Pool C -- 2011

[ADL70]

Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

[Mr. Ypsi]

Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade!

[smedindy]

That was a huge brain-fart by Wash U. I can't see how they lost that game after how hard they played against Wabash. I did think North Park was going to get a CCIW win.

[skunks_sidekick]

Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade!

I read this as he was ragging on the MWC, and NOT the CCIW.  (I could be wrong.)

[wally_wabash]

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

Keep bangin' on that regional record drum.  If it isn't clear by now that the regional record ship has sailed, then it just isn't going to be clear. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade!

I read this as he was ragging on the MWC, and NOT the CCIW.  (I could be wrong.)

In re-reading, you may be right.  I took it as complaining about IWU jumping Case in the final RR (alas, we DID get monkey-stomped by NCC).

Of course, another way to keep IC out would have been if Wheaton had also jumped Case in those final rankings!

[K-Mack]

That could be a good solution. I think you have to limit the teams at the table but 4 seems too narrow. Another option is to take all the regionally ranked Pool C teams. That wouldn't always be a big number. May not be more than 8.

I like these ideas, but I don't think that would stop the complaining, just re-draw where the line to complain starts.

I think last year Willamette was the 11th RRO in the west and if they'd been 10th it would have given PLU the win it needed to get in as the 6th Pool C. Say in a situation like that, there's an 11th-ranked team that has a much better overall resume than the No. 9 East team or something. That's gonna be the same deal as not having teams on the table.

I like the 8 at once. Or maybe just let them evaluate up to 10 total. Or 12 for 6 spots. I mean at a certain point, if you're not in the top 3 or 4 non-playoff teams in your region you're likely not a playoff team, right? Although theoretically all six Pool Cs could come from one region and the way they do it now is open to that.

[USee]

That could be a good solution. I think you have to limit the teams at the table but 4 seems too narrow. Another option is to take all the regionally ranked Pool C teams. That wouldn't always be a big number. May not be more than 8.

I like these ideas, but I don't think that would stop the complaining, just re-draw where the line to complain starts.

I think last year Willamette was the 11th RRO in the west and if they'd been 10th it would have given PLU the win it needed to get in as the 6th Pool C. Say in a situation like that, there's an 11th-ranked team that has a much better overall resume than the No. 9 East team or something. That's gonna be the same deal as not having teams on the table.

I like the 8 at once. Or maybe just let them evaluate up to 10 total. Or 12 for 6 spots. I mean at a certain point, if you're not in the top 3 or 4 non-playoff teams in your region you're likely not a playoff team, right? Although theoretically all six Pool Cs could come from one region and the way they do it now is open to that.

Keith,

I agree with you (and others) that this would be re-drawing the complaining line. I think that ignores the broader issue, which is that the "complaining line" is currently too close to the "qualified but not considered" line. If you only evaluate 4 teams at a time when evaluating 6 or 8 might provide a better field, then you are being too narrow. Right now the process has the committee evaluating 4 teams at a time for 1 spot that they are currently trying to fill. If the committee would broaden their perspective from evaluating 4 teams for 1 spot to evaluating 12-14 teams for 6 spots, that is a process worth considering because teams 8-14 can never say they they weren't compared. That seems like a better outcome than having team #7 and #never being compared to team #6. Wheaton, St Olaf, Bethel, BW, etc their beef shouldn't be "we didn't get in" but it should be "we were never considered". That's the part of the process that can be fixed.

Never being considered is a problem that should not be associated with not being chosen.

[ExTartanPlayer]

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade!

I feel compelled to address this remark, as it pertains to UAA honor, and the UAA's standing relative to other Division III conferences.

Yes, our #2 team (WashU) lost to the CCIW's last-place team, North Park. 

I respond by pointing out that our very own last-place team (Chicago) beat CCIW #4 Elmhurst (who went 4-3 in the CCIW with losses to the "Big Three" of the conference).

I think that the UAA stacks up quite well with the middle tier of most Division III conferences, even the CCIW and OAC.  Generally, they are not good enough to play with the teams at the TOP of those conferences, but the UAA four would probably slide into the middle tier of the CCIW and OAC and would be near the top (though not necessarily AT the top) of lesser conferences such as the MWC and NCAC.

[Mugsy]

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade!

I feel compelled to address this remark, as it pertains to UAA honor, and the UAA's standing relative to other Division III conferences.

