Pool C -- 2014

[wally_wabash]

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

Yeah, I modified my original post after the fact, but I think it got posted to the front page before I caught it.  I think that typo will get fixed soonish. 

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I've done it for the first two analyses so I'll keep making my own projected bracket. I've taken the 32 teams from Wally's projections and bracketed them. The 4 regions aren't in any particular order.


Texas Lutheran @ (1) Mary Hardin-Baylor (only schools within 500 miles of each other)
Chapman @ Linfield (west coast orphans)

Ithaca @ (2) Hobart
Husson @ MIT (only school within 500 miles of Husson)

----

Lakeland @ (1) UW-Whitewater
North Central @ Bethel (could be other way around)

St Scholastica @ (2) Wartburg
UW-Platteville @ St John's

----

Trine @ (1) Mount Union
Wabash @ Wash & Jeff

Illinois College @ (2) Wheaton
Franklin @ Wittenberg

----

Chris Newport @ (1) Wesley
Widener @ John Carroll (could be other way around)

Rowan @ (2) Delaware Valley
Hampden-Sydney @ Johns Hopkins


I've projected Mount Union over John Carroll and DelVal over Widener based on the regional rankings. The one thing I'm not happy about is the potential matchup between Chris Newport and John Carroll in the 2nd round which would be just over 500 miles. Not very likely but possible.

[ITH radio]

that would be a great draw for hobart, but I don't think that'll happen.

i also think Fram St will sneak in somehow (maybe even draw husson).

[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.

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.

Here's the problem. This only matters in the B area. There are more than a few irrelevant A conferences, but if the champ goes undefeated, they are in. Only a few A leagues have unbalanced schedules, so it is almost impossible for an undefeated A team to end up on the C table. It could happen, but it would be very, very rare.

So what we have is a league that is in the B category only for technical reasons. They aren't the worst league in DIII, and their champion is going undefeated. However, thanks to some human interpretation of criteria that is easily disputed, that team could have NO ACCESS to the tournament regardless of what they did, from day 1 of the season. That is not how the tournament is structured and, regardless of the RC, it's not how it should play out.

One of the primary criteria is D3 win percentage. If Centre is undefeated, no team in D3 will have a better win percentage. The spirit of the tournament is to include conference champions. In the spirit of the tournament, an undefeated, conference champion from a conference that qualifies for an AQ in every way except time spent in purgatory, should be rewarded. It's quite simple.

[kiko]

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.

That extra win versus a RRO would change the conversation a bit.  I do think that the Platteville/Oshkosh loser falls out of the RRs.  But if Concordia then moves into the rankings, is that enough for Bethel to jump ahead of both WIAC teams?  There's a really strong argument for that, even if (for instance) it was following a Platteville win over a quality-but-no-longer-ranked Oshkosh team.

We'll never see the math on where things land (which I think is stupid and a bit of a CYA by the NCAA to insulate their RCs from second-guessing, but that's a conversation for another day).  But the only C's I think should feel any degree of confidence in their chances at this point are Mount/John Carroll, Delaware Valley, Wabash, and Bethel.

[K-Mack]

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

That correction was made probably around the time you were posting this. thanks for the heads up though.

[wally_wabash]

that would be a great draw for hobart, but I don't think that'll happen.

i also think Fram St will sneak in somehow (maybe even draw husson).

This is completely possible.  I've steered my selections toward teams with higher SOS and especially teams with quality wins because last year, with the same committee chair, every Pool C team selected had an RRO win (or two) while teams like Thomas More (lower SOS, zero quality wins) and Wabash (same deal) were at 9-1 and got left at the table.  And Thomas More was there from jump street.  The wind could change direction this year and the preferences could shift away from having those quality results and favoring teams with the better win percentages though, which would open up the door for Framingham, Muhlenberg, and eventually Centre.  But that's not what the voice of last year's committee (who is also the voice of this year's committee) told us about who these bids are reserved for. 

[Tekken]

One of the primary criteria is D3 win percentage. If Centre is undefeated, no team in D3 will have a better win percentage. The spirit of the tournament is to include conference champions. In the spirit of the tournament, an undefeated, conference champion from a conference that qualifies for an AQ in every way except time spent in purgatory, should be rewarded. It's quite simple.

