FB: Region 4 fan poll

[DPU3619]

Week 9 North Region Fan Poll.  This don't look nothing like the region rankings.

1. Mount Union              60 pts (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
2. North Central             54 pts (2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)
3. Wabash                    47 pts (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4)
4. Wheaton                   41 pts (3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5)
5. Illinois Wesleyan         37 pts (4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6)
T6. Franklin                   26 pts (5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8)
T6. Baldwin-Wallace       26 pts (6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 9)
8. Wittenberg                16 pts (7, 8, 8, 8, 8, -)
9. Heidelberg                 8 pts  (9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10)
10. CWRU                     6 pts  (9, 9, 9, -, -, -)


RV Albion                       5 pts   (7, 10, -, -, -, -)
RV Adrian                      4 pts (8, 10, -, -, -, -)

The North Region Fan Poll is voted on by Wes Anderson, wally_wabash, Mr. Ypsi, smedindy, ADL70, & FCGrizzliesGrad.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I wondered if you were ever going to post them Wes Here's a handy comparison chart of different rankings


Team             North Fan  Region Rank    25 Fan     d3 Top 25
Mount Union         1st  (1)        1st         2nd   (2)      2nd  (2)
North Central       2nd  (2)        4th         6th   (6)      6th  (6)
Wabash              3rd  (3)       T2nd         8th   (8)     10th  (9)
Wheaton             4th  (4)        7th        11th  (13)     13th (13)
Illinois Wesleyan   5th  (5)        6th        17th  (17)     21st (24)
Franklin           T6th  (8)       T2nd        22nd  (21)     22nd (22)
Baldwin-Wallace    T6th  (7)        8th       T32nd (T33)     29th (31)
Wittenberg          8th  (9)        9th        28th  (28)     27th (28)
Heidelberg          9th (10)        ---        ----  (--)     ---- (--)
CWRU               10th (11)        5th        ----  (--)     ---- (--)
Albion             11th  (-)       10th        ----  (--)     ---- (--)
Adrian             12th  (6)        ---        ----  (20)     35th (27)

[DPU3619]

There's a lot of stuff with the region rankings that I guess I understand, but I sure wouldn't do it that way.  My ballot is evidence enough of that.

I've got a real problem with the #6 team in the country being the 4th best team in the region.  Franklin doesn't deserve a 2 in my mind.  I would have done a spit take had I been in that athletic office on Wednesday afternoon.  Keep winning and you're home until the round of 8, in theory.

I suppose it's not new, though.  The committee shows yet again they value a team with 0 losses regardless of who you play.  Franklin and Case are examples of that.  Wabash is a little different because I think they're good enough to deserve that 2 ranking.  I've seen a lot of these teams play, which I guess is why I get so upset.   There is no eye test in the selection criteria.  That's how you end up with Franklin > North Central & CWRU > Wheaton.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Yeah, I was shocked when Franklin was that high. I've been expecting the Grizzlies to be probably a 6-7 seed most of the year even if they went 9-1. When I first looked at the standings I looked for them first and skipped over the top few spots to find them so I originally thought they weren't even in the top 10 then looked up and was shocked

[ExTartanPlayer]

The sad thing is that Rochester isn't a horrible trip for Case. Cripes, they're in the same conference for practically everything but football  And it's not regional, but North Central vs. Redlands is? Wabash vs. Wash U. isn't regional (though they've played each other in many sports for years) but Witt vs. Huntingdon is?

I've been b*tching for some time now about the absurdity of depending on "regional" results when there is no way to have geographically logical "regions" in Division III.

With that said, here are some comments from ATN and K-Mack:

"The criteria was created to keep D-III teams playing each other, and to keep them from being forced to crisscross the country on limited travel budgets to play the games that will get them into the playoffs."

"The emphasis on in-region games I always interpreted for football to mean that a team doesn't have to blow its travel budget searching far and wide for games. D-III doesn't want to get in a situation where teams feel compelled to spend more than they have to get the wins that impress the committee. Play the good teams that are close to you and win and you'll get in."

Put that way, I can understand the motivation for emphasizing "regional" results, but admittedly I still REALLY dislike throwing away results (especially with only 10 games to consider, and now we're supposed to just disregard the one result that probably tells us more about the team than any other?).

