Pool C -- 2013

[smedindy]

The way the East ate itself yesterday, and RR they do can be justified and not be called 'gaming'. I just don't know how they're going to do it.

[wally_wabash]

By ranking Brockport last week, they protected Alfred's position in the rankings by virtue of the Alfred/Bport h2h result.  There is some case to be made for Brockport being ranked.  There's also some case to be made for about a half dozen other 3-loss East teams.  Of course, Brockport's inclusion had the most advantageous domino effect. 

We talked about it last week after Heidelberg got blasted and whether or not they would fall out because of it...they didn't and rightly so.  The top of the North has so cleanly separated itself from the rest of the region that we aren't even considering 3-loss teams to be ranked.  The East doesn't particularly have a cream that rises to the top as neatly, and the options are limitless.

[Schwami]

Here's a thought --- rank Wooster in the East 

#RankWooster

[wabndy]

Is it fair to say that had the scac not imploded there would have been 6 pool c teams this year? Not surprised for many reasons. I'm sure an unwritten criteria was that the committee couldn't take all the pool c teams from the west and north. That effectively what dividing into four regions does- allows for some degree of geographical balance.

[smedindy]

I don't think it's unwritten criteria at all. Let's take the tin foil off.

The "B" and "C" selections showed the committee valued SOS and wins over Regional Ranked teams more than anything.

The spin off of the MASCAC from the NEFC put those teams in the "B" pool.

[wabndy]

I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy or anything. If they didn't want some regional balance in pool c they wouldn't be talking about regional rankings anyway. It'd be results against nationally ranked opponents as the criteria. Beyond that- I still can't imagine that a committee member has sat through the pool c selection and seen two north and two west teams go in- with the east and south's number one still on the board. Had Wabash gotten a win against an rro id imagine it would have been no contest and they'd still be in. Given that you could evenly square off the north #3 and east #1 for the last pool c slot- there would undoubtedly be some leaning toward leaning the undeniably close criteria in favor of the east. I'm absolutely not claiming sour grapes- the committee appears to have followed things to the letter. At the same time- had the committee emphasized wins- I don't think anyone could have complained either.

[wally_wabash]

"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

[K-Mack]

This is where I'm torn.

I really don't like the whining about, "Well, we have to play X and Y early and..." since you had to beat X and Y anyway to win the title. Admittedly, it's worse in the NCAA D-1 hoops land, where the commentators who slurp the BCS conferences complain about tough matchups for the 4th place teams in the Big 12. But part of me doesn't like the fact that X has to play Y so early. Play early, play late - you still have to beat them.

HOWEVER...there really shouldn't be any rematches in the first week. And the NCAA should actually follow a reasonable facsimile of seeding so you don't have the third and fourth best team in the region playing in week one just because they're close and no one else can get there without a flight.

Instead of spending time disqualifying cross country runners for participating in a fun run for charity, the NCAA should cough up some dough to fix the travel for the best football tournament in the land!

I'm with you right up until the very end. I'm never a big fan of people saying "well, xxx has enough money and should just pay for it." That's like a homeless guy coming up to you and saying "you look like you're pretty well off, you should just give me $100."

Analogy aside, if the money source were identified, I would get behind the idea.

Considering that D-III gate probably wouldn't pay for all the travel in the D-III tournament, I'm a little hesitant to complain about the focus on money.

That said, PLU (in my top 8) at Linfield (in my top 3) in Round 1 will always stink.

[K-Mack]

"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.

[AO]

"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.

I'd agree with Duey if he's referring to the lack of objective data available to compare teams from different regions because very few teams play many non-conference games outside of their region.  The St. John Fisher SOS wouldn't be nearly as high if more East teams played teams from the West and the North.  This is a national tournament selecting at-large bids by using regional criteria. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.

Agreed.  Good point.

[wally_wabash]

"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

We'll just go ahead and leave this here for future reference.  Turns out not all of the criteria are spelled out in the handbook.

We're already piling on this on the NCAC board, but it's probably more relevant here.  This is bad.  All of the posters on the NCAC board are pretty unanimous, regardless of affiliation or rooting interest, that this absolutely should not be part of the thought process.  It just shouldn't.  The four teams on the board at a given time should be considered as though it's a new discussion each time.

To be fair, don't you think Duey could be saying "it's unrealistic to expect three teams to get in when there's only five to go around" and not "we did not/would not consider a third team from one region?"

Obviously I would have a problem if the latter were true. The at-large process is the at-large process, and five West region teams are the five next-best teams by criteria, they should be who gets in.

Sometimes I think though we listen to the committee chair, not always a polished public speaker, and wait to pick out a moment where they misspeak in 30-40 minutes of answering questions.

If that's what he intended to say, he missed the mark by quite a bit.  I think I'd prefer that the committee chariman not approach the selection process with any preconceived notion of how many teams from which regions should or shouldn't qualify.  Like you said, if the best five teams per the criteria are all West region teams, then those are the five teams that should get picked.  We shouldn't ever be talking about "the third team up from the North" because that's not a thing that should enter the thought process.  It's Wabash and their criteria up against the other three teams and their criteria.  Not where you're ranked or how long you've been lingering around on the board.  Just the teams and their criteria.  As soon as anything else comes into play, the process has been failed.   

[smedindy]

Heck, he could have even said, "It's going to be hard for a region to have three out of five at large teams in a given year," and be fine by me. Because normally, it is.

[smedindy]

This is where I'm torn.

I really don't like the whining about, "Well, we have to play X and Y early and..." since you had to beat X and Y anyway to win the title. Admittedly, it's worse in the NCAA D-1 hoops land, where the commentators who slurp the BCS conferences complain about tough matchups for the 4th place teams in the Big 12. But part of me doesn't like the fact that X has to play Y so early. Play early, play late - you still have to beat them.

HOWEVER...there really shouldn't be any rematches in the first week. And the NCAA should actually follow a reasonable facsimile of seeding so you don't have the third and fourth best team in the region playing in week one just because they're close and no one else can get there without a flight.

Instead of spending time disqualifying cross country runners for participating in a fun run for charity, the NCAA should cough up some dough to fix the travel for the best football tournament in the land!

I'm with you right up until the very end. I'm never a big fan of people saying "well, xxx has enough money and should just pay for it." That's like a homeless guy coming up to you and saying "you look like you're pretty well off, you should just give me $100."

Analogy aside, if the money source were identified, I would get behind the idea.

Considering that D-III gate probably wouldn't pay for all the travel in the D-III tournament, I'm a little hesitant to complain about the focus on money.

That said, PLU (in my top 8) at Linfield (in my top 3) in Round 1 will always stink.

As much as we'd like to have each are self-sufficient in a large organization such as the NCAA, or even at College or University, many times they are not, and funds get moved from one area to another. 

I think other sports would also benefit for a tournament structure that eliminates first round re-matches and a better bracket. Sure, you gotta beat em all to win it, but knock heads against someone else at first.