Bracketology Projection

[edward de vere]

I don't know Wheaton from Wheaties or Hardin-Simmons from Hardy & Laurel  but - based on their records of a lone 13-point loss to NC and a lone 6-point loss to UMHB - there's no freakin' way you leave those two teams out of the playoffs.

Come on, man.

Welcome to the joys of 27 conferences and just 5 at large bids. Good teams are going to be left out. Hardin-Simmons has the additional handicap that they're behind Birmingham-Southern in the rankings and they aren't getting picked until at least the 3rd round. So until BSC gets selected H-S isn't even in the discussion.


Honestly, I'm only confident in La Crosse and a 1 loss LL team getting in. After that it could depend on what data the committee thinks is better looking.

Okay, I understand you're a fun-with-numbers guy, at least in this discussion.  And you're going strictly by stated criteria as you read the criteria.  AND I think your passion is cool; I like people with a passion.

Fine.

But on neutral fields, give me your betting lines on the four games between  Wheaton and Hardin-Simmons versus Baldwin Wallace (and I'm an OAC guy!) and the LL second banana.

Look, nobody is a bigger fan of me than intellectual consistency.  I'm just not a fan of foolish consistency.  I can't see the committee leaving out two of the top twelve or so teams in the nation based on way-too-small sample numbers.

(Of course none of this matters.  Neither one of us has a vote!)

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I don't know Wheaton from Wheaties or Hardin-Simmons from Hardy & Laurel  but - based on their records of a lone 13-point loss to NC and a lone 6-point loss to UMHB - there's no freakin' way you leave those two teams out of the playoffs.

Come on, man.

Welcome to the joys of 27 conferences and just 5 at large bids. Good teams are going to be left out. Hardin-Simmons has the additional handicap that they're behind Birmingham-Southern in the rankings and they aren't getting picked until at least the 3rd round. So until BSC gets selected H-S isn't even in the discussion.


Honestly, I'm only confident in La Crosse and a 1 loss LL team getting in. After that it could depend on what data the committee thinks is better looking.

Okay, I understand you're a fun-with-numbers guy, at least in this discussion.  And you're going strictly by stated criteria as you read the criteria.  AND I think your passion is cool; I like people with a passion.

Fine.

But on neutral fields, give me your betting lines on the four games between  Wheaton and Hardin-Simmons versus Baldwin Wallace (and I'm an OAC guy!) and the LL second banana.

Look, nobody is a bigger fan of me than intellectual consistency.  I'm just not a fan of foolish consistency.  I can't see the committee leaving out two of the top twelve or so teams in the nation based on way-too-small sample numbers.

(Of course none of this matters.  Neither one of us has a vote!)

I'd set the line around a TD for all four games. Wheaton a slightly bigger favorite than H-S, Ithaca a slightly bigger underdog than BW.

I've never claimed Wheaton or H-S weren't subjectively one of the 5 best teams in pool C. But the committee has to be more objective than us so how far can they stray from the criteria when that doesn't point to who we feel should be picked?
Take a look at the Region 3 rankings... Birmingham-Southern is ahead of Hardin-Simmons. Similar SoS, same overall record, a one score loss to an unbeaten, but the difference is BSC has a win against barely ranked #7 Huntingdon. Would I pick Birmingham to beat Hardin-Simmons head to head... no. But that right there tells me only having an 0-1 RRO, even if it's a 6 point loss to one of the purple powers simply isn't enough to guarantee a spot if the other criteria isn't there. I think H-S has a very similar but slightly better resume than Wheaton, but Wheaton will be discussed from the beginning while Hardin-Simmons has to wait on BSC to be selected.

[USee]

Isn't HS and Bethel with only 1 loss better than Bethel or UWO with 2 losses? Winning % is a primary criteria, more reliable than the NCAA's SOS formula, and that sure seems like clear indication without needing to get to secondary criteria.

[USee]

D3.com/Wally has their projections based on latest regional rankings:
https://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2021/playoff-projection

[IC798891]

Look, I'm an IC fan (and despite my 30 posts, I've been around awhile, just in different names) And this is pretty much my take

I've never claimed Wheaton or H-S weren't subjectively one of the 5 best teams in pool C. But the committee has to be more objective than us so how far can they stray from the criteria when that doesn't point to who we feel should be picked?

I'm not biased enough to think that IC would beat an H-S or a Wheaton.

But the criteria is the criteria. If we're just going to ignore it, why have criteria at all?

The system we have is not the system I would use. But the one thing I do like about this system is that, for the most part, things are objective. Win your conference, and you're in. Have stronger SOS numbers, and better results against RR opponents, and you'll be in through Pool C.

As Denzel said in Training Day "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove"

[USee]

The problem with that thinking is it is extreme. We don't have to "not have criteria at all" just because a bunch of smart football people on a committee make an interpretation of what might be best using their expertise. The criteria are not meant to be a bible, they are a blueprint. There is room for the committee to use their brain and stay true to the criteria.

