Pool C -- 2015

[smedindy]

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.

Bravo. Mt. Union or UWW isn't the standard we're comparing to. We're comparing teams against the criteria first and foremost.

I wonder, has anyone moaned or complained about swimming since not everyone can swim at Kenyon's level (or Denison's)? No, they make nationals based on criteria, not can this individual swim with Kenyon's best swimmer at that event.

[AO]

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.

What do you propose?  That the criteria includes guessing how teams would have fared if they had played against better teams? 

In a better system that included margin of victory you could compare a close loss to Whitewater with a big win over Plymouth State.   It would matter how you performed against your schedule, rather than how tough your schedule is.   Until that criteria is added we need to avoid penalizing losses to Whitewater as if it was equivalent to a loss to Plymouth State.  So strength of schedule is going to be an advantage for the MIAC and WIAC to counteract the criteria impact from losses to better teams.

[Bombers798891]

Until that criteria is added we need to avoid penalizing losses to Whitewater as if it was equivalent to a loss to Plymouth State. 

No one's saying otherwise. But you have to use some criteria that every team at least has the potential to meet.

The statement that started all this was: "How many other teams outside the Top 8 can stay close to UWO/UWW?" Of the 220 or so non-top 8, non-WIAC teams in Division III, there is one school that we can answer that for: Finlandia. That's it.

So we're essentially trying to say that the WIAC deserves a 3rd team because they accomplished* something Finlandia didn't.

*Again, this supposes that a 35-point loss is close. It's not IMO, but YMMV

[jaybird44]

This next question ties in to wallywabash's list of important Pool B/C games this week:

What chance would Wash-U have (if any) to get considered for a Pool C berth, if it finishes the end of the regular season 8-2?

The Bears (5-2) play at Case-Western Reserve (6-1) this week.  They would seem to have a decent SOS if they ran the table, but since Rhodes finished 8-2 last season in the SAA and didn't get in, I know that getting a bid for Wash-U would be a long shot.

[AO]

Until that criteria is added we need to avoid penalizing losses to Whitewater as if it was equivalent to a loss to Plymouth State. 

No one's saying otherwise. But you have to use some criteria that every team at least has the potential to meet.

The statement that started all this was: "How many other teams outside the Top 8 can stay close to UWO/UWW?" Of the 220 or so non-top 8, non-WIAC teams in Division III, there is one school that we can answer that for: Finlandia. That's it.

So we're essentially trying to say that the WIAC deserves a 3rd team because they accomplished* something Finlandia didn't.

*Again, this supposes that a 35-point loss is close. It's not IMO, but YMMV

I might be reading too much into your opposition.   I just fear this:  "I'm not giving them full credit for their SOS advantage since they got it from just happening to be in a tough conference.   They didn't have to schedule those games".

[wally_wabash]

This next question ties in to wallywabash's list of important Pool B/C games this week:

What chance would Wash-U have (if any) to get considered for a Pool C berth, if it finishes the end of the regular season 8-2?

The Bears (5-2) play at Case-Western Reserve (6-1) this week.  They would seem to have a decent SOS if they ran the table, but since Rhodes finished 8-2 last season in the SAA and didn't get in, I know that getting a bid for Wash-U would be a long shot.

Wash U, the good:  They have games remaining with CWRU (6-1), Chicago (5-2), Hendrix (5-2).  All of these games will push up Washington's already respectable SOS. 

Wash U, the bad: The minute Washington beats any of those teams, those teams won't be regionally ranked, which is going to leave Washington in a position where they have a pretty good SOS and an 0-1 record against RROs (Berry, who by all means should be ranked). 

Wash U, the unfortunate: they're going to be behind the loser of UMHB/HSU no matter what.  My hunch is that they'll be behind TLU also, even if I'm not sure TLU's profile really supports that.  Guilford is a problem if they get to 9-1.  The SRFP right now is ranking W&J...which I don't think I agree with, but if that's a thing that happens, there's another WashU obstacle.  And that's just the South region.  There may be only one at-large viable team in the North and East regions, but there are a bunch in the South and West, which makes it difficult for a team like Washington this year. 

But if Washington closes out win/win/win against those teams and are a clean runner up in the SAA, who knows what else might happen.  A lot of teams can have their profiles get crushed in the last three weeks.  Right now though- Washington is a super long shot. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

This next question ties in to wallywabash's list of important Pool B/C games this week:

What chance would Wash-U have (if any) to get considered for a Pool C berth, if it finishes the end of the regular season 8-2?

The Bears (5-2) play at Case-Western Reserve (6-1) this week.  They would seem to have a decent SOS if they ran the table, but since Rhodes finished 8-2 last season in the SAA and didn't get in, I know that getting a bid for Wash-U would be a long shot.

