Pool C -- 2012

[jknezek]

Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.

[MonroviaCat]

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

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...

Statistically, whenever you flip a coin the results will eventually even out to a 50% chance - regardless how many times you flip it. It may "seem" like the team that won the first flip doesn't have as good a chance on the second flip, but they do. Really.

While you are correct, I think he was trying to say that your probability of winning both flips is less than your probability of only winning 1.  Each flip gives you a 1 out 2 chance but over two flips that becomes a 1 out of 4 chance that you get them both........but I'm pretty sure we've gone off track a tiny little bit here.......

[jknezek]

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

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...

Statistically, whenever you flip a coin the results will eventually even out to a 50% chance - regardless how many times you flip it. It may "seem" like the team that won the first flip doesn't have as good a chance on the second flip, but they do. Really.

While you are correct, I think he was trying to say that your probability of winning both flips is less than your probability of only winning 1.  Each flip gives you a 1 out 2 chance but over two flips that becomes a 1 out of 4 chance that you get them both........but I'm pretty sure we've gone off track a tiny little bit here.......

+K

[smedindy]

At any rate...many teams will enter...only seven will leave...The POOL "C" ZONE!

[emma17]

Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.

What is it the Judge said?  "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out answer".  Plus K and thanks for the post, even though I understand you aren't saying you favor using loss differential as one factor.   

[LaCollegeFan]

Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.

I guess what i typed and what i meant was two different things. UMHB won the game. Played better then LC on ALL phases that day, for 2 halves, 4 quarters, thus winning on the scoreboard. Not what i was arguing. What I was arguing was scores can sometimes be misleading, thus if MOV was taken into consideration, you would have to go back and watch every game to see if the score was the actual spread between the two teams.

[HSCTiger74]

Let me give an example of why I believe MOV shouldn't be used. Not making any excuses just stating what happened. You stated LC got blown out by UMHB which on the scoreboard they did by 27 points. On the field, however, they didn't. With 0.1 seconds left in the first half the score was 3-0 LC. LC lined up for a field goal, it was blocked and returned for a TD. Halftime score UMHB 6-3. Later in the 3rd Q, the score is still only 13-3, LC loses two of its starting defenders, including the leader of the defensive, Phil Ford. Going in to the 4th, still only 20-3 UMHB. LC drives the ball down the field, UMHB makes an amazing one handed interception saving a TD, essentially ending the game. Final-30-3. Like i said not making any excuses for LC, as UMHB is just as good as advertised, a superb team. I see your side of the argument as you just want the best teams that aren't going to go into the playoffs, and lose to the MUs or UMHBs by 40 points. At the same time however, just because a team lost 30-3 on the scoreboard doesn't mean they were blownout on the field, because just as others have mentioned, alot of other variables come into play.

I'm on the same side as you in general, but I can't stand this logic.

You basically said, "We were close in the first half so we didn't lose too badly." But football has TWO halves. You said, "We were kicking a field goal which got blocked and returned for a td, so we didn't lose too badly." But football has THREE phases which includes special teams. You said, "In the second half we lost some good players, so we didn't lose too badly." But football requires teams to have DEPTH. You said, "Early in the 4th we were only down by 17 and were driving when we threw an interception, so we didn't lose too badly." But winning the TURNOVER BATTLE is part of winning football games. You said, "Losing that turnover effectively ended the game," but somehow the opposing team had time to put 10 MORE POINTS on the board. Football has 2 halves and 4 quarters. You have to play them all.

Basically LC WAS blown out because UMHB won in special teams, played a complete game, had opportune turnovers, and put more points on the board while having more depth. In other words, they had all the phases of the game that ALLOWED them to blow out LC and LC had no answer over the whole game.

It's just such a logically inconsistent argument to point out all kinds of details and say "if we hadn't done X we were right there with them!" X or in this case multiple X's, are why you lost so badly, not why you COULD have been close.

What is it the Judge said?  "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out answer".  Plus K and thanks for the post, even though I understand you aren't saying you favor using loss differential as one factor.

+k for the My Cousin Vinnie reference.   

[Ralph Turner]

I prefer the wording that is in the handbook..."result".

I think that most years that committee is able to use that wording to get it right, but it is always messy for the last 1-2 rounds of Pool C, which is what we want.

