Pool C -- 2014

[Bombers798891]

I really don't think we're going to see some sudden growth in the number of d3 college football teams or conferences but I think that over the long term the AQ leads to more parity.  The lower conferences need to take some harsh losses in order to improve themselves.

Where exactly is the parity in this sport as we've expanded the playoffs to 32 and added Pool A bids? Mount Union's been obliterating the Division for 20 years now. Sure, a certain few teams get better (UMHB, UW-W) but they're the exception. And yeah, sometimes a team pokes it's head up, but the OAC is just as helpless against Mount as it's been for the last two decades.

Look, access for everyone is what D-III is about. And I've come around on that, pretty recently in fact, and am on board with the autobid AQ. But that doesn't change the fact that opening access to everyone can hurt the competitiveness of a playoff. There's simply too many D-III teams that not only can't compete with the big boys, but don't have a desire to from a philosophical, institutional standpoint.

And again, that's okay. Do what's best for your institution, without hesitation. But when those dichotomies exist, and in such sharp contrast, well, you're going to be left with non-competitive playoff games and a lack or parity

[smedindy]

In any playoff system that is reasonable, you're going to have blowouts. And in most leagues, the fat cats will grind the underlings bones to make their bread. It's the nature of the beast.

But 2013 Mount beat W&J by just 14, Wesley by just three and North Central by a solitary point.

Whitewater only beat Linfield by 11, and UMHB by one.

Sure, you're not going to see the UMAC champ stay within 30 or so, yet. But the second tier is closing the gap...

[hazzben]

Sure, you're not going to see the UMAC champ stay within 30 or so, yet. But the second tier is closing the gap...

The UMAC champ won't stay within 50 of their first round opponent (assuming they play a top 3 seed). And I'll be sure to tell the UMAC you've put them in the second tier, I'm sure they'll be overjoyed to hear about the promotion 

On a serious note, who is CWU? Couldn't place the initials...I always had you pegged as a Wabash supporter.

[smedindy]

Sure, you're not going to see the UMAC champ stay within 30 or so, yet. But the second tier is closing the gap...

The UMAC champ won't stay within 50 of their first round opponent (assuming they play a top 3 seed). And I'll be sure to tell the UMAC you've put them in the second tier, I'm sure they'll be overjoyed to hear about the promotion 

On a serious note, who is CWU? Couldn't place the initials...I always had you pegged as a Wabash supporter.

Hah, bad juxtaposition!

CWU - Central Washington University - that's where I work now. Help out doing stats for volleyball, football and hoops as well as minding the p's and q's of the advancement operation.

Bad thing is if I want to catch a D-3 football game my choices are to head to Tacoma or Spokane. I'm smack in the middle!

[D3AlumniParent]

Folks, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but there only two days left before some big decisions will be made. So I want to reiterate a few points and perhaps position the facts in a new light regarding the possible exclusion of an undefeated team from the tournament.

Again: if you remove UMHB from TLU's SOS calculation, Centre's SOS will end up slightly HIGHER than TLU's. TLU's SOS is being propped up by the wins of a team that BEAT them.

Why should TLU get an advantage over an undefeated team as a result of a stat that doesn't reflect WHO THEY BEAT, when Centre's SOS is propped up by nobody because they NEVER LOST?  I thought "who you beat" is the generally prevailing thought as to what matters most.

My opinion is that Rhodes is better than Hardin-Simmons anyway. H-S's SOS might look good (ranked 48 to the 103 of Rhodes). But they only have six D3 games to go by so far. And here's the killer: if their game against Southwestern hadn't been cancelled (not sure why it was), their SOS would be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than Rhodes' SOS. They'd drop to the neighborhood of .481 -or 153rd place.

Then it should be extremely difficult to justify that #10 RR ranking by the RC (which includes TLU's coach). Next likely candidates for #10 would be Emory & Henry or Rhodes (a Centre opponent). And say goodbye to TLU's RR win. (Seemed like quite a sham to have a win over a RR#10, vs an estimated #11-13, that pushed an undefeated team out of the picture).

It just goes to show you how fragile these numbers are. They say "figures lie and liars figure", right? Then just let common sense prevail. What does the eyeball test tell you (as C.M. Newton used to say when heading the March Madness basketball committee)?

All these false numbers do is provide PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY of the "Texas politics" taking place on the South RC. Only a small regional sub-committee, containing members who are DIRECTLY impacted by all the nuances of where each team is ranked, would have the chutzpah to create this situation.

It's been pointed out a few times in these forums by D3 moderators that this is the only time EVER where an undefeated team might slip to Pool C.  This may never happen again.

Allow me to put this in a very important and distinct light:

One of the primary comparison criteria, Strength of Schedule, HAS NEVER BEEN USED to compare a Pool C team that was undefeated with one that had losses. This sets a precedent that cannot be denied and SHOULD ALLOW either the RC or National Committee to then dissect the SOS calculation, while keeping true to it's spirit, but make it RELEVANT to this situation.

