Pool C -- 2014

[kiko]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.
If JCU were to show poorly vs. Mt, say something like a score of Mt w 50+ and JCU with a score of 14 or less, is JCU still a lock for Pool C?
If so, why?   

Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results against common opponents.

John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams

We've heard margin of victory mentioned before in the case of RRO result comparisons for two teams that are otherwise close in criteria.  Therefore, it is indeed usable beyond just score comparisons vs. common opponents.  As I've stated earlier, the use of the word "results" is not an accident.  It means that going beyond the W/L record for RRO games is permitted.  It's dependent on whether the Committee in any given year feels that's necessary or useful, but it's available to them without consultation with the Championships Committee.

Here is an example of where that may be coming into play:

5W UW-Platteville (7-2, 0.524 SOS, 0-2 vs. RRO)
6W Bethel (7-2, 0.625 SOS, 2-2 vs. RRO)

Platteville's RRO games are:
28-7 road loss to North #6 North Central
17-7 home loss to West #1 Whitewater

Bethel's RRO games are:
31-14 road loss to West #2 Wartburg
52-21 home win vs North #9 Chicago
35-24 home win vs West #9 St. Thomas
31-8 loss at West #2 St. Johns

There are no common opponents.  The only way you can justify Platteville over Bethel is if you look at Platteville's result versus Whitewater more favorably than Bethel's body of work, which includes wins over lower-ranked RR teams and wider losses to the West's #2 and #3.

[K-Mack]

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...

I very much agree with what Frank is saying here about "results," and smed's donut remark.

I also think that's the correct interpretation. Even 0-1 vs. regionally ranked teams should be better than 0-0.

But it's best to be 1-0 or something because ...

(everybody take a sip)

It's not (just) who you lost to, it's who you beat.

[Frank Rossi]

Keith -

As I said below, the problem is not so much that they're weighting SOS and RRO results, it's that the weightings are occurring inconsistently from what we can tell.  That means that a higher level of subjectivity than what the NCAA is comfortable with normally may be creeping into this system.  The 2011 subjectivity was justifiable in most camps because of the giant SOS SJF had and the 0-2 RRO record against strong opponents.  The bar has been lowered in certain regions this go-around, it appears.  And that means a higher level of subjectivity is involved here.  It also indicates that the National Committee is not presently smoothing out these differences or taking a stand on the acceptable level of subjectivity.  I'm not sure if Saturday night, the National Committee will change course -- with four new members out of eight, I find it unlikely.  So we're at risk for a little fairness debate exposure here unless someone steps up.  We've seen different overall approaches by RACs in regional rankings before, but this year stacks up as plainly strange and is not really what people were advocating for.  Transparency, predictability, and fairness are just as important.  Right now, we're not there.

[ITH radio]

(everybody take a sip)

It's not (just) who you lost to, it's who you beat.

Since it's TBT, "imma grip and sip"

[Pat Coleman]

We have to hope the national committee is looking at these things and fixing them on Saturday night.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm curious about JCU appearing to be a "lock" for Pool C with a loss.

JCU/Mount is a little different because...Mount.  As long as Mount is Mount, I can't ever see a one-loss OAC runnerup getting shunned because teams that lose to Mount and UWW are granted the "everyone would lose to them" rule (perception on these boards, anyway, not necessarily how the national committee would discuss it). 

Yeah I wondered about this myself. And when you factor in the fact that the OAC plays 9-game conference schedules, you have a situation where the other OAC teams are pretty much locked into a loss, and have less of a chance of getting an SOS mark much higher than .500, or getting multiple games against RRO.

I'm not saying it's unfair, per se, and as ETP points out, if these 9-1 OAC runner ups keep getting bounced early, we may need to re-evaluate things. But I do think the non-Mount OAC members have a tougher time proving things than others do.

I know this is not how selection works, but for awhile I was pretty much on board with "any 9-1 OAC runnerup should be in, criteria be damned, because they have to play Mount" - in the early-mid 2000's when the OAC runnerup consistently won a playoff game and, at least 4 times, won two or even three before getting eliminated by Mount.    Even when Capital was eliminated by UWW in 2007 first round, well, yeah, that's OK.  But then Otterbein lost to Franklin in the 2008 first round, Ohio Northern beat Witt in 2010 then lost to North Central, Heidelberg lost to Witt in 2012, and John Carroll lost to SJF in 2013.  That's four OAC runners-up in six years going a combined 1-4 getting bounced by non-Purple-Power teams.  Now that we're on a long run of OAC runners-up getting dismissed by other "merely good" teams, I no longer think it's a grave injustice if they're left out if that's what the criteria would dictate (i.e. if the last two teams at the table were 9-1 Wabash and 9-1 John Carroll - I know, they're in the same region, just humor me - and Wabash's criteria were better, I wouldn't invoke the "but John Carroll's loss is against Mount Union" rule).

