Pool C -- 2011

[K-Mack]

CCIW tiebreakers

3. Point differential between tied teams in conference

Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?

Or does point differential include all games?

"in conference" is throwing me off. Why would a three-way tie for a conference title attempt to use out of conference numbers?

Anyway, I guess since either North Central or Wheaton will pick up its second overall loss, either way IWU is a good Pool C contender. NCC wins the three-way tiebreaker (most likely) and NC wins if Wheaton loses and IWU is tied with NC.

Make any sense? I'm sure I'm messing something up.

All that is good for Redlands

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?

Actually it'd be just 15 points not 30... IWU is -19, Wheaton -5, NCC +24 at the moment... if Wheaton wins by 15 then they'd be at +10 and NCC would be down to +9 thus giving the edge to Wheaton.

[Schwami]

If Wabash wins out, then their SOS would improve and I think they'd nudge ahead of Franklin.

Not just that, and perhaps more importantly, Wabash would pick up a win against a RRO with a win against Witt.

[Mr. Ypsi]

K-Mack, the tie-breaker is fairly simple: scores among the tied teams.

Since IWU is -19, they cannot win.  [They are +5 + -24 = -19]

NCC is currently +24; Wheaton is currently -5.

Therefore if Wheaton wins, but by 14 or less, NCC wins.  If Wheaton wins by 15+, they win.

[And, of course, if NCC wins (my prediction), they win.]

As an IWU fan, I'm rooting for either a Wheaton blowout (eliminates NCC, but makes IWU look bad for their loss), or, better, an NCC win (keeps IWU ahead of Wheaton and virtually guarantees a Pool C).  The worst option is a narrow Wheaton win - NCC still gets the AQ, but Wheaton almost certainly jumps IWU in the Pool C queue.

I see I've already been beaten to the punch on some of this (I was taken from the computer for awhile), but I'll post anyway!

[K-Mack]

Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?

Actually it'd be just 15 points not 30... IWU is -19, Wheaton -5, NCC +24 at the moment... if Wheaton wins by 15 then they'd be at +10 and NCC would be down to +9 thus giving the edge to Wheaton.

Yeah, that's what I meant. 

The ASC uses this too, and one year IIRC, Hardin-Simmons got jobbed by winning in overtime and not getting to attempt the PAT. They won by 6 and lost by 7, UMHB was 7 & 7 and ETBU was either +1 or went because they took the AQ.

I'm sketchy on the details, but pretty sure I wrote about it in the YIR or an ATN that year.

[K-Mack]

K-Mack, the tie-breaker is fairly simple: scores among the tied teams.

Gotcha. I understand the concept. Your wording above is better than the wording from the CCIW website. Though I'm glad they actually have a tiebreakers page, so I'm not knocking.

Sorry for the "imprecision" and the errors on the projections on won-loss records for overall and in-region.  I did not have the time to complete those fully.

The message board is exactly the place for this. I "think out loud" here all the time. Plenty of lazy imprecision on my part makes it to the boards. It's ATN I hope stays clean.

[K-Mack]

From the Ten Best conference races in a 2009 ATN:

5. ASC 2003.
Led by junior linebacker Greg Washington, whose Army Reserve unit was called to active duty in Iraq in December, shortly after the season ended, East Texas Baptist briefly broke the Mary Hardin-Baylor/Hardin-Simmons stranglehold on the ASC. But it took a unique three-way tiebreaker to fend off those two teams and send ETBU to the playoffs.

As described in 2003's ATN year-in-review, where this was awarded "best play that seemed meaningless at the time:

"I guess we should call it a non-play, since, by rule, Hardin-Simmons did not attempt a PAT after scoring in overtime to beat East Texas Baptist. But the 20-14 win came back to haunt the Cowboys, because ETBU beat Mary Hardin-Baylor 28-21 in overtime, and UMHB beat Hardin-Simmons 43-36. Since margin of victory in head-to-head games was the American Southwest's three-team tiebreaker, ETBU got the automatic playoff bid due to its plus-one margin of victory in games among the three. UMHB had a seven-point win and seven-point loss, so they were even, and HSU was down one point — the PAT they didn't kick in overtime because they elected to play defense first and held ETBU! What kind of reward is that? The only way they guarantee a chance to kick the PAT is by electing to go first, and since they won the toss, they had that option. But who would think of something like that when the coin is flipped in overtime?"

At least Wheaton isn't able to win by 14.5

[Ralph Turner]

Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?

Actually it'd be just 15 points not 30... IWU is -19, Wheaton -5, NCC +24 at the moment... if Wheaton wins by 15 then they'd be at +10 and NCC would be down to +9 thus giving the edge to Wheaton.

Yeah, that's what I meant. 

The ASC uses this too, and one year IIRC, Hardin-Simmons got jobbed by winning in overtime and not getting to attempt the PAT. They won by 6 and lost by 7, UMHB was 7 & 7 and ETBU was either +1 or went because they took the AQ.

