Pool C -- 2015

[Bombers798891]

As a fan of the last 3rd-place team to make the NCAAs, I wanted to throw my hat in here on this subject. In 2007, people generally believed Ithaca was better than the Hartwick team they finished behind in the conference (borne out through the final poll positions of both teams). Ithaca also suffered a butt-kicking loss to Fisher that year, at home no less.

But times have changed, and as Denzel told us in Training Day: "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." Ithaca got in by the skin of their teeth, and had they not gotten in, they'd have no one but themselves to blame. I think teams have to, in this era of shrinking Pool Cs, need to say "Look what we did that these teams didn't" not "Come on, you know we're really good"

[jknezek]

I think teams have to, in this era of shrinking Pool Cs, need to say "Look what we did that these teams didn't" not "Come on, you know we're really good"

+K. Love this.

[AO]

There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule? 

[ExTartanPlayer]

There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

[MonroviaCat]

If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

I would argue (though I know the criteria say nothing about this) that a 3rd place team from any conference does not belong in the playoffs.  They've already shown that they are not as good as 2 other teams that (it seems) are going to make the field.

I would be careful with this kind of proclamation. We know this isn't true from other settings. The Cubs were the 3rd best team in their division and collectively those three teams were the 3 best (based on record) in all of baseball. It obviously isn't apples to apples but you can't definitively say a 3rd place team from conference X isn't good enough to make the tournament. That's what the at large system is designed for isn't it? To give the "next best" teams the opportunity to prove themselves? Personally I love the AQ system and am pretty comfortable with the Pool C selection process, though I really like some of Wally's tweaks he suggested a couple weeks ago.

As far as a team with a blow out loss deserving admission, that would likely preclude any 2nd place WIAC team (in most years) and any OAC team other than Mt Union. Also, TLU (previously mentioned) played their rematch with MHB to a one score game in the playoffs.

I think the at large is for the "next best team" I just don't think that team should be one that has already lost to 2 other teams (in their same conference) that make the field ahead of them.  In my mind, they've already "proven themselves" or failed to prove themselves. 

[AO]

There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

He would have lost the bet, but that doesn't make it a bad bet.  How many teams would you pick to stay close with Whitewater and Oshkosh? 

[ExTartanPlayer]

There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

He would have lost the bet, but that doesn't make it a bad bet.  How many teams would you pick to stay close with Whitewater and Oshkosh?

35 points is "close" ?

[AO]

There are very, very few teams in D3 that would not have lost both of those games by a much greater average margin (22.5). 

I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW

My friend, I present to you the case of UW-Stevens Point.  You know, that team who gave up 65 to Albion in the season opener.  Probably not in the Top 8 this year.

UW-Oshkosh 21, UW-Stevens Point 10
UW-Whitewater 35, UW-Stevens Point 27

Now, I work with numbers a little, and I am fairly certain that average margin is less than 22.5 polnts (here, I'll help you so you don't have to get your calculator: it's 9.5 points).  So there's at least one team outside the top 8 who would do did better against UWO and UWW, and that team lost to one from the MIAA (to boot, a team that's not even leading the conference!)

upsets happen.   The rest of the evidence points to Platteville being miles ahead of Trine.  With as few games as there are in the regular season you can't go cherry picking and only look at the few results you find interesting.  How did they perform against every team on their schedule?

You're totally missing my point.  Walla Walla Wildcat made a statement that is objectively untrue:

"I bet that there are zero teams outside the Top 8 that would do better against UWO and UWW."

That's flat-out wrong.  UWSP did do better than UWP against those teams.  UWSP is not a Top 8 team.  Full stop.  Statement wrong. 

I'm not saying Trine or Albion would have done better, specifically, only pointing out that this is a wrong statement.  The reason I mentioned Albion's win over UWSP was to hammer home that UWSP is definitively not a "top 8" team; this isn't some case of the WIAC actually having four of the nation's top 8 teams.

He would have lost the bet, but that doesn't make it a bad bet.  How many teams would you pick to stay close with Whitewater and Oshkosh?

35 points is "close" ?

I'm saying that staying close with Oshkosh and Whitewater is unlikely based on all results.  The fact that Stevens Point did so is an upset, not expected.  The fact that Stevens Point was also upset by a worse team is also an upset.  And so on. 

The main point: you can't just point to one win or one loss on a schedule to determine the strength of a team.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm saying that staying close with Oshkosh and Whitewater is unlikely based on all results.  The fact that Stevens Point did so is an upset, not expected.  The fact that Stevens Point was also upset by a worse team is also an upset.  And so on. 

And I'm the one cherry-picking results?   You've said that three of UWSP's results this year are "unlikely" or "not expected" or "upset" - this sure seems like a convenient way of dismissing all of the results you don't like by calling them unexpected, and then just sticking to what you already believed about the teams.

[AO]

I'm saying that staying close with Oshkosh and Whitewater is unlikely based on all results.  The fact that Stevens Point did so is an upset, not expected.  The fact that Stevens Point was also upset by a worse team is also an upset.  And so on. 

