Pool C -- 2012

[MonroviaCat]

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

I agree---but there is not a reason based on yesterdays results for them to leapfrog CM in the regional rankings.....

[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  Here's hoping Willamette makes the final, unpublished, RR.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!

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.   

I think we agree--the point I was trying to make (not so clearly after a long day) was that SOS could be improved by changing it to SOS of games won (i.e. take out the games you lost because losing to a good team <or a bad team> seems less important than beating a good team).

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.   

I think we agree--the point I was trying to make (not so clearly after a long day) was that SOS could be improved by changing it to SOS of games won (i.e. take out the games you lost because losing to a good team <or a bad team> seems less important than beating a good team).

This is a nice idea, but I see a major flaw: it will ultimately hurt a lot of teams that choose to play a tough schedule, and in truth will incentivize easier scheduling. For example, LaCollege would get no credit in their SOS for playing two of the top 10 teams in Division III. Under your system, I believe that playoff-bubble-type teams would be discouraged from scheduling games of that type because they'd know unless they WON they get nothing out of it.

[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!

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.   

I think we agree--the point I was trying to make (not so clearly after a long day) was that SOS could be improved by changing it to SOS of games won (i.e. take out the games you lost because losing to a good team <or a bad team> seems less important than beating a good team).

This is a nice idea, but I see a major flaw: it will ultimately hurt a lot of teams that choose to play a tough schedule, and in truth will incentivize easier scheduling. For example, LaCollege would get no credit in their SOS for playing two of the top 10 teams in Division III. Under your system, I believe that playoff-bubble-type teams would be discouraged from scheduling games of that type because they'd know unless they WON they get nothing out of it.

Good point--nothing is perfect that is for sure.  I think the current regional ranking system is a little off--especially the once ranked, always ranked component of it (though I'm sure there is a good reason for this as well).  I was just throwing out another idea but your point makes sense.  I'm really just killing time....

[Bishop#1fan]

I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

[Bishop#1fan]

Congrads OWU for the win yesterday and the 2012 NCAC Division Championship!!!!!

[hazzben]

I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

You're barking up the wrong tree. Your beef is with the conference and their tie-breaker rules when there is no H2H. Take it up with them. The NCAA and d3football.com aren't to blame.

But bottom line, if you'd beaten Wabash it would be a non-issue. Same as my team having taken care of business against UST and St. Olaf. Now we both await the mercy of the committee

[USee]

I agree w jazz been. Owu vs Witt is a non issue because the conference decided Witt is the AQ. So they are not being compared on the criteria as only OWU is a pool C candidate. You may have a beef if Witt was a pool c but they aren't.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

This is literally one of the stupidest posts ever. You may want to learn a thing or two about the playoff selection process before posting such nonsense. And I have been a "Bishop backer" for much of the season, just check the NCAC board archives.

The argument of Witt vs OWU head to head is moot at this point, but just for kicks, I'll point out that Witt lost by 3 to Bash (OWU by 28) and Witt blew out some common opponents that OWU "beat" but didn't crush.  I truly HATE using margin of victory this way, but qualitatively Witt passes the eyeball test more easily than OWU does.

[short]

The tie was broken by preseason power rankings. 
Preseason power ranks work like this
#1 team (wabash) doesn't play #10team (Kenyon) and #9 team (Hiram) in hopes that the league will avoid a blow out
#2 team (witt) doesn't play #10 team (Kenyon) and #8 team (OWU) in hopes that the leage will be more competitive
#3 team doesn't play #9 and #8
#4 Team doesn't play #7 and #6
#5 Team Doesn't play #7 and #6
#6 Team doesn't play #5 and #4
#7 Team doesn't play #4 and #5
#8 Team (OWU) doesn't play #2 and #3
#9 Team (Hiram) doesn't play #1 and #3
10 Team (Kenyon) Doesn't play #1 and #2

So Witt wins the tie because the NCAC was letting OWU out of playing Witt. 

[HScoach]

I find hilariously ironic that the geniuses in the NCAC are the only ones that could come up with such a screwed up schedule & tie breaker ruling that could have given the AQ to Kenyon if they'd have beaten Denison.

Thank goodness they lost and saved us the horror of Kenyon facing a #1 seed.

Witt is worthy participant and should once again compete well.   It worked out for the best with them as the AQ.

[wally_wabash]

I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

It's really hard to respond to this because it's pretty clear that you don't understand the selection process.  I highly recommend a thorough reading of the playoff FAQ, easily found on the main page. 

If the question is why is Witt ranked higher than OWU in the regional rankings despite OWU's SOS advantage, then the answer is results vs. common opponents.  If you're not sure how SOS is calculated, that is also spelled out in the playoff FAQ. 

If the question is why did Witt get the NCAC's automatic bid and not OWU, then the answer is because that's what the NCAC's tiebreak rules determined. 

I like the enthusiasm, but you've go to know that there isn't a conspiracy to keep OWU out of the playoffs or to make sure Witt gets in to the playoffs. 

[wally_wabash]

I find hilariously ironic that the geniuses in the NCAC are the only ones that could come up with such a screwed up schedule & tie breaker ruling that could have given the AQ to Kenyon if they'd have beaten Denison.

Thank goodness they lost and saved us the horror of Kenyon facing a #1 seed.

Witt is worthy participant and should once again compete well.   It worked out for the best with them as the AQ.

Coach, are you saying that you would not have been thrilled to go see the new and improved Kenyon in person at Mount Union Stadium next Saturday? 

[MonroviaCat]

I am still looking for a logical answer on why Witt is picked to go the the Playoffs in the NCAC?!!!!!....As was posted on Friday, OWU he feels is better than Witt!!!!....also all the talk about SOS and being looked at a little more harder if you beat a good team or two along the way.....well Witt had NO harder schedule than OWU which means they beat no beater team to get the eye!!!!!!

Also I didn't see anything except silence when Friday I pointed out the fact the Witt SOS was a .428 and OWU SOS was .511....I ask for the explaination on that math and got not a reply......so once again I do think as ALLOT of other people do that this site is bias toward Witt.....but thats ok everybody on day has to face reality and that will come as soon as next season and many more after that!!!!

It's really hard to respond to this because it's pretty clear that you don't understand the selection process.  I highly recommend a thorough reading of the playoff FAQ, easily found on the main page. 

If the question is why is Witt ranked higher than OWU in the regional rankings despite OWU's SOS advantage, then the answer is results vs. common opponents.  If you're not sure how SOS is calculated, that is also spelled out in the playoff FAQ. 

If the question is why did Witt get the NCAC's automatic bid and not OWU, then the answer is because that's what the NCAC's tiebreak rules determined. 

I like the enthusiasm, but you've go to know that there isn't a conspiracy to keep OWU out of the playoffs or to make sure Witt gets in to the playoffs.

And to be clear---NCAC is NOT the NCAA!  NCAC chooses how they determine their conference championship (not NCAA or d3football.com).  Then that champion automatically goes to the playoffs.  d3football.com then places that conference champion (as determined by the conference's criteria) in their projected bracket.  Then NCAA releases the actual bracket (later today) which will include the actual teams.  d3football.com has no say in who gets in just like NCAA has no say in who gets the pool A (auto-bid) spots in the playoffs.....  So to paraphrase someone else--the only one to blame for a perceived bias in selection is the conference from which said teams came.  sheesh.

[smedindy]

Thankfully, there will be a round-robin next year in the NCAC. Of course, that won't eliminate ties but there will be common opponents.