Pool C 2018

[wally_wabash]

In the LL, I think there is still a slim possibility for Hobart to win.  If RPI loses next 2, and Hobart wins out, then Hob will be 4-1 and Union, RPI, Ith are all 3-2.  So for at least one more week, Hobart should stay out of the red, I think 

These tables are tracking teams still alive for at-large bids.  Hobart can still win the LL, but as a member of the three loss club, they won't be getting a Pool C invitation. 

[JCUStreaks70]

#15-IWU (7-1, 7-0) and #12-North Central (7-1, 6-1) play in Bloomington next weekend -- the winner almost certainly gets the CCIW's AQ, and the loser goes to the Pool C bubble with 2 losses. 

As a Pool C candidate, NCC would most likely have 1 win vs RRO (Wash U). 

IWU, as a Pool C, would probably have 2 wins vs RRO (Wheaton, Wash U)...if Wash U wins out (at Millikin, vs Carroll).

Would 2-loss IWU be competitive at the end of the Pool C process due to the 2 wins vs RRO?  From what I am seeing here, no other Pool C candidate will have 2 wins vs RRO?  That would seem to be a big advantage at the end of the selection process.  Or is 2 losses simply the end of the road/season over?

(Seems like, as a Pool C candidate, 2-loss IWU would be stacked up in the North right behind the John Carroll/Baldwin winner...so the Titans would hit the board as long as JC/BW was selected in spots 1-4.)

It really all just depends on what the rankings look like and where IWU would land in the region.  2-loss IWU (or North Central) would seem to battling for rankings position with not just the JCU/B-W winner, but also the loser of that game, a potential 1-loss NCAC team, and MSJ (single loss to ranked Franklin, one loss to FCS Morehead St.).  It's a crowded house right now behind that 9-1 OAC runner up.   2-1 vs. RRO would certainly be nice if IWU finds themselves in Pool C limbo, but definitely no guarantee that it would be enough to get them in.  It is worth pointing out that two weeks ago the consensus seemed to be that multiple loss teams were doomed.  Since then, Wesley has not won a game and Oshkosh has been taken off the board.  How many more "locks" can play themselves off of the mountain in the next two Saturdays?

And also an NCC loss all but eliminates them, because they would fall back BEHIND Wheaton due to the Head to Head. NCC would never see the board to have their name called on Sunday.

[wally_wabash]

And also an NCC loss all but eliminates them, because they would fall back BEHIND Wheaton due to the Head to Head. NCC would never see the board to have their name called on Sunday.

Agree that the North Central path is not good with a late season loss.  The h2h with Wheaton is a killer and their noncon game with LFC isn't helping.  Unless they scored big points with the committee chair when they played LFC.   

[Oline89]

In the LL, I think there is still a slim possibility for Hobart to win.  If RPI loses next 2, and Hobart wins out, then Hob will be 4-1 and Union, RPI, Ith are all 3-2.  So for at least one more week, Hobart should stay out of the red, I think 

These tables are tracking teams still alive for at-large bids.  Hobart can still win the LL, but as a member of the three loss club, they won't be getting a Pool C invitation.

I knew that, sorry!!

[art76]

Current one loss West teams with their current SOS number

Linfield .577
Bethel .564
Monmouth .513
St. Thomas .493
St. Norbert .453
Martin Luther .433
MacMurray .322

Wally, what is your take on how 2 and 3 loss teams factor into things in the West? I suspect you'll be waiting for the first set of Regional Rankings to see what the committee decides. In the list above MacMurray and Martin Luther play one another this coming week, and Bethel and St. Thomas play one another in week 11. So we'll be down to a maximum of 5 one loss teams in the West. Do you think any 2 or 3 loss teams get put ahead of these one loss teams in the Regional Rankings? Historically, this seems to be the precedent.

[wally_wabash]

It's a good question, art.  I think there are any number of ways the West rankings could line up on Wednesday.  I'm as curious as anybody else to see what they're going to do with Linfield and then St. Thomas/Bethel. 

Linfield's out of division result is thorny.  Some people will say "it doesn't really count".  I think that's oversimplifying and a little bit irresponsible.  It's not like Linfield lost to Eastern Washington.  They lost to a not-very-good NAIA team and I don't think that should be ignored. 

I'm also curious to see what they'll do with St. John's and UW-Whitewater.  Not Pool C talk here, but those teams are in play for #1 seeds and how they get ordered this week is a pretty big deal. 

So we'll have to just wait and see.  The first rankings often throw curves and can be pretty unpredictable, particularly after we've been conditioned to contextualize teams' relativism through the top 25 poll.  The regional rankings are a totally different exercise (Bethel fans rejoice). 

