Pool C -- 2015

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

Nice try!  You're clearly screwing the WIAC.  You didn't put in UW-Stevens Point, who only lost by an average of 7.7 points to UW-Whitewater, UW-Oshkosh, and UW-Platteville.  East Coast bias, man.

(Great work, as always...now time to look at this and try to figure out who's actually going to be in Pool C when the rent comes due)

Acknowledging the constraints of the exercise, it's probably worth noting which of these teams has another loss (or losable game) coming and who has a really, really high likelihood of winning out.

IWU: games with NCC and Wheaton (ceiling: 10-0 Pool A, floor: 8-2 and maybe out)
Hardin-Simmons: game with UMHB and ETBU (ceiling: 10-0 Pool B, floor: 8-2 and maybe out)
Salisbury: games with Wesley and surprisingly 6-1 Frostburg State (ceiling: 9-1 Pool C, floor: 7-3 and out)
UW-Whitewater: probably out of the woods unless there's a major upset
St. John's: probably should win out, although Bethel could be tough
UW-Platteville: probably out of the woods unless there's a major upset
Wittenberg: should win out, but seems like a longshot for the field even if they do
Concordia-Moorhead: plays UST this week, could force three-way tie in MIAC
Texas Lutheran: plays 6-1 Trinity this week

(those are just the teams that made it to the discussion table; there are plenty of other games of interest involving the teams just off the board right now which could change the equation here, such as CWRU vs. Thomas More...an upset there would bring TMC into the Pool C mix)

Of course some of these teams, if they hit their "ceiling" will be replaced by the teams they've beaten (IWU would be swapped out for Wheaton, Hardin-Simmons would be swapped out for UMHB, etc).  And then if Trinity beats TLU, obviously they will jump TLU in the South RR's.  Speaking of which, in the SRFP we all just kinda ditched Trinity after their loss to HSU, but beating TLU this week might put them back into play in the South RR's (or have a domino effect of removing someone else from the RR's).

As usual, wally has done outstanding work giving us an idea what the teams would look like if selection were happening today with the regular season incomplete.  I'm just trying to add a few extra pieces here by showing who has big games coming that might either win them the league (and change who appears in Pool C) or knock them down a peg to the 8-2 line, where they might get jumped in the RR's.  All season, wally has done a great job posting up the Pool C elimination games.  We'll have a bunch coming this week and next.

[USee]

If Wheaton ends up swapped for IWU the process probably changes quite a bit. Wheaton will have a significanlty worse SOS than IWU and potentially no RRO wins. There is also a chance (we will know after Saturday) that both IWU and Wheaton are in the North with 1 loss.

[wally_wabash]

If Wheaton ends up swapped for IWU the process probably changes quite a bit. Wheaton will have a significanlty worse SOS than IWU and potentially no RRO wins. There is also a chance (we will know after Saturday) that both IWU and Wheaton are in the North with 1 loss.

10-0 IWU winning the CCIW is probably a worst case scenario for Wheaton.  However, unless a second loss happens for the Thunder, I can't see a scenario where they aren't the first at-large team from the North.  And that's half the battle right there.  I'm not sweating about Wheaton too much at this point. 

[USee]

Well, if NCC beats IWU and then IWU beats Wheaton and NCC wins the tiebreaker, you could have IWU and Wheaton as one loss at large teams w IWU owning the H2H.  It's implausible but not impossible.

[ExTartanPlayer]

If Wheaton ends up swapped for IWU the process probably changes quite a bit. Wheaton will have a significanlty worse SOS than IWU and potentially no RRO wins. There is also a chance (we will know after Saturday) that both IWU and Wheaton are in the North with 1 loss.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  I didn't mean that the selection would just happen the same way, only that it would exchange which teams were in the discussion if some of these league titles go opposite the anticipated result.

[art76]

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.

Very nice Wally, always a treat to see what you do every year. Thanx!

[AO]

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

I'm not trying to defend the scenario as if it's part of the criteria.  UWP is getting in over Buffalo State in 2015 because Buffalo State doesn't have as strong of a schedule.  We don't have the option of saying "we don't know what would happen", all we have is the teams that they did play this year.

[AO]

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.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

[jknezek]

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.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

I've never seen Wally do this. He, and I and others, have argued against changing the criteria to build in a preference for the power conferences, but we have generally said the current criteria, while not perfect, works pretty well. I like how it currently works, except SOS is a flawed number to base decisions on.

Unfortunately I struggle to come up with a quantitative alternative. My best idea is to give more weight to RROs and go back to once ranked, always ranked, but give an extra weight to the final regional ranking teams. So instead of all weeks being equal, have the first set of RROs worth a fraction of what the final week is worth. Finally, use a modified SOS for the RROs as a measure, so if you go 0-2 against RROs that are 1-5 in the final rankings, that's worth more than going 0-2 against RROs that are 6-10 in the final rankings. Wins are worth more than losses, but a loss to #1 is worth a significant fraction of a win over #10.

That would also make it complex enough that the RR committees might not be tempted to do the bit of monkeying around we've seen, like putting TLU through as the "B" instead of Centre last year.

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

No, that's not true at all.  You're the one who keeps bringing up conferences.  wally has posted several times by now that conference affiliation does not really come up in the selection process.  The teams get weighed against the teams.  That's it.  Nobody brings up that this team plays in the MIAC or that team plays in the Centennial Conference.  The teams come to the board.  The criteria of each team is presented: record, SOS, RRO's, and so on.  "Conference" is not a criteria, no matter how much you want it to be.

