Pool C

[AUKaz00]

I thought St. Lawrence would be a distance anchor, but it appears they are just less than 500 miles from both Mount Union and Wesley. And I guess even if Maine Maritime is in, they just go to NJAC champ. Especially if it's Cortland?

I thought Cortland was within 500 miles of Castine, but it's not.  The only possible partners for MME would be St. Lawrence, SUNY-Maritime or Montclair.

[d-train]

3rd Regional Rankings:

http://d3blogs.com/d3football/category/regional-rankings/

Darn, I just don't think it's in the cards for my Lutes (Pacific Lutheran).  Seems like they are roughly 8th or 9th in line for the 6 Pool C bids.  They face a very tough test against Willamette this week (and a loss surely drops them).  Not a whole lot of changes projected ahead of them...and not likely enough bump with a win.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I've got to question these latest rankings.  Last week in the north, it was 1. Wheaton  2. NCC  3. UMU.  Saturday, NCC decisively beat Wheaton.  And NOW they jump UMU to #1??!!  (I've got no problem with UMU being #1, but NOW?! )

Meanwhile, St. Thomas remained #1 in the west over UWW.  I have a sinking feeling that the committee is positioning things to pick the Tommies as the 4th #1, instead of NCC (which would almost certainly mean for the north "Hello UWW").

[HScoach]

I wonder about them too.  Personally, I think they moved North Central behind Mount to allow Whitewater to be separated from St Thomas by the Warhawks being the #1 in the North and Mount the #1 in the East.

Interesting how #2 NCC can beat the North's #1 ranked team (Wheaton), #3 Mount can beat the North's 6th ranked team (Baldwin Wallace) and Mount jumps North Central.

If the plan is to move Mount east, I'm not sure what makes St Thomas a better option in the West than NCC is in the North?  But is sure looks like they flipped Mount & North Central around to justify that very thing.

Weird.

[d-train]

Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,

Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point?  One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,

Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point?  One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?

Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Adding to the "Why NOW?" question: NCC just picked up TWO wins over regionally-ranked opponents, as IWU enters the north rankings at #8!

Unless the 'fix' is in, that does also give another boost to NCC vs. St. Thomas - St. John's did NOT enter the west rankings, so the Tommies still have only ONE win over a regionally-ranked opponent.

[d-train]

Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,

Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point?  One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?

Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.

Okay - fair point - 'separate' might not be the right term.  Still, it seems a bit odd to me that they would be thinking nationally and working across regions in cahoots already.

[HSC85]

I posted this on the South Region Playoff thread as well:

I am curious how the criteria of wins over regionally ranked teams and SOS are applied?  It seems that there will be teams chosen over teams based on geography or saving dollars, instead of a strict application of the selection criteria.  Especially when it comes to Pool C.  That is not a complaint.  It is just an observation.  Every team had that same chance to win the automatic qualifier.  I am just wondering how some decisions are made?  Maybe some of the more experienced posters could shed some light.

[wally_wabash]

I posted this on the South Region Playoff thread as well:

I am curious how the criteria of wins over regionally ranked teams and SOS are applied?  It seems that there will be teams chosen over teams based on geography or saving dollars, instead of a strict application of the selection criteria.  Especially when it comes to Pool C.  That is not a complaint.  It is just an observation.  Every team had that same chance to win the automatic qualifier.  I am just wondering how some decisions are made?  Maybe some of the more experienced posters could shed some light.

I don't believe that the committee selects teams based on geography.  That would undercut the idea that this is a national tournament.  Certainly, first round matchups and "seeds" are flexible in order save cash, but the actual selection of teams isn't geographically influenced.  At least it certainly shouldn't be. 

As for how the committees apply the criteria?  Complete mystery.  I'm a very analytical mind and when I apply the published criteria in an analytical fashion, there are some pretty serious inconsistencies with the RRs. 

[d-train]

I posted this on the South Region Playoff thread as well:

I am curious how the criteria of wins over regionally ranked teams and SOS are applied?  It seems that there will be teams chosen over teams based on geography or saving dollars, instead of a strict application of the selection criteria.  Especially when it comes to Pool C.  That is not a complaint.  It is just an observation.  Every team had that same chance to win the automatic qualifier.  I am just wondering how some decisions are made?  Maybe some of the more experienced posters could shed some light.