I've still got the UAA roots so of course I'd be pulling for it, but I'm going with "minimal" unless a whole lotta dominoes fall their way. 

- If WashU beat Case, and then Case beat Thomas More and CMU to win the PAC at 8-2, they would be in the tournament and might be regionally ranked.  Any 8-2 team you need a feather in your cap like an RR win, to that's the first thing that would probably have to happen: Case wins the PAC and squeezes into the last South RR's at 8-2. 

- they lost to Berry and Centre.  Berry is currently 6-1, Centre is 5-2.  Berry and Centre play in their last game.  I don't know if either scenario (Berry wins or Centre wins) is favorable for WashU.

If Centre wins, that puts another 8-2 team with a h2h win over WashU into the discussion (if Berry wins the next two weeks, they would win the league even with a loss to Centre)

If Berry wins, that gives WashU a loss against likely 9-1 RR'd Berry and 7-3 probably-not-RR'd Centre.

I don't know which of those is better for WashU, really.  It's probably worse if Centre wins, because that probably puts Centre in front of them in the South RR's (if either gets there at all) and I don't see two 8-2 teams from the SAA both getting in (not when you look at the long list of C candidates from the West that would have stronger resumes).  One might get in if they end up first or second on the South list of teams getting discussed, but it's not a guarantee that will happen, either.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

Clarification - I should have said "how many teams outside either the Top 8 or the WIAC would have done better.." as UWSP obviously did better against both UWW and UWO than did UWP.  My mistake.  Or I could have said "how many teams from the insert (South) or (East) conference would have done better...?"

The larger point I was trying to make is that it sucks that our system penalizes a team for 2 league losses to Top 7 ranked teams when only a small fraction of the teams in the country would do better.  They'll be overlooked in the playoffs for a 9-1 team from a weaker conference who will lose by a lot to a team that loses by a lot to Wesley or MUC or MHB.

[wally_wabash]

The larger point I was trying to make is that it sucks that our system penalizes a team for 2 league losses to Top 7 ranked teams when only a small fraction of the teams in the country would do better.  They'll be overlooked in the playoffs for a 9-1 team from a weaker conference who will lose by a lot to a team that loses by a lot to Wesley or MUC or MHB.

I don't think that you can really say this.  I'm not sure we've seen an instance where a two-loss team, with losses to Top 7 ranked teams, have been passed up for a 9-1 team with very little else on the profile except for high win percentage.  You seem convinced that the system is going to jam Platteville based on prior experience- except that I don't think that prior experience exists.  And you're still stuck on this weaker conference thing which couldn't matter less.  The damn strength-of-conference thing is the biggest set of jingle keys ever.  Turn that channel off, man.  It's not important here. 

The only time that I recall a scenario close to this is 2011 Oshkosh.  2011 Oshkosh lost to Mount Union (by a bunch), lost to Whitewater (by a field goal).  Slam dunk in, right?  Except that they went and lost to La Crosse in the week after the UWW game and blew it all up.  They didn't get to the clubhouse with those two losses.  If Platteville does get home at 8-2, I think they've got a good chance. 

[Bombers798891]

Or I could have said "how many teams from the insert (South) or (East) conference would have done better...?"

Who knows? They don't play UWW or UWO. Word it however you want, the fact is unchanged. We don't know how any of these teams could have done. If Buff State hadn't played Whitewater in 2012, we'd assume that no East team could have hung with them that year. You've asked a question that has no possible answer, and that means we can't just make one up that suits us.

[wabndy]

In a better system that included margin of victory you could compare a close loss to Whitewater with a big win over Plymouth State.   It would matter how you performed against your schedule, rather than how tough your schedule is.

We already do have that criteria - more or less.  Two of the official criteria:
- Results versus common Division III opponents;
- Results versus regionally ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection.


So if you had a north and west region team on the board, both with a loss to their respective region #1s, and one played the game close and the other got blown out, then all other criteria being equal the one who played it close should be selected first.  This criteria acknowledges the fact that: 1) that the selection committee are composed of some really knowledgable people who are intimately familiar with the state of the sport at this level, 2) creating a PF/PA criteria is not in keeping with the philosophy of D3 athletics and is largely meaningless given the lack of overlapping competition we have around the nation.  To use your example, a hard fought loss against UWW does mean something and, when trying to compare any two schools, might be a positive.  On the other hand, I don't really care that much about how many points (on the low or high side) a team in the Pool C conversation won by against a Plymouth State, and when comparing results and neither does the selection committee- unless we using them as a common opponent comparison.

[Bombers798891]

I might be reading too much into your opposition.   I just fear this:  "I'm not giving them full credit for their SOS advantage since they got it from just happening to be in a tough conference.   They didn't have to schedule those games".

