Pool C -- 2012

[Pat Coleman]

Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

I get why Bridgewater State was picked if they were on the board with OWU, C-M, and Waynesburg.  That's probably the right pick per the criteria (even if we don't believe that BSU was the "best" team available in that spot).  The thing that I don't get is why they jumped Lycoming on the East's list between Wednesday's rankings and Sunday night.  The answer is obviously the SOS shift (Lyco took a big hit from their last game), but in my view the SOS change wasn't big enough to move an idle team up and over a team that won their week 11 game 38-0.  That's the curious part to me.  I really try not to fuel the conspiracy stuff, but is it possible that somebody on the East RAC crunched some numbers and realized that BSU had better selection criteria than Lycoming and shuffled accordingly?  That's not too far out there.  I don't know.

I'm not a big conspiracy guy either, but I wouldn't put it beyond a regional committee or conference coaches to do whatever is within the rules to stack the deck in their favor. They clearly have something to gain, and no motive to not do it because they aren't doing anything illegal, although it might be unfair to someone else down the line.

Which leads me to what I think the difference between BSC and Lyco is.

Delaware Valley, in our projections, was the 10th regionally ranked team, so Lyco had a win vs. RRO and looked good. In the actual rankings though, Salve/Fram/BSC brought up the rear in Week 1, Fram/BSC/Endicott in Week 2, and DV couldn't have moved in after losing to Widener.

So maybe there was a reshuffling by the national committee of the RAC's rankings, or maybe the SoS did it, but BSC was 9-1 with a .520 and a win over Endicott and loss to Framingham State, while Lyco has a .494 and loss to Widener.

Not sure how that moved Lyco 7th/BSC 9th around, although Salve (6) had to drop behind Framingham (8) with the h2h result from the NEFC title game.

It is coincidental that with all the MAC/NEFC interrelation, the Bears go to Widener in Round 1.

Del Val was not ranked in our projection. Here was my East Region -- Salve Regina was on the board when the selection ended.

Hobart
Widener
Cortland State
Salisbury
Rowan
Framingham State
Salve Regina
Lycoming
Bridgewater State
Endicott

[Upstate]

Another thing is that if C-M or Wheaton had gone, or maybe even OWU, not sure any of us are having this discussion to this degree. The Bridgewater State case is peculiar.

Something just occurred to me. That means OWU was the North team on the board (apologies if this has been discussed already), and Waynesburg was probably the team on the board in the South. So the West team (C-M?) is eliminated on overall record, and then Bridgewater had the best resume of the three 9-1 teams. That makes sense.

I get why Bridgewater State was picked if they were on the board with OWU, C-M, and Waynesburg.  That's probably the right pick per the criteria (even if we don't believe that BSU was the "best" team available in that spot).  The thing that I don't get is why they jumped Lycoming on the East's list between Wednesday's rankings and Sunday night.  The answer is obviously the SOS shift (Lyco took a big hit from their last game), but in my view the SOS change wasn't big enough to move an idle team up and over a team that won their week 11 game 38-0.  That's the curious part to me.  I really try not to fuel the conspiracy stuff, but is it possible that somebody on the East RAC crunched some numbers and realized that BSU had better selection criteria than Lycoming and shuffled accordingly?  That's not too far out there.  I don't know.

I'm not a big conspiracy guy either, but I wouldn't put it beyond a regional committee or conference coaches to do whatever is within the rules to stack the deck in their favor. They clearly have something to gain, and no motive to not do it because they aren't doing anything illegal, although it might be unfair to someone else down the line.

Which leads me to what I think the difference between BSC and Lyco is.

Delaware Valley, in our projections, was the 10th regionally ranked team, so Lyco had a win vs. RRO and looked good. In the actual rankings though, Salve/Fram/BSC brought up the rear in Week 1, Fram/BSC/Endicott in Week 2, and DV couldn't have moved in after losing to Widener.

So maybe there was a reshuffling by the national committee of the RAC's rankings, or maybe the SoS did it, but BSC was 9-1 with a .520 and a win over Endicott and loss to Framingham State, while Lyco has a .494 and loss to Widener.

Not sure how that moved Lyco 7th/BSC 9th around, although Salve (6) had to drop behind Framingham (8) with the h2h result from the NEFC title game.

It is coincidental that with all the MAC/NEFC interrelation, the Bears go to Widener in Round 1.

