Official 2010 PLAYOFFS reaction thread

[retagent]

Sometimes you have to extrapolate what is meant from what is said. It might be that Ms Solomen meant that  there were no common opponents where a decision could be made from those games. Since both NCC and UWW beat their only common opponent, there was no way to differentiate the two teams based on that common opponent. (Without, of course, going by point spread, which, IMHO doesn't mean squat.) Just a thought as to explain this seemingly innacurate statement.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Atleast a regional committee member admits this year's selection had more to do with numbers, and little to do with common sense.

Carnahan said. "But it comes down to a ranking system with very little human common sense to it."

Well, Mr. Carnahan, what does it say about the D-III members who voted for this criteria?  Do they not have "human common sense"?  I suggest you create some legislation for the D-III members to vote on that does have common sense, if that is what you want.  The selection criteria was designed by the membership.  It's not like they can't change it.

Sigh.  Remember when the complaints were that the selections were too subjective?

The problem is not the criteria.  The problem is the seemingly random application of the criteria.  There are several criteria, with no specification as to their relative importance.  Last year, SoS seemed to be largely ignored.  This year it seemed to be the one overriding criterion.

[Titan Q]

The 2010 committee is comprised of 4 head football coaches, 2 conference commissioners, and 2 athletic directors.  These are D-III people, most of them are likely football people too (at least half for sure).  They aren't college presidents who are more worried about other things besides athletics.  They aren't non-sports people or bean-counters.  They aren't people who care more about the big schools.  They aren't people who are more interested in other sports.  They are D-III football.

We tend to use the terms "NCAA" and "committee" and think of some mystical group that makes these selection decisions without any regard for the schools involved.  We often forget that they people making these decisions are direct representatives of the the schools involved and the rules they use were created by the schools involved.

This is a very good point and something I hope people here understand.

Most years I travel to Salem for the basketball Final Four.  I'm fortunate to have gotten to know a lot of head coaches who have served on regional and national advisory committees - guys like Pat Cunningham (Trinity-Tx) and Charlie Brock (Springfield).  I've really learned a lot about how the Division III selection process works, and what the roles of the committee members are.  I've come to realize the following:

1) The members of the regional/national committees are almost all great "basketball guys."  They completely understand which leagues/regions are the toughest, which are the easiest, etc.  Bottom line, they know Division III basketball about as well as anyone and are guys fans would pick to be on the committees if we had a say.

2) The system the committee members are required to use in selecting/seeding teams is very flawed.  They all know this.  One of the flaws is the "in-region game" concept -- the fact that all D3 games don't count, and the fact that Illinois Wesleyan vs Occidental is in-region while Wheaton vs Calvin is not.  Another flaw is that regional data is used to make national decisions, and when some regions are stronger than others, that creates a big problem.  And there are obviously several other problems...and the committee members know them all.  But they are bound by the rules they are given (the criteria laid out in the Handbook.)  Note, former Wheaton head coach Bill Harris removed himself from the Midwest region committee a few years back saying, "A computer can do this...why do they need me?"

I know this is the football board, and I have not had the same level of interaction with football committee members (in fact I have had none), but I have to believe it's the same issue -- good, solid D3 football people who have a great feel for who the #1 seeds probably are, etc. but are given a system to use that has flaws.

I'm simply posting all of this because sometimes I get the sense that people think there are a bunch of NCAA "bean counters" running the selection/bracketing system -- people who think that Wesley is better than Whitewater, because that's what the SOS says.  I'd just ask everyone to realize that those regional and national committees are made up of really good D3 people.

Also realize that the committee members turnover over every couple of years...which, I think, is what leads to the same rules being interpreted differently from year to year.

[footballfan413]

Sometimes you have to extrapolate what is meant from what is said. It might be that Ms Solomen meant that  there were no common opponents where a decision could be made from those games. Since both NCC and UWW beat their only common opponent, there was no way to differentiate the two teams based on that common opponent. (Without, of course, going by point spread, which, IMHO doesn't mean squat.) Just a thought as to explain this seemingly innacurate statement.

Oh, please................
      She said and I quote," there wasn't anything to compare with in-region h2h or results against common opponents so the numbers played in there," and NCC's numbers were stronger, blah,blah,blah........  
Extrapolate away, retagent, but it seems pretty cut and dried to me.  

[bleedpurple]

Atleast a regional committee member admits this year's selection had more to do with numbers, and little to do with common sense.

