2019 Pool C

[wally_wabash]

I don't recall UMHB's bad SOS getting this much attention last year.  What changed?

I don't think anything changed. The question is the same. Whis is: Are the criteria  the rule until they aren't. The criteria are followed until they aren't, for whatever reason, good or bad. Taking Mt Union in Pool C in 2016 was the right choice. Making UMHB and Mt Union 1 seeds this year is the right choice, despite all the criteria saying otherwise. It's fair to wonder what other situations, some of which might be much less obvious, can and will arise that allow the criteria to be disregarded. Giving an east region team a 1 seed could be such a decision. I believe Ithaca, if they win out, will be every bit as deserving a 1 seed as any other team (their SOS will rise dramatically over the final 3 weeks and they will have at least 2 wins vs RRO's).

If UMHB were to lose to TLU and become a pool c candidate, they would be a bad candidate on the merits but will rightfully make it into the field. My observation (which I describe as such because it is a reality under the current system) is that the criteria matter, unless they don't and that can get a bit tricky under less obvious circumstances.

I'm going to disagree that the criteria could or would be disregarded for UMHB or UMU and nobody else.  SOS is one criteria.  It isn't the only one. 

If UMHB loses to TLU, I think they would get in, but this scenario is a little different than 2016 Mount Union.  Mount Union DE-stroyed 9 opponents, then lost in the last 40 seconds to John Carroll.  UMHB losing to TLU would not be equivalent to losing to 2016 semifinalist John Carroll, and UMHB also hasn't been absolutely overwhelming everywhere else on their schedule (meh result vs. Belhaven, last week's Houdini job).  I do think UMHB would get in, but they'll have given committees more reason to consider alternatives than 2016 Mount Union did. 

[Ralph Turner]

I agree on that note about UMHB.  2016, after Mount lost to JCU in week 11, i'm fairly sure they were the first team off the board for pool C.  Considering they went to the semi's that year and won all their games on the road, it was the right choice.  Likewise, this year if UMHB were to receive a pool C and not win the Pool A, I would expect to at least get to the quarters, if not semi's if not Stagg.

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year.

Interesting point about Muhlenberg in the east bracket. Something I didn't give a thought to, but might be something to watch for. Like it.

Bridgewater can bus to Allentown (Muhlenberg) but Berry is a plane flight to Cleveland.

I think that the Pod built around the South #2 seed needs some East Region teams.

I like Muhl hosting B'water and CWRU hosting Wesley. Then Muhl hosts CWRU/Wesley winner in round 2.

Then by the 3rd round, we can get some regional matchups.

It looks like the island teams will be their own bracket.

[Baldini]

I agree on that note about UMHB.  2016, after Mount lost to JCU in week 11, i'm fairly sure they were the first team off the board for pool C.  Considering they went to the semi's that year and won all their games on the road, it was the right choice.  Likewise, this year if UMHB were to receive a pool C and not win the Pool A, I would expect to at least get to the quarters, if not semi's if not Stagg.

As far as the East Bracket #1, I would not be surprised to see Muhlenberg get it.  They are in the South Region, but they are located in the east.  Assuming they beat Johns Hopkins this week, they will have 1-0 v. RRO (Cuz Hopkins won't be ranked with 3 losses), a .567 SOS, and a quarter final run in the playoffs last year.

Interesting point about Muhlenberg in the east bracket. Something I didn't give a thought to, but might be something to watch for. Like it.

Bridgewater can bus to Allentown (Muhlenberg) but Berry is a plane flight to Cleveland.

I think that the Pod built around the South #2 seed needs some East Region teams.

I like Muhl hosting B'water and CWRU hosting Wesley. Then Muhl hosts CWRU/Wesley winner in round 2.

Then by the 3rd round, we can get some regional matchups.

It looks like the island teams will be their own bracket.

Those are very good points. What is typical number of first round flights most years?

[tf37]

I don't recall UMHB's bad SOS getting this much attention last year.  What changed?

I don't think anything changed. The question is the same. Whis is: Are the criteria  the rule until they aren't. The criteria are followed until they aren't, for whatever reason, good or bad. Taking Mt Union in Pool C in 2016 was the right choice. Making UMHB and Mt Union 1 seeds this year is the right choice, despite all the criteria saying otherwise. It's fair to wonder what other situations, some of which might be much less obvious, can and will arise that allow the criteria to be disregarded. Giving an east region team a 1 seed could be such a decision. I believe Ithaca, if they win out, will be every bit as deserving a 1 seed as any other team (their SOS will rise dramatically over the final 3 weeks and they will have at least 2 wins vs RRO's).