[DPU3619]

The other thing that bothers me is how it seems like the criteria aren't applied the same way in different regions:

Team A: 7-1, 6-0 region. 176th SOS with a .463 OWP
Team B: 8-0, 7-0 region. 171st SOS with a .455 OWP

Team A is Franklin, the 2nd ranked team in the North region rankings, ahead of NCC, Wheaton, IWU, etc.
Team B is Thomas More, the 8th ranked team in the South region rankings, behind McMurry & La Coll, both with a region loss. 

Yes, McM & La Coll both lost to UMHB, but whoopdey do.  Do we really agree that the South is just THAT much better?  I'm cherry picking here, but Wesley has a lower SOS than Wheaton with an otherwise similar resume.  Wesley > TMC but Wheaton < Franklin? Same goes for North Central in the North & McMurry in the South.  NCC has a MUCH higher SOS than McMurry. McMurry > TMC but NCC < Franklin? What's the difference?  The losses by Wesley and McMurry are better than the losses by Wheaton & NCC?  That's not in the criteria.

Honestly, it's basically the same thing that happened last year when Wabash was left out and Montclair was put in.  The criteria was applied differently for different teams.  Here's what I said that day:

Was speaking with wally on twitter and he made an excellent point.  If you're going to reward DePauw for SOS and penalize Witt & ONU for SOS, then Wabash probably has to get in on its SOS numbers.  I think that's a rather unfortunate illustration of using the criteria for one purpose and then ignoring it for another.

[smedindy]

All this and the CCIW crown could be determined by point differential. Could the "A" from the CCIW be ranked lower regionally than their "C" candidate? I really haven't thought all of the scenarios through but that could be a possibility.

I am fairly certain that if St. Thomas, UMHB, Mt. Union and UW-W win out then those are your four top seeds, and then you plan accordingly elsewhere.

[ADL70]

The sad thing is that Rochester isn't a horrible trip for Case. Cripes, they're in the same conference for practically everything but football  And it's not regional, but North Central vs. Redlands is? Wabash vs. Wash U. isn't regional (though they've played each other in many sports for years) but Witt vs. Huntingdon is?

My brain hurts at times. I know you gotta draw the line somewhere, but...

Preaching to the choir here, Smeds.  I've been raging about the absurdity of in-region bias and the in-region concept for at least three years.

Can I get an "AMEN?"

What no one has been able to give me is a rationale for drawing lines at all.  What started out fairly reasonable got skewed when the Administrative Regions were added to the criteria.  That's what gives you Witt v Huntingdon as in region.  The ad absurdum argument gives you UP of Michigan and Puerto Rico in same region.

When it started, the rationale (is there a plural for rationale?) seemed reasonable.  They are evaluation regions, so giving greater weight to games which would be more likely to involve common opponents or at least teams that the committee would be familiar with made sense.

If I understand correctly, this didn't work well for the Texas, So Cal, and NW "islands,'" as it didn't provide enough teams that were in-region. And the teams in the same Administrative Region were designated as "in-region" for evaluation purposes as well. 

To me a better solution would have been to increase the 200 mile criterion to 400 or perhaps 500 miles or to give each school a radius which would provide them access to one-fourth of DIII teams (one-eighth for sports with eight regions).  Admittedly the second alternative might be difficult to administer, but either would return the in-region criterion closer to the original concept.

[Pat Coleman]

The sad thing is that Rochester isn't a horrible trip for Case. Cripes, they're in the same conference for practically everything but football  And it's not regional, but North Central vs. Redlands is? Wabash vs. Wash U. isn't regional (though they've played each other in many sports for years) but Witt vs. Huntingdon is?

My brain hurts at times. I know you gotta draw the line somewhere, but...

Preaching to the choir here, Smeds.  I've been raging about the absurdity of in-region bias and the in-region concept for at least three years.

Can I get an "AMEN?"

What no one has been able to give me is a rationale for drawing lines at all.  What started out fairly reasonable got skewed when the Administrative Regions were added to the criteria.  That's what gives you Witt v Huntingdon as in region.  The ad absurdum argument gives you UP of Michigan and Puerto Rico in same region.

