Pool C -- 2014

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The idea that criteria is starting to be "flipped" to get certain teams in I think is a misnomer. Also, the idea that one criteria stands out from the rest is also a misnomer.

With every committee chair, members, regional committee member, etc. that I have personally talked with in several sports and the reports I hear from other sports (from those I trust), not one committee members says we rank the criteria and go from there. Not once has some said, for example, that WP%, then SOS, then vRRO, then etc., etc., etc. is the order we use to rank our teams. In fact, what I hear is that the primary criteria is put in front of them and they look at it all. If something is overwhelming while everything else is even, then that criteria mark is probably the deciding factor. If everything is even or evens itself out, then they look at the criteria even closer or go to secondary criteria if they have to.

Don't start thinking committees are just flipping things around just to get teams in and that one criteria matters more than another. If you read the handbooks carefully, you will see they are not listed in an order. The committees take everything into account and go from there. Thus, one team could be ranked above another because their SOS is better, another could get a jump because their vRRO is better, and another is better because WP% is more impressive. You can't have a cut and dry system in place because the criteria and the data reveal far too many variables.

[art76]

The idea that criteria is starting to be "flipped" to get certain teams in I think is a misnomer. Also, the idea that one criteria stands out from the rest is also a misnomer.

With every committee chair, members, regional committee member, etc. that I have personally talked with in several sports and the reports I hear from other sports (from those I trust), not one committee members says we rank the criteria and go from there. Not once has some said, for example, that WP%, then SOS, then vRRO, then etc., etc., etc. is the order we use to rank our teams. In fact, what I hear is that the primary criteria is put in front of them and they look at it all. If something is overwhelming while everything else is even, then that criteria mark is probably the deciding factor. If everything is even or evens itself out, then they look at the criteria even closer or go to secondary criteria if they have to.

Don't start thinking committees are just flipping things around just to get teams in and that one criteria matters more than another. If you read the handbooks carefully, you will see they are not listed in an order. The committees take everything into account and go from there. Thus, one team could be ranked above another because their SOS is better, another could get a jump because their vRRO is better, and another is better because WP% is more impressive. You can't have a cut and dry system in place because the criteria and the data reveal far too many variables.

Well said  +K

[K-Mack]

Things I was reminded of or learned today in private conversations:

-- Pool B and C processes are indeed the same
-- The national committee reserves the right to fix the regional advisory committee's final rankings before proceeding with at-large selection.
-- The regional advisory committee members don't always agree with one another.
-- The RACs sometimes are suspected of weighting their rankings to get as many teams per region in; however, there's also discussion and/or division on the RACs about which conferences
-- Not everybody is married to the criteria or weights it the same.

Long story short, part of the national committee's job is to smooth out the rough edges from the various regional committees and make sure everything is being applied evenly and fairly before beginning the discussion about at-large spots.

Also, there's never been this much discussion necessary for Pool B before, so the entire process might take longer than it otherwise would have.

[emma17]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?     

[K-Mack]

The idea that criteria is starting to be "flipped" to get certain teams in I think is a misnomer. Also, the idea that one criteria stands out from the rest is also a misnomer.

With every committee chair, members, regional committee member, etc. that I have personally talked with in several sports and the reports I hear from other sports (from those I trust), not one committee members says we rank the criteria and go from there. Not once has some said, for example, that WP%, then SOS, then vRRO, then etc., etc., etc. is the order we use to rank our teams. In fact, what I hear is that the primary criteria is put in front of them and they look at it all. If something is overwhelming while everything else is even, then that criteria mark is probably the deciding factor. If everything is even or evens itself out, then they look at the criteria even closer or go to secondary criteria if they have to.

Don't start thinking committees are just flipping things around just to get teams in and that one criteria matters more than another. If you read the handbooks carefully, you will see they are not listed in an order. The committees take everything into account and go from there. Thus, one team could be ranked above another because their SOS is better, another could get a jump because their vRRO is better, and another is better because WP% is more impressive. You can't have a cut and dry system in place because the criteria and the data reveal far too many variables.

Well said  +K

I agree with all of this, and Wesley being ahead of UMHB is an example of what Dave is talking about (teams are even except SoS), with one small caveat.