You are, although that's partially my fault.

Of course, the quality of teams you play matter, and playing tougher teams should be rewarded over playing weaker ones. And those are...that's why we use results against RRO and calculate SOS.

My issue is that we can't get too specific with it. We can say, for example, that UWP deserves to get in over a 2-loss Buffalo State because they played a tougher schedule and more difficult opponents. That should be shown in the RRO/SOS results.

But what we can't do is set up scenarios there's literally no answer to. We can't say, "UWP deserves to get in over Buffalo State in 2015 because had Buff State played UWO and UWW in 2015, they would have lost by more than 35 and 10 points." There's no way to prove that one way or the other. Buff State played Whitewater twice. Once it went exactly how we thought it would, once it went exactly the opposite. We don't know what would happen if they played in 2015, just like we didn't know in 2011 what was going to happen in 2012/2013

[wally_wabash]

Alright, let's project.  Quickly, here's the deal:
- In 2015 we have 25 Automatic Qualifiers (Pool A), which are determined by each qualifying conference.  Those champions qualify, if there are funky ties, the conferences are responsible for breaking those multi-team ties and they all do it differently.  I'm sure we'll see this one or two places this year. 
- We have just one Pool B bid, which comes from teams that don't play in conferences that qualify for Pool A (this year those leagues are the ASC and the SCAC) and Independents. 
- That leaves us with 6 extra bids for Pool C, which is everybody who didn't make the Pool A and B cuts. 
The process is as follows:
- The automatic qualifiers are placed first and removed from further consideration...they're already in, after all. 
- The top ranked team eligible for Pool B (based on the NCAA's regional rankings) from each region will be considered together.  The criteria will be applied and discussed and the committee will vote on those four teams and the top vote getter goes in.  Now, I've given you a bit of an okie-doke here, because only the South Region has Pool B eligible teams.  I suppose that Finlandia is eligible from the North, but we can safely assume that they aren't making it. 
- With the Pool B bid awarded, we move on to Pool C, using the same process: top ranked team from each region is considered, one of those four is selected, and the selected team is replaced on the tableau by the next ranked team from that region. 

Good?  Next week we'll have official NCAA rankings, for this week I'm going to use the fan polls as surrogate rankings.  The people voting in those do a great job.  I do have a couple of alterations from those rankings, which I'll highlight when we get there.  Alright, let's do this. 
First, my projected Pool A bids through Week 8:

League	Team
CC	Johns Hopkins
CCIW	Wheaton
ECFC	Husson
Empire 8	Cortland State
HCAC	Franklin
IIAC	Dubuque
LL	St. Lawrence
MAC	Delaware Valley
MASCAC	Framingham State
MIAA	Olivet
MIAC	St. Thomas
MWC	St. Norbert
NACC	Lakeland
NCAC	Wabash
NEFC	Western NE
NJAC	Wesley
NWC	Linfield
OAC	Mount Union
ODAC	Washington & Lee
PAC	Thomas More
SAA	Berry
SCIAC	La Verne
UMAC	St. Scholastica
USAC	Huntingdon
WIAC	UW-Oshkosh

Now I'll take a quick break and show you what we've got left over in the regional rankings after we remove the Pool A teams:
North: Illinois Wesleyan, Wittenberg, DePauw, Rose-Hulman
South: UMHB, Hardin-Simmons, TLU, CWRU, W&J, Guilford
East: Salisbury, Albright, Rowan, Stevenson, Alfred
West: UW-Whitewater, St. John's, UW-Platteville, Concordia-Moorhead, Wartburg

Two notes:
- The North region poll is ranking North Central at 4-3 and I tossed them out.  I don't think that 3-loss record leaps the other at-large teams in the region.  I know- they played a hard schedule.  there's a penalty for losing though and we've never seen a 3-loss team selected here. If the North RAC ranks NCC above these teams next week, we'll plug the Cardinals in then. 
- In the West I flip flopped Concordia-Moorhead and Platteville.  CMC has a poor SOS and is 0-1 vs. RROs. Platteville has a great SOS and is 2-2 vs. RROs.  I'd be shocked if this isn't the correct order. 

Pool B (1 bid)
We have only South teams in play here, so the work is done for us.  The bid goes to top ranked Mary Hardin-Baylor (6-0, 0.451 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs).  We'll see in a minute that Hardin-Simmons smashes UMHB's SOS, but UMHB has a lot of capital banked (not a criteria, I know) and have a better result vs. the ranked common opponent (TLU). 

