Pool C -- 2015

[wesleydad]

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 is a great explanation as to why a team that sits for awhile finally gets picked.  If they almost got picked last time then they should be next up since the RAC said that the prior team was better than the new team to the board.  Hard to argue that logic.  If the next team up is that strong than you have to question why the RAC did not put them ahead of the other team.

[wabndy]

Right or wrong if this is what is going on - and I think it is given the results these past few years it is- then the RACs that try to game the system by downvoting their stronger Pool C contenders are doing the teams in their region a huge disservice.

[emma17]

Right or wrong if this is what is going on - and I think it is given the results these past few years it is- then the RACs that try to game the system by downvoting their stronger Pool C contenders are doing the teams in their region a huge disservice.

Good point.
And the other point is the national committee can make corrections to the regional rankings.
I understand the "human nature" argument of taking a team that's been sitting, but only to a point. The members of the national committee didn't just start looking at Pool C contenders on selection weekend. In order for them to be able to fulfill their duty of correcting a possible RAC error, they absolutely must come into selection weekend with an idea of the top candidates, otherwise they'd be incapable of performing that portion of the job.
Surely there weren't members of the RAC unfamiliar with the strength of UWP's resume? 

[smedindy]

Maybe they considered Whitworth over UW-Platteville 'good enough". Just because YOU among others, disagree with that assessment, doesn't mean they ignored UW-P and didn't consider a change in the rankings.

Whitworth basically rolled everyone (including LaVerne) except Willamette and Linfield (of course Linfield rolled them). They're a good football team. And frankly, under UW-P the WIAC had a bit of a soft underbelly this season.

[emma17]

Maybe they considered Whitworth over UW-Platteville 'good enough". Just because YOU among others, disagree with that assessment, doesn't mean they ignored UW-P and didn't consider a change in the rankings.

Whitworth basically rolled everyone (including LaVerne) except Willamette and Linfield (of course Linfield rolled them). They're a good football team. And frankly, under UW-P the WIAC had a bit of a soft underbelly this season.

I agree- a soft underbelly. Of course a soft underbelly team in the WIAC such as UWSP or UWRF is taking the top team in most conferences into the fourth quarter- so that's a pretty relative term.
Who would you have picked- UWP or Whitworth?

[retagent]

Maybe they considered Whitworth over UW-Platteville 'good enough". Just because YOU among others, disagree with that assessment, doesn't mean they ignored UW-P and didn't consider a change in the rankings.

Whitworth basically rolled everyone (including LaVerne) except Willamette and Linfield (of course Linfield rolled them). They're a good football team. And frankly, under UW-P the WIAC had a bit of a soft underbelly this season.

Who would you have picked- UWP or Whitworth?

You state that with authority. Yet, looking at the Non-Con results, it appears there is little evidence to support.

[emma17]

Maybe they considered Whitworth over UW-Platteville 'good enough". Just because YOU among others, disagree with that assessment, doesn't mean they ignored UW-P and didn't consider a change in the rankings.

Whitworth basically rolled everyone (including LaVerne) except Willamette and Linfield (of course Linfield rolled them). They're a good football team. And frankly, under UW-P the WIAC had a bit of a soft underbelly this season.

Who would you have picked- UWP or Whitworth?

You state that with authority. Yet, looking at the Non-Con results, it appears there is little evidence to support.

It appears you didn't take your deep breath before posting.
We do know UWSP took conference winner Albion to the finish line don't we?  And we do know UWSP took the best WIAC teams into the fourth don't we?
I Understand you might not buy the UWRF case, that's fine. I think I have a better handle on them though as I've had the good fortune of watching them play the team that has won the national title 6 times in the last decade. I'm comfortable saying they'd compete w the top team from most conferences. 

[retagent]

Other than UWW, UWO, and UWP, (which is the group smed was refering to) Non-Con record 5 - 10.


I rest my case.

[smedindy]

UWSP gave up 65 to Albion. They also BARELY beat Coe. In fact, the WIAC had trouble with the IIAC this year. Didn't roll 'em and got beat a few times.

Looking at the scores, it seems that the bottom teams of the WIAC were just pure cannon fodder this year - much like bottom dwellers of any league. There's no WIAC pixie dust to make up for 51-7, 62-7 or 43-10.

[AO]

UWSP gave up 65 to Albion. They also BARELY beat Coe. In fact, the WIAC had trouble with the IIAC this year. Didn't roll 'em and got beat a few times.

Looking at the scores, it seems that the bottom teams of the WIAC were just pure cannon fodder this year - much like bottom dwellers of any league. There's no WIAC pixie dust to make up for 51-7, 62-7 or 43-10.

