Pool C -- 2015

[wally_wabash]

Excellent stuff, ETP.  I would just say that in the NCAC, it isn't quite as sewn up as you indicate.  Denison and DePauw play this week.  A Denison win means Denison and Wabash will play for the title on 11/7.  A DePauw win will add the league's AQ to the bounty for the winner of the Monon Bell Classic.  The loss to OWU notwithstanding, I do think DePauw has enough game to win that game if Wabash is careless.  I don't think that'll happen (obviously), but I don't want to dismiss DePauw as having no chance.  I'll have a much more thorough explanation for that during Bell week. 

And Trinity is definitely not in play in Pool B.  The h2h loss to Hardin-Simmons pretty much dooms them to be behind H-SU and UMHB regardless of who wins that big game.  Both teams have good postseason prospects at the moment, which would set up the groan-worthy rematch in round 1. 

[emma17]

As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

[wally_wabash]

As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

No, because there's not a chance that you could set up a bracket that meets Division III's economic limitations AND is a clean 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31 across the board.  That's not possible. 

And I'm not misunderstanding WWW at all.  His position on automatic qualifiers is clear. 

[@d3jason]

As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

No, because there's not a chance that you could set up a bracket that meets Division III's economic limitations AND is a clean 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31 across the board.  That's not possible. 

And I'm not misunderstanding WWW at all.  His position on automatic qualifiers is clear.

Wesley and Mount do not always get the easiest path. I'll grant you last year. But in 2011, which is the year that I believe they went to more of the pod system, Wesley had to beat Hobart, Linfield, UMHB (on the road) to get to the semis and Mount. ( where they lost 28-21.)

Most of the other years, the Wesley/UMHB winner has gone to the semifinals.

[emma17]

As a continuation of the thread in the WIAC board regarding AQs and Pool C...

I've been thinking about why AQs bother me (as do awarding Pool C to non-power conference teams) and realized that it is because they seem to give much easier paths to the 3rd round for MUC and Wesley each year than what happens to the other semi-finalists.

If we had a playoff where all 1-32 teams were seeded and #1 played #32, #2 played #31, etc. this would provide a much more level playoff field that the current Regional setup.  As it stands the playoff path for MUC and Wesley seems to include much softer games in rounds 1 & 2 (based on rankings and score differential).

Wally Wabash is right. Geographical proximity is the issue.

Back in your NAIA days, you had to raise your money to go to a playoff game.

The current March Madness TV contract is what pays for the expanded playoff system in which AQ's (for all sports both genders) are provided at a ratio of 1 playoff bid for every 6.5 teams in most sports and to the 32 team field in football. 

We should be grateful that we have access.

Don't worry, most fans know that the West Region and the ASC are tougher than the northeast in most cases.  (As a conference to follow?  I like the new NJAC and the E8!)

I think your reply to WWW's issue may not be on point.  I imagine he knows the geographic limitations and as such, I think he's saying that if the AQ and Pool C process were revised to include only the top 32 ranked teams, the competition level would naturally increase for Mt. Union and Wesley.  If WWW's plan were implemented, it's likely the first and second round games would be more difficult, while still occurring in the geographic region the NCAA insists upon.   

No, because there's not a chance that you could set up a bracket that meets Division III's economic limitations AND is a clean 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31 across the board.  That's not possible. 

And I'm not misunderstanding WWW at all.  His position on automatic qualifiers is clear.

I believe you said "it's the economics your upset about, not the selection process"- to which Ralph agreed.
I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I'm good with that. Although it may be true that www is also upset about the economics, his point is valid. Mt and Wesley and UWW and others would have a tougher road to round 3 if the playoffs resembled more closely a true 1 v 32 format.

[smedindy]

In RETROSPECT ONLY does it seem that Mt. Union gets an easier road in round 2:

They've played W&J, Wittenberg, Johns Hopkins, Centre (and won only 30-10) and Delaware Valley in the second round.

In a 1-32 seed tourney, these would all be four seeds, in the Top 16. And you know what...THEY ARE!

[wally_wabash]

I believe you said "it's the economics your upset about, not the selection process"- to which Ralph agreed.
I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I'm good with that. Although it may be true that www is also upset about the economics, his point is valid. Mt and Wesley and UWW and others would have a tougher road to round 3 if the playoffs resembled more closely a true 1 v 32 format.

If they seeded the tournament 1-32 and paired them off perfectly, sure, it might mean that the top seeded teams have a "tougher" road to the quarterfinals.  I think the difference would be negligible, frankly, but whatever.  I concede that point.  But pairing off the teams perfectly 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31, etc. etc. is not even close to a thing that is going to exist, so I guess I don't understand the point of the discussion.  This isn't something that's going to be done ever. 

