Pool C -- 2015

[jknezek]

Not surprised about Moravian. I've been beating that drum for a few weeks. They have Muhlenberg the last week of the season, so they aren't in the clear there, but they could definitely be a block for a second South team since their SOS isn't going to be great and they are going to be 0-1 RR. The complete lack of SAA schools, when you could make a case for Berry, Hendrix or Chicago being at a 9/10 spot is interesting. Berry is really paying for losing to M'Ville week 1.

I think it's pretty clear the South guys took an easy route. Undefeated teams, one loss teams accounting for H2H and lightly structured by RR record, and a small dose of common sense (UMHB staying high and TLU making the list). I bet they will get a bit more nuanced in the super secret rankings, but for right now this seems like the minimal effort ranking that I expected of something that has no bearing what-so-ever on the final selections/seedings.

[ExTartanPlayer]

The complete lack of SAA schools, when you could make a case for Berry, Hendrix or Chicago being at a 9/10 spot is interesting. Berry is really paying for losing to M'Ville week 1.

Kind of like you said: it's almost like they look at the SAA teams that had all beaten each other, plus Case Western who is 7-1 with a loss to Chicago, and then said "Nah, Maryville beat Berry, so we can stay away from all that noise."

[jknezek]

One thing that is mildly interesting in the South is they set up a T-5 with W&L and Moravian. Per the criteria, W&L has a 100% winning percentage, is 1-0 vs RR (Guilford), and has an SOS of 93rd. Moravian has a .875% winning percentage, is 0-1 vs RR (Johns Hopkins), and has an SOS of 92nd. The SOS difference is somewhere after the rounding as both sit at .518 right now. Why bother tying them up?

[wally_wabash]

What's the South RAC got against the SAA?  They've been doing that league dirty for two years now. last year they could point at Cente's SOS and kind of skate. I don't know how you explain ignoring Berry here.

[jknezek]

What's the South RAC got against the SAA?  They've been doing that league dirty for two years now. last year they could point at Cente's SOS and kind of skate. I don't know how you explain ignoring Berry here.

Berry lost to M'Ville who is 10. I guess they didn't violate the H2H, but I agree, seems hard done by.

[emma17]

Do you feel the committee chose not to rank NCC so they don't have to deal with the issue of a 3 loss team?
How does IWU get ranked over NCC?

[jknezek]

Do you feel the committee chose not to rank NCC so they don't have to deal with the issue of a 3 loss team?
How does IWU get ranked over NCC?

One primary criteria is winning percentage. NCC is struggling on a primary criteria. It can be that simple sometimes.

[wally_wabash]

Do you feel the committee chose not to rank NCC so they don't have to deal with the issue of a 3 loss team?
How does IWU get ranked over NCC?

0.875 vs 0.625 win percentage
1-0 vs 1-3 vs RROs

This is really not a hard call for the regional rankings. It's a much more difficult decision for pollsters.

[MonroviaCat]

I almost had to ask:  Who is this " Rensselaer 6-2 6-2 "---never heard RPI called by their first name

[USee]

As noted on the CCIW board, however, winning percentage is not the sole criteria.

H2H vs D3 (IWU)
Common opponents (Trine v Albion; NCC v Trine)
D3 Strength of Schedule (#1 out of 237 teams)

While I agree winning percentage is a big deal, it is in no way an open and shut case.  You can't cherry pick the primary criteria you want just because you don't like North Central.

[MonroviaCat]

noted a few "ties" (e.g. Whitworth and St. Johns).  If teams are tied in RR's come selection time--how do they chose who hits the board first?

[desertcat1]

noted a few "ties" (e.g. Whitworth and St. Johns).  If teams are tied in RR's come selection time--how do they chose who hits the board first?

that could be why the last RR is not posted maybe    still about the $$$$$$.

[desertcat1]

take it (WIN)   one game at a time and you will end up with the walnut and bronze..

[wabndy]

Is there something here that I've missed in years past?  This set of regional rankings lists two sets of numbers, "in-region record" and "overall record."


Many years ago, primary criteria first considered "in-region" record so that theoretically, two 9-1 teams with all other criteria being neutral, but the team with the loss out of region should be selected first.  It led to some rather ridiculous results.  This was further complicated by the screwbally way the NCAA decides whether a game is in-region or not.  Fortunately - the in-region/out of region distinctions have disappeared for football selection criteria.


I can only find one item in the prechampionship manual that makes in-region competitions relevant, that is a requirement that to be Pool B or C eligible, 70% of all competition has to be in-region unless a waiver is granted.


All of this is to ask - why in the blazes does the NCAA continue to draw a distinction on in-region and out-of-region record?  Is this the school's record against other teams in their region? Is this the schools record against teams defined by the NCAA's "in-region" criteria (the full list of criteria here)? If so - why is it published?

[jknezek]

You'll see some schools with differences but it's primarily "in DIII" or "out of DIII". For example W&L, for reasons that are incomprehensible and irritate me every time I think about it, played Newport News Apprentice this year. So they are 8-0, but 7-0 in region. UWW and UWO both played "out of region" games against NAIA competition. It's pretty darn hard to play a DIII football game against a team that would be "out of region".