me.  It doesn't follow the present SoS order.

[wally_wabash]

9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO.  H2H has to matter. 

Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me.  It doesn't follow the present SoS order.

Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise. 

[Frank Rossi]

9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO.  H2H has to matter. 

Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me.  It doesn't follow the present SoS order.

Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise. 

Again, I'd love to agree with you -- but I'm feeling queasy about this situation.  Chairwoman Joy Solomen will be joining us Sunday night on "In the HuddLLe" (http://inthehuddlle.com -- 7:30-9:30pm EST) for the second straight year to discuss the process and picks.  Either way, I'm sure there will be questions about the NJAC scenario and how it played out.

[wally_wabash]

9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO.  H2H has to matter. 

Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me.  It doesn't follow the present SoS order.

Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise. 

Again, I'd love to agree with you -- but I'm feeling queasy about this situation.  Chairwoman Joy Solomen will be joining us Sunday night on "In the HuddLLe" (http://inthehuddlle.com -- 7:30-9:30pm EST) for the second straight year to discuss the process and picks.  Either way, I'm sure there will be questions about the NJAC scenario and how it played out.

You should feel queasy.   I'm certainly not saying that I'm right here...I'm just stating what is obvious and just (if Cortland qualifies automatically).  If anybody can talk their way out of the importance of a h2h result, it's the selection committee. 

[pg04]

I agree a pick of Rowan instead of Montclair would just seem wrong to me.  Unfortunately the NCAA uses math and lack of logic to make their picks.  Could they place them both in just to avoid the situation altogether? 

[Frank Rossi]

I agree a pick of Rowan instead of Montclair would just seem wrong to me.  Unfortunately the NCAA uses math and lack of logic to make their picks.  Could they place them both in just to avoid the situation altogether? 

I can't see the North and South not getting two bids each, barring a shock this weekend.  So, I just don't think there's room for two in the East.

[rams1102]

You gotta love politcics.

[Pat Coleman]

in the final (never to be seen) Regional Ranking.

Pat, didn't they release these a year or two ago? Any chance that set a new 'transparency' precedent (wishful thinking, I know)?

They did in some sports, not in football. I challenged them on this specifically, noting that their counterparts in other sports were releasing the final regional rankings, but still, the football committee refused.

I think they didn't want to be challenged on the fallacy that had 9-1 W&J going to Mount Union while 8-2 Susquehanna went to Delaware Valley in the same bracket, because to have Susquehanna ahead of W&J suggests that it was indeed possible to have a 2-loss team ahead of a 1-loss team, contradicting what they did in selecting Pool C teams.

[Ron Boerger]

I agree a pick of Rowan instead of Montclair would just seem wrong to me.  Unfortunately the NCAA uses math and lack of logic to make their picks.  Could they place them both in just to avoid the situation altogether? 

I don't know if you guys follow pro basketball, but over on ESPN there's a guy named Hollinger who is famous for using fairly irrelevant statistics to 'prove' which teams are better than other.  There is usually little relationship between his rankings and reality. 

For example, his current numbers have Houston (1-6) ranked ahead of San Antonio (6-1), Utah (5-3) and Atlanta (6-3).   Whenever I see his stuff I think about how the NCAA picks these playoff teams. 

[rams1102]

Using this, here is how I would line up the board for each region:

South: 1) Hampden-Sydney; 2) Hardin-Simmons; 3) Ursinus (Using Reg. Rankings and assuming Salisbury goes through Pool B)

North: 1) Wheaton; 2) Ohio Northern; 3) Illinois Wesleyan (or Wittenberg/Trine if a loss occurs)

East: 1) Rowan; 2) Montclair; 3) Springfield (I know the first two are troublesome, but the Committee may use the "last quarter of the season" principle to justify this ordering over the head-to-head in Week 2)

West: 1) Bethel; 2) Redlands; 3) Coe (Based on the "better" quality loss Bethel had)

And when they go to picking:

1) Wheaton
2) Hampden-Sydney
3) Ohio Northern
4) Hardin-Simmons
5) Bethel
6) Rowan

Why would you put Rowan ahead of Montclair? Just curious. Thanks.

Would I personally?  No.  However, the Committee seems to be doing some gymnastics right now to place Rowan at the top of the triangle (#2E).  There are a few ways to justify the move.  First, Rowan beat a team already in the playoffs at that point (Cortland).  Montclair lost to that team.  Rowan will have a slightly better SoS.  Finally, the Handbook allows the Committee to focus on the final 25% of the season when in a bind.  When the 3rd-to-last game is included (rounding out), Rowan is 3-0, while Montclair is 2-1.

PERSONALLY, I feel the head-to-head, even though it was in Week 2, should dominate here.  Yet, I'm really not getting the feeling that the Committee is going to pay full honor to it right now.  Call it a hunch -- but it's not so much a stretch that it's a wacky call.

You know I'm really getting crazy with all of this stuff and please do not take offense. Rowan beat Cortland at home by (3) points and Montclair loses to Cortland at their place by (1) point. Then the committee looks at the final 25% (Morrissville, W. Conn and TCNJ), give me a break. Then I hear that Rowan had a rookie QB and now the Senior QB has been doing a great job. Hello, the rookie beat Lycoming in game #1 which is helping their SOS. We beat Rowan by (19). A fact is a fact. Ater all of that, I guess they are ahead of Montclair, so everyone thinks the NCAA will say. Let's see how Saturday plays out. Thanks for listening.

[K-Mack]

9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO.  H2H has to matter. 

Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me.  It doesn't follow the present SoS order.

Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise. 

That's how I see it. The committee has enough to worry about I don't think there's any reason to make this difficult.

Don't get on the committee for botching something they haven't botched yet.

[pg04]

9-1 Rowan getting in before 9-1 Montclair State is criminal, IMO.  H2H has to matter. 

Then explain why Rowan is atop the triangle for me.  It doesn't follow the present SoS order.

Fortunately, one of those three teams is going to qualify automatically which SHOULD make placement of the other two a relatively straightforward exercise. 

That's how I see it. The committee has enough to worry about I don't think there's any reason to make this difficult.

Don't get on the committee for botching something they haven't botched yet.

I think there is precedence to think they will botch it.