Pool C -- 2014

[wally_wabash]

FWIW - it'll be interesting to see how we fans in the West that have had our first poll posted stack up against what the NCAA does for ranking the teams regionally later this afternoon.

I think you guys are pretty close.  If today's NCAA rankings are different, my guess is that St. John's is ahead of Linfield and Platteville.  I don't know if they'd put Chapman ahead of St. Thomas and Platteville...I'm leaning toward no, but it's possible.  The real wild card is what they do with Oshkosh.  Oshkosh's placement in today's rankings may have a massive impact on the at-large situation. 

[Jack Parkman]

Is there any certain formula that is used?  My West ballot was identical to the consensus 1-7 but after that I was a little off.  Might think that I am weighing one thing too much and others not enough.

[K-Mack]

*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).

Thomas More has played an undefeated Wesley, an undefeated W&J and a 7 win Waynesburg team.  Their SOS advantage from those games will be completely nullified by playing in a weaker than usual PAC.

Thomas More this year is a prime example of looking at who you lost to instead of who you beat. And the answer to that question is the same whether or not they schedule Wesley, and I'd argue the Wesley loss probably helps their case. Certainly a win would have.

They're just going to get stuck on the table with teams who have wins over RROs and SoS that's good and they're not going to measure up.

Good intentions are great for Pat and I to talk about, but the committee can't take a team with good intentions over one who also has good wins.

[K-Mack]

MOV in systems where there isn't incentive to score as much as humanly possible is probably very useful for predictive purposes.  But you can't make it a criteria for selection or seeding because then it stops being the organic thing that your hypothetical predictive model needs it to be to be useful.

Care to explain like I'm 5?  Organic?

MOV, in the absence of incentive to push the score differential as far as you can, is useful.  And it could absolutely be a useful data point.  However, once you attach that particular incentive to the MOV, the usefulness of that number is gone because now teams are making the effort to skew the stat and it doesn't mean the thing that you think it means anymore.

Agree.

I also think from being on the board the first time this season and reading the past several pages that folks are a little too focused on SoS. It's a tool, one of many in the box, but it's not an end-all. Nor is wins over RROs (which I think is probably the most valuable) or overall win%.

I also don't think folks are disregarding the non-division results quite enough. Witt isn't going to be penalized by the Butler loss IMO, but they could use that to separate from another team with a similar mark. UW-Oshkosh is going to be an interesting case study as well, but it would have been moreso if it had beaten UW-W and lost to UW-P or something.

[K-Mack]

I'm not a fan of a criteria that tells me Mount Union's 13-point win over MHB—in which they trailed with less than five minutes to go and tied with 15 seconds to go—is basically the same as Cortland's 14-point win over Endicott—in which the Red Dragons led 7-0 after their first possession, never trailed, and led 42-14 early in the 4th quarter

On the flip side, I don't believe John Carroll's 80-0 win over Marietta is any different than Mount Union's 63-7 win over Marietta—even though one was 24 points closer

We need to apply some common sense to these things, in both directions. We need to be willing to look at two similar scores and say "Those games were drastically different" and two scores that might be significantly different and say "Those games were essentially the same thing"

Good points.

For the poll, as I'm speed-reading through dozens of results, I look for three things:
1) Was it a one-score, either-way game in the fourth quarter?
2) Was it a two- or three-score game in the fourth quarter?
3) Was it never in doubt in the fourth quarter?

and vote accordingly.

[Bombers798891]

I'm not a fan of a criteria that tells me Mount Union's 13-point win over MHB—in which they trailed with less than five minutes to go and tied with 15 seconds to go—is basically the same as Cortland's 14-point win over Endicott—in which the Red Dragons led 7-0 after their first possession, never trailed, and led 42-14 early in the 4th quarter

On the flip side, I don't believe John Carroll's 80-0 win over Marietta is any different than Mount Union's 63-7 win over Marietta—even though one was 24 points closer

We need to apply some common sense to these things, in both directions. We need to be willing to look at two similar scores and say "Those games were drastically different" and two scores that might be significantly different and say "Those games were essentially the same thing"

Good points.