No regional advisory committee is saying "we stack the deck to game the system." But members of RACs do suspect the inherent biases of other members of RACs come into play during the discussions, whether that means favoring certain conferences or regions.

[ITH radio]

In spite of JCU's low SoS they'd get a bump from playing UMU, plus they have a RRO with a W over Heidi (so 1-1 RRO). Could make it a close call w/ Wabash tho b/c the LG would be a 1-1 RRO like JCU and Bash has a better SoS.

[Bombers798891]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?   

Because if a 9-1 OAC team who lost to Mount Union is left out, the OAC might as well dissolve. And then, to paraphrase the great John Bender:

"How come the OAC gets to dissolve? If they dissolve, we'll all dissolve. It'll be anarchy!!!"

240 teams, no conferences! We'd never sort the playoff pool out! Pat's head would explode! Is that what you want? Is it?

[K-Mack]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?   

Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results against common opponents.

John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams
SoS figure.

Since h2h and common opponents don't look like they'll come into play for JCU in Pool C, their profile, with a loss, would be:
9-1 (.900)
1-1 vs. MU & Heidelberg
SoS that will improve from .470 after MU game, but won't be great

You raise a valid point that they might not be a lock, but considering the discussion very quickly gets to considering two-loss teams, and the North Region has them at No. 2 going into this week, ahead of a team with a stronger profile like Wabash (.512, 1-1 vs. RRO), they're a safe bet to get in even with a loss.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.

Building off this point: whether we like it or not, there's an undeniable time effect to this.  We've perceived that the JCU/Mount and DelVal/Widener losers are a lock for Pool C, probably because they're all still undefeated (and thus sitting pretty at the top of the RR's).  Wabash and other one-loss folks are perceived as on thin ice because they have a loss & we've already determined that some 2-loss teams are strong enough candidates to bump a couple of the 1-loss teams.  But with the aforementioned teams are all sitting undefeated, they remain at the top of the RR's.  If Widener and DelVal had played in week 4 (like, say, Johns Hopkins vs. Muhlenberg) would the loser still be given this high ranking and Pool-C-lock treatment?  I doubt it.  The MAC hasn't had much more recent playoff success than the Centennial, and neither DelVal nor Widener has a big SOS to boost them...and while both boast quality OOC wins against two of the three NJAC tri-champs (DVC over Montclair, Widener over Rowan), their overall resumes are certainly no stronger than Wabash's (once one of them takes a loss, that is) or several other one-loss candidates.

JCU/Mount is a little different because...Mount.  As long as Mount is Mount, I can't ever see a one-loss OAC runnerup getting shunned because teams that lose to Mount and UWW are granted the "everyone would lose to them" rule (perception on these boards, anyway, not necessarily how the national committee would discuss it).  Although, if the OAC runnerup keeps getting bounced in the playoffs, we might want to rethink this.  If Mount beats JCU and JCU gets a Pool C, I think it's actually rather important for them to win a game because otherwise we might have to start waiving this unofficial rule.

[wally_wabash]

In spite of JCU's low SoS they'd get a bump from playing UMU, plus they have a RRO with a W over Heidi (so 1-1 RRO). Could make it a close call w/ Wabash tho b/c the LG would be a 1-1 RRO like JCU and Bash has a better SoS.

Concur.  The RRO win (of which there are not many amongst the first teams in line for those Pool Cs right now) is huge.  And if JCU remains first in line, they're a lock to get in because right off the bat, or soon thereafter, they'll be the only team on the board with a quality result.  They could maybe slip behind Wabash in the North if they lose by a jillion, but I wouldn't count on that. 

It's about position- being first in line is a big deal. 

[Frank Rossi]

Let me provide some historical perspective.  In 2011, a turning point occurred when the normal preference for winning percentage vs. regional opponents was slightly enhanced.  Specifically, we saw SJF (2 losses) leapfrog an idle Endicott (1 loss) in the East Region Rankings -- we know this because SJF wouldn't have reached the Pool C board without having that happen.  It was the first time in then-recent memory that the Committee identified a scenario by which a strong resume and SOS would be able to take precedence in ordering for seemingly comparable (teams from conferences with at least a modicum of respect) Pool C candidates.  That said, 2011 was presumably still a time when winning percentage in region was the top criterion -- it just was identified as trumpable by some set of other criteria painting a certain picture of a team that should be considered beyond just their winning percentage.

