Pool C in 2016

[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

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.

I understand why they picked MU.  What I want to know is did they break the rules to do so.  And, if that is the case, will we see a rewrite allowing the committee to allow for consideration of one or two loss teams based on their playoff history and not just undefeated teams..... or is there allowance within the guidelines already to do so.  Just a clarification.

-Ski

[D3MAFAN]

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.

I understand why they picked MU.  What I want to know is did they break the rules to do so.  And, if that is the case, will we see a rewrite allowing the committee to allow for consideration of one or two loss teams based on their playoff history and not just undefeated teams..... or is there allowance within the guidelines already to do so.  Just a clarification.

-Ski

They used the "Eye Test" to make the decision. I would like clarification if this is what we are going to do going forward. I have know problem using the "Eye Test" when there are AQ chances as well. Everyone has an equal opportunity (unless restricted) to make the National playoff, just win the conference. If you do not, your subjected to the Criteria and now "Eye Test", which from listening to podcast, it appears that those at-large teams were the best. Now as an ERFan, I do have some bias, but this year is the perfect opportunity for our representatives to beat Mount Union or at least be competitive through 4 quarters and if Mount Union was to come out, win the Stagg or lose in a competitive way.

[AO]

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.

I understand why they picked MU.  What I want to know is did they break the rules to do so.  And, if that is the case, will we see a rewrite allowing the committee to allow for consideration of one or two loss teams based on their playoff history and not just undefeated teams..... or is there allowance within the guidelines already to do so.  Just a clarification.

-Ski

They used the "Eye Test" to make the decision. I would like clarification if this is what we are going to do going forward. I have know problem using the "Eye Test" when there are AQ chances as well. Everyone has an equal opportunity (unless restricted) to make the National playoff, just win the conference. If you do not, your subjected to the Criteria and now "Eye Test", which from listening to podcast, it appears that those at-large teams were the best. Now as an ERFan, I do have some bias, but this year is the perfect opportunity for our representatives to beat Mount Union or at least be competitive through 4 quarters and if Mount Union was to come out, win the Stagg or lose in a competitive way.

No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based.  If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.

[Teamski]

No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based.  If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.

....If you exclude MU.

-Ski

[AO]

No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based.  If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.

....If you exclude MU.

-Ski

A last minute loss to the #2 team in the region as your only loss was their superior criteria argument.  That's not "eye test".

[smedindy]

I am guessing the movement on the board was as follows:

Oshkosh
Hardin-Simmons
Wheaton
St. John's

Board: Frostburg / Mt. Union / Berry / Platteville

I think 90% of us would have chosen Mt. Union.

Frostburg and Berry had wins against the #10 regionally ranked teams, but got pounded in their losses. I think the committee has leeway to go, "Hmmm...I think the East and South ranked those teams at #10 to help Frostburg and Berry".

The SOS difference isn't huge. For teams with only one non-conference game, you try your best to schedule well and sometimes you whiff (see Wabash vs. Albion). NC Wesleyan wasn't a bad team (beat Huntingdon), and they probably lost a win thanks to the hurricane. That win may have normalized the SOS a little more for Mt. Union.

I'm pretty certain now ranking Frostburg instead of SJF trapped SJF and the Committee would have chosen them over Platteville.

[wesleydad]

I am guessing the movement on the board was as follows:

Oshkosh
Hardin-Simmons
Wheaton
St. John's

Board: Frostburg / Mt. Union / Berry / Platteville

I think 90% of us would have chosen Mt. Union.

Frostburg and Berry had wins against the #10 regionally ranked teams, but got pounded in their losses. I think the committee has leeway to go, "Hmmm...I think the East and South ranked those teams at #10 to help Frostburg and Berry".

The SOS difference isn't huge. For teams with only one non-conference game, you try your best to schedule well and sometimes you whiff (see Wabash vs. Albion). NC Wesleyan wasn't a bad team (beat Huntingdon), and they probably lost a win thanks to the hurricane. That win may have normalized the SOS a little more for Mt. Union.

