Pool C -- 2015

[USee]

Here is an honest question for you Wally. You mentioned somewhere (I can't remember where) that there is no way the committee was so intentional so as to not put UWP in the field so as to avoid 3 WIAC teams making the tournament (correct me if I mis-represented this). Why do you think that's not possible when just 2 years ago the committee chair admitted on the air they would not take 3 Pool C's from the same region (Wabash being the victim)? If they admittedly wouldn't take 3 C's from the same region, it sure seems likely they weren't going to take 3 from the same conference. Now they obviously took 3 from the West this year so my question isn't necessarily about the relative truth of a single claim more than its about the bias of a group of individuals trying to be "objective".

[USee]

Art,

Thanks. I was fully aware your analysis was limited to the top 4 seeds. My point was meant as an addendum, which you then clarified even better than I did. Thanks

[wally_wabash]

Here is an honest question for you Wally. You mentioned somewhere (I can't remember where) that there is no way the committee was so intentional so as to not put UWP in the field so as to avoid 3 WIAC teams making the tournament (correct me if I mis-represented this). Why do you think that's not possible when just 2 years ago the committee chair admitted on the air they would not take 3 Pool C's from the same region (Wabash being the victim)? If they admittedly wouldn't take 3 C's from the same region, it sure seems likely they weren't going to take 3 from the same conference. Now they obviously took 3 from the West this year so my question isn't necessarily about the relative truth of a single claim more than its about the bias of a group of individuals trying to be "objective".

Great question and it ties in perfectly to what I believe to have happened this year with ONU.  Bear with me (no pun intended)...I'll get to that. 

First, I think what the chairman said in his ITH interview in 2013 was incredibly miscalculated.  Now keep in mind that in 2013, we only had 5 Cs to work with, so generally speaking the odds that one region would gobble up three of those five were slim.  With two years to reflect, I really think that's all he meant by that.  I don't think his meaning was that the committee just stopped considering the North after JCU and IWU went in. 

Now let's deep dive into the order of selection from 2013 and why it went down the way it went down.  I think Framingham was probably the top ranked at-large team from the East and they went in through Pool B.  When Pool C started, SJF was there in round one, just like what we saw with ONU this year.  Wabash would have come into play no earlier than the third round, maybe the 4th round if Platteville went in before IWU (possible).  So the committee has had SJF on their plate for at least two rounds, maybe three.  When Wabash comes in, how many committee members are going to be so overwhelmed by Wabash's 9-1, 0-1 vs. RRO profile to jump them over SJF?  Maybe some, but clearly not enough (and that year's committee definitely had a SOS, RRO results lean...that was also clear from the chairman's interview).  So part of what happened there was that SJF had ballot capital by the time Wabash showed up to the party.  So in the third round (best case scenario for Wabash), Wabash is balloting behind UWP and SJF (one of these went in, probably UWP).  In the next round, PLU comes in and they crushed Wabash.  So Wabash is behind SJF and PLU (in some order).  In round 5, Wabash is still behind whoever was left over.  Wabash needed one more round to get in. 

Now, fast forward to this year.  ONU was there from jump street.  When Guilford finally makes the board (Probably Round 4 or 5), are they an obvious choice to go ahead of ONU?  There's a case to be made that they aren't.  Again, when a new team comes in, they have to have an overwhelming profile to leap over teams that have already been there.  In our mock, Guilford did jump over ONU.  But we're only three voters.  That dynamic can (and clearly did) look much different with eight voters. 

I have no doubt that UW-Platteville would have been selected here had they ever been on the table.  They had an overwhelming profile, particularly as it compares to Ohio Northern.  The West RAC gets side eye here for ranking Whitworth ahead of Platteville, which I *guess* is somewhat defensible, even if I really, really disagree with that choice. 

And that's a really long winded way to not completely answer your question.  My genuine feeling here is that the committees, regional or national, don't give a single thought to what conference any particular team plays in.  I think they evaluate teams based on the criteria and rank them. Obviously, these people are aware of who plays in what league.  But I don't think it has any real effect on the process in the "hey, we're getting a little North heavy" or "hey, maybe that's enough WIAC for this year" kind of way. 

[Frank Rossi]

Here is an honest question for you Wally. You mentioned somewhere (I can't remember where) that there is no way the committee was so intentional so as to not put UWP in the field so as to avoid 3 WIAC teams making the tournament (correct me if I mis-represented this). Why do you think that's not possible when just 2 years ago the committee chair admitted on the air they would not take 3 Pool C's from the same region (Wabash being the victim)? If they admittedly wouldn't take 3 C's from the same region, it sure seems likely they weren't going to take 3 from the same conference. Now they obviously took 3 from the West this year so my question isn't necessarily about the relative truth of a single claim more than its about the bias of a group of individuals trying to be "objective".