Carnahan said. "But it comes down to a ranking system with very little human common sense to it."

Well, Mr. Carnahan, what does it say about the D-III members who voted for this criteria?  Do they not have "human common sense"?  I suggest you create some legislation for the D-III members to vote on that does have common sense, if that is what you want.  The selection criteria was designed by the membership.  It's not like they can't change it.

Sigh.  Remember when the complaints were that the selections were too subjective?

The criteria is not absolute and binding. And the Committee has shown that in the past.  They have even shown that in this bracket to some extent.  They may well be honorable D3 football people. It's simply hard to believe that 8 people with normally functioning brains could have come up with the four #1 seeds they did. They can't hide behind the criteria. They could have named UW-W and Mount #1 and #2 overall and been just fine.  But they made a different choice.  Maybe they are right. Maybe St. Thomas will play Wesley in the Stagg Bowl. Then they are right.  But if it's UW-W and Mount Union again, they should be embarrassed.  

[Toby Taff]

 Maybe they are right. Maybe St. Thomas will play Wesley in the Stagg Bowl. Then they are right.  But if it's UW-W and Mount Union again, they should be embarrassed.  

Really, embarrassed?  Why?  They made a choice based on criteria they chose. It isn't like UWW and UMU were the only undefeated teams in the country and were slighted.  So no other team can be a #1 seed as long as UMU or UWW only lose one game a year, and that to the other team in the Stagg.  That is asinine.  D3 is a tournament format that should reward excellence in a season with home games and seedings, but as we have seen in the past that doesn't always happen as we think it should for a variety of reasons like the 500 mile rule or that there are a number of undefeated teams that deserve a shot at a number one seed when there are only 4.  It's not like UWW and UMU never lose or are undefeatable.  It may seem that way for the past few years, but guess what, they can be beat. 

[bleedpurple]

Maybe they are right. Maybe St. Thomas will play Wesley in the Stagg Bowl. Then they are right. But if it's UW-W and Mount Union again, they should be embarrassed.  

Really, embarrassed?  Why?  They made a choice based on criteria they chose. It isn't like UWW and UMU were the only undefeated teams in the country and were slighted.  So no other team can be a #1 seed as long as UMU or UWW only lose one game a year, and that to the other team in the Stagg.  That is asinine.  D3 is a tournament format that should reward excellence in a season with home games and seedings, but as we have seen in the past that doesn't always happen as we think it should for a variety of reasons like the 500 mile rule or that there are a number of undefeated teams that deserve a shot at a number one seed when there are only 4.  It's not like UWW and UMU never lose or are undefeatable.  It may seem that way for the past few years, but guess what, they can be beat.  

Undefeatable?  

NO! Only the Top 4 teams in the country "deserve" to be seeded #1.  

Actually Toby, you made an assertion and then called it asinine.  That is not my assertion at all. Point missed.

The reason I think the committee should be embarrassed if UW-W and Mount go to the Stagg Bowl is because it will have meant they missed the obvious. (When is that last time either of them lost a playoff game prior to the Stagg Bowl?) None of us know with absolute certainty who the best teams are this year.  That's why we play the playoffs.  I would hope the committee attempts to name the four best teams in the country (to the best of their collective estimation) the #1 seeds.  I'm just saying, the committee shouldn't be charged with "spreading out the wealth" like some Obama program.  

Do you think the committee believes that their #1 seeds are the four best teams in the country?

I hope the answer to that is, yes.  If not, they should be embarrassed already.

They were the ones that ranked Wesley first and St. Thomas second.  No one one forced them to do that, including the member schools of the NCAA.  

[Toby Taff]

NO! Only the Top 4 teams in the country "deserve" to be seeded #1.  

Actually Toby, you made an assertion and then called it asinine.  That is not my assertion at all. Point missed.

The reason I think the committee should be embarrassed if UW-W and Mount go to the Stagg Bowl is because it will have meant they missed the obvious. (When is that last time either of them lost a playoff game prior to the Stagg Bowl?) None of us know with absolute certainty who the best teams are this year.  That's why we play the playoffs.  I would hope the committee attempts to name the four best teams in the country (to the best of their collective estimation) the #1 seeds.  I'm just saying, the committee shouldn't be charged with "spreading out the wealth" like some Obama program.  

Do you think the committee believes that their #1 seeds are the four best teams in the country?

I hope the answer to that is, yes.  If not, they should be embarrassed already.

They were the ones that ranked Wesley first and St. Thomas second.  No one one forced them to do that, including the member schools of the NCAA.  

