Pool C -- 2014

[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.

After reading Wally's full explanations, I am beginning to doubt myself on the above Centre and Bethel statements.

Once you see Centre behind TLU and Bethel behind Platteville in the rankings, things that make sense anecdotally don't if you follow the process.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Pool B is treated like Pool C, but only for Pool B teams eligible. There is no way a Pool B team ranked behind another Pool B team in the regional rankings will jump them for a Pool B bid. Just as you wouldn't see a Pool C team in a region selected ahead of another Pool C team ranked ahead of them.

[K-Mack]

What's weird is I don't have a problem with Centre behind Texas Lutheran in the abstract.

If Centre played one opponent as good as UMHB, they'd have a loss like TLU does. Last year TLU went 8-1 with a schedule like Centre's and got left out. This year they upgraded to UMHB and their regional ranking recognizes and rewards them for playing that game. 0-1 vs. an RRO (or 1-1 if Hardin-Simmons remains ranked) is better than 0-0.

But leaving out a 10-0 team, even one that played a bad schedule, seems like it shouldn't happen in a field with six at-large spots.

[kiko]

Out of curiosity, if at this point:

Round 3:

• 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
• t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)

... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville"  (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking?  Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Pool B is treated like Pool C, but only for Pool B teams eligible. There is no way a Pool B team ranked behind another Pool B team in the regional rankings will jump them for a Pool B bid. Just as you wouldn't see a Pool C team in a region selected ahead of another Pool C team ranked ahead of them.

Thanks, Dave!

[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.

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

My thinking had always been they'd be the second B in, with both Wesley and Centre making it largely on the strength of the 1.000 win pct.

After seeing today's rankings and reading the past few pages of debate, you're right, their case isn't just weak, their path is blocked as well.

Not having a regionally ranked opponent and having a bad SoS means it all comes down to how much the committee values win pct.

[K-Mack]

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.

I know McHugh chimed in, but FWIW, I put a question out about this and about whether the national committee can disagree with the regional advisory committee (even if that would more or less defeat the purpose of having them).

I'll confirm/reply if/when I hear back.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Out of curiosity, if at this point:

Round 3:

• 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
• t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)

... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville"  (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking?  Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.

I think it would go Bethel, Wabash, North Central.

I think Bethel goes in as soon as they're on the board.

[wally_wabash]

Out of curiosity, if at this point:

Round 3:

• 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
• t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)

... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville"  (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking?  Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.

Without thinking too hard about it (which is sort of your premise), I think if they took Platteville there, the last three selections would be: Bethel, Wabash, and then probably North Central but by that time with Muhlenberg and Framingham still hanging around for the entirety of the process, one of those two might out-vote North Central there.  But, I still think that win over Platteville (who is officially a tournament team in this scenario) outweighs the extra loss for North Central. 

[K-Mack]

Out of curiosity, if at this point:

Round 3:

• 5N Wabash (8-1, 0.512 SOS, 1-1 vs. RRO)
• t5S Muhlenberg (8-1, 0.502 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 4E Framingham State (8-1, 0.521 SOS, 0-1 vs. RRO)
• 5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)

... the Committee looks at the four contenders, inhales deeply on whatever smoke-producing herb is nearby, and says "One of Platteville's losses is to Whitewater by a very respectable margin; we don't want to penalize them for playing the best, and they have the strongest SOS of this lot... so #3 is Platteville"  (or, if they say: eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and choose Platteville for that reason), then how do you see the next three spots breaking?  Because everything from this point forward hinges on Platteville still being on the board and that's waaaay too logical to be comfortable with.

I think it would go Bethel, Wabash, North Central.

I think Bethel goes in as soon as they're on the board.

There are a couple of small changes that should shake up everything. Like what if UW-Oshkosh beats Platteville, then there's no common opponent head-to-head with North Central. Assuming Platteville remains in the final regional ranking, UW-O would be 1-1 vs. RRO and .500 or .500ish SoS (because all 7 counting games are vs. WIAC teams).

Likewise, if Del Val beats Widener and puts the Pride in the C field, their win over Rowan (assuming they beat TCNJ and remain ranked) gives them a 1-1 RRO mark, plus an SoS that is in the .480 range now but should jump after the Del Val game.

[USee]

A wildcard in this process is the assumption Wally is making with his picks is that the "three aren't getting in" bias is gone with the addition of a 6th team. I am not sure that's a reliable assumption. If the committee shuts off the North after Wabash and JCU/Mt U, that changes things as well.

