Pool C -- 2014

[K-Mack]

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.

All valid points, but what else can the committee do besides evaluate the info that exists?

A reasonable interpretation would be that 10-0 > 9-1.

A more nuanced interpretation would be that if Centre had played anyone as good as Johns Hopkins, they'd be 9-1 too, and you can evaluate the other criteria evenly from there.

I don't like the precedent it sets, leaving a 10-0 home. I think the national committee is going to make the decision there, and Centre might well go in as the second B based on win pct. After that though, it's an ugly profile.

[K-Mack]

If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results.  I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of  the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.

All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?

No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....

Seriously. Bethel has FOUR results against regionally ranked opponents and the No. 2 SOS. They should be the first two-loss team in.

I know the West committee is closely watching the UW-P/UW-O game. But it would still leave them 1-2 vs. RROs at best.

[02 Warhawk]

If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results.  I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of  the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.

All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?

No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....

I think USee had the Regional Rankings in mind while posting this...as UWP is ahead of Bethel. Even as a WIAC fan, I can't explain why that is.

[jknezek]

A reasonable interpretation would be that 10-0 > 9-1.

A more nuanced interpretation would be that if Centre had played anyone as good as Johns Hopkins, they'd be 9-1 too, and you can evaluate the other criteria evenly from there.

Why? There isn't any crossover. Centre might be as good as JHU. There is really only one tenuous connection. JHU beat RMC, Centre beat W&L who beat R-MC. R-MC and Centre both beat Sewanee. Centre beat Sewanee much worse than R-MC did. So Centre owns good secondary data over R-MC, and JHU owns better primary data over R-MC. But it's garbage data in comparing the two teams. So while it doesn't prove Centre would beat JHU, it also doesn't prove that they can't.

This is my problem. What it boils down to is Centre needs to play until someone beats them, otherwise you just never know. Of all the teams in D3 football, only the "B" teams really have this problem, and it has not come up in the AQ era. The tournament is inclusive of conference champions, Centre could be an undefeated conference champion from a qualifying conference that is one year away from an AQ. Leaving them out punishes the players in a ridiculous way.

Especially if you stack the rankings so that they can't even make it to the table to be discussed.

[MonroviaCat]

If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results.  I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of  the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.

All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?

No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....

I think USee had the Regional Rankings in mind while posting this...as UWP is ahead of Bethel. Even as a WIAC fan, I can't explain why that is.

Yes--I got that--I meant this week's rankings with Platteville ahead of Bethel (and even jumping over Chapman after being behind them last week while the only thing that really changed for those two teams is Chapman's SOS improving while Platteville's went down) don't make sense.

[wally_wabash]

Centre I think stays put absent something weird happening as I don't see any dominoes that could spiral out from this Saturday's results that can cause things to shuffle in the South.

Hardin-Simmons could lose.  And if that happens, Texas Lutheran's #5 ranked profile goes up in flames because that house of cards is being propped up entirely by Hardin-Simmons counting as a RRO win.  Without that, what you've got is an 8-1 team with a decent SOS, zero quality wins, and an RRO result of 72-16.  And if that's the case, I no longer see a good reason for TLU to be ranked ahead of Centre (probably not Muhlenberg either) and evenif  their ranking doesn't change if HSU drops out, in a pick 'em for that second Pool B, Framingham probably becomes the better option- which kicks TLU into Pool C.  And they might still get in that route without a quality win, but that's a much tougher path. 

[Pat Coleman]

After reading more of this above, I have a little faith that the National Committee will go "Oh! Hamburgers!" if they see Centre still being Muhlenberg-blocked and fix it. Hopefully.

That may reduce the chance of a two-loss team getting in (take your pick which one), but lets hope....

Me too.

[hazzben]

As AO noted above, if shuffling at the bottom of the West rankings puts Concordia in the final super secret rankings, then Bethel's credentials improve as they now have three wins versus RRO and five results against them.  Is that enough to pass a Platteville team that also took care of business?  Dunno, but it certainly merits a second look given Bethel's advantage on several other criteria.

I realize I'm biased, but Bethel has an advantage in all criteria except win percentage, where they are equal to UWP. We can debate whose RRO losses are better or worse, but Bethel still has 2 RRO W's that UWP doesn't have.

