Pool C -- 2014

[D3AlumniParent]

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.

Couldn't agree more smed. Set your internal ratings, then evaluate the following week's results and adjust those ratings. All three teams won, with no significant wins. Centre won 27-0.

FWIW, Centre can only play the opponents that are on the schedule- regardless of how good they happen to be this year. And they not only won them all, but did so fairly convincingly by an average margin of 22.3 points. TLU's margin was 8.9 for their D3 opponents. Not part of the exact criterion. But it is part of the proverbial eyeball test I've heard mentioned.

Maybe the National Committee will see through the politics. I just don't understand how a team that loses 72-13, not only isn't penalized in any way, but is actually rewarded by the huge bump that UMHB's 10 wins gives TLU's SOS.

This all smacks of regional gerrymandering. Let's hope it get's vetoed for the kids' sake.

[smedindy]

I think any edge helps. They also want to be sure Framingham is on the "C" board, I bet. The East seems to be really good at this.

It seems like the North is the only region without palace intrigue. Wabash lost, and moved to their rightful spot ahead of the best two loss team.

[Pat Coleman]

I just don't understand how a team that loses 72-13, not only isn't penalized in any way, but is actually rewarded by the huge bump that UMHB's 10 wins gives TLU's SOS.

Nobody in this ranking lost 72-13 since the last poll, and there is nothing to say that Centre or half of the 40 regionally ranked teams couldn't also have lost to UMHB 72-13.

[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...)

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.

I may have missed that memo, Pat. Or slept, or something. Or paid attention to false prophets. Alas. My bad. I guess it's also the, "It's who you beat, not who you lost to" a bit as well.

[hazzben]

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

Would they? I think after what we saw today, we don't really know at all what the West committee would do. I don't think there's any guarantee they wouldn't slot UWO above Bethel if they won on Saturday.

[wally_wabash]

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

Thank you, Pat!  That bracket is juicy.  I like it a lot. 

[D3AlumniParent]

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 you disregard the loss, just because it was against a Top 4/5/8/whatever team, then you MUST ALSO remove the corresponding 10 wins padding the SOS. Then things get MUCH more interesting.

The RR win was against a RR#10. They were voted to that spot, or possibly higher, by TLU's head coach. This is ANOTHER of your big pink elephants in the room. We're not talking back-room politics. He's dead-center, one of eight on the committee. Fact.

And if LC knocks HS off Saturday and out of the ratings there'll be no more RR win. Unless, of course, LC takes their place, which I totally expect to happen, after what I've seen in this week's reconfiguration.

[smedindy]

If Hardin Simmons loses, and Emory & Henry wins, I would think the Wasps have to enter the South rankings. Of course I thought Muhlenberg wouldn't leap Centre.

[Tekken]

Nobody in this ranking lost 72-13 since the last poll, and there is nothing to say that Centre or half of the 40 regionally ranked teams couldn't also have lost to UMHB 72-13.

This acknowledgement doesn't go over very well, lol.  Trust me, I speak from experience.  However, maybe you will have better luck since you're not the new guy.





Also, I agree the South region has messed up somewhere if the SoS did not have anything more than negligible change from last week to this.  Anyone know where to find last week's SoS to figure that out?  If it didn't, then we're making an assumption that this week is messed up, though if you look at the criteria they have been given to compare teams, it fits pretty well.  Why do we continue to discount that LAST WEEK is much more likely to have been messed up based on those criteria?  And if this is the case, wouldn't you rather the committee correct it's mistake, than continue to propagate that mistake just because it has already been established?

Blame the criteria all you want if you think they are poor, but the numbers support the rankings.  The conspiracy theory lacks merit.

[D3AlumniParent]

I just don't understand how a team that loses 72-13, not only isn't penalized in any way, but is actually rewarded by the huge bump that UMHB's 10 wins gives TLU's SOS.

Nobody in this ranking lost 72-13 since the last poll, and there is nothing to say that Centre or half of the 40 regionally ranked teams couldn't also have lost to UMHB 72-13.

Pat, I understand where you're coming from and I totally agree. It could happen. I know you've seen Centre play against Hendrix because I saw your interviews. Well done, by the way!  Assuming you've seen UMHB also. So I'll defer to your assessment there.

Obviously I realize that game didn't happen in the last week. My point is just that it doesn't seem right to dismiss the big loss, just because it could happen to 225 other D3 teams, while at the same time throwing a high SOS number about like it's a badge of honor when it was propped by the ten wins from the team that killed you.

So again, no that game didn't happen in the past week. But what actually did happen that made the RC drop Centre below TLU and Muhlenberg?

[Tekken]

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 you disregard the loss, just because it was against a Top 4/5/8/whatever team, then you MUST ALSO remove the corresponding 10 wins padding the SOS. Then things get MUCH more interesting.

The RR win was against a RR#10. They were voted to that spot, or possibly higher, by TLU's head coach. This is ANOTHER of your big pink elephants in the room. We're not talking back-room politics. He's dead-center, one of eight on the committee. Fact.

And if LC knocks HS off Saturday and out of the ratings there'll be no more RR win. Unless, of course, LC takes their place, which I totally expect to happen, after what I've seen in this week's reconfiguration.

Take the same exercise and apply it to the likely 10th West RR team this week

WEST RR #10
Hardin Simmons           4-2      48      .5476 (58)       .5210      .539      0-2
Rhodes         7-2      103      .5077 (104)       .5082      .508      0-2
Emory and Henry   8-1      161      .4571 (172)       .5201      .478      0-1

HSU - 3rd, 1st, 1st - 7 pts
Rhodes - 2nd, 1st, 2nd - 7 pts
E and H - 1st, 3rd, 3rd - 5 pts

Again, it's not perfect, but its as neutral a metric using the criteria given that I can think of.  You could proabably make a case for any of them, but how is ranking HSU #10 so outlandish that is screams collusion?

[smedindy]

Last week it was TLU .540, Centre .436 and Muhlenberg .491 according to Wally's analysis.

Now it's TLU .544, Centre .441 and Muhlenberg .502.

Centre actually improved by .001 more.

[Tekken]

But what actually did happen that made the RC drop Centre below TLU and Muhlenberg?

They realized they screwed the pooch last week, and wanted to make it right?

[smedindy]

You keep using that metric when it's not what they use at all.

I have no problem with H/S being ranked. I do think E&H is the proverbial #11...

[smedindy]

But what actually did happen that made the RC drop Centre below TLU and Muhlenberg?

They realized they screwed the pooch last week, and wanted to make it right?

They didn't. It was a very reasonable ranking, in fact, some were thinking Centre should have been #5 and not TLU.

And did someone from Centre whizz in your Crunchberries? TLU has a better chance at a "C" than Muhlenberg or Centre based on SOS and that RR win. If Centre got the B and TLU was in C it could be what the South needs to get another team in.

A 10-0 team ON THE BOARD would be something the committee couldn't resist putting in. Centre can't get on the board in this configuration.