Pool C

[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.

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

Are you saying that even the individual regional rankings can be altered by the future national committee?

If so, I guess I'll abandon the hope I got from NCC picking up a second win over a ranked opponent (by IWU entering the rankings) and 'read the tea leaves' that St. Thomas will be the final #1.

Though I suppose I could hold out a glimmer of hope that #2 NCC (already in the north) has a better claim than #2 UWW (being imported to the north).  Yeah, right.

[K-Mack]

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.

They select the 32, then start with the geography and the penny-pinching. And this comes from on- and off-the-record conversations with people on the committee.

The other thing that rarely gets mentioned is sometimes they submit a bracket with the extra flight, like in the Aurora-Willamette-Oxy-Monmouth swap a few years ago, and it gets sent back to them by whoever approves the financial outlay.

In other words, I don't think geography affects team selection at all. If you believe it does, you're basically questioning the integrity of people on the committee, all of whom have an interest (in the future, if not in '10) that the process remains as fair as possible. Everyone on the committee works for a football-playing D-III school.

I do think HSC85, your very first sentence is on to something though. The criteria is listed, but there's no way to know what's applied when or weighted more than what, which I believe leaves enough wiggle room for the committee to do what they "believe is right," which is bound to not be what everyone thinks is right.

[K-Mack]

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.

Are you saying that even the individual regional rankings can be altered by the future national committee?

If so, I guess I'll abandon the hope I got from NCC picking up a second win over a ranked opponent (by IWU entering the rankings) and 'read the tea leaves' that St. Thomas will be the final #1.

Though I suppose I could hold out a glimmer of hope that #2 NCC (already in the north) has a better claim than #2 UWW (being imported to the north).  Yeah, right.

I think the proper interpretation is that regional rankings are submitted to the national committee -- and I didn't really clearly recall this until I talked to Joy a few weeks ago -- the regional committees hold the call after Week 11's games and do their rankings, then the national committee assembles with those rankings in hand and deliberates the 3 Pool Bs and 6 Pool Cs, then once it has 32, picks the 1s and assembles the matchups.

So to interpret what Pat said, it's the national committee that does the choosing, and even though you might get one idea from the regional rankings (which is the purpose of releasing them), the national committee might get another idea when all of next week's info is broken down.

And since the final regional rankings are not released, it's hard for us to do anything more than guess what changed.

I noticed what you noticed re: IWU and B-W being in the North Rankings though, but with UST above UWW, I think you're reading it right.

[K-Mack]

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.

Yes, your alma mater I think needs the Wheaton 2008 massive wave of Week 11 losses. And to beat Willamette.

[K-Mack]

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!

Now that's funny.

[Frank Rossi]

Predicted SoS, Quality Wins & Quality Losses for Pool C candidates (these are the criteria that matter in the NCAA's decisions for ordering of Pool C candidates and selection of one of the four teams on the board, one from each region):

South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524) -- Predicted SoS: 0.539 (0.549/0.519) -- QW: 8S, QL: 6S
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502) -- Predicted SoS: 0.517 (0.518/0.516) -- QL: 2S
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Reg.), 0.442) -- Predicted SoS: 0.484 (0.473/0.507) -- QW: 10N, QL: 5N

North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604) -- Predicted SoS: 0.592 (0.597/0.583) -- QW: 8N, QL: 2N
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Reg.), 0.512) -- Predicted SoS: 0.513 (0.513/0.513) -- QW: 9N, QL: 1N
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416) -- Predicted SoS: 0.430 (0.391/0.509) -- QW: 10N
* Trine (9-0 (8-0 Reg.), 0.379) -- Predicted SoS: 0.406 (0.356/0.507) -- No QW/QL
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Reg.), 0.525) -- Predicted SoS: 0.561 (0.602/0.478) -- QL: 5N

East
------
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491) -- Predicted SoS: 0.506 (0.504/0.510) -- QW: 3E, QL: 2E
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.493/0.507) -- QW: 4E, QL: 3E
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500) -- Predicted SoS: 0.493 (0.488/0.503) -- QW: 2E, QL: 4E

West
-------
Redlands (7-1, 0.503) -- Predicted SoS: 0.514 (0.502/0.538) -- QL: 4W
Bethel (8-1, 0.513) -- Predicted SoS: 0.507 (0.488/0.545) -- QL: 1W
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.543) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.500/0.494) -- QW: 10W, QL: 3W
Pac. Luth. (7-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.463) -- Predicted SoS: 0.487 (0.473/0.514) -- QW: 4W, QL 7W

* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Reg. Record Includes Just One Loss (Note that other two-loss teams may be ahead of these teams in the Regional Rankings)

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

NOTE: These numbers should be used carefully, as wins and losses by opponents already played will cause SoS figures to change, sometimes by as much as 0.040 this late in the season.  These numbers are merely estimates and take into account only games played to this date and the remaining opponents' W/L % and OWP figures.

[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

[d-train]

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

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

Interesting differences between your suggested line-up and the latest Regional Rankings for these two regions.  Especially in the West, where the current rankings suggest Coe might be first up 'at the table' and PLU ahead of Redlands.