For the poll, as I'm speed-reading through dozens of results, I look for three things:
1) Was it a one-score, either-way game in the fourth quarter?
2) Was it a two- or three-score game in the fourth quarter?
3) Was it never in doubt in the fourth quarter?

and vote accordingly.

Yeah, those are the rough lines I'd draw. I'd probably add a 4th, which differentiates between say, a 31-3 win and a 51-3 win over roughly the same caliber opponent. I feel like the 45-50 point win is something "good not great" teams can't really get to, while the big powers do. But that's only if I'm looking at teams in the Top 15 or so   

[K-Mack]

I'm not a fan of a criteria that tells me Mount Union's 13-point win over MHB—in which they trailed with less than five minutes to go and tied with 15 seconds to go—is basically the same as Cortland's 14-point win over Endicott—in which the Red Dragons led 7-0 after their first possession, never trailed, and led 42-14 early in the 4th quarter

On the flip side, I don't believe John Carroll's 80-0 win over Marietta is any different than Mount Union's 63-7 win over Marietta—even though one was 24 points closer

We need to apply some common sense to these things, in both directions. We need to be willing to look at two similar scores and say "Those games were drastically different" and two scores that might be significantly different and say "Those games were essentially the same thing"

Good points.

For the poll, as I'm speed-reading through dozens of results, I look for three things:
1) Was it a one-score, either-way game in the fourth quarter?
2) Was it a two- or three-score game in the fourth quarter?
3) Was it never in doubt in the fourth quarter?

and vote accordingly.

Yeah, those are the rough lines I'd draw. I'd probably add a 4th, which differentiates between say, a 31-3 win and a 51-3 win over roughly the same caliber opponent. I feel like the 45-50 point win is something "good not great" teams can't really get to, while the big powers do. But that's only if I'm looking at teams in the Top 15 or so

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I don't know how much I differentiate between 72-16 and 35-7. Some, but not much.

[smedindy]

Once the margin gets to 28 or so, it's basically adding more confetti to Times Square New Years Eve...

[wally_wabash]

I'm downright giddy today, guys.  I love regional rankings day.

What time will they come out? 3ish?

Or maybe never.  This is interminable. 

[Ralph Turner]

Once the margin gets to 28 or so, it's basically adding more confetti to Times Square New Years Eve...

Hmm... I thought that official unit of "runaway victory" on the D3boards was 21 points, "the Monkey Stomp".

[smedindy]

Depends on your tolerance level, Ralph! 

Certainly, though, in a high-flying league 21 points could be 1/2 of a quarter; against a gritty defense-oriented team 28-3 is a paddlin' for sure...

[bman]

I'm downright giddy today, guys.  I love regional rankings day.

What time will they come out? 3ish?

Or maybe never.  This is interminable.

+K...that's awesome...

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm downright giddy today, guys.  I love regional rankings day.

What time will they come out? 3ish?

Or maybe never.  This is interminable.

I guess nobody told the College Football Playoff Selection Committee they had to do D3 rankings, too

[wabndy]

While we wait . . . I am still wondering if RACs will end up not factoring in RRO wins against out of region opponents.  If the final secret ranking is the only one that counts, and assuming the RACs are working at the same time and would not have an opportunity to share data mid-conference call, how would they?  Clearly the final selection committee would be able to factor in out-of-region RROs when comparing the top four regional teams on the board.  But they would still then be limited by the RACs ranking and not able to consider someone further down a region's ranking who, with a good out-of-region RRO result, might have a better resume.
Points to ponder . . .

[Frank Rossi]

While we wait . . . I am still wondering if RACs will end up not factoring in RRO wins against out of region opponents.  If the final secret ranking is the only one that counts, and assuming the RACs are working at the same time and would not have an opportunity to share data mid-conference call, how would they?  Clearly the final selection committee would be able to factor in out-of-region RROs when comparing the top four regional teams on the board.  But they would still then be limited by the RACs ranking and not able to consider someone further down a region's ranking who, with a good out-of-region RRO result, might have a better resume.
Points to ponder . . .

This is a rare factor because of the lack of high-quality out-of-region games out there in the regular season.  The actual Selection Committee has been able to re-rank or "send back" the regionals for revisions -- depending on the year and the edict from the NCAA.  However, either way, there is a way to account for that.