I only hope the NCAA National Committee demonstrates integrity in this process and right's the wrong of the Regional Committee. Said many times in these forums, this NCAA and it's  tournament stand for INCLUSIVENESS. I hope that proves to be true for the young men who have walked off the field victors each and every time this year.

Decades of tradition will have the Praying Colonels together Sunday evening for milk and cookies. They'd break up into groups, talk and watch films during the season. This time they'll stay together as a team and watch as the tournament brackets are unveiled. What a shame it would be, for in this room, to have the season's only defeat- one in which the young men had absolutely no power to influence. In my heart I do not believe the NCAA wants or will allow this to happen.

[smedindy]

Hardin Simmons' game against Southwestern was cancelled due to lightning. Unlike Chicago's against Pacific, which was called due to air traffic issues. At least no one in "C" contention played Maranatha.

[D3AlumniParent]

Hardin Simmons' game against Southwestern was cancelled due to lightning. Unlike Chicago's against Pacific, which was called due to air traffic issues. At least no one in "C" contention played Maranatha.

Funny about Marantha. Sad about the other. So a lightning strike is the reason Hardin-Simmons has a #48 ranked SOS instead of one around #150.

[smedindy]

Well, it wasn't just one strike. It was pervasive enough that they had to call it, and early enough in the game to call it 'no contest'. Kind of like what happened with Florida and Idaho (that was just a flood, basically, not lightning, but still...)

[d-train]

CWU - Central Washington University - that's where I work now. Help out doing stats for volleyball, football and hoops as well as minding the p's and q's of the advancement operation.

Bad thing is if I want to catch a D-3 football game my choices are to head to Tacoma or Spokane. I'm smack in the middle!

We had some great battles in Ellensburg when I was an NAIA Lute.

[AO]

I really don't think we're going to see some sudden growth in the number of d3 college football teams or conferences but I think that over the long term the AQ leads to more parity.  The lower conferences need to take some harsh losses in order to improve themselves.

Where exactly is the parity in this sport as we've expanded the playoffs to 32 and added Pool A bids? Mount Union's been obliterating the Division for 20 years now. Sure, a certain few teams get better (UMHB, UW-W) but they're the exception. And yeah, sometimes a team pokes it's head up, but the OAC is just as helpless against Mount as it's been for the last two decades.

Look, access for everyone is what D-III is about. And I've come around on that, pretty recently in fact, and am on board with the autobid AQ. But that doesn't change the fact that opening access to everyone can hurt the competitiveness of a playoff. There's simply too many D-III teams that not only can't compete with the big boys, but don't have a desire to from a philosophical, institutional standpoint.

And again, that's okay. Do what's best for your institution, without hesitation. But when those dichotomies exist, and in such sharp contrast, well, you're going to be left with non-competitive playoff games and a lack or parity

I'm saying there is more parity with AQs than there otherwise would be, not that there is a lot of parity now.  Teams get better by playing superior competition.  The OAC is still getting trampled by Mount but the other teams are still better because of it and that's with no help from the motivation of the AQ.  The vast majority of colleges have philosophical goals well in line with championship football.  The main difference between Mount/UWW and the rest is personnel, not philosophies that limit the football program.

[emma17]

As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason.  What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall.  As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.

Muhlenberg lost to Johns Hopkins. They beat F&M 42-7. They've also had a five year record of 38-14. They wouldn't be competitive?

Massey uses comparative, real data that indicates the competitiveness of teams, not some janky eye test that's self-serving, selfish, and unscientific. Right now, there are enough games under everyone's belt to use it as a real measuring stick. So it SHOWS competitive-ness using real DATA, not some old wives tales.

So you're for the old guard ALWAYS getting playoff spots, no matter if they earn it or not? You don't care about the rest of the country and how competitive they can be? Never ever ever letting someone else in? How narrow minded. Good football is played outside of the Upper Midwest, you know. Good football exists in the South, the East and in the West. Teams YOU NEVER HEARD OF can be really good.

Again, what you say about Curry, of all teams, beating an E8 team as a "C". Under your thinking, they'd never get that chance, and only the fat cats would have that chance.

It's also blatantly against the ethos and mission of D3 to reserve playoff spots for the so-called elite, and those who have already had playoff success. The last part is total bollocks. Under your system, NO ONE else would get in, because they can't prove themselves, because they can't get in. Sorry TLU, sorry Thomas More, sorry Illinois College. You don't meet the criteria of a stacked deck.

It's not easy to make the field of 32. It's not supposed to be. Why throw more barriers at teams on the rise? Why do that?