I know emotionally we want this to be true, but it just isn't.  It's the same reason an undefeated Marshall in Division 1 never had a chance this year.  The truth of reality is, it is what it is.

The wind could change direction this year and the preferences could shift away from having those quality results and favoring teams with the better win percentages though, which would open up the door for Framingham, Muhlenberg, and eventually Centre.  But that's not what the voice of last year's committee (who is also the voice of this year's committee) told us about who these bids are reserved for. 

The moral compass of the south regional committee is supposed to ignore their obligation in order to accommodate for a technicality that actually exists?

Again, I think the blame lies with the criteria/rules.  But if you start saying we can bend them once, because well, just because we don't like how it feels, you've opened up Pandora's box.  They are there for a reason; this exact type of situation.

[jknezek]

One of the primary criteria is D3 win percentage. If Centre is undefeated, no team in D3 will have a better win percentage. The spirit of the tournament is to include conference champions. In the spirit of the tournament, an undefeated, conference champion from a conference that qualifies for an AQ in every way except time spent in purgatory, should be rewarded. It's quite simple.

I know emotionally we want this to be true, but it just isn't.  It's the same reason an undefeated Marshall in Division 1 never had a chance this year.  The truth of reality is, it is what it is.

The wind could change direction this year and the preferences could shift away from having those quality results and favoring teams with the better win percentages though, which would open up the door for Framingham, Muhlenberg, and eventually Centre.  But that's not what the voice of last year's committee (who is also the voice of this year's committee) told us about who these bids are reserved for. 

The moral compass of the south regional committee is supposed to ignore their obligation in order to accommodate for a technicality that actually exists?

Again, I think the blame lies with the criteria/rules.  But if you start saying we can bend them once, because well, just because we don't like how it feels, you've opened up Pandora's box.  They are there for a reason; this exact type of situation.

Don't compare how D1 FBS does post-season to how D3 does it. It is irrelevant and completely undermines your point. The AQs across all qualifying conferences exist in D3, something that demonstrates the divisions desire to be inclusive of champions. There are no AQs in D1. The SAA will be a qualifying conference next year. The fact that this year Centre won't get an AQ is a blip and one easily solved by the committees. Unfortunately, at least so far, they don't seem to want to rectify the problem, despite the general inclusiveness of the tournament in general.

As for bending the rules. We aren't. You are incorrect. There is useful criteria and how the committee decides the weight of the criteria is the issue. That isn't bending or breaking rules or opening Pandora's box. A simple weighting on win percentage makes an excellent case for Centre versus TLU and Muhlenberg. A weighting of SOS works the other way. Both are valid criteria. But given the overall goal of the tournament, and the division in general through the use of AQs, the committee is being foolish.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.

Asked this question myself on the Pool B thread, haven't gotten an answer yet. Even K-Mack didn't know.  I've been wondering this the last two or three years.

I know McHugh chimed in, but FWIW, I put a question out about this and about whether the national committee can disagree with the regional advisory committee (even if that would more or less defeat the purpose of having them).

I'll confirm/reply if/when I hear back.

They can certainly disagree with the regional committees and it is in the national committee's purview to then change the rankings accordingly. It actually happens more than people realize or know. The rankings we see published are not always the ones the regional committees decided on in their vote... they reflect any changes the national committee wanted to make (if they made any at all). This happened last season in basketball to much discussion when Cabrini was moved down to #2 in the Mid-Atlantic region in Week 2 and then ended up back at #1 the next week. The Week 2 move was made by the national committee.

Why would they make moves? The national committee wants all of it's regional committees to be on the same page. If they feel that a regional ranking from the regional committee doesn't reflect the common message, strategy, plan, whatever... they will make a change accordingly (rightly or wrongly). They will then usually converse with that regional committee (especially since members are on the national committee) to explain why they made the chance in an effort for the regional committee to understand the scope. This is also a stop-gap of either the old boy's network, a strategy to set up a team to make the tournament, or any other conspiracy people may think happens behind closed doors.

