Pool C in 2016

[HansenRatings]

Mr. Hansen, I don't know if you take requests, but if you do, I'm curious to see a comparison of the odds of a Pool C team winning the Stagg in 2016 compared to some number of previous years.
The Pool C group looks to be so strong this year while the Pool A group looks less dominant than previous years.
Thank you in advance.

I love requests, then I know at least one person will read what I have to say.

Here's the pre-tournament odds for the last 10 years according to my model:

Year	Pool C Team w/ Best Odds	Any Pool C Team Odds
2016	Mount Union: 20.2%	32.2%
2015	UW-Whitewater: 3.1%	3.5
2014	John Carroll: 4.6%	4.8%
2013	John Carroll: 8.4%	8.7%
2012	Heidelberg: 0.5%	0.5%
2011	McMurry: 0.03%	0.1%
2010	Ohio Northern: 0.5%	0.7%
2009	Mary Hardin-Baylor: 0.4%	0.8%
2008	UW-Whitewater: 19.5%	20.1%
2007	St. John Fisher: 0.05%	0.1%

In 2008, the only other years with comparable odds, UWW made the finals as a 4 seed (lost to UWSP in reg. season, Wartburg beat UWSP 1st round), but every other Pool C team combined only had 0.5% odds of winning the title. Outside of UMU this season, the other 5 Pool C teams combined would have the best odds for any year but 2008.

[emma17]

Mr. Hansen, I don't know if you take requests, but if you do, I'm curious to see a comparison of the odds of a Pool C team winning the Stagg in 2016 compared to some number of previous years.
The Pool C group looks to be so strong this year while the Pool A group looks less dominant than previous years.
Thank you in advance.

I love requests, then I know at least one person will read what I have to say.

Here's the pre-tournament odds for the last 10 years according to my model:

Year	Pool C Team w/ Best Odds	Any Pool C Team Odds
2016	Mount Union: 20.2%	32.2%
2015	UW-Whitewater: 3.1%	3.5
2014	John Carroll: 4.6%	4.8%
2013	John Carroll: 8.4%	8.7%
2012	Heidelberg: 0.5%	0.5%
2011	McMurry: 0.03%	0.1%
2010	Ohio Northern: 0.5%	0.7%
2009	Mary Hardin-Baylor: 0.4%	0.8%
2008	UW-Whitewater: 19.5%	20.1%
2007	St. John Fisher: 0.05%	0.1%

In 2008, the only other years with comparable odds, UWW made the finals as a 4 seed (lost to UWSP in reg. season, Wartburg beat UWSP 1st round), but every other Pool C team combined only had 0.5% odds of winning the title. Outside of UMU this season, the other 5 Pool C teams combined would have the best odds for any year but 2008.

Wow, even more dramatic than I thought.
Thanks so much.

[HansenRatings]

Wow, even more dramatic than I thought.
Thanks so much.

A lot of that has to do with the lack of a truly dominant squad this season. In some of those years, UMU and UWW combined for about 90% of the pre-tournament championship odds. This season, UMHB has the best odds at ~30%, and UMU/UST have the second best odds @20%, with a bunch of teams in the 1-10% range.

[wally_wabash]

You're going to have come off of this at some point.  I know you're grinding that ax hard, but you're wrong.  We all know what Mount Union's criteria said.  If the argument is that they're no better than Berry or Muhlenberg or CWRU, look at their results.  They won games by an average of 45 points and they lost to a highly ranked conference champion by 3.  That's the difference between Mount Union and these other teams- the other teams with that 9-1, 0-1, .500-ish SOS profile don't dominate the season the way Mount Union did theirs.  It would have been malpractice, frankly, had they not put Mount Union in the tournament- and I say that as one of the more strict-adherence-to-the-criteria guys on the forum.

In the end, I agree that MU was a good choice.  It is ultimately silly to think otherwise.  My question has been whether or not the committee bent the rules to include MU as a pool C bid as a one loss team.  If so, do they need to change the rules to extend the prior experience criteria to one and two loss teams, not just unbeatens?  Or, did I miss something in the selection criteria.

-Ski

I think you're misreading that Mount Union got selected this year because they were good last year.  They got selected this year because they were really good this year.

Well just not quite as good as a team that lost to Oshkosh by 19.

I see this is still a thing. If the argument is that 2016 Mount Union is somehow ordinary or average, make the case. Because it isn't there, particularly when you stack them up against the other 9-1's that didn't make it in. I can't be more direct here- There is not a reasonable argument to be made to exclude Mount Union from this tournament. Not one.

I didn't mean to suggest that Mount Union didn't belong in the field, only that based on this season alone we don't have a lot of evidence that they are "really good this year."  Good yes, really good?  We shall see.

You can look at the numbers- scoring margins, offense/defense efficiencies, etc. I know the schedule they played wasn't strong, but they played EXCELLENT against that schedule. Maybe Logan can put a number on it- like how probable it is for the average tournament team (or even the average at-large team) to perform that well against that same schedule- not just wins and losses vs the schedule but the actual statistical outputs against the schedule.  I think that's the point that people are really missing on the Mount Union thing. Their performance was way above and beyond what basically anybody else would do against the same schedule.

