Pool C -- 2014

[wally_wabash]

I think your #1 seeds are UWW, UMU, UMHB, and Wesley until further notice.  I don't think Wesley can be dislodged from a top regional seed.  I don't think UWW or UMHB have lose-able games left, so they're solid.  Mount Union's game with John Carroll is the one left that could upset the apple cart here.  I don't think JCU automatically gets Mount Union's top seed if they win though.  You'd definitely need to have a long and serious conversation about Wartburg being a top seed in that case.  Perhaps a 10-0 Wabash team with a pair of victories over regionally ranked teams is also in play there (fingers crossed that Hampden-Sydney got that crap out of their system on Saturday).  But it'd probably be between Wartburg and JCU if JCU can win. 

[bashgiant]

The SCAC thing aside, the issue is the NCAA"s inability to articulate, or follow, or comprehend, even, their own rules....

It does seem ridiculous that we have to tell them what their own conferences' membership is and what their rules are.

I believe you have to do this because they are to busy counting there millions and millions they collect from D1 and don't have the time for D3's silly little tournament.

[ITH radio]

I think your #1 seeds are UWW, UMU, UMHB, and Wesley until further notice.

I agree with the above from a national perspective, seeding wise. I wonder whether Wesley will be placed in the "South" like they have previously or are they going to be viewed as an "East" team now that they have the agreement in hand to join the NJAC in 2015.

While I do suspect they'll earn a bracket heading come playoff time, it wouldn't surprise me if they were regionally ranked #2 in the South behind UMHB, which we've seen in prior seasons.

[art76]

If (and this is a big if) Mount were to lose their last game then the next top 4 teams could easily be the high seeds in respective regions:

Wartburg - West
UW Whitewater - North
Wesley - East
UMHB- South

If Mount does win, then:

Whitewater - West
Mount - North
Wesley - East
UMHB - South

[jknezek]

To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.

1 -- UWW
2 -- UMU
3 -- UMHB
4 -- Wesley

I could easily see 2 and 3 being reversed, but if both teams are undefeated and you start going to that secondary criteria of "past playoff performance" you would put UMU second. This method also has the benefit of showing who we think will go on the road at the end.

[art76]

To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.

Except for how many flights the NCAA will spring for...

[ExTartanPlayer]

To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.

Co-sign.

[jknezek]

To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.

Except for how many flights the NCAA will spring for...

Oh I know. But the N/S/E/W team designations aren't that important anymore. All that matters is the first round has a few flights as possible which leaves a lot of latitude without the designations inside 500 miles. Is Wesley East or South? Who cares. Some of the East is more than 500 miles, a lot of the South is as well. If they are a 1 seed a pod will be built in the mid-atlantic probably borrowing from both those regions.

Same with UMU. Are they N or E? Or even S? Again, a lot of 500 mile possibilities, no need for the geographic designation. Even UWW can be N or W.

Just end labeling with the geographics. It won't change what happens and it makes more sense plus provides that extra piece of data for the end game.

[wally_wabash]

To be honest I think it would help everyone if we stopped putting geographics together with the seeds. Instead just do 4 top seeds, since the brackets aren't all that geographic anymore anyway.

Except for how many flights the NCAA will spring for...

Oh I know. But the N/S/E/W team designations aren't that important anymore. All that matters is the first round has a few flights as possible which leaves a lot of latitude without the designations inside 500 miles. Is Wesley East or South? Who cares. Some of the East is more than 500 miles, a lot of the South is as well. If they are a 1 seed a pod will be built in the mid-atlantic probably borrowing from both those regions.

Same with UMU. Are they N or E? Or even S? Again, a lot of 500 mile possibilities, no need for the geographic designation. Even UWW can be N or W.

Just end labeling with the geographics. It won't change what happens and it makes more sense plus provides that extra piece of data for the end game.

Spread the word, brother. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Updating your conference-by-conference list of all potential one-loss teams that could end up in Pool C...the list of possibilities reallllllly thinned out this week thanks to a few upsets.

