Pool C -- 2014

[USee]

I also don't see a precedent (other than for travel that exceeds 500 miles) for an undefeated team to be seeded lower than a 1 loss team. In the hypothetical bracket, you have Wheaton as a 4 seed and Bethel as a 3. While I understand how Bethel is ranked higher by the poll, I don't think the committee would seed them based on the poll. Usually the undefeated team gets the nod over the 1 loss. Two undefeated teams is a different story.

[wally_wabash]

I also don't see a precedent (other than for travel that exceeds 500 miles) for an undefeated team to be seeded lower than a 1 loss team. In the hypothetical bracket, you have Wheaton as a 4 seed and Bethel as a 3. While I understand how Bethel is ranked higher by the poll, I don't think the committee would seed them based on the poll. Usually the undefeated team gets the nod over the 1 loss. Two undefeated teams is a different story.

I think this has happened to St. Scholastica once or twice.  It's a rare situation, but I think it does happen.  Centre is almost assuredly in this boat this year.  10-0 Centre is not a slam dunk to make this field and if you're not a slam dunk to make the field, you're probably not getting a high seed.  If there were seeds.   

[D3MAFAN]

Centre to Johns Hopkins is 574 miles. that won't work.

Wesley and CNU is a rematch, probably not going to happen since it doesn't need to happen for mileage reasons.

When did the NCAA establish the 500 miles rule and how long has this been in place? I wonder how much of a difference in cost would it be if it was extended to 600 miles and how the student-athletes would be effected. I know a 10 hour bus ride is longer than and 8 hour, but wouldn't it help somehow.

[jknezek]

Yep. One year I came up with a completely feasible bracket after the last game was played but before the official bracket came out. I wasn't even close. There are simply too many possibilities to play with and I've never bothered again. Neat to speculate, but since they aren't geographically constrained anymore it's mostly an exercise in futility to build a bracket. The Pool C stuff is much more practical to work with, and Wally does a fantastic job.

[art76]

Second Try

Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:

Region 1

1. Whitewater
7. Trine

4. Wheaton
5. St. John's

3. Bethel
8. Lakeland

2. Wartburg
6. St. Scholastica

Region 2

1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Texas Lutheran

3. St. John Fisher
4. Delaware Valley

6. Centre
8. Hampden-Sidney

2. Linfield
5. Chapman

Region 3

1. Mount Union
6. Montclair State

4. Wittenburg
5. North Central

3. Wabash
8. Illinois College

2. John Carroll
7. Franklin

Region 4

1. Wesley
5. Washington and Jefferson

6. MIT
8. Husson

3. Johns Hopkins
7. Christopher Newport

2. Hobart   
4. Widener

Lower numbers host. Region 1 would host Region 4 and Region 2 would host Region 3 when it gets down to that point. I have now verified all the 500 mile rule possibilities, man – what a pain in the butt. I think I have no same conference match-ups in the first round. I did use D3's top 25 to rank all the teams that received votes for ranking the teams 1 through 7 – two 7 and all four 8 seeds are "equal" after that and mileage kicked in for where to place them in the remaining 6 spots.

As Wally alluded to, there are no "seeds" per se, which is why I chose D3's ranking over anything else. As you can plainly see, I ranked the teams within their respective brackets and some of the brackets have more fire-power in them. That's a direct result of the 500 mile travel rule.

Thanx to all for pointing out the problems in the first edition.

Feel free to comment.

[jknezek]

Centre to Johns Hopkins is 574 miles. that won't work.

Wesley and CNU is a rematch, probably not going to happen since it doesn't need to happen for mileage reasons.

When did the NCAA establish the 500 miles rule and how long has this been in place? I wonder how much of a difference in cost would it be if it was extended to 600 miles and how the student-athletes would be effected. I know a 10 hour bus ride is longer than and 8 hour, but wouldn't it help somehow.

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. The only areas where you get really big problems with distance are the NW, Texas, Maine and the occasional non-Texas south team (Maryville last year was a bit of a puzzle that worked out to H-SC's favor, but the same issues would be true of Huntingdon, Berry, or Sewanee). Adding 100 miles won't do much to alleviate the first two areas, the last two would probably provide a few more options, but it's rarely come up. The 500 mile distance is plenty for almost everything we need. 16+ hour bus trips round trip is a lot to ask. I know teams do longer sometimes, but it is pretty brutal.