When we pressed the NCAA on this question, we were sent a clarification that specifically said that Director Naatz believed the odds for three out of five in the way Greg described earlier would be virtually impossible to expect.  He had left his comments wide open in a moment of fatigue so that we all were concerned he meant it was somehow impossible.  The clarification was intended to remove such concern.

I reasoned back then, as Greg has repeated a couple times in this thread, that there is some feasible reason for this to not happen in most years.  The number of quality "no brainer" Pool C usually ends at 2, 3, or in rare years, 4.  In the meantime, the other teams are rolling up the ballots of the Committee members.  When the quality of new teams dissipates, those teams rolling up ballots will eventually find themselves selected in many cases.  Also note that this year, the sixth pick was the third West team.  As such, the idea of not having three picks in the first five from the same region from a practical point of view still makes sense.  If Platteville was placed above Whitworth, we would've probably seen an exception to this idea -- but the lineup of teams created the different scenario we witnessed.

[Pat Coleman]

Definitely start a playoff thread -- appreciate you asking but you didn't necessarily need my blessing.

[ExTartanPlayer]

After watching JHU on Saturday I doubt they'd be more than a third place team in the NWC, MIAC, WIAC, ASC, or OAC. Past year's results show that the CC doesn't do well in the playoffs with the exception of one close Wesley loss. So their receiving a #2 seed is a matter of geography not on field competitiveness. I didn't see any playmakers for them that are next level guys which is what you have to have to win in the playoffs. Next level meaning guys that would start at the D2 or D1-AA schools and do well.

The West region got three of the four #1 seeds.  And you're still complaining about this stuff?

Anyways, the idea that Hopkins couldn't be more than a third-place team in this year's OAC is laughable.  Here's what the three teams who tied for second in the OAC did in non-league play this year

John Carroll beat 4-6 St. Vincent 26-3 (for reference, I watched St. Vincent lose to Carnegie Mellon by four touchdowns)
Ohio Northern beat 4-6 Utica 29-22
Baldwin-Wallace lost to 6-4 Bluffton 38-26

The OAC has had some good years as a conference; this was not one of them.  We've always said that Mount Union's dominance makes it hard to gauge the league as a whole, but the limited non-league results we have this year are...not good.  Johns Hopkins beat a bunch of teams that are at least as good as those three (St. Vincent, Utica, Bluffton) by significantly wider margins.

[wartknight]

After watching JHU on Saturday I doubt they'd be more than a third place team in the NWC, MIAC, WIAC, ASC, or OAC. Past year's results show that the CC doesn't do well in the playoffs with the exception of one close Wesley loss. So their receiving a #2 seed is a matter of geography not on field competitiveness. I didn't see any playmakers for them that are next level guys which is what you have to have to win in the playoffs. Next level meaning guys that would start at the D2 or D1-AA schools and do well.

I don't think you're even trying to know what you're talking about.

lol!
+k

[smedindy]

After watching JHU on Saturday I doubt they'd be more than a third place team in the NWC, MIAC, WIAC, ASC, or OAC. Past year's results show that the CC doesn't do well in the playoffs with the exception of one close Wesley loss. So their receiving a #2 seed is a matter of geography not on field competitiveness. I didn't see any playmakers for them that are next level guys which is what you have to have to win in the playoffs. Next level meaning guys that would start at the D2 or D1-AA schools and do well.

I don't think you're even trying to know what you're talking about.

"Hey, I watched one game from this year's team, and I can totally relate the results of the 2012 CC champ onto this team!"

For CRIPES sake, JHU was playing McDaniel, who are traditionally horrid (and this year went 0-10). They already clinched, so they probably were in "nobody get hurt" mode instead of "we need to crush them like the infidels they are" mode.

Playing a egregious team also can make you look worse than you are.

[emma17]

After watching JHU on Saturday I doubt they'd be more than a third place team in the NWC, MIAC, WIAC, ASC, or OAC. Past year's results show that the CC doesn't do well in the playoffs with the exception of one close Wesley loss. So their receiving a #2 seed is a matter of geography not on field competitiveness. I didn't see any playmakers for them that are next level guys which is what you have to have to win in the playoffs. Next level meaning guys that would start at the D2 or D1-AA schools and do well.

