Pool C in 2016

[E.115]

Does Case Western Reserve get any benefit from defeating the SAA league champ / AQ playoff team?

[desertcat1]

Does Case Western Reserve get any benefit from defeating the SAA league champ / AQ playoff team?

HERE IS A BIG WET  ONE.   

[02 Warhawk]

Mount union, pool c....never thought i'd see the day.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Does Case Western Reserve get any benefit from defeating the SAA league champ / AQ playoff team?

Actually, sort of...if WashU manages to slide into the RR's and give Case a win against a regionally-ranked opponent, that will indeed be a boost to their at-large resume.

Which brings us to a possibly verrrrry interesting final scenario.  Although we all love to chat on here about how we "know" who the best teams are, the committee is supposed to go by the criteria.  And we will all wonder tonight what this means for Mount Union, who is going to be 9-1, 0-1 against RRO's, with an SOS that is quite similar to Case Western...while Case Western could potentially end up 9-1, 1-0 against RRO.  We've all been bagging on Case's schedule because they drew the softer lot in the PAC but since Westminster and CMU ended up equal/better than W&J that actually doesn't end up as bad as it originally looked, especially since WashU was so good, and that's brought their SoS number to be right around Mount Union's.

It's no slam-dunk, but I think you can argue that Case Western's criteria-based argument for a Pool C bid are equivalent to Mount Union's.  If CWRU does make it onto the board (also depends on where the South RAC sticks Case and Muhlenberg) while Mount Union is on the board...

[Ralph Turner]

I think that Muhlenberg jumps CWRU.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'd estimate it as at least 99.9% probable that UMU will make the tourney.  But should they?

If a no-name team X had their criteria, they'd be sweatin' bullets at the bottom of the bubble.  They have a VERY low SoS (though it rose somewhat today), and the nine teams they beat had a cumulative record of 35-54 (which was almost certainly inflated by playing each other - the OAC went 3-7 in non-con games).  I don't know the SoS's following today's games, but UMU would surely be no higher by the criteria than 9-1 Case or 9-1 Frostburg St., neither of whom has much expectation of playing more games.

I can hardly imagine a tourney without UMU, but I'm not at all convinced they SHOULD be in this season.

[wally_wabash]

I'd estimate it as at least 99.9% probable that UMU will make the tourney.  But should they?

If a no-name team X had their criteria, they'd be sweatin' bullets at the bottom of the bubble.  They have a VERY low SoS (though it rose somewhat today), and the nine teams they beat had a cumulative record of 35-54 (which was almost certainly inflated by playing each other - the OAC went 3-7 in non-con games).  I don't know the SoS's following today's games, but UMU would surely be no higher by the criteria than 9-1 Case or 9-1 Frostburg St., neither of whom has much expectation of playing more games.

I can hardly imagine a tourney without UMU, but I'm not at all convinced they SHOULD be in this season.

A lot of whether or not UMU (or anybody else really) goes in or doesn't go in depends on the depth in your region and where you are at in the at-large line.  I don't think I'm spoiling anything here saying that Mount Union's position, at worst, is going to be behind Wheaton.  So, at worst, Mount Union is going to sit down at that four-sided table and get discussed.  Whether they go in or not, who knows, but a lot of other teams, even 9-1 teams, don't get that far for no reason other than their region is deep.  The North isn't super deep in 2016, which is a plus for Raiders fans. 

[SaintsFAN]

I'd estimate it as at least 99.9% probable that UMU will make the tourney.  But should they?

If a no-name team X had their criteria, they'd be sweatin' bullets at the bottom of the bubble.  They have a VERY low SoS (though it rose somewhat today), and the nine teams they beat had a cumulative record of 35-54 (which was almost certainly inflated by playing each other - the OAC went 3-7 in non-con games).  I don't know the SoS's following today's games, but UMU would surely be no higher by the criteria than 9-1 Case or 9-1 Frostburg St., neither of whom has much expectation of playing more games.

I can hardly imagine a tourney without UMU, but I'm not at all convinced they SHOULD be in this season.

A lot of whether or not UMU (or anybody else really) goes in or doesn't go in depends on the depth in your region and where you are at in the at-large line.  I don't think I'm spoiling anything here saying that Mount Union's position, at worst, is going to be behind Wheaton.  So, at worst, Mount Union is going to sit down at that four-sided table and get discussed.  Whether they go in or not, who knows, but a lot of other teams, even 9-1 teams, don't get that far for no reason other than their region is deep.  The North isn't super deep in 2016, which is a plus for Raiders fans.

Since they are humans, don't you think the committee will see Mt Union at the table and just give each other a knowing nod before selecting them?  Or will actual words have to be spoken? 

[smedindy]

I think the discussion for Oshkosh and Mt. Union will be as brief as any discussion ever.

[smedindy]

My gut for the Pool C:

Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's

SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.

[TheOsprey]

My gut for the Pool C:

Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's

SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.

I like Frosty in.  Co champs of the NJAC.  I hope Mount gets a bid and they should go on the road for all three games.

They probably win too.  At JHU and Wesley for the first two rounds sounds fair. 

[SaintsFAN]

My gut for the Pool C:

Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's

SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.

You mean, Frostburg,  Muhlenberg, Franklin and Platteville at the end with Frostburg selected?  I agree with you.  5 unanimous and a cluster funk for the 6th spot. 

[smedindy]

Yeah, that's right - Frostburg on the table at the end. I think Frostburg's got a decent profile now and that may trump Platteville's advantages on all but record.

It's been a long day. The CWU game was entertaining, but long (1,078 yards and 67 total points), it was senior day, and STATCREW had a fluky quirky hiccup that caused the Time of Possession to be screwy in the second half. It took 10 minutes to figure out a fix! So I ain't firing on all synapses.

[Ralph Turner]

My gut for the Pool C:

Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's

SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.

+1! smed for seeing thru the murkiness to post a pretty good group.
You, too, SaintsFan

[wesleydad]

My gut for the Pool C:

Frostburg
Wheaton
Mt. Union
Hardin - Simmons
WI- Oshkosh
St. John's

SJF, Muhlenberg, Franklin, Platteville on the board at the end.

I would love to see Frostburg get in.  They played great after the loss to Wesley.  The defense seems to be really improved holding opponents under 20 almost every game.  Not sure if they jump that high, but Albright losing really helps, but they should have jumped them anyway with the h2h2h chain of Salisbury beating Albright and Frostburg beating Salisbury.  They have a chance.