Pool C -- 2011

[Frank Rossi]

People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.

But...

Wheaton lost two CCIW games.
St. Olaf lost two MIAC games.
Baldwin - Wallace lost two OAC games.
Montclair State lost two NJAC games.

Why would their non-conference schedule affect their "C" chances?

CCIW:  Wheaton isn't in my discussion list here.  Not sure why you keyed in on their third-place team.
MIAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.
OAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference ganes, 1 OOC.
NJAC: 10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.

Each of those last three conferences have teams with decent playoff experience -- therefore, it's not their OOC schedules I'm looking at (NJAC will get 1 additional OOC game starting next year with Buffalo St. leaving).  How about we look at the teams like St. John Fisher -- loss was to Hobart OOC.  Why keep scheduling Hobart if this trend continues?  The entire Empire 8 is beginning to lean in that thought process, from my discussions.  Some Liberty League coaches are saying the same thing to me.  These are conferences that have to schedule OOC games and are watching this landscape carefully because of it.

[smedindy]

Do you when exactly NY Maritime put W. Conn on their schedule?

Do you know if the NEFC and the ECFC are PURPOSELY avoiding the LL, E8 and NJAC?

Do you not know the reverse could be happening, where a LL team says, "why would I play this ECFC team when it doesn't do me any good?" Then you get stuck in the rathole. People complain that you don't play a competitive schedule, and when you try the competitive teams don't schedule you.

[Frank Rossi]

Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.

I can. Being near the OAC, they know if they win the rest of their OAC games they go to the playoffs. Much like any other conference. Same with the WIAC. Any worthy OAC or WIAC team that can run the table outside of the purple won't lose a non-conference game, except if they decide to schedule a team like North Central or St. Thomas.

And if they do schedule a North Central or a St. Thomas, it may give them a chance to compete against the Purples. They proved this year they're not invincible. They CAN be beaten if played hard for 60-minutes. it just didn't happen.

So, essentially, you're requiring the OAC and WIAC teams to go undefeated for a bid (tossing out the Purple games) -- but the NEFC has a fudge factor of one game.  OK, got it.  You have lost all veracity.  Have a good night.

[smedindy]

People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.

But...

Wheaton lost two CCIW games.
St. Olaf lost two MIAC games.
Baldwin - Wallace lost two OAC games.
Montclair State lost two NJAC games.

Why would their non-conference schedule affect their "C" chances?

CCIW:  Wheaton isn't in my discussion list here.  Not sure why you keyed in on their third-place team.
MIAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.
OAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference ganes, 1 OOC.
NJAC: 10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.

Each of those last three conferences have teams with decent playoff experience -- therefore, it's not their OOC schedules I'm looking at (NJAC will get 1 additional OOC game starting next year with Buffalo St. leaving).  How about we look at the teams like St. John Fisher -- loss was to Hobart OOC.  Why keep scheduling Hobart if this trend continues?  The entire Empire 8 is beginning to lean in that thought process, from my discussions.  Some Liberty League coaches are saying the same thing to me.  These are conferences that have to schedule OOC games and are watching this landscape carefully because of it.

Wheaton is very relevant. They are team 34. They're the best two-loss team out there.

And what happens when the LL or E8 decided to schedule an ECFC team, then all of a sudden start getting beat by said ECFC team? I bet they drop them fast!

[smedindy]

Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.

I can. Being near the OAC, they know if they win the rest of their OAC games they go to the playoffs. Much like any other conference. Same with the WIAC. Any worthy OAC or WIAC team that can run the table outside of the purple won't lose a non-conference game, except if they decide to schedule a team like North Central or St. Thomas.

And if they do schedule a North Central or a St. Thomas, it may give them a chance to compete against the Purples. They proved this year they're not invincible. They CAN be beaten if played hard for 60-minutes. it just didn't happen.

So, essentially, you're requiring the OAC and WIAC teams to go undefeated for a bid (tossing out the Purple games) -- but the NEFC has a fudge factor of one game.  OK, got it.  You have lost all veracity.  Have a good night.

No, that's not what I'm saying AT ALL!

The one way to guarantee a bid is to go undefeated. Otherwise you are dealing with the committee. Period. Don't put yourself in that situation. But if there was an OAC and a WIAC team that had just one loss, Endicott wouldn't be on the table, and we wouldn't have this discussion.

