Pool C -- 2012

[MonroviaCat]

split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all

Not gonna say I like (or don't like) the system being used but.......The purpose of the tie-breaker is to decide which team gets the auto bid to the playoffs.  You can't split that.  As for a tiebraker game, when do they play this tie breaker game?  Playoff brackets are made Saturday night or Sunday morning....seems a little hard to me.....

[jknezek]

Also how do you bring a team in with a 6-3 overall record decides the tie-breaker of  two teams with a 8-1 record overall and tied for first?!!!!!!....seriously?!!!!!.......what ever happen to simply the best record wins and if the top 2 end up in a tie at the end....split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all

To answer your question, Conference Title means Conference Title, not Conference + Non-Conference games. So non-conference game don't count toward winning the conference title. The conferences' themselves decide on tie-breakers, so this mess was dreamed up by the people involved, not forced on them by anyone else. Finally, there is no time to play a tie breaker. The playoffs start the following weekend. Some conferences do SPLIT the title, but there must still be a way of deciding who gets the automatic qualifier. One of the conferences decided it last week based on a coin flip...

[Bishop#1fan]

Here is some FUZZY MATH on your part....I'm interested in seeing your reply on this......going to use your OWN data for this.....

You say that OWU has a low strength of schedule so that will keep them out. But when you look at the SOS listing OWU is in at #86 with .511 while Wittenberg is in at #218 with .420

In the article you talk about Bethel being 7-2 but having a SOS 74 points better than OWU so they should get the nod. But OWU's score is 90 higher than Wittenberg.

I am listening very very closly!!!!

[Bishop#1fan]

Again I don't see Kenyon anywhere around these #'s?!!!!!

[wally_wabash]

Ok...first....I wasn't blaming Kenyon for anything....infact...if you RE-READ I gave them kudos for a good season....Second I do realize that Ohio and D3's epicenter......instead of stating the obvious answer the SOS on OWU and WItt!!!!!.....your going to disagree that beating Carnegie Mellon in Pitt is not bigger than Witt beating Capital and Chicago?!!!!....Yeah lets get back to this calculation...

Thanks for the welcome....

Also how do you bring a team in with a 6-3 overall record decides the tie-breaker of  two teams with a 8-1 record overall and tied for first?!!!!!!....seriously?!!!!!.......what ever happen to simply the best record wins and if the top 2 end up in a tie at the end....split the div title or play aa tie breaker game.....not hard at all

We're getting a little bit off of the Pool C topic here, but they DO have co-championships.  If OWU wins their game tomorrow, they'll get a conference championship trophy.  They might even get one right there on the field.  The tiebreak doesn't decide who is THE champion...the tiebreak decides which team gets the NCAC's bid to the tournament because there is only one of those and it is indivisible. 

Now, back to at-large selection.  As far as the relative ranking of Witt and OWU go, you have to dive into the criteria a bit.  OWU has an SOS advantage.  And that's about where it stops.  Comparing in-region results vs. common in-region opponents is part of the criteria and is very applicable.  Wittenberg has performed slightly better against basically the same schedule, ergo, Wittenberg winds up ahead of OWU.  I'm on record in here as saying that I think OWU is better than Wittenberg, but the criteria don't necessarily agree. 

And so what of OWU's result against Carnegie Mellon?  Couldn't matter less, aside from the fact that the Bishops didn't lose.  Carnegie Mellon isn't a common opponent with Wittenberg, they aren't regionally ranked...really at this point CMU is only a faceless contributor to OWU's OWP. 

[wartknight]

Schedules are usually done a few years in advance for many teams so you never can tell if one team is going to be good (or bad) when you play them.

True, but as to what Hazz is saying, Wartburg usually contends, so that was a safe bet.

Oh, I understand. Just saying that 'safe' bets sometimes aren't.

I would have thought it a safe bet also!

[Bishop#1fan]

What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?

[Pat Coleman]

Hi, Bishop -- you are so far off the path with what you're complaining about that I'm not even sure I can help you. But here's the basics.

1. We projected Wittenberg to get the automatic bid, because we had to project someone and also because that's who the NCAA, not us, ranked higher in their regional poll.

2. When talking about OWU, we are talking in relation to other at-large candidates. Comparing OWU's  numbers to teams with automatic bids is irrelevant and not part of the discussion.

