Pool C -- 2014

[jknezek]

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.

Poor Centre. Hanover, W&L, Millsaps and Wash U are all having really bad years in the historical context of their programs. Combine that with a conference with two second year programs, Hendrix and Berry, and you are just out of luck.

[wally_wabash]

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...

No, they didn't.  But neither did Wabash last year when they played Hanover and that was the rallying cry for why Wabash shouldn't (and didn't) get in.  What I find interesting here is that the committee chair is the same guy that beat the drum for SOS and quality wins and he was quick to spit on a superior win percentage in favor of a team that he thought challenged itself*.  Centre is going to have probably the worst SOS of any at-large eligible team and zero results against ranked opponents.  It's an interesting case and maybe really the first time that we can see a committee decide whether or not 10-0, regardless of how weak the rest of your profile is, earns automatic passage to the tournament. 

*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage.  You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014.  What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule.  Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Excellent points, fellas, about Framingham State and TLU.  I had only been scrounging around for conference runners-up, but had not accounted for the Pool B spillover into Pool C.

Framingham State, TLU, and Chicago all are potential one-loss Pool B candidates, drastically increasing our prospective group of one-loss teams in the C pool.

I'll go on record as saying that if Centre finishes 10-0, I think they should be in.  After Wesley's selection, none of the other teams in Pool B are candidates that it would be a grave injustice to omit...while wally_wabash is correct in saying that they have nothing else on their profile and an awful SOS, I don't think Framingham State, TLU, or Chicago has a profile that much more impressive.  TLU and Chicago were both blown out by their respective regionally-ranked opponents, Framingham State probably will not have a result against an RRO and lost to 5-3 not-winning-the-NJAC Rowan. 

So let's consider RRO results basically a wash.  Everybody in this discussion for Pool B slot #2 either didn't play one or got blown out.  Let's look at the best win:

Centre's best win will be against 8-2 Rhodes or 7-3 Hendrix (depending on the result of the Rhodes/Hendrix game this week).
Chicago's best win will probably be Rhodes, also.
TLU's best win will probably be 7-2 Hardin-Simmons (which probably is a little better than any of the above, but how much so?)
Framingham State's best win is either 7-3 Endicott or 7-3 Western Connecticut.

Nobody else has a big scalp.  If Chicago had played a more even game with Bethel, or TLU had stayed within 28 points of UMHB, I might be pleading their respective cases for inclusion over undefeated Centre.  But I don't see anything that overrides the undefeated record here.  For whatever this is worth, I also don't see this as some galling attempt for a team to schedule their way to a playoff berth.  Hanover, Defiance, Washington & Lee...the teams that they scheduled, although several are having rather poor seasons, are not traditionally-awful programs.  Powerhouses, no, but usually teams in the ballpark of .500 or slightly better.  It just happens that they're all having terrible seasons, which is crushing Centre's SOS.

*Disclosure: I also played for a Pool B team with a very similar profile to Centre (10-0, no quality wins, mediocre SOS) that got in and won a game.  Although I was not yet posting, I recall similar discussions about whether we merited a ranking/bid with our undefeated record because we hadn't played anyone.  So I acknowledge a bit of sympathy for an undefeated team that hasn't gotten the chance to prove itself against sterling competition.  I actually think Centre, it could be argued, has played a better schedule than we did that season (our best win was - shield your eyes - an overtime win against 6-4 WashU; our second best win was either 14-7 against 5-5 Thiel or 20-10 against 5-5 Case Western).

[ExTartanPlayer]

*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage.  You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014.  What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule.  Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.

Seconded.

Wally, I see your point, but after the look I just took, I don't think the one-loss candidates in play (in Pool B, anyway) are strong enough to merit inclusion over Centre.  I get your drift, really, and if Chicago, TLU, or Framingham was a particularly strong one-loss case, I might buy it.  But I don't think any of them is quite strong enough to be "the one loss team that kept an undefeated team home" in 2014.

[smedindy]

I think Centre's argument is different for "B" than "C". Their competition of a "B" slot isn't fierce. If they get to "C" then you have to look at Centre vs. a bundle of teams with good resumes and one loss. That may not look good.

I bet the South RR's will be telling, especially how they place Centre vs. TLU.

[jknezek]

I think Centre's argument is different for "B" than "C". Their competition of a "B" slot isn't fierce. If they get to "C" then you have to look at Centre vs. a bundle of teams with good resumes and one loss. That may not look good.

I bet the South RR's will be telling, especially how they place Centre vs. TLU.

Yep. It will be interesting to see if the committee rewards TLU for simply scheduling the game. Let's face it, getting their doors torn off at home doesn't indicate they are a good team, but it also doesn't tell me much vis a vis other non-elite opponents. So while I wouldn't knock TLU for getting badly beaten by an an elite, I also am not inclined to reward them simply for scheduling the game. Had they stayed within the same zip code, I would have used the game in forming my opinion of TLU. Since they didn't say within the same state, it is pretty much a useless result in determining quality.

[ITH radio]

Like the TLU/Centre placement in the "South", I am curious re the "East" placement of HOB given their low SoS and as of now, no win over a RRO (might have been different if Endicott beat MIT but no dice).

Given two MAC squads with same overall record (8-0) as HOB but with better SoS and at least one of them having a solid W over a RRO (DVC over Montclair), it will be telling if HOB's "body of work" (high ranking and being a playoff participant every year since 2011) outweighs the SoS/RRO part.

[smedindy]

*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage.  You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014.  What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule.  Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.

The only way to really guarantee an great SOS opponent is to schedule Mt. Union, UMHB, Wesley, Linfield, Wheaton, North Central, Wabash or Whitewater. Franklin may be one of those (they were 5-5 in 2005...)They haven't had a meh SOS record in a decade. Linfield was 6-3 a few years ago. Wesley was .500 a decade ago. So was Whitewater (wow...times change!). Wabash was 6-4 in 2004. I don't know if I'd trust another MIAC school, an OAC school or a WIAC school to guarantee a 7 win or more opponent.