You can't reserve spots for just the elite. It doesn't work.

[Frank Rossi]

Do you when exactly NY Maritime put W. Conn on their schedule?

Do you know if the NEFC and the ECFC are PURPOSELY avoiding the LL, E8 and NJAC?

Do you not know the reverse could be happening, where a LL team says, "why would I play this ECFC team when it doesn't do me any good?" Then you get stuck in the rathole. People complain that you don't play a competitive schedule, and when you try the competitive teams don't schedule you.

I have heard some reliable rumors that the New England teams have complained about being matched up against New York-based teams in ECAC Bowls because of their results the past decade.  So, yes, I have heard that "they are PURPOSELY avoiding the LL, E8 and NJAC."

[Mr. Ypsi]

The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.

Except that most all of the best two-loss candidates had their two losses in league. So there goes that argument.

No, the argument itself is still sound, regardless of this year's results.  And as several posters (including both Pat and Keith, I believe) pointed out, if Oshkosh had not gone and lost a third game, it sure would have been a test of 2-loss vs. 1-loss teams if their only two losses were UWW (conference) and UMU (non-con)!

[smedindy]

That's the bowls. How about regular season schedules. Any reliable rumors from disgruntled insiders or just sour grapes from 8-2 or 7-3 teams?

Scheduling is pretty tough when you have conferences that have only one week and some that have multiple weeks.

[Upstate]

You can't reserve spots for just the elite. It doesn't work.

But giving pool C bids to crap conferences that, as a whole, doesn't schedule any meaningful OOC games does?

I thought we were looking for the best 32 teams?

[smedindy]

The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.

Except that most all of the best two-loss candidates had their two losses in league. So there goes that argument.

No, the argument itself is still sound, regardless of this year's results.  And as several posters (including both Pat and Keith, I believe) pointed out, if Oshkosh had not gone and lost a third game, it sure would have been a test of 2-loss vs. 1-loss teams if their only two losses were UWW (conference) and UMU (non-con)!

UMU was out of region, though.

[smedindy]

You can't reserve spots for just the elite. It doesn't work.

But giving pool C bids to crap conferences that, as a whole, doesn't schedule any meaningful OOC games does?

I thought we were looking for the best 32 teams?

It was never about 'the best 32 teams'. Otherwise, it'd be a tournament full of four or five conferences. No NCAA tournament is about slotting the 'best X' teams. Hardly any playoff system has the exact best teams in it. Think of the NFL last year - Seattle wasn't amongst the best 12 teams, but they got in AND WON A GAME!

[Mr. Ypsi]

Man, this conversation is going too fast for me!  Everytime I hit 'post' I get the message that 4 more posts are up so you may want to revise your post; so I read those 4, hit 'post', and it says 2 more!

[Frank Rossi]

It's not "reserving slots for the elite," Sir.  I said earlier that Salve would've deserved a bid at 9-1 in Endicott's shoes this year.  Salve is hardly "elite."  You need to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.  Endicott's scheduling is AWFUL.  WNEC's is, too.  The OAC has no choice in scheduling Mount Union.  The WIAC has no choice in scheduling Whitewater.  So, you are essentially requiring OAC teams and WIAC teams to go undefeated in games other than the monsters in their conferences.  There is no such monster in the NEFC.  You are allowing the NEFC a free pass of a loss in doing so, based on your statements.  You can try to distance yourself as much as you want.  We're so far from elitism in the brackets now with 25 Pool A bids and 6 Pool C bids, it's no longer funny.  It's having adverse effects on scheduling policies now for teams that CAN control their schedules.

[smedindy]

This is what happens when the bracket show gets delayed, YPSI. Though I think this conversation would be better sitting around the room with adult beverages. By hour two we'd all agree on something. Maybe Ralph's point about D-2. Maybe about the NESCAC. Something!

[Frank Rossi]

That's the bowls. How about regular season schedules. Any reliable rumors from disgruntled insiders or just sour grapes from 8-2 or 7-3 teams?

Scheduling is pretty tough when you have conferences that have only one week and some that have multiple weeks.

I'm sorry, but what additional proof would you need of who's avoiding whom?  It's consistent with the scheduling policies we witness.  It's now up to you to tell me the proof you have that the NEFC is NOT avoiding those teams, with the exception of Salve.  Can you?  Didn't think so.