[MonroviaCat]

What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?

It would be fine if that's what the NCAC rule-book stated was the protocal...but it's not..... 

[jknezek]

What would be wrong with a coin flip in this case after tomorrow's games if needed?

Namely your conference has chosen not to use that as a tie-breaker for the AQ. They have different rules. Plus coin flips are hard to do when there is a 3-way tie. I don't have a 3-sided coin to use and it isn't fair to do 2 teams first, leaving the third team only facing one elimination instead of two. The probability of the winner of the first flip also winning the second is significantly lower...

[smedindy]

If Witt gets the AQ, OWU has to be stacked up against the other "C" teams and they don't look that great against them. They'll be third in line in the North probably, maybe 4th if the North re-does their RRs before the selection. They have to get to the table first, then be compared against two-loss teams (probably) with excellent credentials.

It's tricky, but that's the breaks.

And to be honest, I don't think OWU (or Witt) are better than Heidelberg, Elmhurst, or Wheaton. They may be equal to Rowan but Rowan has a better at-large resume. They're probably not as good as Bethel or C-M or PLU or Huntingdon (and the Hawks' golf coach may go on a ramage if a very good Huntingdon team doesn't make it  ) They're probably not as good as Louisiana College. So 9-1 for OWU and Witt in a weak-ish NCAC that had a bad record against the UAA and other conferences and saw it's best team lose an inexplicable game (Allegheny) and another where they under-estimated a decent opponent (Oberlin with Mandel is decent) to me smells like a one-bid league.

[emma17]

It's pure horse-hockey to do the MOV thing and totally ignore the entire body of work.

Here's the data point that KILLS this argument:

9/22 - UW - Whitewater 34, UW - Stevens Point 7
10/27 - UW - Stevens Point 17, UW - Whitewater 14

*drops mic*

Huh?  Did somebody say "totally ignore the entire body of work"? 
It helps to argue the actual point.

No, it doesn't.

Again, slowly...

One single data point is useless. Gustavus IS germaine in your scenario, it's a common H2H opponent. And if Bethel played St. Thomas again, it could be a different ball game. See above, which illustrates my point clearly.

I know this horse is almost dead.  Let me clarify.  The reason I don't feel Gustavus is germaine- or any other game not featuring the best team on someone's schedule, is because the playoffs are a one and done event-against what should be one of the best teams in the country.  Playing the best team in your conference for the right to be the conference champion is also a one and done event.  I can accept a blowout to a middle of the road conference opponent more than I can the conference champion- Why?  Because the game vs. the conference champion most resembles the finality of a playoff game.  When it comes to Pool C,  I am looking for teams that are most likely to give the best game in a one and done environment.  I absolutely cannot do that by looking at SOS.  Every single arguement that posters have made about "bad game/unlucky breaks, etc" also applies to the teams that make up the SOS. 

[K-Mack]

Those tie-breaker posts r about as Witt bias as you can posiblly get!!!!!...This is a joke right?!!!!

You're calling Wabash fans Wittenberg-biased?

Look, the community here would be more than happy to help you understand what's really going on if you are willing to put in the work of actually reading and comprehending the rules.

If you're just mad because your son's team may not win the tiebreaker and you want clog up our boards by venting, well, that's nice and all, and obviously people are humoring you. But you're not adding anything to the discussion, and you're certainly not educating yourself as to the process.

If you're looking for someone to blame here (and it pretty clearly seems like you are, even though a bunch of the tiebreakers favor OWU), start with the Battling Bishops schedule-maker, and then go back to the game where they lost by 28 and failed to put themselves on a clear path to the automatic bid.

We can all agree that the bid shouldn't go to Kenyon, although it might, but after that, both OWU and Witt would have made this much easier by, you know, playing each other.

Also, the NCAC coaches wrote the tiebreaker procedures.

And yes, let's bring this discussion back to Pool C.

[K-Mack]

It's always been clear to me that the more exclamation points you put on the end of a sentence, the more help your point tends to need.

[AO]

I'd take St. Olaf before OWU.   Better SOS, common opponent DePauw was dispatched by the Oles 31-10 while the Bishops would have won by 1 without a last minute field goal.