[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.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

I don't really care about the conferences at all.  If the criteria point me to a team from the WIAC, awesome.  If it points me to a team from the MAC, still awesome.  I'm not particular about where these at-large teams come from.  What does get my dander up is the notion that we should be funneling these at-large bids to teams from a select few conferences that we have arbitrarily decided are "the best".  That shouldn't be happening. 

Re: scheduling.  This is a really, really hard thing.  First, there's a lot more that goes into scheduling that just trying to find a partner that will help your at-large profile.  Plus you can't possibly know 2 or 3 or more years out that the team you've scheduled a home and home with is still going to be helpful by the time you get to those games.  Outside of just a small handful of teams, that part of the equation is very volatile.  Economics matter in scheduling.  Institutional partnerships matter.  Visibility in recruiting areas matter.  There are a ton of things that matter when it comes to scheduling non-conference games other than "how is that team going to affect my SOS?" 

[AO]

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.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the current criteria since it gives too much preference to the power conferences.  I can certainly sympathize with a player from a 9-1 team in a conference with only 2 solid teams, but if you're in charge of scheduling, you've got to find some great teams if you're going to be considered for an at-large bid.

I don't really care about the conferences at all.  If the criteria point me to a team from the WIAC, awesome.  If it points me to a team from the MAC, still awesome.  I'm not particular about where these at-large teams come from.  What does get my dander up is the notion that we should be funneling these at-large bids to teams from a select few conferences that we have arbitrarily decided are "the best".  That shouldn't be happening. 

Re: scheduling.  This is a really, really hard thing.  First, there's a lot more that goes into scheduling that just trying to find a partner that will help your at-large profile.  Plus you can't possibly know 2 or 3 or more years out that the team you've scheduled a home and home with is still going to be helpful by the time you get to those games.  Outside of just a small handful of teams, that part of the equation is very volatile.  Economics matter in scheduling.  Institutional partnerships matter.  Visibility in recruiting areas matter.  There are a ton of things that matter when it comes to scheduling non-conference games other than "how is that team going to affect my SOS?"

Forgive me for skipping a couple steps ahead on the conference talk.  I'm considering power conference to be equivalent with high SOS.  If your conference went 14-4 in the non-conference like the MIAC and others do every year, then you're going to have a criteria advantage before we even consider your W-L.  Since SOS also plays a major part in the regional rankings, the power conferences have a huge boost.  Oddly enough, Concordia-Moorhead might have managed to squander their boost by scheduling non-countable Jamestown and winless Eau-Claire. 

You're right, teams really do need to find the "small handful of teams" who are good every year if they want to have a good shot at a pool c from a poor conference.  It probably won't make sense to stretch the budgets to schedule somebody that might be mediocre the year you end up playing.

[wally_wabash]

Forgive me for skipping a couple steps ahead on the conference talk.  I'm considering power conference to be equivalent with high SOS.  If your conference went 14-4 in the non-conference like the MIAC and others do every year, then you're going to have a criteria advantage before we even consider your W-L.  Since SOS also plays a major part in the regional rankings, the power conferences have an huge boost.  Oddly enough, Concordia-Moorhead might have managed to squander their boost by scheduling non-countable Jamestown and winless Eau-Claire. 

You're right, teams really do need to find the "small handful of teams" who are good every year if they want to have a good shot at a pool c from a poor conference.  It probably won't make sense to stretch the budgets to schedule somebody that might be mediocre the year you end up playing.

Take a shot at which league has the best SOS so far in 2015.  No peeking! 

I think my stance on scheduling has basically boiled down to this: I think schools should schedule whatever non-conference game they want without paying any attention whatsoever to the selection criteria.  It's too volatile and unpredictable.  Schedule games against like-philosphied schools.  Schedule games in areas that you want to recruit in.  Schedule games that aren't going to break your budget.  And then with all of those priorities taken care of, then maybe pay some mind to the criteria.

If a team wants to schedule a game that they KNOW will help them in the criteria, there's only a handful of ways to go.  And if you take on one of THOSE games, you're probably going to lose and that's not good.   If you schedule a game against a team that is more on your level (assuming we're dealing with teams that aren't in the upper crust of the division here), then you might lose which would be bad, or you might win but that other team might have a particularly crummy year (see 2014 W&L), or you might win and that team might be decent and you'll get a small boost.  Lots of ifs in play there.  The point is: you can either pay for some SOS points by sacrificing a game to the purples or you can schedule games that make more sense which might not pay off in SOS points, but benefit you in a hundred other ways. 

And I would also add that in addition to not knowing whether or not a future opponent will help you down the road, you also don't know what the committee will favor down the road.  This is frustrating to be sure, but the preferences of the selection committee change from year to year.  If you play Whitewater in a non-league game and lose by not a terrible margin in a year when the selection committee happens to favor win percentage a little more than SOS or RRO, then you wasted a game.  I just think that you're always trying to chase your tail by fitting your schedule to the selection criteria...which are always changing. 

[smedindy]

The issue with large leagues is that sometimes they only have one at large game to play with if they do a round robin. That affects other leagues around them. The NCAC and OAC having just one game to play with affects the MIAA, CCIW, PAC and HCAC at the least and maybe even the SAA and NACC.

[smedindy]

Last year Centre almost paid for a great on-paper lousy in-reality schedule.