(*Note: I know that playoff selection for Pool C does not go by conference, it's just the easiest way for me to tick off all possible one-loss teams in Pool C, thus giving an idea how many 1-loss teams may end up on the board)

ASC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
CC: if 7-1 Muhlenberg wins out (biggest hurdle: 6-2 Ursinus), they will be a 9-1 Pool C candidate.
CCIW: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
ECFC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
E8: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
HCAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
IIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
LL: if 7-1 SLU beats 8-0 Hobart and wins the AQ, then Hobart could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup.  Unlikely.
MAC: runnerup (DelVal/Widener loser) is likely to be 9-1.
MIAA: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
MIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
MWC: 7-1 Carroll could be on the board as a one-loss team in Pool C with loss to Macalaster this past week.
NACC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
NCAC: runnerup is likely to have one D3 loss (8-1 against D3 if it's Wit, 9-1 if it's Wabash).
NEFC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.  Curry did everyone a giant favor by beating Western New England.
NJAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
NWC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
OAC: runnerup (JCU/Mount loser) is likely to be 9-1.
ODAC: if 7-1 Emory & Henry runs the table, they could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup (could be a messy tiebreaker in the ODAC, results still pending here)
PAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
SAA: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
SCIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
UMAC: if 7-2 Greenville beats 9-0 St. Scholastica and wins the AQ, then CSS could be on the board as a one-loss runnerup.  Possible?
USAC:  no possibility of one-loss runnerup.
WIAC: no possibility of one-loss runnerup. (*although UW-Oshkosh, with a win over UW-Platteville, would only have one Division III loss)

Narrowing the above list down, here are conferences that realistically could produce a 1-loss Pool C candidate:

CC - Muhlenberg
MAC - DelVal/Widener loser
MWC - Carroll
NCAC - Witt/Wabash loser
OAC - JCU/Mount loser
ODAC - Emory & Henry (needs to beat Guilford in finale)
UMAC - St. Scholastica (would have to lose to Greenville)
WIAC - UW-Oskhosh*

I'll go a step further and say that the MAC runnerup, NCAC runnerup, and OAC runnerup are the "locks" to be in Pool C with one loss.  Also a strong possibility for Muhlenberg, Carroll, Emory & Henry (although two of those teams must beat a reasonably challenging opponent to secure their 9-1 records).  UW-Oshkosh could be 6-4, but would have a 6-1 Division III record.  In summary, there will probably be no more than seven teams in Pool C with one loss, and possibly as few as four or five.  The door should be open for a few two-loss candidates.

Wally, I know this isn't how you go about the Pool C analysis, but use this information as you see fit.

[smedindy]

I just looked at the MWC site. Carroll won't skip the last week - they'll play the corresponding team in the other division. (Interesting way to do it, really...you get divisions, a championship game and everyone gets that last game, just can't schedule senior day that week I guess.)

Right now, if Carroll finishes second they may face Cornell, Illinois College or Monmouth. I don't see a RR win there, and quite possibly loss #2.

[ITH radio]

k+ ExTP

One team I'd throw into the equation is Fram St of MASCAC. Yes, I get they are Pool B but with only two spots and 100% liklihood of the first going to Wesley and the other probably landing with Centre (esp if they go 10-0), the Rams would fall into the Pool C pot as another 9-1 squad.

[d-train]

k+ ExTP

One team I'd throw into the equation is Fram St of MASCAC. Yes, I get they are Pool B but with only two spots and 100% liklihood of the first going to Wesley and the other probably landing with Centre (esp if they go 10-0), the Rams would fall into the Pool C pot as another 9-1 squad.

Same for Texas Lutheran, right? Possible 1-loss Pool B that would be thrown into the Pool C mix.

[wally_wabash]

I'm really intrigued by Centre.  They are really going to put to the test the epic struggle between win% and SOS/quality results.  Centre may well be 10-0, but they have NOTHING else on their profile. 

[smedindy]

Could the NCAA pave the way for a bid as an 'apology' fro screwing up the SAA auto-bid message? OH, CONSPIRACY!

It's not like they deliberately scheduled hacks and frauds. Hanover, W&L and Wash U. are all having terrible seasons. W&L has really fallen off the map...