Pool C -- 2014

[D3AlumniParent]

Take the same exercise and apply it to the likely 10th West RR team this week

WEST RR #10
Hardin Simmons           4-2      48      .5476 (58)       .5210      .539      0-2
Rhodes         7-2      103      .5077 (104)       .5082      .508      0-2
Emory and Henry   8-1      161      .4571 (172)       .5201      .478      0-1

HSU - 3rd, 1st, 1st - 7 pts
Rhodes - 2nd, 1st, 2nd - 7 pts
E and H - 1st, 3rd, 3rd - 5 pts

Again, it's not perfect, but its as neutral a metric using the criteria given that I can think of.  You could proabably make a case for any of them, but how is ranking HSU #10 so outlandish that is screams collusion?

You're right. Great analysis and very interesting. Thanks.

[Tekken]

So comparing SoS week to week

TLU: +.004
Centre: + .005
Muhlenberg: + .011

Not sure what "statistical significance" is, but I can't imagine any of those three make a dent.  If anything, the only team to move should be Muhlenberg.  Three 5 seeds?  Or drop TLU or Centre?  If you choose the second option, the criteria given to you seem pretty cut and dry.

[Tekken]

I'm not saying the metric is "right".  I'm saying it's a very objective way of taking the criteria they are given, and coming up with a "reasonable and feasible" approach to validate or invalidate the rankings.  The criteria seem to validate them as being appropriate, not being right.  Again, the likelihood of any order being "right" is slim to none.  But we've been down that road before.

[Tekken]

I've really got to figure out how to edit a quote to keep from flooding the board.  All I see are quote and delete options.  Whatever the case, I've got to get some sleep.  My wife will not be happy given the last two nights and the little one wakes up at 6 a.m. regardless of how much sleep I decide to get.

[smedindy]

It's shouldn't be a big enough swing to make a difference, especially since Centre won 27-0 AND TLU had issues with Austin. Muhlenberg did beat Ursinus by 14, and Ursinus was perceived as decent in that conference. But Ursinus lost to Juniata, too, and that says more to me about Ursinus than their 6-3 record.

It's not as headscratching as whatever the West was doing, but still it's puzzling.

[D3AlumniParent]

I agree smed.

Hard to imagine being 10-0 and not controlling your own destiny. But that's what the RC has created.

Rhodes will win this week. H-S will have their hands full with LC. And E&H-Guilford should be a very good game. Were Rhodes the only victor of the three, the tables would certainly turn, giving Centre the only RR win and securing a spot.

If so, TLU will very likely get in as well. But at least it would remove the "Muhlenberg block". Sounds like a WWII prison camp, doesn't it? Or a heart bypass maneuver. ;-)  It's late...

[jknezek]

I know this has been discussed but I'm somewhat irritated with the South RC. The whole Centre situation is just jabbing at me. This is a team missing an AQ by a technical rule. Sure they knew what they gave up forming the SAA, but the league has enough members and is almost through it's time. Next year an undefeated Centre is an AQ. This year it is looking like they are blocked from the table by a second place team from an AQ conference. And it's not like that second place team has any quality wins to hang  their hat on.

No, I'm not all that upset by TLU being ahead of Centre. I think it's a little stupid that TLU is ahead, but you can make a legitimate case. Putting Muhlenberg ahead of Centre, however, is simply wrong. Muhlenberg had their shot and blew it at home. Centre has taken every shot so far and not blown anything. The playoffs have been about being inclusive, not about the best 32 teams. But here you have the RC trying to make a statement that it isn't about being inclusive, as one team had no shot from day 1 of the season, it's really about them trying to guess who is the best team using limited and often incomparable data.

Congratulations South RC on making this about you, instead of the implied goals of the AQ system.

[USee]

A wildcard in this process is the assumption Wally is making with his picks is that the "three aren't getting in" bias is gone with the addition of a 6th team.

This was never a thing.

Pat,

Maybe I missed something but I remember the committee chair making a comment to this effect last year when Wabash wasn't selected and in your notes on the regional rankings yesterday you said:

"If the OAC runner-up is among the first at-large teams put into the field, then Wabash will likely get in. But any of the two-loss teams might be a stretch, because that would mean the region gets three at-large teams. That is definitely possible but not likely."

So what did I miss?

[ITH radio]

Listen in to this around the 43 min mark where Duey explains the unlikelihood of 3 C's from a given region getting in

www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show

[smedindy]

Not likely is not congruent to never gonna happen, though...

[thewaterboy]

Small correction from the article on the d3 homepage. Wesley is 2-0 vs. RROs (Rowan and TMC)

[kiko]

There's a lot of talk here about how nothing has changed in the South from last week, so how could the RC down yonder have made the changes they did.

Keep in mind, we're not on the call.  I doubt that the conversation went along the lines of "both were tied; both won; therefore, status quo".  All it takes is one individual to change their mind, to look at how other regions might be separating teams with similar criteria, or to be persuaded by a new argument or analysis that was presented on the call.  A simple "you're right -- I didn't think of it that way before" or "that is more compelling when it is framed that way" is all it would take.