I don't believe that the committee selects teams based on geography.  That would undercut the idea that this is a national tournament.  Certainly, first round matchups and "seeds" are flexible in order save cash, but the actual selection of teams isn't geographically influenced.  At least it certainly shouldn't be. 

As for how the committees apply the criteria?  Complete mystery.  I'm a very analytical mind and when I apply the published criteria in an analytical fashion, there are some pretty serious inconsistencies with the RRs. 

+1.  Maybe I'm a little naive, but I think the 'penny pinching' affects pairing and seeds...not the actual at-large selections.

[HSC85]

Thanks Wally.  I now realize that I am not the only one who is having a hard time understanding the process.

[Frank Rossi]

Updated with Quality Wins & Quality Losses:

South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524 -- 0.523/0.527) -- vs. Randolph-Macon (7-2, 0.446) -- QW: 8S, QL: 6S
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502 -- 0.492/0.523) -- at Louisiana Col. (6-3 (6-2 Reg.), 0.456) -- QL: 2S
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Reg.), 0.442 -- 0.412/0.503) -- at Chicago (7-2, 0.530) -- QW: 10N, QL: 5N

North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604 -- 0.614/0.583) -- at Millikin (4-5, 0.581) -- QW: 8N, QL: 2N
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Reg.), 0.512 -- 0.508/0.521) -- vs. Heidelberg (5-4, 0.456) -- QW: 9N, QL: 1N
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416 -- 0.365/0.517) -- at Wooster (5-4 (5-3 Reg.), 0.441) -- QW: 10N
* Trine (9-0 (8-0 Reg.), 0.379 -- 0.311/0.515) -- vs. Albion (5-4 (5-2 Reg.), 0.446) -- No QW/QL
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Reg.), 0.525 -- 0.552/0.472) -- vs. DePauw (9-0, 0.522) -- QL: 5N

East
------
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500 -- 0.493/0.515) -- at Wm. Paterson (4-5, 0.394) -- QW: 2E, QL: 4E
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497 -- 0.486/0.518) -- at New Jersey (5-4, 0.408) -- QW: 4E, QL: 3E
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491 -- 0.486/0.501) -- vs. Ithaca (6-3, 0.588) -- QW: 3E, QL: 2E

West
-------
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.543 -- 0.571/0.488) -- at Cornell (0-9, 0.535) -- QW: 10W, QL: 3W
Bethel (8-1, 0.513 -- 0.493/0.552) -- vs. Augsburg (4-5, 0.479) -- QL: 1W
Redlands (7-1, 0.503 -- 0.481/0.547) -- vs. Chapman (4-4 (4-2 Reg.), 0.462) -- QL: 4W
Pac. Luth. (7-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.463 -- 0.438/0.514) -- vs. Willamette (7-2 (5-2 Reg.), 0.511) -- QW: 4W, QL 7W

* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Reg. Record Includes Just One Loss

After Win/Loss Records are NCAA SoS -- OWP/OOWP -- Final Opponent (W/L, OWP of Final Opponent) -- Quality Wins (QW) (with ranking and region of the team), Quality Losses (QL).  If Regional Record for team or opponent differs, a second W/L record is in inner parentheses, indicated with "Reg."

[d-train]

Go Randolph-Macon,
Go Louisiana College,
Go Millikin,
Go Heidelberg,
Go Ithaca,
Go Wm. Paterson,
Go New Jersey,
Go Cornell,
Go Augsburg,
Go Chapman,
Go PLU,
Attaway!

[Pat Coleman]

Mr. Ypsi and HScoach,

Aren't these rankings being done by four separate regional committees at this point?  One committee does the Pool B's, Pool C's, and seeding (based on the four regional rankings given to them)...but do you really think that one committee is pulling strings right now?

Don't forget that the two co-chairs of each regional committee ARE the national committee.

And national committee always has the right to overrule the regional committee at any time, this week or on Saturday night.