Del Val was not ranked in our projection. Here was my East Region -- Salve Regina was on the board when the selection ended.

Hobart
Widener
Cortland State
Salisbury
Rowan
Framingham State
Salve Regina
Lycoming
Bridgewater State
Endicott

That bottom 5 is just ugly...

[K-Mack]

Del Val was not ranked in our projection. Here was my East Region -- Salve Regina was on the board when the selection ended.

Hobart
Widener
Cortland State
Salisbury
Rowan
Framingham State
Salve Regina
Lycoming
Bridgewater State
Endicott

Sorry, misspoke. I think when I did my guide to Pool C, I had assumed Del Val was an RRO.

I was initially thinking Bridgewater State had a shot, but your point that the criteria says to consider conference postseason games, and that common sense says Bridgewater State is 9-1 only because it didn't have an opportunity to be either 10-1 or 9-2, because it lost to Framingham State, means they stay stuck behind Salve Regina, made sense to me.

The last four on the board, however, must have been
Bridgewater State, 9-1, .520, 1-1
Waynesburg, 9-1, .441, 0-0
Ohio Wesleyan, 9-1, .483, 0-1
Concordia-Moorhead, 7-2, .571, 0-2

You can kind of see how BSC gets in against this group, although that .571 for C-M is really monstrous by comparison, and they had as many games against RROs, including one that they won except for basically a technicality.

If I heard Brad right, he said that they have to look at what really happened, not what would have happened if the penalty hadn't been called or if Hurricane Sandy hadn't cost some NJ/NY/PA teams games.

BTW we picked BSC to meet/beat Salve in the NEFC title game in Kickoff.

Also, does the MASCAC bid kick in automatically, or is there a 2-year wait?

[Pat Coleman]

The MASCAC needs Little East member Western Connecticut to get to seven football programs, so because of that, it is supposed to have the two-year waiting period.

[Frank Rossi]

Since the East RAC isn't here to defend itself, and since I do know at least one member of the RAC personally, I'd like to step in here to officially quash the idea of some sort of regional conspiracy.  Stating such would suggest a lack of real insight as to how the East stacked up when considering the criteria and history.

Let's look at the East's 19 teams with three losses or less:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Hobart      10-0      1.000      0.498
Widener      9-0      1.000      0.481
Fram. State   10-1      .909      0.501
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Cortland St.   8-1      .889      0.523
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Salisbury   8-2      .800      0.555
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494
Mount Ida   8-2      .800      0.457
Norwich      7-2      .778      0.449
Gallaudet   6-2      .750      0.468
Springfield   7-3      .700      0.534
Delaware Val.   7-3      .700      0.508
Castle. St.   7-3      .700      0.496
St.John Fish.   6-3      .667      0.567
Alfred      6-3      .667      0.514
Kean      5-3      .625      0.485

Let's remove the automatic bids:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494
Norwich      7-2      .778      0.449
Gallaudet   6-2      .750      0.468
Springfield   7-3      .700      0.534
Delaware Val.   7-3      .700      0.508
Castle. St.   7-3      .700      0.496
St.John Fish.   6-3      .667      0.567
Alfred      6-3      .667      0.514
Kean      5-3      .625      0.485

Now, let's order the automatic bids into the rankings initially:

1) Hobart (10-0)
2) Widener (9-0)
3) Cortland St. (8-1)
4) Salisbury (8-2)
5) Framingham St. (10-1)
6) Mount Ida (8-2)

Note that Salisbury's SOS is 0.054 more than Framingham St.'s, allowing this to be feasible.  Cortland's SOS is within 0.05 of Salisbury's, meaning some level of subjectivity would allow for that ordering.  Mount Ida is most susceptible here with an 0.457 SOS.

The next thing to do is look at the resumes and numbers of the three loss teams to see if any of them require further analysis.  I say this because we have historically rarely if ever seen three-loss teams ranked -- meaning we need to have a great reason to rank them here.  The SOS for Kean and Castleton do not warrant further discussion (below 0.500).  Fisher has no wins against any team above it, and Alfred's only win of note here is against Fisher.  Both of them can be eliminated.  Springfield has a similar problem (loss to BSC hurts despite the SOS).  That leaves DelVal -- however, the fact that DelVal has only a 0.508 SOS despite having played three teams that could be or will be regionally ranked is a problem.  Said differently, we'd be double-counting SOS strength in three losses against regionally-ranked opponents if we gave it that much merit.  When you eliminate those three losses and look at SOS for wins, DelVal's resume is not great this season.  If they had won one of those three games, we'd have a different perspective.  However, this is why DelVal is not a team to consider at three losses.

