Pool C -- 2012

[speedybigboy]

I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.

While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow!

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 
If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   

Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

[speedybigboy]

I know it won't happen but I'd like the following:

1. PLU in.
2. UW-Plateville at Linfield

[wally_wabash]

I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.

While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow!

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 
If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   

Agreed.
But there are far too many teams in d3 for 10 RR teams at a time to be the only games considered as "quality".  I would submit that PLU wins over Redlands, Whitworth and Willamette were quality wins.  And Menlo, but that one doesn't count.

Totally fair point.  But the NCAA has directed us to look specifically at results against regionally ranked teams.  Those are the special games that get singled out.  Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually. 

[hazzben]

Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually.

I actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.

I'd wager each region probably averages 12 teams ranked when it's all said and done. Those 48 teams would be right at 20% of D3. That seems about right to me. How did you fair in competition against the top 5th of the division?

[Mr. Ypsi]

I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.

While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow!

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin!

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

[speedybigboy]

I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.

While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow!

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 
If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin!
Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

Still Tomorrow by a few hours for some of us.

[speedybigboy]

Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually.

I actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.
I'd wager each region probably averages 12 teams ranked when it's all said and done. Those 48 teams would be right at 20% of D3. That seems about right to me. How did you fair in competition against the top 5th of the division?

Top 5th of the Division?  Or of the Region?  RR analyzes how you did against the top 5th of your region, not the division.  SOS combined with RR helps bring that into perspective.
Respectfully submitted.

[wally_wabash]

I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.

While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow!

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin!

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

Yeah, I know.  I really do hope that we're not reading my projected 32 as a Wabash thing.  I didn't sit down after the games today and set out to figure out what Wabash's path to the tournament would be (I was going to do that later by reordering the teams with some lasers and hand waving  )

[speedybigboy]

I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.

While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow!

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin!

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

Yeah, I know.  I really do hope that we're not reading my projected 32 as a Wabash thing.  I didn't sit down after the games today and set out to figure out what Wabash's path to the tournament would be (I was going to do that later by reordering the teams with some lasers and hand waving  )

I'm not.  I thought it was a well thought out process you took.  I'm just hoping that's not the process that the selection committee takes.  That and there is not much else to do while I watch Oregon rack up another 40 or so points.

[wally_wabash]

I appreciate all your hard work, Wally. Just really hoping you're wrong about PLU.

Entirely possible.  That's just how it fell out when I went through the process.  I would have guessed/assumed that PLU would have been the 3rd or 4th team in to be honest with you.  Just never know for sure until you start to line them up round by round. 
For giggles, I gave PLU an RRO win for Willamette.  And went through my process again.  I came up with: Elmhurst, PLU, Rowan, Bethel, H'berg, OWU, LC.  So, that's how much I think that RRO result matters.  It's the difference between PLU being passed over seven times in a row and being the second team in.

I appreciate your post with your 32 picks but if you are corret I believe it exposes the flaw (or at least one flaw) in the system.  Every win against a regionaly ranked team is worth the same even if one region is below another in overall strength.  I think giving more weight to SOS helps even this out. 
Of course I'm a biased PLU Alum.  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.

While were waiting till tomorrow, I was thinking about PLU and their chances of getting in....I'd like them to.  They are a good team and have lost to a couple of good teams.  However, that also points out a flaw in the SOS criteria.....I realize that record and results against ranked opponents makes up for much of this flaw, but why not, instead of SOS look at the SOS for wins---in other words, sure you lost to some good teams, but did you beat good teams.....helps clarify some of the issues that come up with "well we lost to this team and they are good"....I also think it could be used a replacement criteria for the current SOS and wins vs. RR opponents.....just a thought rolling around in my brain as we wait for actual information tomorrow!

One thing that I see people gravitating to over and over is a focus on who somebody lost to.  I'm much more keen on focusing in on who teams beat.  If you beat a good team (or two!) somewhere along the line and you're being compared to a team that did not, you're going places in my breakdown. 

If I've got four teams in front of me and all of them have zero quality wins, then I'll get down to nitpicking what loss is "better" than another.  Like Mike Singletary before me, I want winners.   

While I totally agree with you, this is also a statement from a fan of a team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin!

Good luck to Wabash tomorrow (well, technically, later today).  If GOOD Wabash shows up, they might reach the Stagg; if bad Wabash comes, they're gone in the first round.

Yeah, I know.  I really do hope that we're not reading my projected 32 as a Wabash thing.  I didn't sit down after the games today and set out to figure out what Wabash's path to the tournament would be (I was going to do that later by reordering the teams with some lasers and hand waving  )

I'm not.  I thought it was a well thought out process you took.  I'm just hoping that's not the process that the selection committee takes.  That and there is not much else to do while I watch Oregon rack up another 40 or so points.

I think you'll be safe.  I think Elmhurst and Rowan and probably Heidelberg are safe in some kind of order.  After that, there are honestly so many different ways that you can break these teams down and apply the criteria that it is very unlikely that the end result that I came to will be the same as what the gurus come up with here and what they come up with probably won't be the same as what the committee comes up.  And the thing is that it's all logical and justifiable.  Lots of different ways to navigate this maze this year. 

I think Keith said it in here or on Twitter or maybe in a different forum on the site, but this is probably the most challenging Pool C that the committee has had to deal with in the AQ era. 

[speedybigboy]

I'm thinking Willamette has as good an arguement to be in as Concordia-Morehead.

[Pat Coleman]

Here's my take:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2012/final-playoff-projection

[Ralph Turner]

Wheaton has never lost a first round playoff game in 8 appearances... that will come into play

NO!  That is not a criterion.

[hazzben]

Is 10 per region not enough?  Maybe...probably, actually.

I actually like it. Especially with the 'once ranked always ranked' stipulation.
I'd wager each region probably averages 12 teams ranked when it's all said and done. Those 48 teams would be right at 20% of D3. That seems about right to me. How did you fair in competition against the top 5th of the division?

Top 5th of the Division?  Or of the Region?  RR analyzes how you did against the top 5th of your region, not the division.  SOS combined with RR helps bring that into perspective.
Respectfully submitted.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I thought results against RRO was for anyone RR, regardless of region. After the first RR come out doesn't each committee then include the other 30 RR teams when they calculate that criteria?

Either way. top 20% of your region or the entire division is getting at the same thing, its just the size of the pie that's changing.

Not only that, but if we go beyond 10 teams you're going to start seeing some teams 'ranked' who have no business there. The once ranked always ranked criteria means that 6-4 Hardin-Simmons is a RRO. Going to 12 teams or more in each region would only proliferate the number of faux quality wins that become criteria. 

[hazzben]

Here's my take:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2012/final-playoff-projection

As an utterly biased Bethel and MIAC fan, I like your take