I may have missed one or two...


(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).

[AO]

*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage.  You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014.  What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule.  Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.

The only way to really guarantee an great SOS opponent is to schedule Mt. Union, UMHB, Wesley, Linfield, Wheaton, North Central, Wabash or Whitewater. Franklin may be one of those (they were 5-5 in 2005...)They haven't had a meh SOS record in a decade. Linfield was 6-3 a few years ago. Wesley was .500 a decade ago. So was Whitewater (wow...times change!). Wabash was 6-4 in 2004. I don't know if I'd trust another MIAC school, an OAC school or a WIAC school to guarantee a 7 win or more opponent.

I may have missed one or two...


(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).

a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.

[ExTartanPlayer]

(My thinking is 6-4 doesn't help SOS much at all).

a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.

That is absolutely true.

I'll slightly redirect smedindy's point: it's really, really hard to pick a team that's guaranteed to finish any better than 6-4.

6-4 is better than 1-9, by a longshot, for SOS boosts.  But sometimes you can schedule a team that looks like a safe bet to finish with a decent record, they can fall flat on their face.  From 2006-2013, Washington & Lee never finished worse than 4-6 and had winning records more often than not.  If the Generals were playing to their normal standard, Centre's gawd-awful SOS would at least be floating a little bit higher.  Instead, W & L is a 1-7 anchor weighing down that Centre SOS.

Point being that it's nice to try to schedule "pretty good" nonconference opponents, but few teams are, uh, "recession proof" locks to finish over .500 when you're projecting records 3-4-5 years out from now.

[wally_wabash]

a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.

Oh for sure.  That difference is worth about 0.037 to your final SOS number, which on the current rankings is worth about 60 spots.  You're talking about an entire quartile's worth of the division that you move. 

But the thing is that you can't go and seek out a team that you know beyond any shadow of any doubt that is going to be 6-4 at worst.  Certainly not 3-4 years in advance.  And that's the narrative when a 9-1 team gets left at the platform for an 8-2 team that managed to get some non-league games with teams that turned out to not be terrible- you can't go find teams that you know are going to help your SOS. 

And the next thing is but Whitewater!  But Mount Union!  They're always looking for games!  There's no upside to playing those teams and (probably) losing in September.  Or maybe you Buff State your way into a win in September.  You still have to beat them again in November/December.  If I'm catching that lightning in a bottle, I want it to be in the tournament, not in a September game. 

[AO]

a 6-4 team at worst is a whole lot more help to the SOS than a 1-9 team.

Oh for sure.  That difference is worth about 0.037 to your final SOS number, which on the current rankings is worth about 60 spots.  You're talking about an entire quartile's worth of the division that you move. 

But the thing is that you can't go and seek out a team that you know beyond any shadow of any doubt that is going to be 6-4 at worst.  Certainly not 3-4 years in advance.  And that's the narrative when a 9-1 team gets left at the platform for an 8-2 team that managed to get some non-league games with teams that turned out to not be terrible- you can't go find teams that you know are going to help your SOS. 

And the next thing is but Whitewater!  But Mount Union!  They're always looking for games!  There's no upside to playing those teams and (probably) losing in September.  Or maybe you Buff State your way into a win in September.  You still have to beat them again in November/December.  If I'm catching that lightning in a bottle, I want it to be in the tournament, not in a September game.

There are no "guarantees" in life.  You can schedule the currently good teams and 80% of the time they'll still be good 4 years from now.   If that team is 1-9 well then you will at least have a better shot to beat them and improve your W/L.  It stands to reason that if Washington and Lee had one of their better seasons this year Centre might be helping their SOS but adding a loss.

[hazzben]

*One more reason why SOS is complete garbage.  You can't ever know that the team you scheduled a home and home with in 2011 is going to be any good in 2014.  What makes it worse is the dialogue that happens afterward about how Team A (who got selected) went out and scheduled and played good teams while Team B (who did not get selected) played a weak schedule.  Team A didn't schedule good teams, the teams on Team A's schedule turned out to be good- there's a huge difference.

I largely agree with this. Obviously no one can predict the future when they make these schedules. There is some nuance to this though.

Say back in 2011 Team A scheduled Wartburg, SJF or Linfield and Team B scheduled Hamline, Crown or Macalester. Team A certainly appears to be going after good comp and Team B certainly appears to be avoiding it.

When Team A get's credit for a solid SoS, I think there's credit due. When Team B is complaining, I say they've got no one to blame but themselves. Now is it possible Linfield implodes (in a way they haven't done in almost 60 years), sure. Can Macalester slink over to the MWC and suddenly have a solid record that no one could have predicted, sure. But in these instances, we have a pretty good idea what team A & B were intending to do.

In general, if a school schedules a team that recently (say, last 5 years) has been above average in a strong, typically deep conference (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, E8, etc.) or very good in a middling conference (IIAC, NWC, etc.) I give them props for trying to go out and schedule good teams.

[smedindy]

9-1 with a good SOS would make their "C" profile better, for sure. That profile has been established. A 10-0 with a awful SOS hasn't been approached yet.

[smedindy]

In general, if a school schedules a team that recently (say, last 5 years) has been above average in a strong, typically deep conference (MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, E8, etc.) or very good in a middling conference (IIAC, NWC, etc.) I give them props for trying to go out and schedule good teams.

Right, but a above average team in those conferences still could be 6-4 or 5-5. That doesn't help much. Maybe in OOWP, but then there's the OAC where everyone plays nine conference games, so the OOWP and OWP tend to normalize to .500 anyway.