I'm pretty certain now ranking Frostburg instead of SJF trapped SJF and the Committee would have chosen them over Platteville.

Agree Smed, it looks like Frostburg was not good enough to get in at any point.  Hard to argue with who is in in the end.  I don't think Frostburg or Fisher would win more than one game, well if you put them where mount is maybe they would.

[AUKaz00]

Frostburg and Berry had wins against the #10 regionally ranked teams, but got pounded in their losses. I think the committee has leeway to go, "Hmmm...I think the East and South ranked those teams at #10 to help Frostburg and Berry".

Unfortunately for Fisher, the East committee just as easily could have moved 7-3 Brockport into 10 allowing the Cards to be 2-1 against RRO and have a more compelling Pool C case.

[wally_wabash]

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.

100% Frostburg blocked SJF.  In our mock we kept SJF ahead of Frostburg- we also didn't rank Salisbury.  In any case, at the end, it was basically a toss up between UWP and SJF.  I think SJF won 2-1 in our voting, but it would have been totally reasonable to pick UWP.  I think UWP crushes Frostburg no matter how long Frostburg is sitting around, and that would appear to be how this went down.  If this was calculated by the East RAC, they missed badly.  I think leveraging SJF's SOS was by far the best opportunity to put one of the region's at-large teams in the field. 

No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based.  If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.

....If you exclude MU.

-Ski

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. 

[emma17]

No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based.  If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.

....If you exclude MU.

-Ski

A last minute loss to the #2 team in the region as your only loss was their superior criteria argument.  That's not "eye test".

Perhaps it's not "eye test", but I believe the director used that term and the "name" idea when discussing Mt's inclusion.  Maybe he should have just said they had the best criteria results.     

As I'm in favor of including recent history to help inform Pool C selections, I'm in favor of Mt's inclusion even if they didn't have the criteria. 

[Ralph Turner]

I think that UMU may enjoy the Road Warrior meme. They have the opportunity that most UMU teams "avoided".

The 2005 UMU team lost to ONU in regular season, but still played 4 playoff games at home on the way to their Stagg Bowl win over UWW.

[Ralph Turner]

The 2004 UMHB went on the road against 4 Top 10's on the Road to Stagg.

[Teamski]

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

[smedindy]

I really don't think so. They were on the board with three other teams, and considered fairly. The two one-loss teams may have had a RR win, but pedestrian results even with a slightly higher SOS. Mt. Union had one slip and rolled through an OAC that was down, but perhaps better than the SAA and a step below the NJAC.

When you get on the board, it's not rote.

[Upstate]

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.

100% Frostburg blocked SJF.  In our mock we kept SJF ahead of Frostburg- we also didn't rank Salisbury.  In any case, at the end, it was basically a toss up between UWP and SJF.  I think SJF won 2-1 in our voting, but it would have been totally reasonable to pick UWP.  I think UWP crushes Frostburg no matter how long Frostburg is sitting around, and that would appear to be how this went down.  If this was calculated by the East RAC, they missed badly.  I think leveraging SJF's SOS was by far the best opportunity to put one of the region's at-large teams in the field. 

No idea why the chair used the term "eye test" when all of his arguments were criteria based.  If they did use the eye test, they also happened to pick the teams that were the best according to the "results against regionally ranked opponents" criteria.

....If you exclude MU.

-Ski

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.

If the committee picked UWP over Fisher it would have been completely justified, the fact that Fisher didn't make it to the discussion showed that the East had no clue about pool C possibilities.

They even kept a 7-3 SU team in the rankings to help FSU and it blew up in their face. The committee probably didn't take into account their poor SOS and figured since that they were 9-1 and 1-1 vs RRO that it would be a good case.

The East region missed out on a legitimate opportunity, and maybe even an actual bid, because they completely misread the lay of the land.