Add to that, if UWP beats UWO, they won't be 1-2, they'll still likely be 0-2, since 5-2 UWO is probably not going to stick around in the rankings.

The biggest thing is, the final weekend almost never breaks exactly how we expect. AKA, expect the unexpected. There are bound to be some weird results that shake things up. We just don't know yet what the final picture will look like. What if, say, Pacific beats Linfield?!? Where does a two loss Linfield get slotted in comparison to Bethel and UWO/UWP.

What we do know...it's a fun time of year to be a D3 football fan!

[smedindy]

Centre I think stays put absent something weird happening as I don't see any dominoes that could spiral out from this Saturday's results that can cause things to shuffle in the South.

Hardin-Simmons could lose.  And if that happens, Texas Lutheran's #5 ranked profile goes up in flames because that house of cards is being propped up entirely by Hardin-Simmons counting as a RRO win.  Without that, what you've got is an 8-1 team with a decent SOS, zero quality wins, and an RRO result of 72-16.  And if that's the case, I no longer see a good reason for TLU to be ranked ahead of Centre (probably not Muhlenberg either) and evenif  their ranking doesn't change if HSU drops out, in a pick 'em for that second Pool B, Framingham probably becomes the better option- which kicks TLU into Pool C.  And they might still get in that route without a quality win, but that's a much tougher path.

TLU's SOS will take a dive when they play Southwestern. Southwestern's SOS is THE WORST, and their OWP is bad (it will improve with TLU, but playing Trinity and Austin twice dinged them) which affects TLUs OOWP along with their OWP. If H-S loses, that also hurts TLUs SOS and poof goes the RR win. So TLU really really needs Hardin-Simmons to win to be safe. They also really, really need Emory & Henry to lose to Guilford, because that win could put the Wasps in the rankings instead of H-S anyway (why not?)

It should also be noted the Muhlenberg has their rivalry game against Moravian, who has improved. I don't think that battle has the veritas of one of the BIG ones, but let's also not just put it in the "W" column for the Mules. Moravian probably really wants to win this one badly. They have 23 seniors who haven't beaten Muhlenberg.

[D3AlumniParent]

A reasonable interpretation would be that 10-0 > 9-1.

A more nuanced interpretation would be that if Centre had played anyone as good as Johns Hopkins, they'd be 9-1 too, and you can evaluate the other criteria evenly from there.

Why? There isn't any crossover. Centre might be as good as JHU. There is really only one tenuous connection. JHU beat RMC, Centre beat W&L who beat R-MC. R-MC and Centre both beat Sewanee. Centre beat Sewanee much worse than R-MC did. So Centre owns good secondary data over R-MC, and JHU owns better primary data over R-MC. But it's garbage data in comparing the two teams. So while it doesn't prove Centre would beat JHU, it also doesn't prove that they can't.

This is my problem. What it boils down to is Centre needs to play until someone beats them, otherwise you just never know. Of all the teams in D3 football, only the "B" teams really have this problem, and it has not come up in the AQ era. The tournament is inclusive of conference champions, Centre could be an undefeated conference champion from a qualifying conference that is one year away from an AQ. Leaving them out punishes the players in a ridiculous way.

Especially if you stack the rankings so that they can't even make it to the table to be discussed.

I totally agree. Here's some more garbage data in relation to TLU and even UMHB:

Centre beat Rhodes 47-35. Rhodes beat Austin 34-13. TLU beat Austin 36-24.
Centre beat Hendrix 35-26, Hendrix beat Austin 38-28, TLU beat Austin 36-24.
Centre beat Millsaps 27-0. UMHB beat Millsaps 43-7. UMHB beat TLU 72-13.

As you said, it doesn't prove anything definitively. But the consistency is certainly in the positive direction.

"Stacked the deck" is completely accurate and, as you said, unfair to the players.

[D3AlumniParent]

TLU's SOS will take a dive when they play Southwestern. Southwestern's SOS is THE WORST,

Let's just cut to the chase with regards to the criterion used to assist in comparing teams. When lacking common opponents SOS can be a great comparison metric. Agreed.

