Pool C -- 2012

[MonroviaCat]

Wally, I think this is certainly a defensible projection. But I sure hope you are wrong.

The 2 major variables, as I see them.

1. Does the West Region Committee rank Willamette. The Lake Forest loss opens the door and I think they do. Keep in mind Terry Horan (HC at Concordia-Moorhead) is on the committee. While he won't be on the phone to discuss his own team, you know he's going to lobby hard for two things, or he should. Willamette getting ranked and Bethel staying above UWP and Willamette.

2. W/L v. SoS & RRO results. Wally's projections bear out what happens if the Selection committee leans towards the former.

The curveball is really variable 1.

If Willamette gets ranked, PLU is a monster SoS and now 1-2 v. RRO. In this scenario, they come off the board no later than Rd 5, possibly as early Rd 4 (Rd 3 would be a bit of a stretch). Let's assume Rd 5.

Now the dominoes might start falling. Bethel probably comes to the board next. Wheaton, LC, Bethel and Lycoming are all in play. Bethel has equal to better results v. RRO at 1-2 and the best SoS numbers.

Welcome Concordia-Moorhead to the board. Like Bethel, they the best SoS numbers, but are 0-2* RRO results. I'd say it's either LC or Concordia-Moorhead here.

Left on the board are LC/C-M, Lycoming and Wheaton. Waynesburg never gets to the table.

Basically, these are the two variables that push things either Wally's direction or this one. And really, the major variable is what the West committee does with Willamette

I'm not as familiar with how it all works, but with quite a few teams that are all really close in the criteria, might the committee start to look at geography when deciding between some teams....  For instance, say team A could be driven to a first round game and team b) would be flown---since it's so close, give it to team a?  Just curious if that is factor...(?)

[hazzben]

^ It's not supposed to be. They are supposed to select the Pool C's based on the published criteria and geography is not one of them.

Now I think there was a year when they sent their bracket to the NCAA and it had an extra flight. The NCAA sent it back and said rearrange things to remove the flight. At least I remember something along these lines.

[smedindy]

Huntingdon and Waynesburg are rueing today. I just can't see Waynesburg making it even though they're 9-1. I still don't feel confident about OWU making it, especially if PLU gets off the board early if they get that RR win which opens up the West's floodgates.

[desertcat1]

plu should go high,,  sos.. good .

[smedindy]

plu should go high,,  sos.. good .

Lemon, wet, good.

[Dr. Acula]

Heidelberg's #4 in the North RR. Wheaton was 9th and even behind OWU (#6) That's a lot of jumping. Endicott was behind Bridgewater.

I know SOS is a factor, but Heidelberg ran the table of the OAC save Mt. Union. That's going to count for something.

Exactly.  It's become sort of a given...if you go 9-1 in the OAC you're in.  You have to go back 16 yrs to find a case to the contrary.  IMO, Heidelberg is easily in regardless of SOS.  And I agree with ExTartan, if they're really discussing Berg or Endicott because of letter of the law criteria we have major problems.  Use them, but use some common sense.

[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.

[SUADC]

Heidelberg's #4 in the North RR. Wheaton was 9th and even behind OWU (#6) That's a lot of jumping. Endicott was behind Bridgewater.

I know SOS is a factor, but Heidelberg ran the table of the OAC save Mt. Union. That's going to count for something.

Exactly.  It's become sort of a given...if you go 9-1 in the OAC you're in.  You have to go back 16 yrs to find a case to the contrary.  IMO, Heidelberg is easily in regardless of SOS.  And I agree with ExTartan, if they're really discussing Berg or Endicott because of letter of the law criteria we have major problems.  Use them, but use some common sense.

Not if we go by recent playoff appearances. But, I think they would use some type of judgement disregarding the criteria. However, the criteria is the criteria, without it we would be moving to the BCS (which got shaken up today). Berg definitely should be in the playoffs.

[lakeshore]

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

[wally_wabash]

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

That's neat, but it will in no way, shape, form, or fashion have anything to do with 2012 championship tournament selection.

[K-Mack]

^ It's not supposed to be. They are supposed to select the Pool C's based on the published criteria and geography is not one of them.

Now I think there was a year when they sent their bracket to the NCAA and it had an extra flight. The NCAA sent it back and said rearrange things to remove the flight. At least I remember something along these lines.

This happened, but the penny-pinching was on the final bracket AFTER the 32 teams are chosen.

I honestly believe geography has no effect on who gets in. Remember that the 8 national committee members are coaches and conf commissioners who wouldn't want their own teams screwed over and would gain nothing by doing it to someone else.

Well, Terry Horan could gain something but I'm thinking he won't be involved in the Pool C part of this at all.

Just remember to keep separate the committee's two major jobs ... Picking the 7 at large teams, and making the 32 teams into a bracket.

Geography is a stipulation in the second job, not the first. The committee is on our side. Those guys want a great bracket and all the praise that comes with it. What do they have to gain by screwing somebody based on geography?

[hazzben]

^ I was actually trying to say the same thing re: the Pool C criteria being all they consider for the at large bids. Georgraphy just comes into play with the 32. Obviously didn't say it well or clearly.

[MonroviaCat]

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!

[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!

If we work at it maybe we could come up with a system that includes computers and voters to pick the two teams to play in the National Championship.............oh wait that's how D1 does it. 

With all it's flaws I still like d3's better.

I see your point though.  Would only credit teams for beating good teams, not just playing them.

[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.