I'm sketchy on the details, but pretty sure I wrote about it in the YIR or an ATN that year.

Yes, ETBU, HSU, UMHB in 2003.

Three way ties in the ASC for football are settled by coin flip.

[ncc_fan]

Yes, ETBU, HSU, UMHB in 2003.

Three way ties in the ASC for football are settled by coin flip.

Wow, you have three-sided coins in Texas? 

[hickory_cornhusker]

Yes, ETBU, HSU, UMHB in 2003.

Three way ties in the ASC for football are settled by coin flip.

Wow, you have three-sided coins in Texas? 

Get to the coin flip meeting early because last one there is forced to choose the edge 

[wally_wabash]

From a North Region perspective, there are a couple of things that I suspect will change when the list gets turned over to the national committee...

- I suspect that CWRU's result vs. Rochester will be factored and the Spartans will not be the first at-large team on the table from the North.  And it makes sense, really.  If you're selecting teams on a national basis for a national tournament, it just doesn't make sense or even seem fair to ignore such an important D-III result. 

- I also suspect that Franklin's result against Whitewater will factor into their placement.  Perhaps if they had an Oshkoshish result against the Warhawks then they wouldn't get dinged for that loss. 

And if Wheaton were to beat NCC but not by enough to prevent NCC from earning the AQ, doesn't it make sense that Wheaton would be seeded higher? They wo0uld have a better record, the h2h leverage, and would be co-champions of the CCIW (if one were to think that that label is important). 

[smedindy]

Of course, CWRU may not even be the "C" team.

But regional records are a criteria. And the committee isn't always consistent year over year, or even in the same year.

[USee]

One of the committee members is Tim Lester,Head Coach at Elmhurst. I suspect he has an idea of CWRU vs IWU/Wheaton. And Craig Rundle lost to Wheaton (and his son is the Dcoordinator at IWU). Here is the North Region Committee:

Shannon Griffith, Manchester College, co-chair
Tim Gleason, Ohio Athletic Conference, co-chair
Kevin Doherty, Lakeland College
Mike Hallett, Heidelberg University
Tim Lester, Elmhurst College
Craig Rundle, Albion College
Ted Stanley, Kenyon College
Tyson Veidt, Bluffton University
John Welty, Westminster College (MO)

[K-Mack]

One of the committee members is Tim Lester,Head Coach at Elmhurst. I suspect he has an idea of CWRU vs IWU/Wheaton. And Craig Rundle lost to Wheaton (and his son is the Dcoordinator at IWU). Here is the North Region Committee:

Shannon Griffith, Manchester College, co-chair
Tim Gleason, Ohio Athletic Conference, co-chair
Kevin Doherty, Lakeland College
Mike Hallett, Heidelberg University
Tim Lester, Elmhurst College
Craig Rundle, Albion College
Ted Stanley, Kenyon College
Tyson Veidt, Bluffton University
John Welty, Westminster College (MO)

When I published these 1 or 2 ATNs ago (who can recall?) one of the reasons I couldn't write "every conference is represented on the regional advisory committees" is because there is no UAA presence. FWIW.

[K-Mack]

From a North Region perspective, there are a couple of things that I suspect will change when the list gets turned over to the national committee...

- I suspect that CWRU's result vs. Rochester will be factored and the Spartans will not be the first at-large team on the table from the North.  And it makes sense, really.  If you're selecting teams on a national basis for a national tournament, it just doesn't make sense or even seem fair to ignore such an important D-III result. 

- I also suspect that Franklin's result against Whitewater will factor into their placement.  Perhaps if they had an Oshkoshish result against the Warhawks then they wouldn't get dinged for that loss. 

And if Wheaton were to beat NCC but not by enough to prevent NCC from earning the AQ, doesn't it make sense that Wheaton would be seeded higher? They wo0uld have a better record, the h2h leverage, and would be co-champions of the CCIW (if one were to think that that label is important).

All of these things make sense.

Seedings do not necessarily rank the AQ winner higher. Just as recently as last season we saw Hampden-Sydney play a home game and W&L get sent to Thomas More, for instance.

I don't see how you take a 9-1 Case with a flat SoS (No. 115, .500 right now) and a loss to Rochester over a 9-1 Illinois Wesleyan with a loss to North Central and a .574 (No. 35) SoS. I think it's safe to assume that would be rectified should both teams end the season with those records, although it's legitimate to ask why would they be ranked the way they are now if those are the facts now. Hmm.

Mike Leonard is thinking big picture. He was at the Stagg Bowl last year and really wants to get Franklin there someday. Playing Whitewater I think was the first step in trying to figure out what Franklin needs to do to get there. Unfortunately the 45-point loss is going to cost his this-year team a little bit. If it had played, say, DePauw and run the table, they'd get a better seed.

He gets it though. The playoffs will be a reward for this year's team. And otherwise, if you want to be the big dog, you gotta beat the big dog.