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

The 2015 playoff results will be the proof in the pudding one way or the other as far as deserving Pool C bids or not.  North Central with 3 losses is most likely going to have given the 3 teams it lost to (Wesley, UWP, and Wheaton) tougher games than what another Pool C selection will (or what those teams will face in Round 1 (if UWP is selected).  But, you just can't lose 3 games and make the playoffs without winning the AQ. 

UWP will be interesting as they lost twice to 2 highly ranked teams.  I'm not sure that many of the other Pool C candidates would have done as well against UWW although many could probably have gotten beat by 30. 

Maybe Whitworth for a Pool C.  I would say that they are a Top 25 team even though they got badly beat by Linfield on Saturday.  I'd guess that most of the teams in the Top 15+ would get badly beaten by a Linfield team that is playing as well as it is.

It makes the first round easier for the NCAA... Whitworth to Linfield... Hardin Simmons to MHB... SCIAC to St Thomas... UMAC to UWO...

[wally_wabash]

The Week 8 update to the B/C Eliminator table.  Here is a peek at the logic we are trying to apply as we go through this week to week:

1. Two-loss teams can make the tournament as Pool Cs
2. Three-loss teams never have
3. The last-time we had a conference get three teams in, the 3rd best team was the Pool A.

And with those three main points in mind:

- Three loss teams are automatically out.
- Two-loss teams are still in, unless those teams are already behind a pair of zero or one-loss teams in their own conference.  I think we're pretty close to adhering to this absolutely, but there may be a case here and there where we've knocked out a two-loss team that isn't going accumulate other useful criteria such as high SOS or wins vs. RROs. 

Thanks again to ExTartanPlayer and Bombers798891 for working through this with me.  Teams that we believe are out of at-large contention are in red, teams that I believe are still alive are in green, and Pool B eligible teams are marked with an asterisk(*), all as of Week 8 results.  And this week I've italicized teams that were newly eliminated.

CCIW	HCAC	MIAA	NACC	NCAC	OAC
Carthage	Earlham	Hope	Cocnordia(Wis)	Allegheny	Muskingum
Augustana	Hanover	Alma	Aurora	Hiram	Marietta
North Park	Bluffton	Kalamazoo	Wis Lutheran	Wooster	Heidelberg
Millikin	Anderson	Adrian	Benedictine	Oberlin	Wilmington
North Central	Defiance	Trine	Lakeland	OWU	B-W
Elmhurst	MSJ	Olivet	CUC	Kenyon	Otterbein
Wheaton	Manchester	Albion	Rockford	Witt	Capital
IWU	Franklin			Denison	ONU
	RHIT			Wabash	Mount Union
				DePauw	John Carroll

IIAC	IND	MIAC	MWC	NWC	SCIAC	UMAC	WIAC
BVC	Finlandia*	St. Olaf	Lawrence	L&C	Redlands	IWC	Eau Claire
Dubuque	Maranatha*	Carleton	Macalester	Willamette	Chapman	Martin Luther	River Falls
Loras		Hamline	Carroll	PLU	Whittier	Greenville	La Crosse
Coe		Augsburg	Ripon	UPS	P-PC	Crown	Stout
Simpson		C-MC	Beloit	Pacific	CMS	MacMurray	SP
Luther		St. John's	Grinnell	George Fox	Laverne	Eureka	Oshkosh
Central		Bethel	Lake Forest	Whitworth	Occidental	Minn-Morris	Platteville
Wartburg		St. Thomas	IC	Linfield	Cal Lutheran	SSC	Whitewater
		Gustavus Adolphus	Cornell			Westminster
			Knox			Northwestern
			Monmouth
			St. Norbert

ASC	CC	ODAC	PAC	SAA	SCAC	USAC
LC*	McDaniel	Randolph-Macon	Grove City	Sewanee	Southwestern*	Averett
Bellhaven**	Juniata	Catholic	Thiel	Millsaps	Austin*	Ferrum
HPU*	Dickinson	E&H	Waynesburg	Hendrix	TLU*	NCWC
SRSU*	Ursinus	Bridgewater	CMU	Rhodes	Trinity*	LaGrange
McMurry***	Susquehenna	H-SC	Bethany	WashU		Greensboro
ETBU*	Muhlenberg	W&L	St. Vincent	B-SC		Huntingdon
UMHB*	Moravian	Shenandoah	Westminster	Centre		Methodist
H-SU*	Gettysburg	Guilford	Geneva	Berry		Maryville
	F&M		CWRU	Chicago
	Johns Hopkins		Thomas More
			W&J

ECFC	Empire 8	IND	LL	MAC	MASCAC	NEFC	NJAC
Mount Ida	Buffalo St.	Alfred St.**	Union	Misericordia	Worcester State	Curry	So Virginia
Anna Maria	Hartwick		St. Lawrence	Wilkes	Plymouth State	Nichols	TCNJ
Norwich	SJF		RPI	Leb Valley	Westfield State	Maine Maritime	Montclair St.
Gallaudet	Utica		USMMA	Lycoming	Bridgewater St.	Salve Regina	Salisbury
Husson	Morrisville St.		Springfield	King's	Western Conn.	MIT	WPU
Castleton	Brockport St.		WPI	FDU-F	Mass-Dartmouth	Endicott	CNU
Becker	Alfred		Hobart	Widener	Mass-Maritime	Coast Guard	Frostburg St.
SUNY-MC	Ithaca		Rochester	Del Valley	Framingham St.	Western NE	Rowan
	Cortland St.			Albright	Fitchburg State		Kean
				Stevenson			Wesley