So, left for consideration are:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494
Norwich      7-2      .778      0.449
Gallaudet   6-2      .750      0.468


Norwich lost to Gallaudet, Mount Ida and Castleton with a terrible SOS.  While Gallaudet beat Mount Ida and Norwich, Norwich won't be an RRO most likely, and between Gallaudet's SOS, Mount Ida's susceptibility as a ranked team and the fact that Otterbein beat Gallaudet in an out-of-region game, they don't bear much consideration.  Now, we have:

Team      Reg. Rec.   Reg. Win%   NCAA SOS
Bridge. State   9-1      .900      0.520
Rowan      7-1      .875      0.506
Salve Regina   9-2      .818      0.509
Endicott   8-2      .800      0.561
Lycoming   8-2      .800      0.494


With:

1) Hobart (10-0, 0.498)
2) Widener (9-0, 0.481)
3) Cortland St. (8-1, 0.523)
4) Salisbury (8-2, 0.555)
5) Framingham St. (10-1, 0.501)
6) Mount Ida (8-2, 0.457)

Hobart likely remains #1 despite the likelihood of a 1-0 RRO record for Widener (vs. 0-0 for Hobart) because of the closeness in SOS and the idea that Hobart's performance vs. Wesley last season in the playoffs was solid enough to gain the team respect.  This is likely why Hobart was placed as the #2 seed in the St. Thomas bracket (considered #4 as far as #1 seeds go, meaning #4 vs. #5 in the broader bracket).

It would be superfluous to look too much at the ordering of the Top 4 listed above.  Let's look at the resumes of the seven remaining teams that need to fill in six slots in the East rankings:

Framingham State - Wins vs. Salve, BSC, Loss vs. Endicott (2-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Best remaining Win% and moderate 0.501 SOS.

Mount Ida - 0-0 vs. teams left.  Tied for worst Win% and worst SOS at 0.457.

Bridgewater State - Win vs. Endicott, Loss vs. FSU (1-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Second best Win% and good SOS at 0.520.

Rowan - Loss vs. Cortland (0-1 against teams remaining).  Third best Win% remaining and moderate 0.506 SOS.

Salve Regina - Win vs. Endicott, Loss vs. FSU (1-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Middling Win%, with second loss to 5-4 MIT, and moderate SOS at 0.509.

Endicott - Win vs. FSU, Losses vs. Salve and BSC (1-2 vs. teams on the board here).  Tied for worst Win% but extremely good SOS at 0.561.

Lycoming - Loss vs. Widener (0-1 vs. teams on the board here).  Tied for worst Win%, second loss to 6-4 Brockport and mediocre SOS at 0.494.

What should be obvious right off the bat is that we need to eliminate one team to make a field of 10 here.  Mount Ida has no resume to really speak of -- despite being a Pool A qualifier.  By removing Mount Ida, the records vs. teams on the board are actually still the records vs. RROs for all teams.  By happenstance, we have four NEFC teams, one NJAC team and one MAC team.  The first job that makes sense is ordering the NEFC teams.

In a conference in which not all teams play all other teams, you cannot simply state that Framingham State is the best team in the conference for seeding purposes (they won the Pool A bid -- that doesn't get them an automatic seed of any value).  Similarly, we cannot simply call Salve the #2 team in the NEFC since there is limited crossover in the NEFC.  Stated differently, what if Salve came into the NEFC Championship game at 7-3.  They lose to FSU and move to 7-4.  Does being in the NEFC Championship Game mean that Salve is, de facto, the #2 team in the NEFC?  Absolutely not.  While some suggest that using conference tournament results is a criterion, the conference championship result here is simple:  Salve lost.  The game is factored into their numbers accordingly since it was not a rematch.  We will take note of their wins vs. Union and Montclair in the ordering, but there is no guaranty of Salve being #2.  As Pat always says, in Pool C, it's not your conference that is being voted on -- it's the team itself.

Framingham State won the conference and has a 2-1 record vs. the involved NEFC teams.  Only Endicott could surpass it.  When you compare the teams, it's close.  The head-to-head win would give Endicott a chance, and the SOS is terrific.  The RRO record is a problem for Endicott, though.  If they were both 9-1 or 10-1 here, I'd give the nod to Endicott for sure.  However, the conference championship result and the better RRO give Framingham a very slight nod above Endicott.

