Pool C -- 2011

[USee]

Ralph, I don't dispute your point (and I have my own reservations on how you can have the #14 SOS nationally having played Olivet) but Wheaton has shown what they can do with playoff opportunity by getting a Pool C in 2008 as the 32nd team in the field and making it to the quarterfinals. If Wheaton had been compared with Case and selected, I don't think there would be many objections. That said, I have no issue with the field and their exclusion given the fact they didn't get it done.

[Mr. Ypsi]

USee, for some reason you keep understating Wheaton's 2008 accomplishments - they won their quarterfinal game and made the national semifinals before having to go to Alliance ('where CCIW dreams go to die' - except, I hope and predict, this year!)

[USee]

Ypsi, it's the old age thing again. you know what I mean

[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.

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.

I follow you here, but technically they are considered when the regional advisory committee ranks their teams in order.

I would be all for allowing 8 or 10 teams to be evaluated to allow for the complete evaluation of each team with a shot's credentials against everyone else's. But I also understand this logic: If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Keith, I understand your point (and partially agree), but what a test case it would be if BOTH Case and Wheaton had been at the table when IC and SJF were selected.  (I'm assuming that Case was the only one up and Wheaton never made it to the table, but I guess we simply don't know for sure.  And, of course, we don't know which was 5th, which 6th.)  Whenever they reached the 2-team pick, I have to believe that Wheaton would have been in over SJF.  IF that option had been available.

Since all (or almost all?) other sports have 8 regions (thus 8 at the table at any one time), 2 per region (thus 8 at the table) seems a perfectly reasonable ('d3-friendly'!) football solution to me.

All THIS hand-wringing could have been avoided if Wheaton had somehow beaten NCC - NCC would still be in as the AQ, while IWU and Wheaton, both 9-1, would have been locks.  Of course, with the CCIW then taking up 33% of the Cs, there would then be OTHER hand-wringing!

[K-Mack]

Keith, I understand your point (and partially agree), but what a test case it would be if BOTH Case and Wheaton had been at the table when IC and SJF were selected.  (I'm assuming that Case was the only one up and Wheaton never made it to the table, but I guess we simply don't know for sure.  And, of course, we don't know which was 5th, which 6th.)  Whenever they reached the 2-team pick, I have to believe that Wheaton would have been in over SJF.  IF that option had been available.

Since all (or almost all?) other sports have 8 regions (thus 8 at the table at any one time), 2 per region (thus 8 at the table) seems a perfectly reasonable ('d3-friendly'!) football solution to me.

All THIS hand-wringing could have been avoided if Wheaton had somehow beaten NCC - NCC would still be in as the AQ, while IWU and Wheaton, both 9-1, would have been locks.  Of course, with the CCIW then taking up 33% of the Cs, there would then be OTHER hand-wringing!

Yeah, I mean clearly I understand how it works and all the possible permutations. Nobody needs to explain to me, often the play-a-strong-schedule crusader, all the reasons why 8-2 teams with strong schedules should get in. (Although Wheaton didn't go out and schedule anyone great like the did when they played Bethel and NC played ONU, so I have little sympathy).

The point is if you're truly the next team that deserves to get in the playoffs, how can you be stuck behind a team in your region? If the regional advisory committee doesn't have Wheaton ahead of Case, then what does it matter how Wheaton compares to SJF? The RAC has already determined Case deserved to go before Wheaton. The regional and national committees use the same criteria.

I'm fine with, as I'm stating now for the third time, evaluating eight at once instead of four. But in theory those teams have all been evaluated already and it was determined, apparently, that CWRU goes before Wheaton. So however the process works, if CWRU gets left out and Wheaton gets in, we have a whole 'nother problem. (Not subjectively of course, just consistency-in-team-selection-wise)

[USee]

Keith,

The only thing I would say to your point is we did get an inconsistency when the east region jumped their 2 loss team over a 1 loss team and the north region didn't. 8 teams allows one national committee to re-apply the criteria with consistency. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

The point is if you're truly the next team that deserves to get in the playoffs, how can you be stuck behind a team in your region? If the regional advisory committee doesn't have Wheaton ahead of Case, then what does it matter how Wheaton compares to SJF? The RAC has already determined Case deserved to go before Wheaton. The regional and national committees use the same criteria.

+1

I argued this point with...somebody, perhaps jknezek, a few weeks back.  I can't say it any better than you did here, Keith.

"If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?"

[jknezek]

I argued this point with...somebody, perhaps jknezek, a few weeks back.  I can't say it any better than you did here, Keith.

"If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?"

We had a slightly different argument. My point was that "top" team does not necessarily imply the next best team in your region from a football standpoint. For a regional committee, it should imply the most likely team to make the field. I've written several posts about why, this year, SJF as a 2 loss team was an incredibly astute choice for the East Region committee. There are 3 things that stick out about SJF, 1) SOS, 2) common opponent strength over another team on the boad (CWRU), and 3) there were probably two Cs chosen from the West and South already. I believe that SJF is not the trendstarter that people on this board hope with good 2 loss teams getting in over weak 1 loss teams. I just think it was a perfect storm for SJF to be a better candidate versus who was left on the board than Endicott.