I said "they deserve a shot at being a #1" not that they deserve to be number 1s.  By virtue of winning all of their games, they at least deserve consideration.  You're right that no one would look twice if UWW and UMU were given # 1 seeds, but they shouldn't be given by virute of history and name.  I also don't think "best four teams in the country" matters much in the way of seeding.  Those words are too subjective.  The playoffs are intended to decide the best team in the country.  How often do all 4 #1s end up in the semis?  Should the committee be embarrassed if all 4 # 1s fail to make the semis? no.  The games are played and settled on the field, and whoever is better that day advances.

The committee chose criteria and applied them, and opps, they didn't favor the teams most people believe to be the best teas in the country.  Sometimes that is how it happens.  I'd rather have the decision made that way than by the eyeball test because the eyeball test excludes people from the start based on perception.  If UWW and UMU are the best teams, and even I believe they probably are, they will march through their brackets and meet in Salem.  As a fan of UMHB, who went to the Stagg in 2004 playing every game on the road including a trip to Alliance, I know that either sometimes perception of the best team is wrong or sometimes the best team loses.  It isn't a tournament about seed # it's a tournament about winning.

[bleedpurple]

NO! Only the Top 4 teams in the country "deserve" to be seeded #1.  

Actually Toby, you made an assertion and then called it asinine.  That is not my assertion at all. Point missed.

The reason I think the committee should be embarrassed if UW-W and Mount go to the Stagg Bowl is because it will have meant they missed the obvious. (When is that last time either of them lost a playoff game prior to the Stagg Bowl?) None of us know with absolute certainty who the best teams are this year.  That's why we play the playoffs.  I would hope the committee attempts to name the four best teams in the country (to the best of their collective estimation) the #1 seeds.  I'm just saying, the committee shouldn't be charged with "spreading out the wealth" like some Obama program.  

Do you think the committee believes that their #1 seeds are the four best teams in the country?

I hope the answer to that is, yes.  If not, they should be embarrassed already.

They were the ones that ranked Wesley first and St. Thomas second.  No one one forced them to do that, including the member schools of the NCAA.  

I said "they deserve a shot at being a #1" not that they deserve to be number 1s.  By virtue of winning all of their games, they at least deserve consideration.  You're right that no one would look twice if UWW and UMU were given # 1 seeds, but they shouldn't be given by virute of history and name.  I also don't think "best four teams in the country" matters much in the way of seeding.  Those words are too subjective.  The playoffs are intended to decide the best team in the country.  How often do all 4 #1s end up in the semis?  Should the committee be embarrassed if all 4 # 1s fail to make the semis? no.  The games are played and settled on the field, and whoever is better that day advances.

The committee chose criteria and applied them, and opps, they didn't favor the teams most people believe to be the best teas in the country.  Sometimes that is how it happens.  I'd rather have the decision made that way than by the eyeball test because the eyeball test excludes people from the start based on perception.  If UWW and UMU are the best teams, and even I believe they probably are, they will march through their brackets and meet in Salem.  As a fan of UMHB, who went to the Stagg in 2004 playing every game on the road including a trip to Alliance, I know that either sometimes perception of the best team is wrong or sometimes the best team loses.  It isn't a tournament about seed # it's a tournament about winning.

Toby,

Thanks for clarifying. When you said "a shot" at a number one seed, I thought you meant it like rotating them year to year. "Let's give North Central and St. Thomas a shot this year." I didn't think that sounded too Texas-like!  Now I get it. You were talking about consideration. I definitely agree with that. 

My own opinion is that the #1 seeds should be about the perceived best teams, but maybe the committee doesn't make that their over-riding goal.  It still seems to me that if the whole thing is supposed to be criteria based, we could just use a computer. And if judgement is thrown into the mix, it's hard to believe that judgment wouldn't include making UW-W a #1.  Not pretending to be unbiased, but it's my opinion.

The bottom line is that it will be decided on the field. Thank God this wasn't a conference call to name the official national champion!  Good luck to the Cru! If UW-W makes it to the semi's, I have a feeling we'll be traveling to Texas. Now about that.... 