At 7 (or even 6) Pool C bids, we can basically get the next 1-2 teams in each region who should be in the tourney.

[Hawks88]

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  )

Had no idea what you were talking about when I first read this. Just heard the audio a little while ago. As of today he is no longer the Hawks' golf coach.

[Mr. Ypsi]

One thing that has not really been discussed in the effects of the foreshortened regional ranking schedule (since "once ranked, always ranked").  All three CCIW contenders would have an extra "win against RRO" (or in Elmhurst's case at least a result, since the game is not until tomorrow) on their resume if the schedule this year had been the traditional one, since IWU would clearly have been ranked even one week earlier.  (I'm sure that this is probably true of some other teams as well, but I haven't checked all the schedules to guesstimate who else might have been ranked except for losses in weeks seven and/or eight - Otterbein perhaps?  UWW?  Other examples?)

[wally_wabash]

One thing that has not really been discussed in the effects of the foreshortened regional ranking schedule (since "once ranked, always ranked").  All three CCIW contenders would have an extra "win against RRO" (or in Elmhurst's case at least a result, since the game is not until tomorrow) on their resume if the schedule this year had been the traditional one, since IWU would clearly have been ranked even one week earlier.  (I'm sure that this is probably true of some other teams as well, but I haven't checked all the schedules to guesstimate who else might have been ranked except for losses in weeks seven and/or eight - Otterbein perhaps?  UWW?  Other examples?)

Carnegie Mellon was in range.  One or both of the Ws in the NWC maybe.  Birmingham-Southern also.  I'd have research the East region a little more to find one or two from out there. 

There is no doubt that there is a lot of luck when it comes to the regional rankings and how their release syncs up with schedules.  The once ranked, always ranked (can we call it ORAR?) thing is also a concept that I go back and forth on.  I wouldn't mind seeing a provision in the criteria for results against other playoff teams.  There wouldn't be a ton of those results out there, but it would address (pretty directly) some of what emma17 was getting at earlier today regarding trying to figure out how teams fare against playoff caliber opponents.  I realize that it becomes a circular argument at some point when you start selecting at-large teams, but it would be something else to consider in the "who did you beat" part of the equation. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Couldn't think which other teams to check, but if the regional rankings had started one week earlier, Ott still wouldn't have made it (they already had their two losses), but UWW almost certainly would have (the debacle against UWSP did not happen 'til after - though only 5-2 overall, being 5-1 in-region and the 3-time defending champ, while not a part of the criteria, I've gotta think they'd have been in).  TWO weeks earlier (like they used to always do), OTT would not yet have lost to UMU and UWW would not yet have lost to UWP.

One more highly likely: Willamette was 6-0 as of when they used to start the RRs.

Wally, Wabash WAS ranked (their Oberlin debacle occurred after the first set of rankings).

[Mr. Ypsi]

I definitely like the 'once ranked, always ranked' rule - injuries (or occasionally other factors) can turn a legitimately good win early into something different if done later on.  Beating IWU WITH Rob Gallik (and a seemingly on-the-mend T J Strinde) was a very good accomplishment (even Wheaton's win by 5 where Gallik went down for the season with 29 seconds left MIGHT have been different without the injury - his replacement immediately threw an INT - no one else had beaten them); beating IWU now seems to be quite routine!

It's true that some teams who look good early turn out to be pretenders; it is also true that some teams that it would be a MAJOR accomplishment to beat early turn into a M*A*S*H unit, and become cannon fodder.

(And yes, I know DEPTH is a sign of an elite team, but why punish the opponent of an excellent but shallow team?)

[wally_wabash]

Wait, I think we're confused.  Did I say Wabash wasn't ranked?  I hope not...I certainly knew better. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Wait, I think we're confused.  Did I say Wabash wasn't ranked?  I hope not...I certainly knew better.

You didn't SAY they weren't ranked, but I'm trying to figure out which teams WOULD have been ranked if the rankings began at their previously normal starting time.  You mentioned both W teams, but Wabash was ranked, and Wittenberg IS ranked.

I've so far come up with IWU (definitely), Willamette (almost definitely), and UWW (highly probable).  The change in the RR scheduling has definite implications for their opponents.  I'm wondering if there are others?