Pool C -- 2014

[smedindy]

So does an Oshkosh win over Platteville this weekend help them enough to get ahead of Bethel?

We'll never know, and since it seems the West and South put their rankings on "RANDOM" then...

[art76]

Wally, really good reasoning for your picks as they stand right now - thanx for walking through it!

I think some of the ranked teams can improve their standing in the last week of play - and we'll never know if they did or didn't. That bugs me too. I'm thinking, whether it was intentional or not, there is wiggle room for the selection committee to pick a team not on the radar right now. We'll know for sure in just four days.

[smedindy]

I'm almost wondering if there will be a "TOTES MY BAD!" and revised rankings for the South and West that follow the criteria or something.

[K-Mack]

Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.

A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.

But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?

And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.

Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.

Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).

I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.

[GillCJ1]

Oof.  Centre.   

Thanks for the write-up, Wally.

[wally_wabash]

So here's why things got weird in this projection:

- Centre got bumped behind both Pool B TLU AND Pool C Muhlenberg.  That shouldn't happen.  I can almost see the reasoning for TLU ahead of Centre.  I don't see it at all for Muhlenberg.  Muhlenberg, devoid of any quality wins, is a hard team to select. 

- Lycoming and Montclair State both falling out in the East left Del Val with zero RRO results.  Last week they were 2-0 in that category.  And with an unimpressive SOS, I don't know how they can be ranked #1 in the region because they look a lot like a team that wound up not getting selected in 2013 with 9 wins, a 0.500-ish SOS, and zero quality results.  That's not a lock team, that's a last in/first out team.  But they're on the top of the board in the East. But here, I'm not sure there's a better alternative there- none of the non-autoqualifiers in the East's rankings have an RRO win. 

- That North Central/UWP result really dictates the last half of the selections.  Platteville is not selectable while North Central is present. 

If we do this in a way that doesn't limit our consideration to one team at a time from each region, I think the six best Pool C selections are (in some order): OAC runner up, MAC runner up, Centre, Wabash, Bethel, North Central.  But there's a not a road you can pave using tonight's rankings and what are supposed to be the selection criteria to get those six teams. 

And why not Framingham or Muhlenberg or Chicago or even Emory & Henry while we're at it?  Because last year the committee said very emphatically that these bids belong to teams that 1) play strong schedules and 2) have positive RRO results.  Maybe the preference of this year's committee is different.  It wouldn't be the first time a committee has shifted its preference for quality wins and schedule strength for win percentage or vice versa. 

[smedindy]

Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.

A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.

But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?

And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.

Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.

Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).

I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.

But how can Centre get on the board behind TLU and Muhlenberg?

[D3AlumniParent]

I think you forgot about Texas Lutheran for the second Pool B bid?

You're right Frank. I did. Just shocking to me that their are two teams with a blemished record that seem to be in front of an undefeated team for that Pool B slot, especially how undefeated teams of the past seem to get fairly high regional rankings. If Centre doesn't get the Pool B, they have no shot for a Pool C according to these rankings.

Hear that? That's sound of Ned Beatty echoing throughout the coal mines and tobacco fields in the Commonwealth  .... And I doubt they even received dinner or flowers first.

My prediction for next week's "contribution" from the South's RC, lead by TLU's HC, Austin's HC and LC's HC: Louisiana College will take over the #10 RR from Hardin-Simmons if they beat them, ensuring TLU stays exactly where they placed themselves.

I don't know how the National Committee would overturn such blatant, self-serving politics, since 2 of the 8 members are on the South RC.

But what a shame for the Centre kids to get screwed over like that. They likely wouldn't have run the table, but theydid have a realistic chance to win at least one game.

[wally_wabash]

Now, I don't think Centre is screwed UNLESS "B" takes Framingham and not TLU.

A cynic could see this as a way to make sure the South gets two into "C", maybe. The committee would definitely see an undefeated team lurking behind Muhlenberg.

But...would Muhlenberg be taken after MTU / JCU, Del Val, Widener and Wabash, against Framingham and Bethel or a WIAC team?

And whither Oshkosh, Bethel, Platteville? Wow.

Centre is not screwed if it beats Birmingham Southern. An undefeated team from the SAA will not be left out.

Muhlenberg and Emory & Henry would be pretty interesting studies in the power of win percentage (since they are 116 and 166 in SoS) as would Oshkosh in the power of ignoring secondary critieria (the three non-D3 losses).

I'm bullish on Bethel, given that MOV is not criteria and their SoS figure is No. 2 overall.