*Clarification: this is not OAC-bashing or saying that the conference is terribly weak (although it certainly looks like a dumpster fire beneath the top 2 teams this year).  Merely pointing out that the onetime status that the OAC runnerup was guaranteed to be a legitimate top-10 team is no longer a stone-cold lock, and that "9-1 OAC runnerup" should not be an automatic playoff ticket if there are other equally deserving candidates.

[smedindy]

With "C"'s shrinking after this year no team is going to be a lock, be it a 9-1 OAC or WIAC team.

However, the fact that the committees seem to have placed Del Val / Widener and MTU / JCU very high in their regions say to me they are going to go in. They will be on the board, and they probably will be selected.

I think Del Val is in decent shape because Montclair will probably finish 8-2 and may sneak up in the rankings again. Widener has Rowan in its back pocket which may be ranked. It'll be interesting to see the East #9 or #10 (hah...)

Both OAC contenders played PAC schools (Bethany and St. Vincent). They MAY have an issue if Heidelberg loses to B-W, since the loser won't have a RR win (but they will have a result). Yet in that case ONU could be ranked at 7-3 to replace the 'Berg if they beat Otterbein. MSJ has a chance to be ranked at 8-2 though. The MIAA not have a ranked team if Trine beats Adrian, so that could open up a slot for an ONU if 'Berg should lose, or MSJ, or even DePauw when (!) they lose to Wabash. In fact, if there's an MIAA upset of Adrian, and DPU plays Wabash tough, then they could slip the New Tigers in at #10 at 7-3 anyway.

Intrigue and drama...

And if I were Centre I'd still write very strong letters...

[smedindy]

After reading more of this above, I have a little faith that the National Committee will go "Oh! Hamburgers!" if they see Centre still being Muhlenberg-blocked and fix it. Hopefully.

That may reduce the chance of a two-loss team getting in (take your pick which one), but lets hope....

[Frank Rossi]

Montclair can't sneak in before Morrisville.  The h2h is still the most powerful comparison between two teams with the same number of losses.

[smedindy]

Montclair can't sneak in before Morrisville.  The h2h is still the most powerful comparison between two teams with the same number of losses.

Oh, yeah. But...if the East decides to bring both along depending on other results they could.

Man, I think the cold weather is affecting my brain. I'm not remembering things...

[K-Mack]

Margin of victory is not a factor, except maybe in the comparison of results against common opponents.

John Carroll would be judged against the other Pool C teams based on these five criteria:
win pct.
h2h
results vs. common opponents
results vs. regionally ranked teams

We've heard margin of victory mentioned before in the case of RRO result comparisons for two teams that are otherwise close in criteria.  Therefore, it is indeed usable beyond just score comparisons vs. common opponents. 

We don't disagree. I should have stopped writing at "results."

[USee]

If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results.  I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of  the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.

All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?

[Frank Rossi]

It was 2011, and 2013 was more, from how it was explained, a result of how the ordinal ranking portion of the selection of teams can affect the process (the concept of simply rolling teams up your ballot as teams above them get selected at a certain point).  Granted, you still need a resume to generate the necessary level of interest for such a selection to occur, but the process itself can help dictate the way selections can occur.

[MonroviaCat]

If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results.  I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of  the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.

All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?

No--I don't think we can safely assume this because it doesn't make sense to begin with....

[kiko]

If I am remembering right, Wally's last analysis last year had Wabash getting in as the last team. That was based on the criteria and what we knew on Saturday night which included projecting final rankings based on that day's results.  I remember most of us thinking it was a pretty reasonable analysis (this year's efforts confirm those assumptions). So what changed? If I recall, we didn't foresee SJF jumping ahead of  the team above them (Endicott? or was that 2011?) in the final rankings. What we also didn't forsee is a nuanced shifting of the interpretation of the criteria with new committee members/Chairs. We know this year's chair is the same as last year so surprises may be mitigated but I am interested, especially after Saturday's games, what surprises, if any, we can anticipate that would change something.

All things being equal can we safely assume Bethel is behind Platteville if they both win, can we assume Centre doesn't get bumped up?

I hope this is how the West rankings pan out but don't know that we can take it to the bank.  As AO noted above, if shuffling at the bottom of the West rankings puts Concordia in the final super secret rankings, then Bethel's credentials improve as they now have three wins versus RRO and five results against them.  Is that enough to pass a Platteville team that also took care of business?  Dunno, but it certainly merits a second look given Bethel's advantage on several other criteria.

Centre I think stays put absent something weird happening as I don't see any dominoes that could spiral out from this Saturday's results that can cause things to shuffle in the South.