To be honest I think going to 600 miles would have more effect on the second round and later as the committee would have even more mandate to save costs. Not only would I not want a semi or quarter decided by a team worn out from a 10+ hour bus ride, but I wouldn't want the committee to have dollars more firmly wedged in their mind when projected out games past the first round.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Second Try

Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:

Region 2

1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Texas Lutheran

3. St. John Fisher
4. Delaware Valley

6. Centre
8. Hampden-Sidney

2. Linfield
5. Chapman

I don't think that there's any way the NCAA would set up 2 flights like that in the 2nd round when they could just have 1. If Linfield was unbeaten there's argument about how unfair it would be but since they lost I have much less of a problem sending Linfield to Texas in round 2.

When I made my bracket I basically came up with 4 team pods then paired those up into brackets of 8. I didn't even attempt to decide which quarter would face which in the semifinals.

[MonroviaCat]

Second Try

Here's how I would put the bracket together with the teams that Wally has selected:

Region 2

1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Texas Lutheran

3. St. John Fisher
4. Delaware Valley

6. Centre
8. Hampden-Sidney

2. Linfield
5. Chapman

I don't think that there's any way the NCAA would set up 2 flights like that in the 2nd round when they could just have 1. If Linfield was unbeaten there's argument about how unfair it would be but since they lost I have much less of a problem sending Linfield to Texas in round 2.

When I made my bracket I basically came up with 4 team pods then paired those up into brackets of 8. I didn't even attempt to decide which quarter would face which in the semifinals.

And all you'd have to do is point to 2011 when Linfield was undefeated and got flown to Wesley (who had 1 loss) in round 2.....fairness has nothing to do with it!   

[USee]

Again, the pairings is difficult excercise. There is no way a 1 loss OAC team is getting a higher seed than undefeated Witt/Wabash winner. I don't care who it is. Wally's point on Centre is taken and we will see what the comittee does with them. My guess is they will be higher than most people expect. The "seeds" are important because the difference of facing UWW or Mt Union in round 2 vs having a second home playoff game as a 2 v 3.

[cubs]

Before we sharpen our pencils too much trying to figure out who might travel to where, keep this list in mind.  Here are the games still to be played between now regionally ranked opponents:
E1 Delaware Vallet @ E3 Widener - Week 11
E2 Hobart @ E6 St. Lawrence - Week 10
E10 Ithaca @ E4 St. John Fisher - Week 10
N2 John Carroll @ N1 Mount Union - Week 11
N3 Wabash @ N5 Wittenberg - Week 10
W3 Bethel @ W5 St. Johns - Week 10
W8 UW-Oshkosh @ W7 UW-Platteville - Week 11
W10 Pacific @ W4 Linfield - Week 11

Wholeheartedly agree.

I have always viewed Wally's Pool C projection exercise as a fascinating study that helps us being up a few hypotheticals (for example, the likelihood that toward the end of the Pool C process both NCC and UWP will be on the board and that it's pretty much unthinkable that a committee could choose UWP over NCC if that's the final slot available for discussion).  I think trying to actually piece together the bracket makes my head hurt...although it also allows consideration of hypotheticals like who can travel to where and helps figure out who might host.

While I agree with that, it would be interesting to see what happens if UWO wins out and they are on the table the same time as North Central.  UWO would be 2-0 against common opponents (UWSP and UWP) while NCC would be 1-1.

If I am NCC, I am pulling for UWP to beat UWO in two weeks!!!!

[wally_wabash]

For the record, I don't think there's any way that 10-0 Centre gets all the way through Pool B and Pool C without being selected.  That's too much time on the table and eventually the committee is going to have to decide whether they want to be the group that sets the precedent for cutting a 10-0 team out of the tournament.  They won't do it.  BUT, there are definitely criteria-based arguments to include a whole lot of teams other than Centre if everybody in that room agrees to put heavy, heavy weight on RROs and SOS. 

If Centre is left teetering on the edge though, I think the message from the committee is clear: don't play Hanover.   

Also FWIW, I love the mock bracketing!  It's really, really hard.  I'll do one also at some point, probably next week when the field firms up a bit. 

[wally_wabash]

Before we sharpen our pencils too much trying to figure out who might travel to where, keep this list in mind.  Here are the games still to be played between now regionally ranked opponents:
E1 Delaware Vallet @ E3 Widener - Week 11
E2 Hobart @ E6 St. Lawrence - Week 10
E10 Ithaca @ E4 St. John Fisher - Week 10
N2 John Carroll @ N1 Mount Union - Week 11
N3 Wabash @ N5 Wittenberg - Week 10
W3 Bethel @ W5 St. Johns - Week 10
W8 UW-Oshkosh @ W7 UW-Platteville - Week 11
W10 Pacific @ W4 Linfield - Week 11

Wholeheartedly agree.