** Provisional, ineligible for postseason
*** Reclassifying, ineligible for postseason

[wally_wabash]

This week's eliminations:
Cal Lutheran
Bethel
Washington & Jefferson
Franklin & Marshall
Gettysburg
Brockport State
Ithaca
Hobart
Widener
Kean

I don't have a ton to add here as I think thee eliminations are pretty self-evident.  W&J can get in at 8-2 but they'll be behind the PAC runner up (probably unless it gets weird over there) and they have common opponent problems with Chicago, who also is hanging on by a fingertip. 

We may need to reconsider Buffalo State also.  We knocked them out from the get go and I think they're still out.  They may be in play if Alfred winds up winning the league which I think requires Cortland State to lose both of their remaining games, but I'm not sure.  The E8 has gone full bizarro. 

No eliminations from the North this week, but DePauw, Albion, and RHIT are all on the thinnest of ice.  It'll be interesting to see how the regional committee treats RHIT.  Albion and DePauw are almost certainly out here, but there are some three way tiebreak situations that could put them in Pool C with just one loss.  So we'll let that play out. 

That leaves 46 teams in play for those 7 at-large bids.  The regional breakdown is:
North - 10
West - 11
South - 14
East - 11

[Bengalsrule]

I like this Wally_Wabash guy.

We may need to reconsider Buffalo State also.  We knocked them out from the get go and I think they're still out.  They may be in play if Alfred winds up winning the league which I think requires Cortland State to lose both of their remaining games, but I'm not sure.  The E8 has gone full bizarro

Go BENGALS!

[Bombers798891]

We may need to reconsider Buffalo State also.  We knocked them out from the get go and I think they're still out.  They may be in play if Alfred winds up winning the league which I think requires Cortland State to lose both of their remaining games, but I'm not sure. The E8 has gone full bizarro

I'm going to flip this around. I think Cortland has to win the league for Buff State to have a shot.

Two-loss teams generally need something extra, like a RR win, to get over the hump. Buff State's only shot at that is if Cortland is 9-1. (I guess they could go 8-2, and be ranked, but the East is such a mess, I'd hate to hitch my wagon there.)

The trouble is, if Cortland wins out, that makes one of Buff State's losses come from a 4 (and maybe 5)-loss Morrisville.

So we'd have, best case for Buff State: One win over a RR opponent (Cortland), one bad loss (Morrisville), and a poor OOC schedule (a 5-5/4-6 Otterbein, and Finlandia, who is flat out terrible). In 2015, that's a thin, thin, resume for a 2-loss Pool C

I guess we should put them in, based on our rules, as I someone could knock off Alfred, giving an 8-2 Buff State 2nd place to a 9-1 Cortland. But I'd be flat out stunned if they got a Pool C

[emma17]

Not that I have a say in the selections, but if I did, I'd have to eliminate UWP from Pool C contention for the same reason I would have eliminated TLU from Pool C contention last year.  The regular season is important, and it's very much like an audition for the world to see how well a team stacks up against the best competition.  UWP lost badly to UWO.  Even though I think it's likely they would be a favorite against a couple Pool C teams this year (assuming committee uses same criteria as it has), I can't reward a team that so miserably failed such an important audition.

[Bombers798891]

Not that I have a say in the selections, but if I did, I'd have to eliminate UWP from Pool C contention for the same reason I would have eliminated TLU from Pool C contention last year.  The regular season is important, and it's very much like an audition for the world to see how well a team stacks up against the best competition.  UWP lost badly to UWO.  Even though I think it's likely they would be a favorite against a couple Pool C teams this year (assuming committee uses same criteria as it has), I can't reward a team that so miserably failed such an important audition.

I actually posed to Wally that we include, essentially, the "resumes" of recent 2-loss Pool C teams, so we'd have something to guide our process with teams like that. If/when he gets that up, we might have some more info to help that decision. I think for now, we've tried to air on the side of caution with 2-loss teams who might have a few positive checks the committee is looking for, but you might be right on UWP.

[jknezek]

On one of the boards, PAC maybe? I played around with a mock South Region Committee ranking given the info we have right now. Not accounting for anything that might happen going forward. I was surprised that I ended up with two 2 loss teams over a host of one loss teams, but when looking at how the RRO dominoes fell and SOS it seemed almost inevitable. Granted they were teams 9 and 10 and probably wouldn't see the board, but it was hard to ignore them based on the criteria.