Sufficit to say, the rankings we see are voted on by the regional committees, but approved and changed if necessary by the national committee. (I have never heard of a national committee making whole-sale changes, by the way. Usually they are small ones or swapping two teams.) Thus, there is no way on a final regional ranking result that a team ranked behind another team will get to the table first.

[Tekken]

Don't compare how D1 FBS does post-season to how D3 does it. It is irrelevant and completely undermines your point. The AQs across all qualifying conferences exist in D3, something that demonstrates the divisions desire to be inclusive of champions. There are no AQs in D1. The SAA will be a qualifying conference next year. The fact that this year Centre won't get an AQ is a blip and one easily solved by the committees. Unfortunately, at least so far, they don't seem to want to rectify the problem, despite the general inclusiveness of the tournament in general.

So it is, indeed, the committees job to fix the conundrum that reality has presented.

As for bending the rules. We aren't. You are incorrect. There is useful criteria and how the committee decides the weight of the criteria is the issue. That isn't bending or breaking rules or opening Pandora's box. A simple weighting on win percentage makes an excellent case for Centre versus TLU and Muhlenberg. A weighting of SOS works the other way. Both are valid criteria. But given the overall goal of the tournament, and the division in general through the use of AQs, the committee is being foolish.

Complete agreement, both are valid criteria.  And it has been shown (before any of this even came to light) that the weighting of SoS is the preferred determinant.  So, the committee should contradict themselves, solely to accomodate a reality that actually exists, but that we don't like.

[jknezek]

Don't compare how D1 FBS does post-season to how D3 does it. It is irrelevant and completely undermines your point. The AQs across all qualifying conferences exist in D3, something that demonstrates the divisions desire to be inclusive of champions. There are no AQs in D1. The SAA will be a qualifying conference next year. The fact that this year Centre won't get an AQ is a blip and one easily solved by the committees. Unfortunately, at least so far, they don't seem to want to rectify the problem, despite the general inclusiveness of the tournament in general.

So it is, indeed, the committees job to fix the conundrum that reality has presented.

As for bending the rules. We aren't. You are incorrect. There is useful criteria and how the committee decides the weight of the criteria is the issue. That isn't bending or breaking rules or opening Pandora's box. A simple weighting on win percentage makes an excellent case for Centre versus TLU and Muhlenberg. A weighting of SOS works the other way. Both are valid criteria. But given the overall goal of the tournament, and the division in general through the use of AQs, the committee is being foolish.

Complete agreement, both are valid criteria.  And it has been shown (before any of this even came to light) that the weighting of SoS is the preferred determinant.  So, the committee should contradict themselves, solely to accomodate a reality that actually exists, but that we don't like.

It is the committee's job to create a tournament that represents the ideals of Division 3. The preference for conference champions to make the tournament is well established through the use of AQs. The fact that it is eminently justifiable to make this choice, through the use of primary selection criteria, should make it a simple issue.

The preference for SOS was shown last year. Prior to that we had seen a preference for winning percentage. This criteria has flip flopped at various years. Weighting SOS heavily last year contradicted what had been done in the past. It is not set in stone as you seem to believe.

If you stick around here a few years you will see all of this criteria debated endlessly and applied in endless different permutations by the various committees in football and other sports. Sticking around will help you to understand that your desire to be strict about certain criteria is not what actually happens in one sport let alone in the D3 universe as a whole.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.

Asked this question myself on the Pool B thread, haven't gotten an answer yet. Even K-Mack didn't know.  I've been wondering this the last two or three years.

I know McHugh chimed in, but FWIW, I put a question out about this and about whether the national committee can disagree with the regional advisory committee (even if that would more or less defeat the purpose of having them).

I'll confirm/reply if/when I hear back.

They can certainly disagree with the regional committees and it is in the national committee's purview to then change the rankings accordingly. It actually happens more than people realize or know. The rankings we see published are not always the ones the regional committees decided on in their vote... they reflect any changes the national committee wanted to make (if they made any at all). This happened last season in basketball to much discussion when Cabrini was moved down to #2 in the Mid-Atlantic region in Week 2 and then ended up back at #1 the next week. The Week 2 move was made by the national committee.