[midwestgiant]

I think it is obvious that the selection committee is tiring, (possibly like many others), of seeing the Stagg Bowl turn into the Purple Party Bowl.  If this were Div I, one could say it's about the money as that is what THEY are into.  But this is Div III.  That leaves one wondering why UWW is not a number one and Mt Union isn't the top pick on their side of the ledger.
The problem w/all this is that people start making arbitrary decisions not reflective of what is or has transpired on the field.  Those folks on the committee might not like what has gone on the past five yrs, (and now maybe six), but what's right is after all, still right.
This should be decided on the field and not influenced by the committee.
But then again, at least they are consistent...after all, in Div I, it's the same type of people who have brought us the BCS...the Badly Convoluted System.

[HScoach]

As a Mount guy, I think the Raiders got seeded (#3 overall) about exactly where I would have put them.  History says they're one of the 4 best teams in the nation as evidenced by the fact that it's been since 1994 that they failed to make it to at least the Semi-Finals.  And in '94, they lost 34-33 on the road in the 2nd round to Albion which was the eventual national champion.    However looking at the player graduations from last season and scores of this year's game, I don't think Mount should be any higher than #3 overall.

In my mind, the top teams under consideration for #1 seeds are:
1.  Whitewater
2.  North Central
3.  Mount Union
4.  Wesley
5.  St Thomas
6.  Mary Hardin Baylor

The only major issues I have with the NCAA's bracket is St Thomas getting a #1 before Whitewater and DePauw (9-1) being a #3 seed when Wabash smoked them and Wittenberg (10-0) beat Wabash but is only #5 seed and therefore on the road.  Those are the 2 seedings that stand out for me. 

If I made the bracket, my seeds would have been (regions listed in overall seeding order too):

NORTH
1.  Whitewater
2.  Wheaton

WEST
1.  North Central
2.  St Thomas

EAST
1.  Mount Union
2.  Cortland State

SOUTH
1.  Wesley
2.  Mary Hardin Baylor

[wally_wabash]

I think it is obvious that the selection committee is tiring, (possibly like many others), of seeing the Stagg Bowl turn into the Purple Party Bowl.  If this were Div I, one could say it's about the money as that is what THEY are into.  But this is Div III.  That leaves one wondering why UWW is not a number one and Mt Union isn't the top pick on their side of the ledger.
The problem w/all this is that people start making arbitrary decisions not reflective of what is or has transpired on the field.  Those folks on the committee might not like what has gone on the past five yrs, (and now maybe six), but what's right is after all, still right.
This should be decided on the field and not influenced by the committee.
But then again, at least they are consistent...after all, in Div I, it's the same type of people who have brought us the BCS...the Badly Convoluted System.

I think it's pretty ludicrous to think that the selection committee cares one way or another who plays in the championship game.  In the last five years, teams have had a total of 20 chances to keep UWW and/or Mount Union out of the championship game and failed every time.  It isn't right to condemn those two programs for being awesome.  It also isn't right to use the SOS metric as the end-all indicator of how good a team is.  That's where this committee failed. 

[bleedpurple]

Coach,

As usual, this is very well thought out. I agree with all of it except I would flip NCC and Mount.  Mount is very young this year, but have still been very good.  I know you know a million times more about them than I do, but my goodness, you are used to seeing them win PLAYOFF games by 30, 40 points and more on their way to the Stagg.  Maybe this year, they will only win the semi-final by 10, but it still gets them to Salem.  I still believe they are rising to the point of being a favorite in every game leading up to the Stagg Bowl.  I also believe that by that point, they will be favored to beat any opponent they face, except UW-W and that game should be a pick-em.  

But I also acknowledge that you are "da man" in all this!  

[bleedpurple]

In the last five years, teams have had a total of 20 chances to keep UWW and/or Mount Union out of the championship game and failed every time.  It isn't right to condemn those two programs for being awesome.  It also isn't right to use the SOS metric as the end-all indicator of how good a team is.  That's where this committee failed. 

Well said, WW.  Said with far more clarity and far less emotion than my rants have been. +k 

[02 Warhawk]

The only major issues I have with the NCAA's bracket is St Thomas getting a #1 before Whitewater and DePauw (9-1) being a #3 seed when Wabash smoked them and Wittenberg (10-0) beat Wabash but is only #5 seed and therefore on the road.  Those are the 2 seedings that stand out for me. 

If I can add to that, I was curious how Cal. Lutheran wasn't able to host their game against Linfield...espeically when CLU beat them earlier in the year.

I agree with you on DePuaw being ranked too high AND I don't know how they pulled off being able to host an undefeated Trine team. It seems like Wittenberg and DePauw should swap their places in the bracket. With Witt hosting Trine, and Ohion N. hosting DePauw.