Yes, WIN YOUR LEAGUE, failing that, LOSE ONCE with great criteria, or be at your peril. That applies to Bethel, UW-W, and St. John's as much as it does Moravian, McDaniel, or Sewanee.

Smed,
I find you to be a condescending guy, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be that way. 
In any event, if it's ok with you, I'd prefer to describe myself rather than leave it to you, seeing as we've never met.

I love the fact that D3 provides a playoff system that allows all teams (except maybe Centre this year) the opportunity to earn its way in.  Unfortunately, only 32 are allowed and IMO it should be the job of the committees to select the teams they feel would create the most competitive playoff field possible.  I happen to believe that 8-2 Bethel, 8-2 SJF and 8-2 UWP (if all finish this way) are better playoff caliber teams than 9-1 TLU and 9-1 Muhl.  Granted, Muhl isn't as easy a decision as TLU is for me, but neither their current schedule nor their recent history indicates they would create a more competitive playoff field than Bethel, UWP or SJF. 

I don't rely on statistics over my eye for the game, so we won't reach an agreement on the value of Massey.
I truly do hope teams like TLU and Muhl and Moravian and all the other teams you mention will win their conferences soon and earn the AQ.  To me, your position is a bit like people saying it's not fair that Mt never has to travel.  Win the conference and go to the playoffs.  Beat Mt and Mt will have to travel.     

[smedindy]

You came off as elitist, Emma about limiting "C" to your so-called elite list, and others have had discussion in the past about limiting playoff spots to 'proven quantities', even eliminating "A" bids. That makes me so irate. It's a rage against elitism, especially when it comes to D3. It's against the ethos of D3. You cannot leave even the "C" to so-called 'proven' teams because you will eliminate worthy teams of quality and distinction, unfairly AND unjustly.

How can you SEE how good Muhlenberg is unless you examine data? Old wives tales and the eye test and outdated perceptions only go so far. You thought they lost to team they rolled.

PS - the SOS calculated by Massey has Muhlenberg playing a tougher schedule than St. John's. The eye test fails there. That may seem odd, but St. John's schedule is quite bifurcated (hello St. Olaf and Hamline), while Muhlenberg hasn't played a lot of really bad teams, and has played one elite team. The body of work counts, for good, and bad. Muhlenberg hasn't played (except for JHU) the caliber of the BEST of St. John's schedule, but neither have they played the nadir.

Mind you, I think Muhlenberg should be behind Centre and TLU in the South, but they should be considered if they are on the board. The "C" isn't reserved for a NAME.

I never complain about Mt. Union not having to travel. Why would I? Maybe this year they will travel if they squeak by JCU or even lose...

[D3AlumniParent]

Folks, I've made this point repeatedly in the Pool C thread (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8234.msg1626998#msg1626998), and I'll do so again: if you remove UMHB from TLU's SOS calculation, Centre's SOS will end up slightly HIGHER than TLU's. Their SOS is being propped up by the wins of a team that BEAT them.

You don't get to cherry pick which parts of the schedule count and which parts don't.  That's not how the game is played. 

With all due respect, Wally, I wouldn't classify this as cherry-picking in any way shape or form. The SOS metric as it stands, makes the most sense when comparing apples to apples, or teams that have losses. In this case, we're comparing an apple to an orange- a team that is undefeated.

The standard SOS metric ONLY (ONLY) measures strength of the teams scheduled. So I ask you to do this, remove all memory of the current formulas please. I want to work backwards for a second.

Remove UHMB from TLU's SOS. And calculate it as I have proposed. First question: does this now accurately provide a relative comparison of the strength of the teams beaten?

Now add the UHMB game back into equation- so exactly as it's calculated now. Did adding that game reveal ANYTHING positive or negative about how TLU performed this year? If not, then why use it? Aren't we looking for the spirit of an accurate comparison of the strength of teams.

You could think me a homer who is just trying to change an agreed upon metric used for years to benefit my team. "We can't just change a metric to suit one team in one particular circumstance because several will be asking the same each year." I expect some will think that.

But I honestly think this situation is an anomaly (undefeated team in Pool C), is a precedent, is extraordinarily unlikely to happen again, and would call for deeper inspection to get as accurate a comparison as possible.

Flip it just a bit: both teams have 1 loss. Centre loses to Mount Union, but TLU loses to Southwestern. TLU has a slightly higher SOS using standard formula. At stake is the last playoff spot. My thoughts then? I'd be ticked about the result, as a Centre alum. But in no way could I in good faith ask for modified metrics. One might be Sour Green and the other Granny, but they're still apples.

Again, I believe the circumstance we have here is highly unusual and calls for whatever modifications necessary to get an accurate comparison.

I'm interested in that math.  I'm not sure that's right....I don't think Southwestern alone can scrub over 0.06 points out of HSUs SOS.  You are right though in the abstract- that not playing Southwestern helps HSU's SOS.  It's not a good metric, no doubt. 