Bridgewater, too, would go above Endicott.  Here, Bridgewater has a better record again, a better SOS than FSU, making the SOS comparison closer between the teams, and a better RRO record (1-1 vs. 1-2).  FSU beat Bridgewater, won the championship game and has a better RRO, meaning Bridgewater is somewhere between Endicott and FSU.

To determine where, we need to look at Salve.  Salve and BSC both lost to FSU and both beat Endicott.  BSC has a slightly better SOS.  If they were at identical Win%, this would be a near draw, but Salve lost to a mediocre MIT team.  Salve's head-to-head win against Endicott likely keeps Salve above Endicott at equal records, but Salve is the third best team in this lot.

This means, with Rowan and Lycoming still floating, we have:

1) Hobart (10-0, 0.498)
2) Widener (9-0, 0.481)
3) Cortland St. (8-1, 0.523)
4) Salisbury (8-2, 0.555)
5) Framingham St. (10-1, 0.501)
6) Bridgewater St. (9-1, 0.520)
7) Salve Regina (9-2, 0.509)
8) Endicott (8-2, 0.561)

Rowan's advantage here is more or less subjectivity with the NJAC schedule behind it.  At only one loss (to Cortland St., 0-1 RRO) and with a reasonable SOS at 0.506, it's not an easy placement.  Lycoming's advantage is also more or less subjectivity with the MAC schedule behind it.  At two losses (to Widener and Brockport, 0-1 RRO) and a somewhat medicore SOS 0.494, we can guess that the team is definitely below Rowan.  Rowan vs. Framingham St. isn't easy here -- but I think subjectivity with equal losses and a slightly better SOS allows Rowan to jump Framingham St. but not Salisbury.

With Lycoming, the 0-10 opponent in Week 11 hurt the team immeasurably in its only real former advantage: SOS.  Subjectivity is only going to really help when records are even or SOS is truly in your favor.  Lycoming does not stack well vs. FSU and BSC because of the extra loss, the lower SOS and, whether you like it or not, a worse RRO record (as shown, this was not a "manufactured" RRO -- it's a reality).  We honor he regional nature of the game still (and the idea that the regions are in some way balanced enough to allow for regional rankings and selections).  The NEFC teams listed as a whole won their games more often than most other conference teams listed below them, and that relative strength is honored when there are no three-loss teams or other two-loss teams with better resumes being considered.  I believe that Lycoming withstood Salve based on a level of subjectivity since the teams had statistically similar Win%s and SOS numbers (and the RRO was 1-1 vs. 0-1 in favor of Salve, which isn't a giant leap).  I could make arguments either way for the two, but I think Lycoming held the #8 slot based on the RAC's thoughts of the MAC schedule vs. the NEFC schedule.

1) Hobart (10-0, 0.498)
2) Widener (9-0, 0.481)
3) Cortland St. (8-1, 0.523)
4) Salisbury (8-2, 0.555)
5) Rowan (7-1, 0.506)
6) Framingham St. (10-1, 0.501)
7) Bridgewater St. (9-1, 0.520)
8) Lycoming (8-2, 0.494)
9) Salve Regina (9-2, 0.509)
10) Endicott (8-2, 0.561)

There's no conspiracy when you actually run through the process -- so I don't understand why the East RAC is getting so brutalized in the discussion.  I called the ordering out two weeks before the selection (on "In the HuddLLe" when Keith was guest hosting at the end of the show) -- it was obvious what was beginning to happen to me.  You need to look at the region beyond just the top 10 to see that the top 10 are ranked for a reason and that the RRO numbers were beginning to benefit BSC once the SOS changes occurred.  As for why BSC went before C-M?  I have a pretty good theory on that one that I'll share later tonight.  However, as a preview, I'd suggest it was actually caused by a new NCAA policy more than anything else.

[pg04]

This is going to be shocking but I'm going to compliment you -- I'm not going to quote all of that but good job, Frank. Very thorough and well-thought out analysis. +K to you.

[emma17]

Oh, and if you were wondering who it really should have been in my scenario, here they are:

Heidelberg 11
UW-Platteville 13
Wheaton 17
Elmurst 20
Concordia-Moorehead 21
Bethel 22
Pacific Lutheran 24

Hmm, if I was asked to explain how the selection process works to a player, I'd sure rather explain Art's methodology.   Surely there is a way to integrate the various criteria, including polls.   
     