Why would they make moves? The national committee wants all of it's regional committees to be on the same page. If they feel that a regional ranking from the regional committee doesn't reflect the common message, strategy, plan, whatever... they will make a change accordingly (rightly or wrongly). They will then usually converse with that regional committee (especially since members are on the national committee) to explain why they made the chance in an effort for the regional committee to understand the scope. This is also a stop-gap of either the old boy's network, a strategy to set up a team to make the tournament, or any other conspiracy people may think happens behind closed doors.

Sufficit to say, the rankings we see are voted on by the regional committees, but approved and changed if necessary by the national committee. (I have never heard of a national committee making whole-sale changes, by the way. Usually they are small ones or swapping two teams.) Thus, there is no way on a final regional ranking result that a team ranked behind another team will get to the table first.

Ahh, now THIS is fascinating. 

Maybe the national committee is responsible for the chicanery of "ties" in the rankings (which makes no effing sense! What's the point of rankings then?).

[Tekken]

It is the committee's job to create a tournament that represents the ideals of Division 3. The preference for conference champions to make the tournament is well established through the use of AQs. The fact that it is eminently justifiable to make this choice, through the use of primary selection criteria, should make it a simple issue.

This is exactly where the rub lies.  Maybe someone should tell the committee that, and not tell them to rank teams in their region.

The preference for SOS was shown last year. Prior to that we had seen a preference for winning percentage. This criteria has flip flopped at various years. Weighting SOS heavily last year contradicted what had been done in the past. It is not set in stone as you seem to believe.

If you stick around here a few years you will see all of this criteria debated endlessly and applied in endless different permutations by the various committees in football and other sports. Sticking around will help you to understand that your desire to be strict about certain criteria is not what actually happens in one sport let alone in the D3 universe as a whole.

I'll take your word that this is true.  You are right; I don't have the historical perspective year over year to make that judgement.  But if the committee flip flops their stance SOLELY to get Centre on the table, is that what we really want?  Ask regional committees to manipulate their rankings to get a desired team in (regardless of how just or unjust one regards that rationale for manipulation)?  I don't know, maybe it is.  I think it's the east region that is catching some flak right now for possibly doing exactly that, however.

[jknezek]

The preference for SOS was shown last year. Prior to that we had seen a preference for winning percentage. This criteria has flip flopped at various years. Weighting SOS heavily last year contradicted what had been done in the past. It is not set in stone as you seem to believe.

If you stick around here a few years you will see all of this criteria debated endlessly and applied in endless different permutations by the various committees in football and other sports. Sticking around will help you to understand that your desire to be strict about certain criteria is not what actually happens in one sport let alone in the D3 universe as a whole.

I'll take your word that this is true.  You are right; I don't have the historical perspective year over year to make that judgement.  But if the committee flip flops their stance SOLELY to get Centre on the table, is that what we really want?  Ask regional committees to manipulate their rankings to get a desired team in (regardless of how just or unjust one regards that rationale for manipulation)?  I don't know, maybe it is.  I think it's the east region that is catching some flak right now for possibly doing exactly that, however.

The criteria was flipped last year to get St. John Fischer into the tournament over probably Wabash and Thomas More College. We are only ever arguing about the last team or two into the tournament. Other than that, it is fairly cut and dry. We don't put 32 teams in based on the criteria. There are 8 teams subject to the criteria this year, 2 B and 6 C teams. Of those, 1 B is a given in Wesley, and at least 2 C teams are given in the UMU/JCU loser, the Widener/Del Val loser. So that leaves 5 spots somewhat up for grabs with a week of games left. That week of games will probably add a UWO/UWP winner (especially if UWP wins) and NCC or Wabash at least are likely. That leaves 3 spots.

Those are really the ONLY spots up for grabs at this point. One is a second Pool B, the other two are the final C. So however the criteria is structured, it is structured to ONLY benefit a couple teams. Whether it is Centre or TLU or Framingham or Bethel doesn't matter. With so little actually up for grabs the criteria pretty much always benefits SOLELY the winner in the end.