Pool C -- 2014

[Frank Rossi]

I received this response from JP Williams, NCAA Assistant Director of Championships and Alliances, regarding the confusion on Pool B and the RACs vs. National Committee ranking discretion.  Keith and Dave were pretty much on point earlier:

"Pool B candidates are lined up in the same way as Pool C candidates if it is feasible, however, on any given year, one or more regions do not have any pool B's under consideration, or any at all, so many years it's a moot point.

As it relates to RAC votes, during Joy [Solomen's 2011] tenure as chair, the process called for final ranking decisions to come from the RACs. Since, the policy has changed through the DIII governing process and currently the national committee holds the final decision to ensure proper criteria is applied."

Hope that helps everyone.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yes... they experimented a couple of years ago with the RACs giving their results and the national committee having little or no ability to adjust those rankings - especially during the period of time the public got to see them. It went horribly because they also introduced the computer voting for all RAC members - meaning instead of a consensus being determined on a conference call... now a conference call is had, but afterwards everyone goes and votes individually. RAC chairs were sometimes completely blindsided by the results. The idea is that those who haven't had the ability to give their say can vote how they wish... or at least keep from those who have strong opinions from running the rankings. As a result, RAC chairs were surprised by results and national committees couldn't adjust accordingly. The individual voting still exists, but RAC chairs (at least some I know) have asked for people to also send their reasoning for their vote so at least the chair has information to work with... AND national committees can go back and adjust when necessary if they don't think the criteria is being properly applied.

[art76]

Pat,

How do I put this delicately? Do ANY of the committee members lurk here? If not, should they be invited to? Seems like they might take away some perspective they were not aware of. Or do you see that as a fly spoiling the ointment?

[emma17]

My wish list:
1.  The committee's main goal in filling Pool B and C would be entirely focused on picking teams most likely to provide a competitive game. 
2.  The committee would factor if a team has been on the wrong end of a Double Monkey Stomp (or pick a number).  TLU, you lost a game by 56 points, sorry. 
3.  Regionally Ranked teams are redefined.  I struggle with Heidelberg benefitting JCU and Mt by being RR'd #8.  Heidelberg- lost the games that matter by 27 and 41 points-I don't see how Heidelberg can be used as evidence of "strength of schedule" to benefit teams being considered per #1 above.   



     

   

[smedindy]

Emma,

Your solutions aren't fair, because teams like MIT, Chicago, Adrian, Rhodes, etc. don't have the opportunity to get pole-axed. They'd be unfairly upgraded in the regional rankings ahead of a TLU or 'Berg. There's few games like that going around, and sometimes good teams get thwacked because of reasons. You'd potentially disqualify an otherwise viable candidate just because they played Mt. Union when they were at their friskiest. Muhlenberg didn't have the luxury to lose by 56 to MHB, but they probably would have.

B is supposed to be an outlet for those teams not in an auto-bid league. It's different than C.

And who YOU think would be a competitive game would be different than who I think would be competitive. A few years ago, EVERYONE scoffed that Curry got a C. Guess what. THEY WON! The apoplectic haters were silenced, briefly

[K-Mack]

Pat,

How do I put this delicately? Do ANY of the committee members lurk here? If not, should they be invited to? Seems like they might take away some perspective they were not aware of. Or do you see that as a fly spoiling the ointment?

I've been told both, that some influential D-III people lurk, and that some make a point not to at times like these.

With 40 pages of discussion, I think we've proved there's a lot to digest. Committee members have been giving an hour or more a week since early in the season, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was no time for lurking.

[Bombers798891]

My issue with centre is not that they may not get selected. Reasonable people can disagree on that. But I think it's ridiculous that they may not get discussed. I mean, if we won't even consider them, what exactly was the point of their season?

[Frank Rossi]

I think what is clear from JP's response is that, indeed, Centre WILL BE DISCUSSED if they win Saturday.  The National Committee will need to feel comfortable about the rankings when everything settled out.  As such, a discussion will ensue since it's known that Centre is only entering the Tourney as an at-large pick if at all.  It would be one thing if the Committee didn't have an opportunity to invert results if criteria weren't consistently applied.  But JP's response confirms exactly what Centre needs to hope for Saturday night -- a real discussion about their positioning.