[smedindy]

The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!

[AO]

The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!

Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

[Frank Rossi]

The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!

Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

No offense, but if you look at my ballot for the Top 25 (strictly at the East teams) and the East RAC's projected final rankings, there isn't much difference except that Rowan is as deep as I ranked.  Framingham would have likely been next on my ballot as far as East teams go, followed by either Bridgewater St. or Lyco.  I won't play Monday Morning QB here with how I would've ranked, but we're not looking too far off in the regional aspect.  If your point is C-M vs. Bridgewater St., then I'll answer that point later; it's a different conundrum.

[AO]

The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!

Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

No offense, but if you look at my ballot for the Top 25 (strictly at the East teams) and the East RAC's projected final rankings, there isn't much difference except that Rowan is as deep as I ranked.  Framingham would have likely been next on my ballot as far as East teams go, followed by either Bridgewater St. or Lyco.  I won't play Monday Morning QB here with how I would've ranked, but we're not looking too far off in the regional aspect.  If your point is C-M vs. Bridgewater St., then I'll answer that point later; it's a different conundrum.

Yes that's my point.  I'm saying the problem we have is judging teams fairly between regions because some conferences can't find opponents to play them (WIAC) and some conferences (NEFC) have walled themselves from the rest of D3 inflating their SOS.  Either Pool C is about getting the best remaining teams, or it is just an extension of the equal access pool A.  We get better regular season football when the incentive is to schedule the difficult games.  We wouldn't have as many of the scheduling headaches the WIAC endures.  Play the big d3 school down the road, your players will improve and it won't hurt your at large chances.

[HScoach]

The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!

Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

I agree that the Top 25 has been pretty accurate, one could argue more accurate than the D1 polls, but I strongly disagree that it would remain that way if it was used in the Pool C selections or in the seeding of the bracket.  Most of the folks participating in the D3 poll are connected to a specific school or at the very least connected to a conference.  And if their vote could determine whether their favorite school gets into the field or gets a home game, we're all kidding ourselves if we think that wouldn't influence the voting.   

The Top 25 is great way to predict who might win the playoff games, but IMHO it has no business being part of the official selection/seeding process.

[desertcat1]

The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!

Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

I agree that the Top 25 has been pretty accurate, one could argue more accurate than the D1 polls, but I strongly disagree that it would remain that way if it was used in the Pool C selections or in the seeding of the bracket.  Most of the folks participating in the D3 poll are connected to a specific school or at the very least connected to a conference.  And if their vote could determine whether their favorite school gets into the field or gets a home game, we're all kidding ourselves if we think that wouldn't influence the voting.   

The Top 25 is great way to predict who might win the playoff games, but IMHO it has no business being part of the official selection/seeding process.

I agree 100%
open up the voting and we need to see seedings too?  I think we all understand that travel trumps all at this time too.   

[Pat Coleman]

Wish we could get official seedings but at least we will have what we think the seedings are when we post our team capsules.

[hazzben]

The polls add in an agenda that the committees do not. To me, the polls are radioactive.

The players are smart - they can follow what Frank was saying!

Give me a break.  The d3football.com top 25 has proven itself very accurate over the years.  There's no conspiracy to leave out Bridgewater St., they're just not as good as the top25 teams they passed over to grab the last playoff spot.

I agree that the Top 25 has been pretty accurate, one could argue more accurate than the D1 polls, but I strongly disagree that it would remain that way if it was used in the Pool C selections or in the seeding of the bracket.  Most of the folks participating in the D3 poll are connected to a specific school or at the very least connected to a conference.  And if their vote could determine whether their favorite school gets into the field or gets a home game, we're all kidding ourselves if we think that wouldn't influence the voting.   

The Top 25 is great way to predict who might win the playoff games, but IMHO it has no business being part of the official selection/seeding process.

Yep. The polls are highly accurate. And should they become playoff criteria, they'd become highly political and highly toxic.

The NAIA polls serve this very purpose, and their boards are constantly talking about two things. 1) Certain historical teams get the benefit of the doubt, even when on field results seem to indicate otherwise. 2) There is some serious gerrymandering that goes on.

And I'd throw into this the way preseason perception shapes these polls. A team with 2 losses that starts the season in the top 10 is usually in much better shape than a team with two losses that wasn't even receiving votes preseason. That would be a major weakness to using this data.