[Frank Rossi]

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

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

Interesting differences between your suggested line-up and the latest Regional Rankings for these two regions.  Especially in the West, where the current rankings suggest Coe might be first up 'at the table' and PLU ahead of Redlands.

Coe's SoS PLUNGES from 0.543 to 0.498 (Pat actually predicts slightly lower -- but you get the picture).  That's only better than Pacific Lutheran at the end of the weekend.  So they go from best in the West to 3rd best in SoS numbers (playing an 0-9 team can have that effect).

[Frank Rossi]

Regarding the South ordering, the gymnastics the Regional Subcommittee did are a little much.  They wanted to obviously keep W&L ahead of Hampden-Sydney because of the head-to-head matchup.  However, they wanted to keep W&L behind other one-loss teams (i.e., Hardin-Simmons).  Once W&L comes off the board, Hampden-Sydney's 0.022 lead in SoS and Quality Win should place the team above Hardin-Simmons in the ordering.

[d-train]

So why do you think PLU is ahead of Redlands right now if SOS is the key stat? Common opponent (CLU)? Win over regional ranked team for PLU (CLU game again)? Any chance those secondary factors are those enough to have them second or third in the West after Saturday? (assuming they beat Willamette - of course - which is FAR from a given.)

Another way to ask it: right now something(s) has PLU ahead of Redlands despite an SOS figure that is .04 lower.  Couldn't those same factors make up the projected difference of .027 after Saturday's games?

[Ralph Turner]

Predicted SoS, Quality Wins & Quality Losses for Pool C candidates (these are the criteria that matter in the NCAA's decisions for ordering of Pool C candidates and selection of one of the four teams on the board, one from each region):

South
--------
Hampden-Sydney (8-1, 0.524) -- Predicted SoS: 0.539 (0.549/0.519) -- QW: 8S, QL: 6S
Hardin-Simmons (8-1, 0.502) -- Predicted SoS: 0.517 (0.518/0.516) -- QL: 2S
** Washington U. (7-2 (4-1 Reg.), 0.442) -- Predicted SoS: 0.484 (0.473/0.507) -- QW: 10N, QL: 5N

North
-------
Wheaton (Ill.) (8-1, 0.604) -- Predicted SoS: 0.592 (0.597/0.583) -- QW: 8N, QL: 2N
Ohio Northern (8-1 (7-1 Reg.), 0.512) -- Predicted SoS: 0.513 (0.513/0.513) -- QW: 9N, QL: 1N
* Wittenberg (9-0, 0.416) -- Predicted SoS: 0.430 (0.391/0.509) -- QW: 10N
* Trine (9-0 (8-0 Reg.), 0.379) -- Predicted SoS: 0.406 (0.356/0.507) -- No QW/QL
** Wabash (7-2 (7-1 Reg.), 0.525) -- Predicted SoS: 0.561 (0.602/0.478) -- QL: 5N

East
------
* Cortland (8-1, 0.491) -- Predicted SoS: 0.506 (0.504/0.510) -- QW: 3E, QL: 2E
* Rowan (8-1, 0.497) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.493/0.507) -- QW: 4E, QL: 3E
Montclair St. (8-1, 0.500) -- Predicted SoS: 0.493 (0.488/0.503) -- QW: 2E, QL: 4E

West
-------
Redlands (7-1, 0.503) -- Predicted SoS: 0.514 (0.502/0.538) -- QL: 4W
Bethel (8-1, 0.513) -- Predicted SoS: 0.507 (0.488/0.545) -- QL: 1W
Coe (8-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.543) -- Predicted SoS: 0.498 (0.500/0.494) -- QW: 10W, QL: 3W
Pac. Luth. (7-1 (6-1 Reg.), 0.463) -- Predicted SoS: 0.487 (0.473/0.514) -- QW: 4W, QL 7W

* - Team May Still Win Its Conference's Pool A Bid
** - Team Included Since In-Reg. Record Includes Just One Loss (Note that other two-loss teams may be ahead of these teams in the Regional Rankings)

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

NOTE: These numbers should be used carefully, as wins and losses by opponents already played will cause SoS figures to change, sometimes by as much as 0.040 this late in the season.  These numbers are merely estimates and take into account only games played to this date and the remaining opponents' W/L % and OWP figures.

HSU has a win over Willamette which plays PLU this weekend.  If Willamette wins that game, then HSU might have another in-region win over a regionally ranked opponent in the final (never to be seen) Regional Ranking.

Also, the OWP/OOWP is completely invalid because of the isolation of the 9-team ASC.  There are not enough non-conference teams for in-region foes which gives an advantage to HSC from the 7-member ODAC.

[Frank Rossi]

In some ways, I don't think the ordering matters, since I think we're going to see two from the North and two from the South come off the board immediately.  They should seem head and shoulders above the rest right now.

[d-train]

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)?

[Frank Rossi]

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've gotten less transparent, not even releasing seedings anymore and not telling us the four final teams on the board.  So, no, don't expect this.