When it started, the rationale (is there a plural for rationale?) seemed reasonable.  They are evaluation regions, so giving greater weight to games which would be more likely to involve common opponents or at least teams that the committee would be familiar with made sense.

If I understand correctly, this didn't work well for the Texas, So Cal, and NW "islands,'" as it didn't provide enough teams that were in-region. And the teams in the same Administrative Region were designated as "in-region" for evaluation purposes as well. 

To me a better solution would have been to increase the 200 mile criterion to 400 or perhaps 500 miles or to give each school a radius which would provide them access to one-fourth of DIII teams (one-eighth for sports with eight regions).  Admittedly the second alternative might be difficult to administer, but either would return the in-region criterion closer to the original concept.

The radius doesn't work because school A might have school B in its closest 60 football schools but the reverse might not be true. Picture Case and someone such as McDaniel -- there are so many more schools to the East of McDaniel that Case would almost certainly not be among the 60 closest.

The administrative regions are huge, to be sure, but they do basically encompass one-fourth of Division III. Anything that expands in-region competition is a benefit to Division III, I think. The Division III philosophy, agreed upon by its member schools, mandates a focus on regional play, so there has to be some manifestation of it somewhere.

[smedindy]

I think Wabash and NC made some big bold statements...to say the least.

And Adrian? WTF?

[smedindy]

I didn't add any teams to my Top 10, just some movement. Wheaton and Witt still are amongst the Top 10 teams in the North.

I can see Wabash leaping over Franklin in the regional rankings, but whither North Central? If Franklin falls to 4 in the North, they may get a rematch with the Whitewater shade of Purple.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I'm having the opposite problem of what we've had all year... normally it's who do we leave out... now it's who do we put in. I could do with a couple less spots right now. I feel solid about my top 8... then it's a matter of who gets in just because I have to have two more teams.

[ADL70]

I wondered if you were ever going to post them Wes Here's a handy comparison chart of different rankings


Team             North Fan  Region Rank    25 Fan     d3 Top 25
Mount Union         1st  (1)        1st         2nd   (2)      2nd  (2)
North Central       2nd  (2)        4th         6th   (6)      6th  (6)
Wabash              3rd  (3)       T2nd         8th   (8)     10th  (9)
Wheaton             4th  (4)        7th        11th  (13)     13th (13)
Illinois Wesleyan   5th  (5)        6th        17th  (17)     21st (24)
Franklin           T6th  (8)       T2nd        22nd  (21)     22nd (22)
Baldwin-Wallace    T6th  (7)        8th       T32nd (T33)     29th (31)
Wittenberg          8th  (9)        9th        28th  (28)     27th (28)
Heidelberg          9th (10)        ---        ----  (--)     ---- (--)
CWRU               10th (11)        5th        ----  (--)     ---- (--)
Albion             11th  (-)       10th        ----  (--)     ---- (--)
Adrian             12th  (6)        ---        ----  (20)     35th (27)

And the ATN top 50 (before yesterday's games)

2-Mt Union
8-North Central
14-Illinois Wesleyan
19-Wabash
23-Wheaton
37-Wittenberg
38-Franklin
43-Baldwin-Wallace
44-CWRU
48-Heidelberg
50-Adrian

[DPU3619]

Week 10 North Region Fan Poll:

1. Mount Union           60 pts (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
2. North Central          54 pts (2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)
3. Wabash                 48 pts (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
4. Illinois Wesleyan      41 pts (4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5)
5. Baldwin-Wallace      32 pts (5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 8)
6. Franklin                  30 pts (4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7)
7. Wheaton                28 pts (6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7)
8. CWRU                    15 pts (7, 8, 8, 8, 9, -)
9. Heidelberg              13 pts (8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 10)
10. Wittenberg            7 pts (9, 9, 10, 10, 10, -)

RV Adrian                   1 pt (10, -, -, -, -, -)
RV Ohio Northern         1 pt (10, -, -, -, -, -)

The North Region Fan Poll is voted on by Wes Anderson, wally_wabash, smedindy, Mr. Ypsi, ADL70, and FCGrizzliesGrad.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

That has to be the closest I've been to matching the entire poll... I had the same except for having BW in 8th and everyone else up 1.