Pool C (6 bids)
Round 1:
N: Illinois Wesleyan (7-0 w/l record, 0.555 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: UW-Whitewater (5-1, 0.593, 1-1)

If you're new to this, I kind of write this stream-of-consciousness style, so I may say something now and be completely wrong about it by the time I get to the end.  Before I go any further, I think all of these teams are going in.  Good profiles across the board here.  I'm going to fudge here a little bit and pretend that IWU has a loss (they have to if they're going to be in Pool C).  That puts me pretty squarely on Whitewater as the pick.  One interesting thing happening here is that Belhaven is not counting against Whitewater's SOS...but Morningside isn't counting either so it's kind of a push.  If we're quibbling over IWU and UWW here, secondary criteria favor UWW thanks to that win vs. Morningside. 

Round 2:
N: Illinois Wesleyan (7-0 w/l record, 0.555 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: St. John's (6-1, 0.589, 2-1)

For the sake of consistency, we'll keep assuming IWU has a loss.  St. John's has kind of a bonus RRO win in there thanks to Dubuque's having a solid IIAC campaign.  That second win and the SOS advantage make St. John's the choice.

Round 3:
N: Illinois Wesleyan (7-0 w/l record, 0.555 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: UW-Platteville (5-2, .616, 2-2)

Now it gets tough. Had Platteville played a little closer with Oshkosh, you'd feel better about moving them right in with 2 RRO wins and that ridiculous SOS.  But win percentage is a criteria too, and that result isn't good.  Hardin-Simmons may suffer a similar fate on Saturday as UWP did vs. UWO...or they could really help their case by losing close (or winning, which moves them to Pool B and UMHB here to Pool C).  I'm going to select Illinois Wesleyan here.  They have a nice SOS which will be helped by upcoming games with North Central and Wheaton.  Keep an eye on the CCIW though.  That conference could well end with tai-champs and the tiebreak there can do funny things.  This is also an interesting intersection because we're about to have a common opponent situation with Platteville and IWU. 

Round 4:
N: Wittenberg (5-2 w/l record, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: UW-Platteville (5-2, .616, 2-2)

I think that's gonna do it for the North.  Really shallow pool of at-large teams there this year.  This is where Platteville's SOS really comes into play.  Two RRO wins and a full .100 advantage over their closest rivals here.  That .100 margin is HUGE.  I can't overstate that.  Platteville is my choice. 

Round 5:
N: Wittenberg (5-2 w/l record, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RROs)
S: Hardin-Simmons (5-0, 0.518, 1-0)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: Concordia-Moorhead (6-1, 0.459, 0-1)

CMC can obviously help themselves over the next two weeks, but for now, that profile isn't getting them in.  Same with Witt.  And at this point we've had HSU and Salisbury waiting around for four rounds and they'll have some voting inertia here.  So much of this will come down to games vs. UMHB and Wesley, respectively, but at this moment I'm going to take Hardin-Simmons.  I think the RRO wins are about equal here (TLU/Rowan), Salisbury has an early loss to Albright (who could easily be ranked ahead of Salisbury in any case), but something that's not showing up here is a cancelled game vs. TCNJ.  TCNJ would do damage to Salisbury's SOS and they wouldn't look quite as nice in this spot.  So Hardin-Simmons goes in, and Salisbury is now on the bubble. 

Round 6:
N: Wittenberg (5-2 w/l record, 0.543 SOS, 0-2 vs. RROs)
S: Texas Lutheran (4-2, 0.540, 0-2)
E: Salisbury (5-1, 0.515, 1-1)
W: Concordia-Moorhead (6-1, 0.459, 0-1)

The last choice is usually pretty tough, but this time it isn't.  Salisbury has been waiting for five rounds now, they are the only team on the board with a quality win, and the SOS isn't awful (albeit a little bit of fool's gold).  Pretty easy pick off of this board, really. 

And with all of that said, keep in mind that SOS's can and will fluctuate in a major way over the last three weeks, which will  have an impact on the selections.  Also, we're going to see teams fall out of the rankings and other teams move in, which will have a major domino effect.  Platteville is less sexy if North Central takes a fourth loss and falls out of the rankings.  And do keep in mind that the only rankings that count for RRO purposes are the final rankings (which we don't see)- there is no once ranked, always ranked situation. 

That's what I've got for the first go round in 2015.  We'll do it again next Wednesday after the NCAA releases the first set of rankings. 

[wally_wabash]

And I just want to point out that my Pool C's go to the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, WIAC, ASC, and NJAC.  So can we please simmer on the hand wringing about how the process jams the "better" leagues?  It doesn't.  The criteria generally get us to the right teams. 

[smedindy]

I was just going to say that Wally.

Last year it was little different, but we had an unbeaten team, a TLU team with one loss and a Muhlenberg team that was definitely on the bubble but proved worthy even in defeat. Mainly, the objection was that Muhlenberg had no track record. Well, that's not a criteria.