Since 2011, it has happened again (see, for instance, SJF last year).  However, we still saw some semblance of ordering based on W/L percentage (and now all D3 games are regional games -- so toss out 2014 regional distinction).  This is the first year, though, that we've seen early rankings consistently flop team orderings despite W/L records (win percentages).  What's more, it's being done in such an inconsistent fashion that we can't identify the level of resume strength necessary to create those flops.  In other words, each region seems to be subjectively creating the scenarios by which win percentage is trumped, and that trumping seems to be generally, and in certain regions, happening with a lower bar set than what we saw in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

There are some minor exceptions to the above that we've seen, but I'm focusing especially on Pool B/C candidates and how things have panned out so far.  I think this is what has caused consternation for Wally -- we can't identify what level of SOS or what type of RRO results is putting teams "over the top" in the regional rankings, especially when one region is lined up next to another.  This is definitely a unique year, and perhaps another turning point in which we might see a reflex in the opposite direction back toward pre-2011 methodology if the Committee isn't careful here in ensuring a predictable and safe balance between objectivity and subjectivity.  That's a major concern, and what happens this weekend will definitely be watched carefully by everyone involved since a lot remains at stake here.

[Frank Rossi]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?   

Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results against common opponents.

John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams

We've heard margin of victory mentioned before in the case of RRO result comparisons for two teams that are otherwise close in criteria.  Therefore, it is indeed usable beyond just score comparisons vs. common opponents.  As I've stated earlier, the use of the word "results" is not an accident.  It means that going beyond the W/L record for RRO games is permitted.  It's dependent on whether the Committee in any given year feels that's necessary or useful, but it's available to them without consultation with the Championships Committee.

[Bombers798891]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.

JCU/Mount is a little different because...Mount.  As long as Mount is Mount, I can't ever see a one-loss OAC runnerup getting shunned because teams that lose to Mount and UWW are granted the "everyone would lose to them" rule (perception on these boards, anyway, not necessarily how the national committee would discuss it). 

Yeah I wondered about this myself. And when you factor in the fact that the OAC plays 9-game conference schedules, you have a situation where the other OAC teams are pretty much locked into a loss, and have less of a chance of getting an SOS mark much higher than .500, or getting multiple games against RRO.

I'm not saying it's unfair, per se, and as ETP points out, if these 9-1 OAC runner ups keep getting bounced early, we may need to re-evaluate things. But I do think the non-Mount OAC members have a tougher time proving things than others do.

[K-Mack]

Not sure how far this has been discussed because I'm not caught up, but there are two points I want to make:

1) The committees appear to be weighting SoS and RROs, which means rewarding stronger schedules as fans have long encouraged them to. Nobody thought it would ever result in a 10-0 team being left home, and I'm not convinced that is going to happen, but if it does, it's the SAA's fault for giving up its SCAC AQ.

If we were to give the selection committee a hard time for doing what we've always wanted them to do, we'd be hyporcrites.

2) They could be boned either way on TLU/Centre. Let's say they put Centre is as the second B alongside Wesley, and TLU gets left out via C (although that seems unlikely with TLU's current SoS and RRO numbers). This would be Texas Lutheran getting left out for a second consecutive year after finishing with one loss, despite upgrading its schedule in a way that Centre did not. (To be fair, Centre played who it always plays and a lot of them just had bad years, but that doesn't take away from the fact that TLU played UMHB when it probably could have gone undefeated with a lesser opponent in that spot)

It would basically mean TLU gets left out doing it both ways (easy schedule and much tougher one)

[jknezek]

Keith -- While I don't like TLU being above an undefeated Centre I can live with that. There is decent support for it. What irritates the crud out of me was moving Muhlenberg above them. Who has Muhlenberg beaten? Ursinus? The CC isn't much stronger than the SAA, excluding JHU. And Muhlenberg lost to JHU, at home. I just don't get this action. What it boils down to is Centre is essentially blocked from the table despite doing everything right this season while Muhlenberg, who had a shot at getting in via the AQ, gets a front row seat at a second chance after blowing their AQ.

The big difference between these two teams is JHU is in Muhlenberg's conference while the SAA, W&L, Hanover, and Wash U are down this year. Heck of a reason to block out an undefeated team.