If UMHB were to lose to TLU and become a pool c candidate, they would be a bad candidate on the merits but will rightfully make it into the field. My observation (which I describe as such because it is a reality under the current system) is that the criteria matter, unless they don't and that can get a bit tricky under less obvious circumstances.

I'm going to disagree that the criteria could or would be disregarded for UMHB or UMU and nobody else.  SOS is one criteria.  It isn't the only one. 

If UMHB loses to TLU, I think they would get in, but this scenario is a little different than 2016 Mount Union.  Mount Union DE-stroyed 9 opponents, then lost in the last 40 seconds to John Carroll.  UMHB losing to TLU would not be equivalent to losing to 2016 semifinalist John Carroll, and UMHB also hasn't been absolutely overwhelming everywhere else on their schedule (meh result vs. Belhaven, last week's Houdini job).  I do think UMHB would get in, but they'll have given committees more reason to consider alternatives than 2016 Mount Union did.

Didn't think future outcomes were a criteria 

JCU was in UWW's bracket and as such a semifinalist was not a given (they already had a loss and didn't exactly destroy people that year), just like we don't yet know where TLU will finish.

Although I do agree with your overall premise that UMHB has not look as impressive this year as Mount did in 2016.

[hazzben]

I'd also argue, it's one thing for the defending champ to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a 1 seed. But comparing 2018 SJU v. 2018 Mount, the former played UMHB just a little tougher IMO. They just faced them two rounds earlier. Why does the runner up get automatically slotted in for a 1 seed? Is the tie-breaker simply "how far did you go" in the playoffs or is it a "look under the hood" about playoff results. SJU isn't in a bad spot when compared to UWW and Mount if it's the latter. Given the outcome against UMHB.

[Inkblot]

Looking at the last three years, the way the brackets have been divided recently is as follows:

1. All the island teams (West Coast, Texas, Deep South) placed in one bracket with as many non-island teams as necessary to fill it out to 8.

2. The other 24 teams divided into three sections, east to west, with a few teams shifted as necessary to balance the brackets.

[wally_wabash]

I'd also argue, it's one thing for the defending champ to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a 1 seed. But comparing 2018 SJU v. 2018 Mount, the former played UMHB just a little tougher IMO. They just faced them two rounds earlier. Why does the runner up get automatically slotted in for a 1 seed? Is the tie-breaker simply "how far did you go" in the playoffs or is it a "look under the hood" about playoff results. SJU isn't in a bad spot when compared to UWW and Mount if it's the latter. Given the outcome against UMHB.

The language is:

When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated records in the primary criteria, the NCAA Division III Football Committee can use a team's performance in the previous championship season as criterion.

So it doesn't specifically say "record in previous year's championship", which could certainly be interpreted and used as you suggest. 

I don't think the committee would reach into that specific criterion to put SJU on the top line. The other primary criteria are sufficient to figure out who should be the #1 seeds. 

I think it's also important to remember why that rule exists in the first place.  A defending champion went 10-0 the following year and got sent on the road for QF and SF games for no apparent reason.  Literally everybody agreed (at least everybody who is involved in making and approving selection and seeding criteria) that that was garbage and shouldn't be a thing that happens.  I don't think that rule exists to help #2 regionally ranked teams find back doors into top seeds. 

[Baldini]

OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in? 

[Oline89]

Just to add some chaos to the mix, IF TLU upsets UMHB on 11/9, what would be the argument for making UMHB a Pool C Bid?

I think defending National Champion is the beginning and end of the argument for UMHB as a Pool C.

Which was the same logic used when Mount lost to JCU back in 2016.

So winning a national title is an automatic bid for the next season?  That is a terrible precedent IMHO.  There has to be more objective criteria to give UMHB a pool C bid (if they lose to TLU) than "they won it last year".

[DuffMan]

OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

In the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.

Source: WIAC Football Operating Code

[hazzben]

I'd also argue, it's one thing for the defending champ to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a 1 seed. But comparing 2018 SJU v. 2018 Mount, the former played UMHB just a little tougher IMO. They just faced them two rounds earlier. Why does the runner up get automatically slotted in for a 1 seed? Is the tie-breaker simply "how far did you go" in the playoffs or is it a "look under the hood" about playoff results. SJU isn't in a bad spot when compared to UWW and Mount if it's the latter. Given the outcome against UMHB.

The language is:

When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated records in the primary criteria, the NCAA Division III Football Committee can use a team's performance in the previous championship season as criterion.

So it doesn't specifically say "record in previous year's championship", which could certainly be interpreted and used as you suggest. 

I don't think the committee would reach into that specific criterion to put SJU on the top line. The other primary criteria are sufficient to figure out who should be the #1 seeds. 