[emma17]

Emma,

Your solutions aren't fair, because teams like MIT, Chicago, Adrian, Rhodes, etc. don't have the opportunity to get pole-axed. They'd be unfairly upgraded in the regional rankings ahead of a TLU or 'Berg. There's few games like that going around, and sometimes good teams get thwacked because of reasons. You'd potentially disqualify an otherwise viable candidate just because they played Mt. Union when they were at their friskiest. Muhlenberg didn't have the luxury to lose by 56 to MHB, but they probably would have.

B is supposed to be an outlet for those teams not in an auto-bid league. It's different than C.

And who YOU think would be a competitive game would be different than who I think would be competitive. A few years ago, EVERYONE scoffed that Curry got a C. Guess what. THEY WON! The apoplectic haters were silenced, briefly

I see your point about some teams not having a "fair" opportunity to get shellacked, thus moving up in regional rankings. However I prefer to focus on point number one. The committee should select teams they feel would be most competitive.
I'm not as forgiving of a team that's been whooped by 40+ when considering Pool C entry.
I have a feeling we would actually have greater agreement on the teams we feel would most likely provide the most competitive game to a playoff opponent.
Surely we'd both take Bethel and NCC and SJF and UWP over teams like TLU or Muhl.
Wouldn't we?

[smedindy]

Emma,

Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."

Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?

TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.

My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.

I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.

In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.

[SaintsFAN]

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.

I hate crap like this.  There's a website where you plug in two teams and they run results of games to show one is better than the other.  Its stupid - and doesn't prove anything.  I wouldn't even take consistency from that. 

Just let the games play out on Saturday and we'll see.  Keep in mind I definitely feel Centre should be ranked ahead of Muhlenberg and can see an argument for being ranked ahead of TLU (but not completely sold on it) so don't kill me here for being anti-Centre. 

[02 Warhawk]

Emma,

Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."

Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?

TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.

My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.

I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.

In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.

Is there a full explanation of everything that goes into the Massey ratings somewhere? I see their website is kind of vague. I wonder how they calculate their "power ranking". Also, if I'm reading this right, do they really have Amherst as the #1 strength of schedule? Hopefully I missed interpreted that. 

[jknezek]

Massey is an epic fail on NESCAC teams. They either have to be the highest or lowest since there is no comparable data. Just ignore the NESCAC teams in his ratings as that is an example of GIGO.

[smedindy]

Emma,

Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."

Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?

TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.

My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.

I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.

In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.

Is there a full explanation of everything that goes into the Massey ratings somewhere? I see their website is kind of vague. I wonder how they calculate their "power ranking". Also, if I'm reading this right, do they really have Amherst as the #1 strength of schedule? Hopefully I missed interpreted that.

I believe there's an explanation on algorithm. It's pretty similar to the Sagarin ratings - same idea anyway. For basketball, I toy around with an amalgamation of Massey, Sagarin and Ken Pom once in a while.

What he does with the NESCAC is set the 'average' NESCAC team as the average of the entire College Football universe, which skews them up in the D3 universe as most of D3 normally is in the lower part behind D1 and D2. He used to put them in their own category, and I wish he would again. I know there are other models out there but I don't have the faith in them, really.

FOUND THIS: http://masseyratings.com/theory/index.htm

[wally_wabash]

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?

You are correct- last year I did pick Wabash as my last team in, but I couched that selection by saying that there were sound, criteria-based reasons to pick either team.  It certainly wasn't an obvious choice and I don't have beef with that choice. 

I know we've mentioned this a little bit earlier as we hypothesized about Wheaotn's chances to make the field as an at-large when their league didn't help them out with winning non-league games and/or getting a third team ranked.  Sometimes you can be a good team that plays in a league like that (or any 10-team league really)...where you can be really good, lose to the one ranked team on your schedule, and get left out.  The criteria don't do much for evaluating the quality of a team, only the quality of one or two wins/losses in a 10-game schedule.  Muhlenberg,, Thomas More, Emory & Henry all fall into this category this year.  Centre also, but they are a special case because they haven't lost at all.