Just to compare TLU to Centre for a moment (though this also applies to Muhlenberg):

Currently TLU's NCAA SOS is about .1 higher than Centre's. After this week however, that gap will close significantly, just as @smedindy indicated. Here are this week's opponents:

TLU vs Southwestern 1-5 (1-7 overall) and .2308 OWP
Centre vs Birm-South 3-4 (3-6 overall) and .4444 OWP

By my calculations in Excel, the effect of this alone will narrow the difference to about .065. Still statistically significant. Of course this assumes that both teams' opponents will win/lose at the same percentage that they have all year. So this difference might be larger or smaller. (My estimation is that it will be smaller after looking at this weeks'games, but I'm certainly no expert on picking games.)

OK, so in the end I believe the SOS difference between these teams will be about .065.

Now I want to point something out that I'm sure you all already understand. This SOS statistic in reality is the measure of the quality of the teams that you SCHEDULED (again providing a .065 difference)

Now I wouldn't have a hard time with this metric were both teams 9-1 with Centre losing to say, Mount Union instead of beating Hanover. Same record; similar losses. Then fine, use the SOS. But that isn't the scenario we're dealing with. Centre is unbeaten and TLU has a loss.

So wouldn't this metric be more realistic if it measured the quality of the teams you BEAT? When removing the wins of UMHB from TLU's SOS, I calculate that TLU's SOS drops by .07. This would totally negate the SOS difference and actually put Centre ahead.

There's no crazy math involved here. No trickery. Just a little math, using the basics of the NCAA's criteria. I doubt anyone cares enough about this, but I'd be happy to throw my spreadsheet into a Google drive for anyone to check my math.

The bottom line is I just can't get past the "superior SOS" stat being thrown around, when I just don't see significant differences in the quality of the opponents that both teams beat- especially after the season is complete.

If RR wins is the stat that puts TLU over the top, then fine, despite the fact that Hardin-Simmons is on the bottom at #10 and Rhodes is barely removed from this list- likely between 11 & 13. (This could even change this week.) But again if that is what does it, so be it.

If this is truly about "who you beat" then fine. Forget that Centre was undefeated and the other teams had losses. Cast aside the anomaly of an undefeated Pool B team not being invited. Forget the revoked AQ. Remove the emotion and sympathy. 

At the end of the season plug all the numbers into a spreadsheet, rank the 3 teams on SOS that reflects WHO THEY BEAT, regardless of who they lost to. Then appropriately weight D3 Record, "real" SOS & RR wins and call it a day.

I don't think that's unfair.

[Bob.Gregg]

I don't like the precedent it sets, leaving a 10-0 home. I think the national committee is going to make the decision there, and Centre might well go in as the second B based on win pct....

If Centre was playing a completely independent schedule, grabbed every startup team or 2nd-year program and went 10-0, there might be some argument.
But this is a team that is in a league, playing 6 conference games, including against schools that have been to the tournament in the last 6-8 years, at least one of them a couple times.

I don't know how the committee leaves out a 10-0 Pool B eligible team.  And I don't see any reason that they should.

[Frank Rossi]

Your schedule strength is as much dependent on who you lose to as it is on who you beat.  The requirement to beat a grand majority of teams is already covered in the win% criterion.  Your methodology rewards a team that loses to an 0-10 team improperly.

[USee]

It seems to me the thing that caught us all by surprise last year when STJ was picked over Wabash was the fact they picked a 2 loss team over a 1 loss team thereby making other criteria as much or more important than winning %. Is that accurate?

Also, the only rationale (and a bad one at that) that I have seen on here for Bethel being behind Platteville is Bethel's 2 losses are worse than Plattevilles 2 losses. The W-RAC obviously feels Platteville is a better team than Bethel. This seems like a poster-child case for the National committee to change.

[D3AlumniParent]

Your schedule strength is as much dependent on who you lose to as it is on who you beat.  The requirement to beat a grand majority of teams is already covered in the win% criterion.  Your methodology rewards a team that loses to an 0-10 team improperly.

Hi Frank. I think you're replying to my comment, so I'm going to counter:

That's a great point. However it's only relevant if both teams have losses. Here a team with a loss is touting an advantage with SOS over an undefeated team, when the advantage is ONLY gained by factoring in the stats of the team they lost to.

It's kind of like picking up a girl in a bar who was the least attractive of in a group that includes a bunch of supermodels .  Get her home, separate from the pack and with the lights on, and maybe she doesn't seem "the one" for you.

Just as guilt-by-association isn't enough to convict, success-by-association shouldn't be relevant to post season reward.