Pool C -- 2014

[Frank Rossi]

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.

There are a couple of other things to consider.  Not all RRO losses/wins are equal.  About five years ago, the Committee actually utilized the relative positioning of ranked opponents to differentiate teams (I remember that Pat and others found this highly dubious as a technique based on imbalanced regions, but it presumably could be used within the same region as a tool).  Beating E1 probably is a bigger win than beating E10, for instance.  Also, remember that the word says "Results" and not record.  As such, score matters in some cases.  One problem I have is that SLU lost to E2 by 2 points and is 0-1 vs. RROs with the #14 SOS.  SJF, also with two losses, lost by a larger-than-one-possession margin to E5 and has a comparable (slightly better) SOS.  Yet, SLU is two spots below SJF.  SLU's results vs. RROs are slightly better, with a very slightly worse SOS position.  You could argue SLU belongs above SJF presently based on those "results" and relative positionings.  This is just another example of how just ranking flatly in a robotic way isn't the reality of what happens.

[Tekken]

I completely agree treating the three criteria equal may not be ideal, but it seems the NCAA or whoever is in charge of setting that criteria made a point to acknowledge there is no priority between them.  Without that information, the only way to objectively use the criteria is to treat them equal.

You are also right about the luck of how well your opponents play in the case of A vs B.  But at some point a significant difference in wins in losses by those opponents adds up to determine how hard your schedule actually was.  However, whether it be bad luck, bad circumstance, or bad scheduling, the results are still the results.  Why should one ignore them?  And if one does decide to ignore them, then the rankers are now ranking based on subjectivity when they have defined objective criteria.

The other pink elephant is team A is undefeated.  Teams B and C both have only 1 loss.  Each of those 1 losses came against a RRO.  By virtue of not scheduling a RRO (by luck, circumstance, scheduling, or otherwise) team A has 0 losses.  If you remove the RRO results from B and C, they also have exactly 0 losses.  So the question becomes, how powerful is the penalty of the one loss to a RRO compared to the strength of playing at least one RRO?  If a ranker feels these two things negate each other to any comparable power, you are right back to the same resumes based on metrics.

[Tekken]

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.

Actually one of the three teams does have a RR win:  Team B.

[smedindy]

They DO prioritize them; they just do not say what the priority is. You can't assume things are weighted equally, becausee they aren't. We assume W/L percentage is high on the list, and RR wins are high as well. Last year RR wins and SOS triumphed over W/L for the last "C" spot. In years past two loss teams didn't make it and one loss teams from 'weaker' conferences were in.

And I forgot about TLU's RR win. That may be why they're ahead of Centre. Maybe. But they were tied the week before.

[smedindy]

Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.

[Tekken]

Yes, they were tied the week before.  I tried to find the SoS from last week to see if there was any significant change between the three, but couldn't.  Objectively that would be the only way I see a difference should occur between last week and this week.

Given the metrics for this week, however, who is to say that this weeks poll is actually the silly one.  It is equally likely, (actually even moreso likely, if there was no significant change in SoS between the weeks) that last weeks regional rankings were the silly ones.

[smedindy]

Once they establish a criteria, they should stick to it for consistencies sake. Nothing about last week's rankings said, "Hey wait" like the West's did this week where Bethel was under Platteville for no reason except reasons, I suppose. No one got an extra RR win, no one lost so they committee had an excuse to shake it up. It changed for no reason.

The committee still finds no love for Emory & Henry, either.

[cubs]

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 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.

Maybe not head-to-head, but North Central and UWO would have two common opponents- Stevens Point and Platteville.

Oshkosh would be 2-0 with a win Saturday, while North Central would be 1-1.  As I mentioned earlier, if I am North Central I am pulling for Platteville to beat Oshkosh.

[smedindy]

Oshkosh winning allows the west to correct its mistake - they'll put Bethel in above Oshkosh.

In that case, it'll be MAC runner-up, OAC runner-up, Wabash, Bethel and then....

Framingham
North Central
Muhlenberg
Oshkosh (?)

Does the committee then dive to Framingham or Muhlenberg (assuming the South doesn't correct itself and somehow gets Centre on the board)? Platteville may not be ranked if they lose.

I'd also be curious to see if somehow it shook out that Centre and Oshkosh were paired up against each other for the final at large. Undefeated team, versus a team with a 6-4 overall record but 6-1 in D3. Hmmm....

[Frank Rossi]

Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.

If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents."  "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.

[smedindy]

Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.

If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents."  "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.

The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)

The committees never really tell us what's in the mixture they are baking until it's out of the oven...

[wally_wabash]

Maybe not head-to-head, but North Central and UWO would have two common opponents- Stevens Point and Platteville.

Oshkosh would be 2-0 with a win Saturday, while North Central would be 1-1.  As I mentioned earlier, if I am North Central I am pulling for Platteville to beat Oshkosh.

You're spot on, cubs.  When we are looking at just UWO, UWP, and NCC, NCC has the nuts against UWP by virtue of beating them head to head and UWO (if they win on Saturday) would have the nuts on NCC by being 2-0 against the common opponents to NCC's 1-1- plus UWO's win percentage advantage as well. 

Now, none of this matters if those North Central and the WIAC runner up don't find themselves at the same intersection in the Pool C process.  But if they do (and each of the two projections guided by the NCAA's rankings have led us to that point), there are very clear, defined rights of way there by virtue of schedule overlaps that we don't usually get at selection time. 

[smedindy]

Frank, the East may be showing itself by deliberately putting Framingham in the best possible place for a "B" that doesn't raise suspicion and making a case for MIT in seeding?

[wally_wabash]

Frank, the East may be showing itself by deliberately putting Framingham in the best possible place for a "B" that doesn't raise suspicion and making a case for MIT in seeding?

In fairness, wherever the East RAC puts Framingham State, Framingham is the only B candidate in the region...they are the de facto nominee, if you will.  How much it matters that they are ranked fourth or sixth, I don't know. 

[Pat Coleman]

Frank, I've never heard results in a way that has MOV in it - just results as in W/L in a consideration.

If the intention was to simply compare records, the criterion would read "Record vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents."  "Results" encompasses a broader scope than just a W/L record.

The NCAA says one thing when it means another many times. Every analysis I've seens says 0-1 vs RR or 2-1 vs RR or something like that. The big thing is to have a result, and not be a donut (unfortunately, Centre is...)

We've been talking this for probably three or four years, Smed. Just saying 0-1 is only the very basic information and not what the committees tend to use.

By the way, congrats, Wally! And thank you!

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/projected-bracket-version-one