Yes, our #2 team (WashU) lost to the CCIW's last-place team, North Park. 

I respond by pointing out that our very own last-place team (Chicago) beat CCIW #4 Elmhurst (who went 4-3 in the CCIW with losses to the "Big Three" of the conference).

I think that the UAA stacks up quite well with the middle tier of most Division III conferences, even the CCIW and OAC.  Generally, they are not good enough to play with the teams at the TOP of those conferences, but the UAA four would probably slide into the middle tier of the CCIW and OAC and would be near the top (though not necessarily AT the top) of lesser conferences such as the MWC and NCAC.

That may or may not be true, but the problem is... finishing in the middle-tier of conferences like the WIAC, OAC or CCIW would put you firmly outside of the playoff picture.

[smedindy]

Mugsy,

I don't dispute that. Probably a dozen or so conference champs would struggle in the CCIW. But again, the current system is better than the old one. Every conference champ has a 'chance' - even Benedictine.

[Mugsy]

Mugsy,

I don't dispute that. Probably a dozen or so conference champs would struggle in the CCIW. But again, the current system is better than the old one. Every conference champ has a 'chance' - even Benedictine.

Umm... I didn't say I have a problem with the current system that awards playoff slots to all conference champs.  Nor was I trying to toot the CCIW's horn - I did mention other perceived top conferences.  I believe you were reading for more out of my post than was actually there.

Many would argue and be quite valid in doing so, that saying top teams in a conference would finish in the middle of other conferences shows the relative disparity in strength of teams across conferences and therefore assures we don't have the true 32 best teams in the playoffs under the current system.  It does however mean that a broader set of teams truly have a chance to participate in the playoffs.

While part of me laments the fact that Wheaton is not in the playoffs this year, I understand and actually agree with the system awarding a playoff spot to teams like Benedictine, despite the fact they lost soundly to NPU who has lost 81 straight CCIW games.  To me it represents more of the true spirit of competitive athletics in D3.

Personally I would find the playoffs far less appealing if a larger percentage of the 32 teams came from the "power conferences" and 6-10 conferences didn't have any representation.  (Just as I find it less appealing that the same 2 teams vie for the title every year - though I recognize why that is...  )

I was merely trying to point out in my previous post that trying to gauge the relative strength of one conference to stronger conferences by pointing out that the champ would finish in the middle of the pack in the stronger conference doesn't really net in a favorable view.  Would you rather finish in the middle of the pack in a strong conference year after year or compete for a possible conference championship and playoff slot in a weaker conference?

[Ralph Turner]

From the perspective of the ASC, I have very little faith in the SOS/OWP/OOWP as generated in football to reflect the quality of play in the ASC.

How many schools are in a 300 mile radius of Chicago?  All you have to do to have a good SOS is schedule 3 beatable teams in the top 1/3 of their (weaker) conferences.

With only 6 Pool C bids, I have trouble with 1/3rd of the Pool C bids going to one conference.  I don't think that our tools for measuring the quality of the teams can determine quality with that precision.

[smedindy]

Ralph,

That is a good point and I think in hoops discussion we often have issues with the NESCAC gaming the system by scheduling the good teams from weaker conferences and only playing a single round-robin.

But what would you propose as an alternative?

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph,

That is a good point and I think in hoops discussion we often have issues with the NESCAC gaming the system by scheduling the good teams from weaker conferences and only playing a single round-robin.

But what would you propose as an alternative?

Smed, thanks and thanks to all for the comments so far.

The one dictum that I can state about 2 Pool C bids to one conference is that I just hate to give 2 Pool C bids (1/3rd of the allotment) to one conference.  Wheaton had 2 chances to earn one of 2 bids.  (Now for the CCIW or the NESCAC or the WIAC to get 2 Pool C bids out of 20, over a 25 game schedule, then that is a little different.)

Case did everything those players were asked, except beat Rochester, an "out-of-region" game.

I don't doubt that the CCIW is a strong conference.  They are the strongest among the local conferences in that part of the region, including the NATHC, MWC, UMAC, MIAA and HCAC.  Of course for football, the MIAC and WIAC are in-region, too.  That area is rich in schools by which you can construct a strong SOS/OWP/OOWP.

The East, and especially the Empire 8, come out smelling like a rose.  Their "ACFC/E8" champion gets the Pool A and the upstate New York crowd of the E8 has not missed a beat.  SJF played a competitive OOC schedule. Props to that.