I think it's also important to remember why that rule exists in the first place.  A defending champion went 10-0 the following year and got sent on the road for QF and SF games for no apparent reason.  Literally everybody agreed (at least everybody who is involved in making and approving selection and seeding criteria) that that was garbage and shouldn't be a thing that happens.  I don't think that rule exists to help #2 regionally ranked teams find back doors into top seeds.

I don't disagree Wally regarding UMHB. But my point is that Mount is not the reigning champ. Neither is UWW. Or Wheaton. Or SJU. Or Ithaca. But the discussion thus far has been that Mount automatically gets the other one. That's why I raise the question of criteria.

And I don't think an unbeaten SJU or UWW (whichever is ranked #2 in the West) is looking for a "backdoor" to the number one seed. I think they/we are saying, our region is constantly, year over year stacked. Can we get a fair shake at #1 seeds when we have multiple teams that are worthy. If there's a back door, IMO, it's Ithaca sitting atop the East as a foregone conclusion for a #1 seed. There's no criteria or tie breaker saying each region's #1 gets first dibs on the #1 seed unless they are a really bad candidate. But there is a tie breaker looking at previous seasons results. I'm not sure UWW or SJU are dogs to Wheaton, Mount, and Ithaca on primary criteria (unless we have back doors for teams that lost to UMHB later than others, and for teams sitting atop favorable regions). But if you factor in last seasons playoff results, all else being equal, Mount, UWW, and SJU come out looking better than Wheaton and Ithaca.

Bottom line, SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else in the playoffs. They would have been a hot knife through butter in the East last year. But Brockport at least had a prior years playoff result to fall back on for some sort of secondary criteria. Ithaca's primary numbers look good, but not appreciably better than Mount, UWW, SJU, and Wheaton.

[Ralph Turner]

Bottom line, SJU played UMHB tougher than anyone else in the playoffs. They would have been a hot knife through butter in the East last year. But Brockport at least had a prior years playoff result to fall back on for some sort of secondary criteria. Ithaca's primary numbers look good, but not appreciably better than Mount, UWW, SJU, and Wheaton.

Which is always my "bug-a-boo".  Look at the quality of the playoff teams west of the 88th longitude, roughly western Chicagoland.

However, it is difficult not to give a #1 bracket seed to an East Region team if they are undefeated.

[Baldini]

OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

In the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.

Source: WIAC Football Operating Code

Thanks DuffMan. I was think more along the lines of who would have the edge after the AQ go to. I believe that would make UW-La Crosse the AQ, does the put UW-WW in the drives seat in Pool C? Would that put UW-P on life support in Pool C?

[USee]

OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

In the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.

Source: WIAC Football Operating Code

Thanks DuffMan. I was think more along the lines of who would have the edge after the AQ go to. I believe that would make UW-La Crosse the AQ, does the put UW-WW in the drives seat in Pool C? Would that put UW-P on life support in Pool C?

As soon as you lift the Pool A out of that 3 way tie (in this case UWL) the other two are subject to where they are ranked in the region by the RAC for Pool C purposes. UWW would likely be higher due to the HTH.

[Baldini]

OK, playing the what if game one more time in the WIAC. If UW-LC should upset UW-WW this weekend and all 3 of La Crosse, Whitewater and Platteville end up with only 1 D-3 lose, who's in? And is it possible all 3 get in?

In the event of a tie, the WIAC determines their automatic qualifier as follows:

In the sport of football, the conference champion and automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs shall be decided on a percentage basis. If two or more teams are tied for the conference championship, they shall
be considered co-champions and the following tie-breaker criteria shall be used to determine the conference's automatic qualifier into the NCAA playoffs. A championship award (plaque or trophy) will be awarded to the championship team(s). Each member of the championship team will receive a certificate.

1. Head-to-head results between all tied teams.*
2. Tied teams are to be eliminated in reverse order of their last playoff appearance beginning with the 1991 season.
3. Random selection by the commissioner.

*If two (2) teams remain after a third or more teams are eliminated, the tie-breaker reverts back to
criteria #1.

Source: WIAC Football Operating Code

Thanks DuffMan. I was think more along the lines of who would have the edge after the AQ go to. I believe that would make UW-La Crosse the AQ, does the put UW-WW in the drives seat in Pool C? Would that put UW-P on life support in Pool C?

As soon as you lift the Pool A out of that 3 way tie (in this case UWL) the other two are subject to where they are ranked in the region by the RAC for Pool C purposes. UWW would likely be higher due to the HTH.

Probably a fairly damaging scenario for Platteville, It would place them behind Bethel, Redlands and Whitewater in the west alone. Would get to the table late in the process at best.