I really hope you're right, Keith.  10-0 Centre deserves to keep playing.  And the South RAC can make sure that happens either by putting Centre ahead of TLU and giving Centre that B bid, or putting Centre behind TLU and ahead of Muhlenberg.  10-0 Centre won't languish for six rounds in Pool C.  Muhlenberg is a roadblock though.  Other than being 9-1, Muhlenberg doesn't have much of anything else going for it.  And last year, 9-1 with not much else didn't get you in. 

So the question becomes is the field better without Bethel and the WIAC runner up (because you can't get Bethel without the WIAC runner up) and including Muhlenberg and Centre (because you can't get Centre without Muhlenberg at the moment)?

[GillCJ1]

But what a shame for the Centre kids to get screwed over like that. They likely wouldn't have run the table, but theydid have a realistic chance to win at least one game.

Yep.  This is what I keep taking away the most from tonight.  I really hope they don't get kicked to the curb come selection time.

[USee]

Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.

[ExTartanPlayer]

So does an Oshkosh win over Platteville this weekend help them enough to get ahead of Bethel?

No idea.  Tonight's rankings don't make a ton of sense to me.

Nor me. Lots of weird stuff in these rankings. You've already covered the wackiness in the South and West, so just to bring back something I posted a few pages ago:

Last week, St Lawrence was 6th and MIT 7th.
SLU lost 29-27 on a FG with 1 minute to play to the #2 team in the East
MIT won 55-37 against Maine Maritime
Somehow, those two results shuffled MIT ahead of SLU

I'm all for reevaluating season bodies of work in each week's rankings, but that's just plain silly.

SLU doesn't look likely to make it into the at large discussion anyway but for some reason this really bothered me as another "they did what?!?" in the RR's.

Centre's low ranking and Bethel behind UWP are the most bothersome IMO. The Bethel ranking, in particular, seems to be just spitting on the NCAA's own criteria.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.

Asked this question myself on the Pool B thread, haven't gotten an answer yet. Even K-Mack didn't know.  I've been wondering this the last two or three years.

[K-Mack]

So here's why things got weird in this projection:

- Centre got bumped behind both Pool B TLU AND Pool C Muhlenberg.  That shouldn't happen.  I can almost see the reasoning for TLU ahead of Centre.  I don't see it at all for Muhlenberg.  Muhlenberg, devoid of any quality wins, is a hard team to select. 

- Lycoming and Montclair State both falling out in the East left Del Val with zero RRO results.  Last week they were 2-0 in that category.  And with an unimpressive SOS, I don't know how they can be ranked #1 in the region because they look a lot like a team that wound up not getting selected in 2013 with 9 wins, a 0.500-ish SOS, and zero quality results.  That's not a lock team, that's a last in/first out team.  But they're on the top of the board in the East. But here, I'm not sure there's a better alternative there- none of the non-autoqualifiers in the East's rankings have an RRO win. 

- That North Central/UWP result really dictates the last half of the selections.  Platteville is not selectable while North Central is present. 

If we do this in a way that doesn't limit our consideration to one team at a time from each region, I think the six best Pool C selections are (in some order): OAC runner up, MAC runner up, Centre, Wabash, Bethel, North Central.  But there's a not a road you can pave using tonight's rankings and what are supposed to be the selection criteria to get those six teams. 

And why not Framingham or Muhlenberg or Chicago or even Emory & Henry while we're at it? Because last year the committee said very emphatically that these bids belong to teams that 1) play strong schedules and 2) have positive RRO results.  Maybe the preference of this year's committee is different.  It wouldn't be the first time a committee has shifted its preference for quality wins and schedule strength for win percentage or vice versa.

All remarkably well reasoned points.

Like a computer, if you put bad information in, you get bad results out. If they fixed the Bethel thing, or took Centre and Wesley in B and let Framingham and TLU fight it out in C, you could run the process again and get something totally different, because of the various teams blocking others from getting to the board.

This just got a whole lot more interesting. I have a feeling we'll be here this time Saturday night (or Sunday night) backwards-recreating the final regional rankings so we can make sense of who got in.

[wally_wabash]

Does pool B work like Pool C? In other words, are the highest ranked Pool B members "at the table" so that TLU blocks Centre? Do we know this to be true? Could the National committee look at all the pool B candidates at the same time? I am curious if anyone has insight on this.

That's how I approached the selection.  And even if they do just kind of throw all of the teams in there, don't the rankings already tell us that TLU is preferred?  For the selection committee to take Centre in Pool B would effectively be a total reorder of that RAC's work.  And from what I recall, committees generally don't like to do that.