You can see my spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWJMgmokJaEu-HtqDwpT7tNn1OSNraqnlZe4Agmk4e0/edit?usp=sharing

The numbers in blue are from the most recent SOS list:  http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2014/schedule?tmpl=sos-template

In the top schedule ("Hardin-Simmons w/out Southwestern") you'll notice the OOWP I calculated is accurate enough (.521 vs .522) but OWP I calculated (.521) is slightly lower than the published one (.548). I did this for 6 teams and my OOP was slightly lower each time.

BUT the important thing isn't that those numbers are exact, but rather to note the delta- the change- in the "NCAA" SOS. Now you should see what a dramatic change results from adding of the worst D3 teams on your schedule- especially since there are only 6 other D3 teams on there.

Hope it makes sense. If not I can attach as a spreadsheet.

This is where I think there is an interesting conversation to be had.  Why HSU and not E&H or Rhodes?   I looked for common opponents and there aren't any, so that's not it.  I don't see a lot about Hardin-Simmons that makes them stand out from Rhodes or E&H aside from those SOS figures that are accepted without context.   The one thing I admittedly don't know anything about are the two non-division opponents that HSU played.  If those are quality teams, then HSU may have scored some points in the secondary criteria. 

I think I know why HSU.

And then this thing goes off the rails a bit.  Just a couple of more thoughts on this:
- Centre hasn't slipped to Pool C and Centre hasn't been left out of the tournament yet.  Centre also isn't 10-0 yet.  The way things got ordered this week maybe sets the table for some precedent-making things, but we should probably let the thing play out before going this kind of bonkers. 

I agree with you Wally. But pointing these things out late Sunday night will be too late and would serve no purpose. My comments may not serve any purpose anyway, but on the off-chance anyone from the-powers-that-be would read this, it's now or never to bring these thoughts to light.

- Juicy as the Great Texas Playoff Conspiracy is, I think you do the folks who work on these committees a pretty severe disservice by accusing them of stacking the deck.  It's one thing for us to look at those rankings and disagree or even say "hey, I think they got this wrong".  It's another to say they rigged it.  That kind of thing probably needs proof. 

Ultimately here, I agree with you. Centre (and anybody else who runs the table) deserves to keep playing until they lose.  I think it would be a shame if they didn't get that chance. But I'm still hopeful, maybe even a little optimistic, that they will.

I can totally see your point of view, Wally. This is where I most look like an emotional homer, I understand. But in my heart I still believe that a few committee members are not voting objectively- especially after seeing Centre not only not pull ahead of TLU after winning fairly convincingly last week, not stay tied, not just fall back one spot, but fall back two spots which, as it would stand, would eliminate them from contention if all results Saturday dictate that. I was certainly leery after seeing them tied after the first week. But I just can't wrap my head around last week's downward movement.

I'm biased. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

One thing I know for a fact, when the SAA members bolted, it left major scheduling, and other, issues for for the remaining teams. I believe they did the right thing. Travelling all those miles in all those sports is unbelievably expensive AND terribly disruptive to the ability to maintain any semblance of study time for the student athletes.

Is there still a little bitterness remaining? Possibly. But is there a huge conflict of interest for a bubble team's HC to sit in influence on the committee? You bet there is.

Anyone can take metrics that can be interpreted and twist them to say whatever you want, I understand (again "...liars figure"). But the movement on the ranking was unexplainable to me.

SORRY to seem like I only care about one result. But I wouldn't want to see this happen to any kids.

Wally- you do a great job on here. I've learned so much from yours and others perspectives. Thank you very much for tolerating me and my long-windedness.

[D3AlumniParent]

Smed,
I find you to be a condescending guy, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be that way. 
In any event, if it's ok with you, I'd prefer to describe myself rather than leave it to you, seeing as we've never met.

No disrespect intended emma. But smed is one of the most nicest, most educated people in any of these forums and has shown himself to be not only tolerant of others but quick to provide help and input.

Please keep an open mind and give him a chance and I'm confident you'll think the same. 

[smedindy]

You can't unring the SOS bell. I don't think anyone likes this formula; it's better than the old QoW index (shudder). It's what we got until there's some SOS that uses more of an RPI feeling (without giving teams an incentive to go all Mt. Union on everyone (Mt. Union really does try to temper its score against Muskingum, et. al. It's just really hard to tell the 4th stringer not to score)). It also works better in hoops when there are more games and more non-conference games (though some leagues, like the MIAC and ASC play a metric ton of conference games).

Your logic will give teams a disincentive to schedule a Whitewater, Mt. Union, UMHB, or Wesley, even because it won't count...

We DON'T want that...we REALLY don't want that. Teams should be encouraged to play those guys. It's really helped Franklin improve, for one. Don't put up artificial barriers, please.