I have always viewed Wally's Pool C projection exercise as a fascinating study that helps us being up a few hypotheticals (for example, the likelihood that toward the end of the Pool C process both NCC and UWP will be on the board and that it's pretty much unthinkable that a committee could choose UWP over NCC if that's the final slot available for discussion).  I think trying to actually piece together the bracket makes my head hurt...although it also allows consideration of hypotheticals like who can travel to where and helps figure out who might host.

While I agree with that, it would be interesting to see what happens if UWO wins out and they are on the table the same time as North Central.  UWO would be 2-0 against common opponents (UWSP and UWP) while NCC would be 1-1.

If I am NCC, I am pulling for UWP to beat UWO in two weeks!!!!

In the primary criteria, it would seem like UWO has a significant advantage on North Central.  We'll have to see exactly how that Oshkosh/Platteville plays out to properly compare the results, but Oshkosh beating a team that North Central lost is very significant.  That very thing (common opponent result vs. a non-ranked team) put two-loss SJF in over 1-loss CWRU in 2011. 

As it stands, I think Platteville is drawing dead against North Central and North Central would be drawing dead against Oshkosh, so yes, North Central really wants Platteville to win in week 11.  But those scenarios only play out if the UW team is on the table at the same time as North Central.  The UW team could already be in the field by the time North Central gets to the table. 

[art76]

Again, the pairings is difficult excercise. There is no way a 1 loss OAC team is getting a higher seed than undefeated Witt/Wabash winner. I don't care who it is. Wally's point on Centre is taken and we will see what the comittee does with them. My guess is they will be higher than most people expect. The "seeds" are important because the difference of facing UWW or Mt Union in round 2 vs having a second home playoff game as a 2 v 3.

There are a number of places in the D3 Top 25 ranking where no loss teams are ranked lower than one or even two loss teams. I have no delusions in expecting that the NCAA will follow my example, because there is always more than one way to skin a cat. Records do count, but we all know that some one or two loss teams from loaded conferences will consistently beat other undefeated teams from conferences that are not as strong. So one of the questions you need to ask yourself is, do you want the teams with better records seeded higher than teams that are better on the field? I don't - I want the better teams to be able to play longer in the post season.

[D3MAFAN]

In a perfect world, if I had a couple million to donate for travel purposes, my bracket would be as follows:

Region 1

1. Whitewater
8. Husson

4. Washington & Jefferson
5. St. John's

3. Wheaton (Ill.)
6. Centre

2. Johns Hopkins
7. Trine

Region 2

1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
8. St. Scholastica

4. St. John Fisher
5. Delaware Valley

3. Linfield
6. Montclair State

2. Hobart
7. CNU

Region 3

1. Mount Union
8. Lakeland

4. Wittenburg
5. North Central

3. Bethel
6. Hampden-Sydney

2. John Carroll
7. Franklin

Region 4

1. Wesley
8. MIT

4. Widener
5. Chapman

3. Wabash
6. Texas Lutheran

2. Wartburg
7. Illinois College

[wally_wabash]

Again, the pairings is difficult excercise. There is no way a 1 loss OAC team is getting a higher seed than undefeated Witt/Wabash winner. I don't care who it is. Wally's point on Centre is taken and we will see what the comittee does with them. My guess is they will be higher than most people expect. The "seeds" are important because the difference of facing UWW or Mt Union in round 2 vs having a second home playoff game as a 2 v 3.

There are a number of places in the D3 Top 25 ranking where no loss teams are ranked lower than one or even two loss teams. I have no delusions in expecting that the NCAA will follow my example, because there is always more than one way to skin a cat. Records do count, but we all know that some one or two loss teams from loaded conferences will consistently beat other undefeated teams from conferences that are not as strong. So one of the questions you need to ask yourself is, do you want the teams with better records seeded higher than teams that are better on the field? I don't - I want the better teams to be able to play longer in the post season.

The difference between the Top 25 and the NCAA's rankings and how they select and "seed" teams is that the Top 25 doesn't have any rules.  You can vote for whoever you like based on whatever personal criteria you want to apply in whatever manner you choose to apply it.  These regional ranking committees and then the national selection committee are bound by published criteria. 

A couple of years ago Bethel had to go play a first round game at Concordia-Chicago.  I'm sure I could go back through the archives and unearth any number of angry posts about that site assignment.  Bethel advanced, but only after defending a two point try with 18 seconds left.  Brace yourself here- good football gets played outside of the MIAC and the WIAC and the E8.  The better teams always advance regardless of whether or not they have to play on the road, but we shouldn't be bending over backwards to award home games to teams that lost twice just because we think their conference is strong.  If they're good, they'll advance.