[HansenRatings]

In terms of pure W-L%, Mount Union had the 7th most impressive record in the country. The only team with a loss ahead of them is Oshkosh. An average Top 25 team could only be expected to do at least as well against that schedule 35% of the time. It would be harder to go 9-1 against Mount Union's schedule than it would be against Wheaton's. If you throw in the MOV, which is essentially what my overall ratings try to do, Mount Union is the second-best team in the country.

They have 8 mutual opponents with JCU, and on average outscored those opponents by nearly 2 touchdowns (12.75 ppg) more than JCU did. None of this matters on the field, JCU still won that game (and the OAC), but let's get real, had JCU not scored late to win that game, our perception of the "untouchable Mount Union" would hardly be tarnished.

[Ralph Turner]

In 2011, McMurry won at Trinity in the first round and lost at UMHB in the second round.

[wally_wabash]

How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run. 

So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game. 

[Ralph Turner]

On its opening drive, the HSU running back had a striving driving tackle-breaking run to the 1-yd line that ended in a strip-fumble.

That may have  been a momentum changer.  The Linfield QB is everything he is mentioned to be.

[pumkinattack]

How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run. 

So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.

Eh, it was a good margin on paper but I wouldn't call it comfortably in the MUC-Hobart game.  It was a game well into the 4th until the back to back picks.  Frankly Hobart played a pretty undisciplined and unprepared game (major 2nd half penalties and allowing a unintentional 30yd insides kick turnover) and this MUC may have deserved a pool C but they aren't so outstanding as to be head and shoulders above the field as some have suggested.

[SaintsFAN]

How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run. 

So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.

Eh, it was a good margin on paper but I wouldn't call it comfortably in the MUC-Hobart game.  It was a game well into the 4th until the back to back picks.  Frankly Hobart played a pretty undisciplined and unprepared game (major 2nd half penalties and allowing a unintentional 30yd insides kick turnover) and this MUC may have deserved a pool C but they aren't so outstanding as to be head and shoulders above the field as some have suggested.

They are also playing with a freshman QB who didn't play half the year.  They have another week to get better.  Their game at Hopkins will be telling.

[pumkinattack]

Agreed.  This was a Hobart team maybe on par w 06-08 vintages and didn't play an "A" game though so a typical MUC team should've been up by 28 midway through the third instead of tied though.  While I don't think much of the CC (and actually think the LL is a little better), I will not be surprised if JHU beats MUC.  I actually think this is the "important" game for the east (BMore and the CC are really eastern region by function of not NCAA designation when considering who they recruit and who they play) in that I'm pretty sure the D3fotball world has vastly overrated the E8 this year and while Alfred has had a nice season they're probably not any better than Hobart or any non-Wesley (who's not great this year) team.

[wally_wabash]

How did the at-larges do today?
Oshkosh won big
Wheaton won big
Mount Union won fairly comfortably
Hardin-Simmons lost to Linfield 24-10
St. John's won a tremendous ballgame over Platteville with a walk off 1-yard run. 

So 4-2, with one Pool C vs. Pool C game.

Eh, it was a good margin on paper but I wouldn't call it comfortably in the MUC-Hobart game.  It was a game well into the 4th until the back to back picks.  Frankly Hobart played a pretty undisciplined and unprepared game (major 2nd half penalties and allowing a unintentional 30yd insides kick turnover) and this MUC may have deserved a pool C but they aren't so outstanding as to be head and shoulders above the field as some have suggested.

Ok?  Hobart had exactly three plays in the fourth quarter with a chance to tie, and spend the last 10 minutes chasing two scores.  I'm calling that comfortable, but we can differ on that view. 

[pumkinattack]

Ask the MUC fans if they felt comfortable.  I don't really want to argue this point except to make sure everyone realizes this was much closer than the consensus would've expected.  Tied well into the third, Hobart had two back to back picks in the 4th that sealed it, but how often is MUC playing a first round game where they have to hit a Fg that late to feel good (4th quarter).  And when have you seen them attempt a onside kick in q3 and then get a freebie later that quarter on a semi squib Ko (around the 4min mark of Q3). 

I'll say this.  As a Hobart fan and alum former player from a long time ago I expected us to get waxed and even at a ten point game getting the ball with around 7min left I felt like we were still in it (and again their last TD was off a tipped pass INt that gave them the ball around the 30 and scored w2min left).  This was a team who's had 7-8 4th quarter come from behind wins and an AA QB and WR.  I figured I'd be barely focused on the game in the 4th quarter so this was a serious surprise.  They demonstrated their "earned access" pool C sure if you believe Hobatt is half decent this year, especially over the alternatives, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as "yawn, MUc walked away with the game the way everyone expected".  Either anyone watching the game has to believe Hobart is far better than they thought going in (esp being -2 and a sh**load of penalties if you want to just look at box scores) or this MUC team isnt your fathers Mt Union.  My view is a little of north but more that this MUC team wouldn't make the final four unless they get by JHU I next week (I've thought the E8 has been overrated all year personally)

[smedindy]

It may be 'comfortable', but it's not typical Mt. Union comfortable.

[emma17]

A ten point lead w over 9 minutes left in the game is not what I believe the overwhelming majority of football coaches would consider "comfortable".
UWP had that lead, I doubt they ever felt comfortable.