And I'm the one cherry-picking results?   You've said that three of UWSP's results this year are "unlikely" or "not expected" or "upset" - this sure seems like a convenient way of dismissing all of the results you don't like by calling them unexpected, and then just sticking to what you already believed about the teams.

They were all upsets at the time of the game.  After Stevens Point stays close with Platteville and Oshkosh, it's less of an upset that they did the same with Whitewater.  The real outlier as of today is the Albion game.  We don't throw the outlier out of consideration, but it's not going to matter more than the other 9 games on the schedule.

[Ralph Turner]

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.   

Sorry that I am 2 days late.

The effect that the Pool System has had on D-3 athletics is that it has encouraged colleges to add teams, in all sports!

The simple goal in adding a new sport is to be competitive among peer institutions (the teams in your conferences). 

Look at all of the football programs that have been added in the last 15 years.  The new programs in the Northwest Conference just wanted to be competitive. Now there are more opportunities for student-athletes in that part of the country.

Look at all of the new conferences that have earned the Pool A bid. Yes independents have merged into new conferences, but IMHO, D-3 is stronger for it.

[wally_wabash]

Week 9 games to keep an eye on for Pool B/C watchers. 
Note:  bolded teams are still alive in the at-large pools

North Central @ Illinois Wesleyan
Albion @ Olivet
DePauw @ Denison [elimination game]
St. Thomas @ Concordia-Moorhead
Gustavus Adolphus @ Bethel [elimination game]
Mary Hardin-Baylor @ Hardin-Simmons
Gettysburg @ Moravian [elimination game]
Washington & Lee @ Emory & Henry
Washington U. @ Case Western Reserve [elimination game]
Texas Lutheran @ Trinity(TX) [elimination game]
Frostburg State @ Rowan [elimination game]
And what may well be the 2015 swan song for The dc1 West Coast Special™: Pacific @ Whitworth [elimination game]

[USee]

If UW-P had lost both the games in close fashion, I could understand the hang up with them.  I know it's been mentioned by a few here but that blowout loss doesn't sit well with me.  A team who gets their doors blown off like that is NOT Walnut & Bronze material.  Period. 

Maybe it's my East Coast bias, though.

I would argue (though I know the criteria say nothing about this) that a 3rd place team from any conference does not belong in the playoffs.  They've already shown that they are not as good as 2 other teams that (it seems) are going to make the field.

I would be careful with this kind of proclamation. We know this isn't true from other settings. The Cubs were the 3rd best team in their division and collectively those three teams were the 3 best (based on record) in all of baseball. It obviously isn't apples to apples but you can't definitively say a 3rd place team from conference X isn't good enough to make the tournament. That's what the at large system is designed for isn't it? To give the "next best" teams the opportunity to prove themselves? Personally I love the AQ system and am pretty comfortable with the Pool C selection process, though I really like some of Wally's tweaks he suggested a couple weeks ago.

As far as a team with a blow out loss deserving admission, that would likely preclude any 2nd place WIAC team (in most years) and any OAC team other than Mt Union. Also, TLU (previously mentioned) played their rematch with MHB to a one score game in the playoffs.

I think the at large is for the "next best team" I just don't think that team should be one that has already lost to 2 other teams (in their same conference) that make the field ahead of them.  In my mind, they've already "proven themselves" or failed to prove themselves.

That's your opinion and I am glad we don't have a system that thinks that way. If the "next best team(s)" happen to be in the same conference in a particular year then the system should recognize that. I would be completely against any criteria that limits access to the 3rd best team in a given conference as vehemently as all of us who are against restricting access from perceived "lesser" conferences.

The reason being it's the inverse of the same argument. You can't say Muhlenberg doesn't deserve a big because they didn't play anyone anymore than you can say UWP doesn't deserve a bid because they didn't beat 2 of the top five teams in the nation who happen to be in their conference. If the criteria (which most of us agree need to be tweaked at least) dictate Muhlenberg and/or UWP, then so be it.

[Bombers798891]

The real problem with using the "How many teams outside the Top 8 would stay close* with UWO and UWW" question to determine Pool C validity is that it's inherently biased in favor WIAC teams since outside of them, very few other teams get that chance.

(*That is if you accept that a game in which a team trailed 35-7 early in the second quarter, never got closer than 14, trailed by at least 21 for the entirety of the 4th quarter, and lost by 35 is "close")

You've set up a condition that roughly 98% of Division III cannot even attempt to meet in any given year, and you're essentially penalizing them for not doing it.

[wally_wabash]

The real problem with using the "How many teams outside the Top 8 would stay close* with UWO and UWW" question to determine Pool C validity is that it's inherently biased in favor WIAC teams since outside of them, very few other teams get that chance.

You've set up a condition that roughly 98% of Division III cannot even attempt to meet in any given year, and you're essentially penalizing them for not doing it.

Yes.  Yes.  YES. All of this here.  This is pretty much perfect.