We're looking for objective changes that may explain the movement.  But this is a subjective process, albeit with loose guardrails that are formed from objective criteria.  We shouldn't be surprised to see this kind of movement.

What is interesting to me, as I am a partisan hack with North Central roots who is watching the Platteville situation closely, is whether something similar could happen in the West.  Ordinarily, I could see that RC making tweaks to adjust where Bethel is ranked relative to Platteville, but only if Platteville were to pick up a win over a lower tier WIAC opponent next week.  Given this Saturday's schedule, i have a hard time seeing that sort of adjustment happen if Platteville's next win is over a strong team like Oshkosh.  (I don't expect Oshkosh to retain their RR status if they lose that game, so Platteville wouldn't be picking up a RRO victory, but rather just a victory over a well-regarded team.)  I struggle to see Bethel jumping Platteville if the Pioneers hold serve.

The $64,000 question to me (well, one of them...) is whether Oshkosh would jump Bethel with a win over Platteville.  I don't think they should, but my opinion matters not at all on this question.  Like Oshkosh, I don't think Platteville would retain RR status if they lose this weekend.  But there is logic to "you beat a team we regarded more highly than Bethel, and you have only one D3 loss, and..."  Not the logic that I'd personally use, but it is certainly plausible.

North Central is really really really really on the bubble IMO since they get pushed back in line unless the West Region dominoes get set up in a specific order.

[AO]

What is interesting to me, as I am a partisan hack with North Central roots who is watching the Platteville situation closely, is whether something similar could happen in the West.  Ordinarily, I could see that RC making tweaks to adjust where Bethel is ranked relative to Platteville, but only if Platteville were to pick up a win over a lower tier WIAC opponent next week.  But given this Saturday's schedule, i have a hard time seeing that sort of adjustment happen if Platteville's next win is over a strong team like Oshkosh.  (I don't expect Oshkosh to retain their RR status if they lose that game, so Platteville wouldn't be picking up a RRO victory, but rather just a victory over a well-regarded team.)  I struggle to see Bethel jumping Platteville if the Pioneers hold serve.

The $64,000 question to me (well, one of them...) is whether Oshkosh would jump Bethel with a win over Platteville.  I don't think they should, but my opinion matters not at all on this question.  Like Oshkosh, I don't think Platteville would retain RR status if they lose this weekend.  But there is logic to "you beat a team we regarded more highly than Bethel, and you have only one D3 loss, and..."  Not the logic that I'd personally use, but it is certainly plausible.

If Platteville knocks Oshkosh out of the regional ranking or vice versa, I'd have to think that Concordia (8-2 .551 1-2 vs RRO) would take their place and give Bethel another regionally ranked win.

[Pat Coleman]

Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.

If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents."  "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.

The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)

We've been talking this for probably three or four years, Smed. Just saying 0-1 is only the very basic information and not what the committees tend to use.

By the way, congrats, Wally! And thank you!

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/projected-bracket-version-one

Thank you, Pat!  That bracket is juicy.  I like it a lot.

I tried to move teams around within the driving parameters. Thankfully Platteville can drive to Wittenberg so I can move them away from Whitewater (not that I anticipate the two of them meeting, but it's one little bit of flexibility with a West team).

[Tekken]

I know this has been discussed but I'm somewhat irritated with the South RC. The whole Centre situation is just jabbing at me. This is a team missing an AQ by a technical rule. Sure they knew what they gave up forming the SAA, but the league has enough members and is almost through it's time. Next year an undefeated Centre is an AQ. This year it is looking like they are blocked from the table by a second place team from an AQ conference. And it's not like that second place team has any quality wins to hang  their hat on.

No, I'm not all that upset by TLU being ahead of Centre. I think it's a little stupid that TLU is ahead, but you can make a legitimate case. Putting Muhlenberg ahead of Centre, however, is simply wrong. Muhlenberg had their shot and blew it at home. Centre has taken every shot so far and not blown anything. The playoffs have been about being inclusive, not about the best 32 teams. But here you have the RC trying to make a statement that it isn't about being inclusive, as one team had no shot from day 1 of the season, it's really about them trying to guess who is the best team using limited and often incomparable data.

Congratulations South RC on making this about you, instead of the implied goals of the AQ system.

I sympathize with this approach, but it continues to miss the point from my vantage.  It's not about "Centre College".  It's about the process.  Is the ranking committee's job to rank the teams as they see they should be realistically ranked, or is their job to rank the teams in the manner that is most likely to get a certain team into the playoffs?

If it were to actually end up as it stands today, I would feel bad for Centre.  But the truth is, this is seen every year in football at every level.  How do you rank an undefeated team with no notable wins and losses vs a one loss team whose only loss is by virtue of taking on the risk of playing a significantly better opponent?  What do you punish/reward?  It varies case to case.  As it stands now, Centre's real problem is that they did not play anyone of relavance, but additionally that so many of the teams they played were equally of irrelevance, resulting in the significantly lower SoS.  If either of those two situations wasn't the case, they are probably easily justified in front of Muhlenberg.