You make it sound like the IIAC was better.  Platteville beat Dubuque 31-7.  Wartburg only got by Stout by 8.  Stout then beat Loras by 10.  They were cannon fodder for top 25 teams.  Hard to tell how Eau Claire or La Crosse would fare if they scheduled weaker teams.  The bottom teams from the WIAC seem to have trouble finding non elite teams willing to play them, while the top teams from the WIAC get stuck with Finlandia.

[bleedpurple]

UWSP gave up 65 to Albion. They also BARELY beat Coe. In fact, the WIAC had trouble with the IIAC this year. Didn't roll 'em and got beat a few times.

Looking at the scores, it seems that the bottom teams of the WIAC were just pure cannon fodder this year - much like bottom dwellers of any league. There's no WIAC pixie dust to make up for 51-7, 62-7 or 43-10.

You make it sound like the IIAC was better.  Platteville beat Dubuque 31-7.  Wartburg only got by Stout by 8.  Stout then beat Loras by 10.  They were cannon fodder for top 25 teams.  Hard to tell how Eau Claire or La Crosse would fare if they scheduled weaker teams.  The bottom teams from the WIAC seem to have trouble finding non elite teams willing to play them, while the top teams from the WIAC get stuck with Finlandia.

But that doesn't fit into Retagent's over-simplified case he just rested! 

[art76]

Let's revisit this before 2nd & 3rd rounds.

Geographic proximity wreaks havoc with the Linfield bracket.

Well, after the first round of the 2015 play-offs, here's who is left standing with their pre-play-off rankings:

4 St. Thomas
10 St. John's

9 Thomas More
7 Wabash

2 Linfield
25 Cortland

35 Huntingdon
13 Mary Hardin-Baylor

1 Mount Union
20 Albright

11 Wesley
8 Johns Hopkins

3 Oshkosh
26 Ohio Northern

5 Whitewater
6 Wheaton

So, adding up the quadrants:

St. Thomas = 30

Linfield = 75

Mount Union = 40

Oshkosh = 40

So, overall, the "toughest bracket" is still the St. Thomas bracket. There are going to be 4 fairly close games, if you have faith in the D3 pollsters, as we have numbers 5 and 6 playing, numbers 7 and 9 playing, numbers 8 and 11 playing and numbers 4 and 10 playing.  The other four games, not so much, as we have number 2 taking on number 25, number 13 taking on number 35, number 1 against number 20 and number 3 against number 26.

[Ralph Turner]

I think that the #30 Cortland is a little deceptive. 

I greatly respect the E8 and the NJAC for the balance and the toughness that the conference schedule provides.

The Red Dragons are battle-hardened and not intimidated by Linfield.  They have been this deep in the playoffs as recently as 2012.

I also think that the long trip across country will focus the team on what they need to do.

Maybe the only school not from a power conference (or rightfully belongs in this round) that is still playing is Huntingdon, and in a perfect bracket, they would have probably lost to #2 seed HSU in the first round, to set up a #12/#13 HSU UMHB rematch.

[smedindy]

UWSP gave up 65 to Albion. They also BARELY beat Coe. In fact, the WIAC had trouble with the IIAC this year. Didn't roll 'em and got beat a few times.

Looking at the scores, it seems that the bottom teams of the WIAC were just pure cannon fodder this year - much like bottom dwellers of any league. There's no WIAC pixie dust to make up for 51-7, 62-7 or 43-10.

You make it sound like the IIAC was better.  Platteville beat Dubuque 31-7.  Wartburg only got by Stout by 8.  Stout then beat Loras by 10.  They were cannon fodder for top 25 teams.  Hard to tell how Eau Claire or La Crosse would fare if they scheduled weaker teams.  The bottom teams from the WIAC seem to have trouble finding non elite teams willing to play them, while the top teams from the WIAC get stuck with Finlandia.

Oh, no. But the blah of the WIAC is right there with the blah of the IIAC. BLAH!

[art76]

In the pod cast Keith mentions that 5 out of the 6 Pool C teams won this past weekend, which means that 5 out of the remaining 8 games has an at large team in the game. Only one, Mary Hardin-Baylor enjoys a higher ranking in this week's games though. IMO, I think only Wesley and St. John's have a chance at winning this weekend, and if that happens we would still have 3 Pool C teams still in the play-offs out of the remaining 8 teams.

Here's a fun thought, if St. John's and UMHB both win, then Linfield beats Cortland, the Wildcats would then take on UMHB and the Johnnies would take on Wabash or Thomas More. If the Johnnies win, and Linfield wins, it could happen that when they meet in the semi-finals that Linfield would have faced 4 of the 6 at-large teams to get there - Whitworth, Cortland, UMHB and St. John's. Wow.