Pool C -- 2014

[D3AlumniParent]

quote author=emma17 link=topic=8234.msg1627495#msg1627495 date=1416011374]
smed is one of the most nicest, most educated ..

Lol...I didn't sound so educated right there...

[smedindy]

Could there be a situation where the OAC and MAC runners-up could sweat this out? I think Rowan will still be ranked since they're winning as I type this, so Widener is probably good with a RR win. But if Del Val gets whacked a good one they only have one RR result and it'll be ugly. Their SOS will improve but not my much since they're a 10-team league. (The East could wiggle Lycoming into the rankings at 8-2 though to help, if they ever so wanted to do something like that). Then their profile is kind of like TLU's.

Same with the OAC runner-up, IF Heidelberg loses and falls out of the RRs, the game is a blowout, and the North decides to not rank ONU and instead opts for MSJ or DePauw. Their profile has a meh SOS and an 0-1 RR result then.

I think Wally hinted at this a ways back. Not that these worst cases could happen, but youneverknow.

[D3AlumniParent]

Your logic will give teams a disincentive to schedule a Whitewater, Mt. Union, UMHB, or Wesley, even because it won't count...

We DON'T want that...we REALLY don't want that. Teams should be encouraged to play those guys. It's really helped Franklin improve, for one. Don't put up artificial barriers, please.

Smed- I was only advocating an attempt to get an accurate look at two Pool C teams where one was undefeated (the orange) and one was not (the apple). Wasn't pushing for a wholesale change.

Again this would give a more accurate look, in the specific situation of Centre to TLU and Muhlenberg, at a collective "who you beat". The undefeated team shouldn't suffer when being compared to a team that lost to a 10-0 squad. Because nothing was "earned" by losing.

Hopefully you understand, if not agree, what I'm trying to say.

[smedindy]

I disagree. You play the schedule. In ANY SOS calculation, the schedule is what it is and you count it all. You can't cherry pick. That's why they do W/L, as well, and the SOS also factors in the OOWP as well. It's a true look at what they were doing, or trying to do. SOS is just A factor, it's not THE factor.

You can't discount a result you don't like, win or lose, playing a cupcake or playing UMHB. Again, that would discourage teams from playing an elite team, because it wouldn't count in some circumstances.

[AO]

Your logic will give teams a disincentive to schedule a Whitewater, Mt. Union, UMHB, or Wesley, even because it won't count...

We DON'T want that...we REALLY don't want that. Teams should be encouraged to play those guys. It's really helped Franklin improve, for one. Don't put up artificial barriers, please.

Smed- I was only advocating an attempt to get an accurate look at two Pool C teams where one was undefeated (the orange) and one was not (the apple). Wasn't pushing for a wholesale change.

Again this would give a more accurate look, in the specific situation of Centre to TLU and Muhlenberg, at a collective "who you beat". The undefeated team shouldn't suffer when being compared to a team that lost to a 10-0 squad. Because nothing was "earned" by losing.

Hopefully you understand, if not agree, what I'm trying to say.

if nothing was earned by losing to a 10-0, then surely nothing was lost?  Can't discount the SOS without changing the w/l

[D3AlumniParent]

Smed, OK so it seems that, to you, the current SOS is the "least worst" metric that has been used so far- perhaps not perfect, but better than anything used in the past. I understand what you're saying and respect that you want to encourage teams to schedule competitive games.

I know you're interest and involvement in sports, D3 football and these boards is long and full. So I appreciate your opinion.

You're looking at this from the vantage point of scheduling. You like the SOS metric that gives a numerical value to the strength of the teams that you scheduled.  If, in your experience, that has lead to more competitive and interesting matchups, then I'll defer to you because I respect your experienced opinion. My experience in D3 football is with one or two trees; yours is the forest. 

I'm looking at it from the vantage point of an accurate strength measure from the collection of "who you beat". But, again, I was referring to a specific instance when comparing apples to oranges. And all my suggestion would do in that instance was remove the scheduling bonus from the

You may not like my suggestion and you can call it cherry-picking. I'm fine with that, though I'll disagree. So let's just forget that I've called this a "change to the SOS formula". I'll call it SOW (Strength of Wins). Make it another criteria and use it when appropriate for apples and oranges comparisons.

[D3AlumniParent]

if nothing was earned by losing to a 10-0, then surely nothing was lost?  Can't discount the SOS without changing the w/l

Why is it that it' necessary to get any credit for a loss in any statistical category?

[Tekken]

How exactly is taking the rules of a game that everyone agrees to at the onset, and changing them with 5 seconds left on the clock fair to anyone?

[D3AlumniParent]

How exactly is taking the rules of a game that everyone agrees to at the onset, and changing them with 5 seconds left on the clock fair to anyone?