Had the North committee not submitted Case, I believe the East committee would have been more inclined to submit Endicott. I also think it likely that without the common opponent, 9-1 Endicott would have very likely made the field over an 8-2 North team. I also believe had the East committee submitted Endicott versus Case, Case would have made the field. None of this has to do with the best team on the field, it all has to do with the best comparison and the strongest argument. All of this is, of course, speculation because we don't know who submitted who when...

My point is that the East Committee's choice for best, a 2 loss team with an excellent chance to get in, was daring and successful, but not necessarily trendsetting...

[Ralph Turner]

I argued this point with...somebody, perhaps jknezek, a few weeks back.  I can't say it any better than you did here, Keith.

"If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?"

We had a slightly different argument. My point was that "top" team does not necessarily imply the next best team in your region from a football standpoint. For a regional committee, it should imply the most likely team to make the field. I've written several posts about why, this year, SJF as a 2 loss team was an incredibly astute choice for the East Region committee. There are 3 things that stick out about SJF, 1) SOS, 2) common opponent strength over another team on the boad (CWRU), and 3) there were probably two Cs chosen from the West and South already. I believe that SJF is not the trendstarter that people on this board hope with good 2 loss teams getting in over weak 1 loss teams. I just think it was a perfect storm for SJF to be a better candidate versus who was left on the board than Endicott.

Had the North committee not submitted Case, I believe the East committee would have been more inclined to submit Endicott. I also think it likely that without the common opponent, 9-1 Endicott would have very likely made the field over an 8-2 North team. I also believe had the East committee submitted Endicott versus Case, Case would have made the field. None of this has to do with the best team on the field, it all has to do with the best comparison and the strongest argument. All of this is, of course, speculation because we don't know who submitted who when...
My point is that the East Committee's choice for best, a 2 loss team with an excellent chance to get in, was daring and successful, but not necessarily trendsetting...

The East committee does not know what the North Committee is doing.

[jknezek]

Interesting. I thought they were on a conference call with the regionals along with the national committee. Thank you for that info. Makes the East's nomination of SJF a bit more of a shot in the dark, but still a good bet that the North would submit Case at some point.

[smedindy]

I have no doubt Case was on the proverbial table.

My guess that slot #6's choices were Endicott, Case, Birmingham Southern and Illinois College.

[ExTartanPlayer]

My point was that "top" team does not necessarily imply the next best team in your region from a football standpoint. For a regional committee, it should imply the most likely team to make the field.

I agree with the first sentence.  I don't entirely agree with the second sentence.  K-Mack and Pat have previously stated that the Regional committees are not playing some devious game to try and steal as many playoff berths as possible for their particular region.

1. The regional committee evaluates the potential Pool C teams in their region.

2. They rank the teams according to set of predetermined criteria.

3. The regional committees put their top-ranked teams (as you've said, not necessarily the "best") up for consideration.

4. The national committee looks at the four teams on the board and selects the one that they would have ranked the "highest" using the SAME EXACT CRITERIA.

5. That team is then replaced with the next team up from the same region.  Repeat steps 4 and 5 until six teams have been selected.

There's no shady "Since CWRU is on the board from the North, we should put St. John Fisher up now because..." kind of logic.  The teams SHOULD come off the board in the same order regardless of who each region puts up at any given time.

[jknezek]

And that is what I don't really believe. People are competitive and the Regional Committees are going to want to represent their region. I don't think it is devious or stealing or whatever. I simply believe that the committees work to get their teams in, as they should.

There is very little pure altruism in any part of life. Ask Joe Pa, or any member of Congress, for a speech on it one of these days. And you can say "predetermined criteria" all you want, but the criteria allows for enough wiggle room for almost anything. Win-loss percentage against regional opponents and SOS can be cover for almost any decision (a 2 loss SOS higher than a 1 loss percentage) as primary criteria. Since the criteria can be conflicting you can hide behind it however you like and vary it year to year. So pointing at the criteria is rarely helpful in absolute terms.

I also don't believe that the regional committees would necessarily place the same weight on the same criteria as the national committee unless so instructed from the national committee. If they aren't given those instructions, then it isn't the "SAME EXACT CRITERIA", it's just the same criteria grouping interpreted differently. If they are given the instructions from the top, then the North committee either disregarded those instructions or failed miserably by putting a weak 1 loss team up when they had some strong 2 loss choices, knowing that the committee was looking at SOS over winning percentage. You can't have it both ways by pointing at the known results from this year and years past.

What it boils down to is I don't believe that the regional committees are going to be happy if their teams don't make the tournament and just shrug and say, "oh well. the tournament is better off without them." I know I hate feeling like I wasted my time, and not getting your teams in has to feel like you wasted quite a bit of time over the course of the season. Working to get your teams in isn't nefarious or gaming the system, its just part of life. And I don't find this:
"Since CWRU is on the board from the North, we should put St. John Fisher up now because..."  shady at all. I find it to be good anticipatory work on the part of the East Committee.

[jam40jeff]

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.

Yes, but it would also put one of the four teams in the playoffs nearly every year in most conferences other than those three.