[Tekken]

I really don't think the South regional rankings are as wacky as some of you are wanting them to be.  I can't find any set criteria for determining the regional rankings, so if that actually exists, I guess I've wasted alot of time.  If it doesn't exist, I would think it reasonable that the committee would then look to the posted criteria for determining at large bids.  These criteria as they are listed (not in priority order) are as follows:

● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents; (Criterion 1)

● Division III head-to-head competition; (Criterion 2)

● Results versus common Division III opponents; (Criterion 3)

● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included (ed note: there are none of these in 2013); (Criterion 4)

● Division III strength of schedule (Criterion 5)
-- Opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
-- Opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.

● Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's won-lost percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end-of-season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval of the Championships Committee. (Criterion 6)

Each of these criteria are completely objective, with the exception of Criterion 6.  I'm assuming Criterion 6 is there to help weed out a team that has 2 or 3 consecutive losses going into playoffs.  Whatever the case, it's subjective, so I'll throw it out with the bath water.  That leaves us with 5 criteria to compare teams by.  It's obvious the perceived problems with the south regional rankings lies with three teams (Team A, Team B, Team C).  I try to make this anonymous to help objectivity, but the truth is you all are so well versed in their differences that you probably know exactly whom is whom.  Of Teams A, B, and C, none of the three have head to head contests.  Criterion 2 is now irrelevant.  None of the three have common division iii opponents.  Criterion 3 is useless.  That leaves us with three criterion to compare the teams by (1, 4, 5).

● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents; (Criterion 1)

● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included (ed note: there are none of these in 2013); (Criterion 4)

● Division III strength of schedule (Criterion 5)
-- Opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
-- Opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.

So let's compare and rank:

WEST RR #5
School         D3 W/L   SoS        OWPx.66      OOWPx.33     Total      RRR

Team A         9-0      208       .3913 (219)      .5403        .441      0-0
Team B              8-1      35       .5472 (59)      .5381        .544      1-1
Team C              8-1      116       .4861 (133)      .5323        .502      0-1


Criterion 1 ranking within the three teams:
1st - Team A (rationale: highest %)
2nd - Teams B and C (rationale: identical %)

Criterion 4 ranking within the three teams:
1st - Team B (rationale: only win of the three vs. RRO)
2nd - Team C (rationale: has played a RRO, but lost)
3rd - Team A (rationale: has not played a RRO)

Criterion 5 ranking within the three teams:
1st - Team B (rationale: best SoS)
2nd - Team C (rationale: second best SoS)
3rd - Team A (rationale: worst SoS)

So when we look at how the three teams stack up based on the applicable established criteria to measure them against each other, assigning points for their ranking (3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd) to give them a numerical comparison you would get this:

Team A - 1st, 3rd, 3rd - 5 points
Team B - 2nd, 1st, 1st - 8 points
Team C - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd - 6 points

How would you order these three teams?

[wally_wabash]

That's a really good exercise, timtlu.  But there's some other things in play here:

- you're assuming that the criteria are weighted evenly, even to the point of making them ordinal and I don't think that's how any one member of a committee, let alone an entire committee applies the criteria.  Everybody places different weight on different pieces of the selection criteria

- we also know what Team C plays in a 9-team league and can ONLY have an SOS near .500.  They can't do much better, they can't do much worse.  Teams A and B play in smaller leagues which offers both the opportunity to accumulate OWP wins (or losses) that aren't eventually offset by OWP losses (or wins) from round robin league play.  Those scenarios can swing the SOS way high or way low depending, really, on how lucky you got with your non-conference opponents' records.   

I think the right order is TLU, Centre, Muhlenberg.  Being undefeated is hard, regardless of what the NCAA's SOS formula says. 

[Pat Coleman]

A wildcard in this process is the assumption Wally is making with his picks is that the "three aren't getting in" bias is gone with the addition of a 6th team.

This was never a thing.

[smedindy]

The primary criteria are not weighted equally. And they don't have to tell what the weights are.

The regional committees follow the criteria but they may not weigh them the same as the national committee.

And year over year the committees change, and their preferences change.

The big thing is that Muhlenberg jumped Centre for really no apparent reason. There's no rational reasoning if they established criteria in week one and then changed it when teams held serve. Usually W/L record is a pretty high indicator. No one has a RR win. There was nothing Centre did or Muhlenberg did or TLU did, really, that would cause a change in the rankings. Yet here we are.