Pool C in 2016

[smedindy]

Platteville vs. SJF may have been a draw, but I think the final table was Frostburg, Muhlenberg, and Franklin along with Platteville.

[Frank Rossi]

We posted our interview with the NCAA Committee Chairman as a stand-alone podcast for now -- the rest of the show will be posted over the next day, as explained in the show's prologue.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/14/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show

[Ralph Turner]

Hard to believe that 1 team from the East was not good enough to get into the field as a Pool C.  It would be nice to know who was first up to see why they did not get in.  Any ideas as to who would have been first up, but not good enough to get in?  Seems to me that it would be Frostburg or St. Lawrence.  D3 folk were pretty sure that if Fisher made the table they would get in.

If UMU wins the Alfred bracket, then the committee was correct in not giving an East Region team a Pool C bid, IMHO.

[Upstate]

Hard to believe that 1 team from the East was not good enough to get into the field as a Pool C.  It would be nice to know who was first up to see why they did not get in.  Any ideas as to who would have been first up, but not good enough to get in?  Seems to me that it would be Frostburg or St. Lawrence.  D3 folk were pretty sure that if Fisher made the table they would get in.

If UMU wins the Alfred bracket, then the committee was correct in not giving an East Region team a Pool C bid, IMHO.

Well they didn't even put the team with a better shot at being selected for a pool C up for it...

So of course they don't get a pool C...

[kiko]

We posted our interview with the NCAA Committee Chairman as a stand-alone podcast for now -- the rest of the show will be posted over the next day, as explained in the show's prologue.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/14/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show

Postscript: the tournament committee chair mentioned in this podcast that Mount was ranked fourth in the final North Region rankings.  (Presumably behind Wheaton.)

He also said that the final region rankings will be made public later tonight.

Edit:  they are now available here:
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional-rankings

[MonroviaCat]

We posted our interview with the NCAA Committee Chairman as a stand-alone podcast for now -- the rest of the show will be posted over the next day, as explained in the show's prologue.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/14/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show

Postscript: the tournament committee chair mentioned in this podcast that Mount was ranked fourth in the final North Region rankings.  (Presumably behind Wheaton.)

He also said that the final region rankings will be made public later tonight.

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2016/final-regional-ranking

[USee]

Kudos to the committee for releasing the final rankings.

[wally_wabash]

That Salisbury ranking is funky. Not sure how Salisbury with three losses and bad common opponent result with 8-2 Del Val.  And losing their last two?  Hmmm.  SJF got not just sorta hosed, iyam.

[smedindy]

Think Frostburg blocked SJF all day?

TBH, Platteville vs. SJF vs. Berry vs. Franklin may have spun the same result. The first five were going to be selected no matter what.

[SaintsFAN]

That Salisbury ranking is funky. Not sure how Salisbury with three losses and bad common opponent result with 8-2 Del Val.  And losing their last two?  Hmmm.  SJF got not just sorta hosed, iyam.

wow

[Teamski]

Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU?  It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket.  With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria.  The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules.   Am I missing something? 

-Ski

[Ralph Turner]

I think geographic proximity split the East.
A North #4 UMU got sent to East #2 Hobart.

We can make the case that a #4 seed should have gotten a first round home game.

The 3 most difficult first round games for the home teams are  IMHO:

Linfield at HSU
UMU at Hobart
UWP at Johnnies.

[emma17]

Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU?  It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket.  With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria.  The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules.   Am I missing something? 

-Ski

He said more than that.
He said the eye test plays a part and the name matters.

[art76]

Using this info, (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2016/final-regional-ranking) I ascertained the following probable seedings:

1. Mary Hardin-Baylor
2. North Central
3. Hardin Simmons
4. Wheaton
5. Linfield
6. Huntingdon
7. Redlands
8. Rose-Hulman

1. St. Thomas
2. Oshkosh
3. Coe
4. St. John's
5. Monmouth
6. Platteville
7. Washington University
8. Northwestern

1. Whitewater
2. John Carroll
3. Wesley
4. Thomas More
5. Stevenson
6. Olivet
7. Wittenberg
8. Lakeland

1. Alfred
2. Johns Hopkins
3. Hobart
4. Mount Union
5. Western New England
6. Randolph-Macon
7. Bridgewater State
8. Husson

Thomas More and Stevenson were both ranked 4 in their regions, so I went with SOS to split hairs for those seedings.

[02 Warhawk]

Did the NCAA change the rules when seeding MU?  It was my understanding that only undefeated teams were given credit for previous season's performance when seeding the bracket.  With a single loss, a sub .500 SOS and no wins against a ranked opponent, it would seem that MU was outside that criteria.  The chairman of the commitee admitted that they "don't live in a vacuum" and did give MU credit for past performance even though that would conceiviably break their own rules.   Am I missing something? 

-Ski

He said more than that.
He said the eye test plays a part and the name matters.

I like what Keith said in the podcast: (Paraphrasing) "If you want to make a case for a different Pool C team to get in...who would you take out?" All the Pool C teams that made it were ranked relatively high in the poll, where as all the bubble teams that didn't get in where ranked much lower.

The committee got it right. They went with common sense (UWP , Mount Union, etc. getting in) over just looking at the data.