Walla,
I won't jump all over you just because you have an opinion.  I think your point is- has JHU done enough to warrant a #2 seed?  I know you and I share similar opinions in that we want recent history to help inform these types of decisions.  You and I agree that JHU doesn't have a track record of beating the best when they play.  I think the issue here is who else could be the #2 in this region other than Wesley?  I see rationale in selecting Wesley as the #2 over JHU.  However, I also see rationale for JHU at #2, and given Wesley's less than convincing season, along with JHU very much holding their own against Wesley two seasons ago, I'm in favor of their #2 as I just don't see enough evidence against it. 
Anyway, I can see why you raise the question.

[smedindy]

Because of the travel mandates, someone has to be the "#2" in the Mt. Union bracket. JHU is no doubt the best fit for that bracket.

[smedindy]

I have no doubt that UW-Platteville would have been selected here had they ever been on the table.  They had an overwhelming profile, particularly as it compares to Ohio Northern.  The West RAC gets side eye here for ranking Whitworth ahead of Platteville, which I *guess* is somewhat defensible, even if I really, really disagree with that choice. 

Food for thought, Whitworth was one of three NWC teams (the others George Fox and Pacific, the two relative newbies) to play 10 games. The others played nine. Would an 8-1 Whitworth go in still? Was that extra game what pushed them over?

[K-Mack]

Again, when a new team comes in, they have to have an overwhelming profile to leap over teams that have already been there.

In the meantime, the other teams are rolling up the ballots of the Committee members.  When the quality of new teams dissipates, those teams rolling up ballots will eventually find themselves selected in many cases.

What do you guys attribute this to? Human nature?

I think the committee members have a responsbility to evaluate all four teams evenly each time they reset the board. There should be no residual effect from having been on the board previously.

[wabndy]

What do you guys attribute this to? Human nature?

I think the committee members have a responsbility to evaluate all four teams evenly each time they reset the board. There should be no residual effect from having been on the board previously.

Yes- and it's not that unreasonable. If you are on the national committee then you are relying on the wisdom of the RACs- made up of members who know the teams, have seen them play, etc. to give you a definitive but subjective ranking of who is who. The criteria are a guide but the ncaa chooses to let humans make the final call. So you get a list of ten from each region. The committee has a knock down drag out argument between say W5 and E2. It's close. It's very close. You could almost flip a coin between these two hypothetical teams but for whatever reason W5 gets in and next round is replaced by W6. I don't think it's unfair for the national committee to give credence to the RAC slotting W5 ahead of W6 to the point that if you are discussing the next round and E2 almost got in but didn't, and is now being compared to W6, who the RAC told you wasn't as good as W5, that the E2 voters are not likely at all to switch their vote and those that were on the fence but voted for W5 are going to be hard pressed to say that W6 should still get in over that strong E2 candidate. Keep that up over multiple rounds and you get some huge momentum going into round 6.

[emma17]

What do you guys attribute this to? Human nature?

I think the committee members have a responsbility to evaluate all four teams evenly each time they reset the board. There should be no residual effect from having been on the board previously.

Yes- and it's not that unreasonable. If you are on the national committee then you are relying on the wisdom of the RACs- made up of members who know the teams, have seen them play, etc. to give you a definitive but subjective ranking of who is who. The criteria are a guide but the ncaa chooses to let humans make the final call. So you get a list of ten from each region. The committee has a knock down drag out argument between say W5 and E2. It's close. It's very close. You could almost flip a coin between these two hypothetical teams but for whatever reason W5 gets in and next round is replaced by W6. I don't think it's unfair for the national committee to give credence to the RAC slotting W5 ahead of W6 to the point that if you are discussing the next round and E2 almost got in but didn't, and is now being compared to W6, who the RAC told you wasn't as good as W5, that the E2 voters are not likely at all to switch their vote and those that were on the fence but voted for W5 are going to be hard pressed to say that W6 should still get in over that strong E2 candidate. Keep that up over multiple rounds and you get some huge momentum going into round 6.

I think this scenario plays out if in fact the national committee is living in a vacuum.  It's hard to believe the national committee doesn't have an awareness of the overall landscape of D3 football though.  It's hard for me to believe the national committee wasn't already aware of an 8-2 UWP as well as the other likely candidates.  Even if ONU was on the board for a while, the committee must have been aware of the rising pez in the West dispenser. 

[smedindy]

But they can't take that into account. They have to deal with the four ON the board and evaluate them. The more you look at something, the better it looks, really. That's human nature.