Great question for the South Regional Committee board members, tim. Why don't you ask your coach after the game tomorrow?

[Tekken]

If you will enlighten me to what rule he has changed, I will try and find a way to do that.

[D3AlumniParent]

 

[wally_wabash]

I understand why you want to pick apart the SOS.  It's a horrible metric and can be downright unfair if people put too much emphasis on it (not unlike the days when the NCAA basketball committee was using RPI as the end-all).  The way the SOS works right now, you can absolutely have a really, really good football team that for whatever reason winds up with a schedule composed largely of duds.  It just happened to Centre.  The folly comes in when we use that SOS algorithm and then use it to determine the quality or the strength of a particular team- something like "bad SOS equals bad football team".  It's a tremendously unfair application of the criteria.  I'm all for a conversation about how we can alter the metric or refine its application in a way that doesn't dismiss a team's quality because the teams they happened to play in any given year weren't great. 

However, SOS is what we have and SOS is a primary criteria.  We don't get to hypothesize about what if Team A didn't play UMHB or what if Team B did and then recalculate.  That's not really allowed. 

I'll say this- (and thanks for sharing your math...I didn't realize that Southwestern's contribution to OOWP would have that much impact but it definitely does) when TLU plays Southwestern tomorrow, their SOS is going to get trashed in the same way HSU's SOS would have.  With the South RACs willingness to shuffle things around with very little changes last Saturday, that game with Southwestern may completely alter the way they view and rank TLU after tomorrow.  Perhaps enough to rethink how much Centre's 1.000 win percentage ought to contribute to their ranking vis a vis TLU.  And if not the South RAC, it may be enough for the national committee to make their own adjustment. 

[smedindy]

I think the SOS is good to encourage teams to try and schedule better. Of course, you can't really project how good a team will be in a few years, and it takes two to schedule. But we don't want quality teams just picking on out of conference weaklings all the time. A knock on Heidelberg was that they've faced Alma in non-conference and just crushed them the past couple of years. They've played them five years in a row, and when they first scheduled them 'Berg wasn't that good and Alma was coming off of 5-5. I don't know how long of a contract they signed at first but it seemed like a reasonable matchup in year one and two, not now.

I did mention TLU's big hit by Southwestern earlier by both counts but hadn't done the math. Of course other games will affect TLU'S OOWP.

I think also lost in all of this is that Hardin / Simmons IS a pretty good team. We're kind of trashing them a bit, wondering why they're ranked and not Emory & Henry. They hung with UMHB. I wouldn't say their outstanding, but they're not weaklings. At the #10 spot in the South, they probably had a choice of E&H, H/S, Guilford or Christopher Newport. If H/S loses, I think the E&H / Guilford winner will get #10.

[USee]

I dont' see how SOS has any impact on how a team should schedule. Bethel isn't real happy with their rannking right now despite the 2nd best SOS in the land. They are hurt by scheduling Wartburg. If they beat up on Luther instead they have no worries right now. North Central may be on the fence in terms of scheduling. They got hurt again this year by losing to UWSP, but they benefit by beating UWP.

Wheaton's SOS this year is atrocious because the CCIW did poorly out of conference and the teams they played (Kalamazoo, Coe, and UWEC) were bad teams. But somehow, in 2010 they beat a 5-5 Albion team, a 5-5 Plattevlille team and an 0-10 Olivet team and had an SOS that was in the top 5 in the country. Makes no sense to me. This years Wheaton's team is decidedly better than 2010 but if this years team was 9-1 they are likely on the bubble with no RRO wins and a weak SOS.

I think scheduling is relative depending on the conference you play in. It shouldn't be, but I think it is. Bethel didn't need to schedule Wartburg but Centre might have.

Smed, you say scheduling helped Franklin improve? How is that? for a year or two? They lost to IWU this year and were not competitive with UWW. How did scheduling make them better? If they played Alma instead of IWU they may be ranked higher and looking at a home playoff game instead of a 1st round road game.

I don't like teams that schedule soft but I know it happens. The system still rewards it. SOS doesn't appear to matter.

[Tekken]

Can someone help me out on OWP?  I'm apparently doing something wrong. Does it simply take into account a team's (ie. Southwestern) cumulative opponent's record like this:

SRSU 1-8
ETBU 4-5
AC 5-4
TU 3-6
AC 5-4
TU 3-6
Total 21-33

Or does it take into account a team's cumulative opponent's record only against Division III teams like this:

SRSU 0-7 
ETBU 4-4
AC 4-4
TU 3-6
AC 4-4
TU 3-6
Total 18-31

Or is it something different entirely?