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

As a Linfield fan, I'd love to see them get a Pool C bid but am not expecting it (assuming that they win out and finish 7-2 (7-1 in D3 play).  The out of division loss to Carroll isn't going to help especially with Carroll standing at 4-5 on the season.

Can only hope that it makes financial sense to send Linfield to Whitworth, SCIAC winner to MHB, and Hardin Simmons to someone or have someone go play them...

[Pat Coleman]

They won't put Linfield in the field solely because they're a cheap first-round game for Whitworth.

[MRMIKESMITH]

As a Linfield fan, I'd love to see them get a Pool C bid but am not expecting it (assuming that they win out and finish 7-2 (7-1 in D3 play).  The out of division loss to Carroll isn't going to help especially with Carroll standing at 4-5 on the season.

Can only hope that it makes financial sense to send Linfield to Whitworth, SCIAC winner to MHB, and Hardin Simmons to someone or have someone go play them...

I think it would be Hardin Simmons to Whitworth (if they remain undefeated), wouldn't surprise me if they did switch home/away and UMHB hosting SCIAC champion.

[Oline89]

Podcast with National Committee Chairman Jim Catanzaro gives an excellent review of the process.

He mentions expanding the number of Pool C bids by requiring 8 teams in the conference to earn a Pool A bid.

That would impact: the Commonwealth Coast, the ECFC and the Liberty League.  (Strategic adjustment to the rule change might prompt the Commonwealth Coast and NEFC align for a week #11 playoff game, like the Midwest Conference and the NEFC of old.  Net gain... one Pool C bid and Pool B might not have enough teams to be granted a bid in the near future for second Pool C bid.)

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2018/10/25/around-the-nation-podcast-216-committee-chair-explains-it-all/

I finally had a chance to listen to this podcast.  It does not appear that changing the pool A rule (to include only conferences with 8 or more) is likely.  It sounded like it would require a change of bylaws or a large group of schools (20?) to present at the NCAA convention.  At present, in 2019, there will be 27 pool A bids and 5 Pool C.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think that this is a stretch. Indeed, the NCAA Division III membership has not been overly friendly to football's requests, but this doesn't have a financial impact, like some of the other things football schools have asked for.

I don't think it would be impossible to find two conferences willing to sponsor.

[Oline89]

I don't think that this is a stretch. Indeed, the NCAA Division III membership has not been overly friendly to football's requests, but this doesn't have a financial impact, like some of the other things football schools have asked for.

I don't think it would be impossible to find two conferences willing to sponsor.

Are the E8, Liberty League, ECFC and CCC the only conferences with under 8 (all are at 7), that would be affected if a change was instituted?

[Pat Coleman]

For now, yes.

[wm4]

So we'll have to just wait and see.  The first rankings often throw curves and can be pretty unpredictable, particularly after we've been conditioned to contextualize teams' relativism through the top 25 poll.  The regional rankings are a totally different exercise (Bethel fans rejoice).

To speak to this, why are they different?  What instructions do the regional committees get that's something other than "give us your order of the best 10 teams in the region".  And what would the point be of instructions any different than that? 

I realize a few key games are still to be played that may solve any discrepancies between the RR's and the top 25 poll.  I also understand the top 25 poll is of no use in the playoff selection process.  It just baffles me how an RR could be subtly but notably different than the contextualized view of teams.  Yes, reserving the right to look at you, West RR committee.

[USee]

So we'll have to just wait and see.  The first rankings often throw curves and can be pretty unpredictable, particularly after we've been conditioned to contextualize teams' relativism through the top 25 poll.  The regional rankings are a totally different exercise (Bethel fans rejoice).

To speak to this, why are they different?  What instructions do the regional committees get that's something other than "give us your order of the best 10 teams in the region".  And what would the point be of instructions any different than that? 

I realize a few key games are still to be played that may solve any discrepancies between the RR's and the top 25 poll.  I also understand the top 25 poll is of no use in the playoff selection process.  It just baffles me how an RR could be subtly but notably different than the contextualized view of teams.  Yes, reserving the right to look at you, West RR committee.

You must not have much experience with this WM4. I think Wally is simply saying the D3.com top 25 has little to do with the regional rankings and we will get the post (on multiple boards) that points out "how silly it is" that team X is regionally ranked ahead of team Y when the order is reversed in the poll. That will happen.

As far as the committees, they all look at the same criteria and somehow come up with different interpretations and orders. This varies year over year as the committees change people and it often is different from region to region as one committee may favor win % while another favors SOS or RRO's. There are nuances. Others on here have followed it quite closely and know more than I do.