[wally_wabash]

Look, I'm an IC fan (and despite my 30 posts, I've been around awhile, just in different names) And this is pretty much my take

I've never claimed Wheaton or H-S weren't subjectively one of the 5 best teams in pool C. But the committee has to be more objective than us so how far can they stray from the criteria when that doesn't point to who we feel should be picked?

I'm not biased enough to think that IC would beat an H-S or a Wheaton.

But the criteria is the criteria. If we're just going to ignore it, why have criteria at all?

The system we have is not the system I would use. But the one thing I do like about this system is that, for the most part, things are objective. Win your conference, and you're in. Have stronger SOS numbers, and better results against RR opponents, and you'll be in through Pool C.

As Denzel said in Training Day "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove"

We won't recount Alonzo's fate.     

The criteria are imperfect and straining to capture the teams that ought to be selected in these spots.  One major issue at present is SOS.  SOS has had waning utility as more and more conferences have expanded to 10 (or more) teams and the amount of non-conference play has been reduced.  I think you could definitely see some RACs place less weight on SOS than I might or others who like to pick apart this data.  I'm not sure what the sweet spot is on SOS anymore, and I think yesterday's rankings indicate that I'm not the only one. 

I also think there should be extra conversation about some of the ranked opponent results.  Not just results against top ranked opponents, but results against lower ranked opponents.  Region 4 is atrocious this year.  How much extra credit should we really be giving Baldwin Wallace for beating the 4th place team in their conference?  Of all of my Pool C picks, BW is the one I like least, even though they were the third selection. 

All of which is to say, it's important to have knowledgeable human beings on that call to talk these things out and ask those questions.  The criteria are very objective, but not infallible.  The committee's job has only gotten harder as the number of at-large bids have reduced over time and this year's Pool C selections will be very difficult to be sure. 

 

[D3fanboy]

sorry if this has been asked/answered already, but is it known what constitutes a RRO?  is it regionally ranked once and that opponent is always a RRO? or does it only matter who is in the final regional rankings? or 2 out of 3 weeks ranked = RRO?  or some other strange NCAA version of nonsense?

[wally_wabash]

sorry if this has been asked/answered already, but is it known what constitutes a RRO?  is it regionally ranked once and that opponent is always a RRO? or does it only matter who is in the final regional rankings? or 2 out of 3 weeks ranked = RRO?  or some other strange NCAA version of nonsense?

At one time in history, it was once ranked, always ranked.  That's not the case any more.  The pool of ranked teams are going to come from the penultimate rankings (the set published yesterday) and the final rankings that the RACs will submit at the conclusion of Saturday's games, which usually get published sometime the week after selection.   

[D3fanboy]

sorry if this has been asked/answered already, but is it known what constitutes a RRO?  is it regionally ranked once and that opponent is always a RRO? or does it only matter who is in the final regional rankings? or 2 out of 3 weeks ranked = RRO?  or some other strange NCAA version of nonsense?

At one time in history, it was once ranked, always ranked.  That's not the case any more.  The pool of ranked teams are going to come from the penultimate rankings (the set published yesterday) and the final rankings that the RACs will submit at the conclusion of Saturday's games, which usually get published sometime the week after selection.

Thanks!   I wont have to root for JCU any longer

[IC798891]

There is room for the committee to use their brain and stay true to the criteria.

Listen, I'm not naive. I know that all this is code for: "We all know those East teams aren't national contenders, do we really need to put the LL runner-up in just so they lose in the 2nd round by 28 points (if they avoid a first-round upset), while a team that might make the national quarters or semis like H-S or Wheaton is at left home?"

Which, sure. I said elsewhere, I don't think Ithaca's on the level of those teams. But ultimately, I don't like the mentality that we use the criteria, except when we don't. Because while it might be super cut and dry in everyone's mind now, because the East is the East, someday down the line, it's not going to be, and we're going to have all these complaints about some other in/out decision, and someone thinks the committee should  stick to the criteria and other people think they should "use their brain."

The system is imperfect. There are ways I'd like to see it changed too. But I see the positives in using criteria for at-large bids — though perhaps, to Wally's point, the criteria could be different

[USee]

For the record, if the LL teams do as expected, they should have no worries about getting into the field. Johns Hopkins? No clue.

As far as using your brain/staying true to the criteria, it's not an "or" it's an "and". You don't have to do one and not the other. They are meant to work together. As Wall points out earlier, things like SOS were meant for a time when teams were playing 2 and 3 non conference games. The CCIW used to have 8 teams so everyone played 3 non conference games. Now they have 10 teams so it's a lot different. The OAC has had it this way for decades.

So as SOS becomes a more difficult measuring tool due to its inherent flaws, other criteria have to be examined more carefully, which Wally rightly points out is apparently happening in some regions. Diving into details of RRO results (which includes wins and losses) is important in a world where making decisions with limited data sets is the norm.

[Ralph Turner]

Reading Wally's projections on the front page, if higher seeds hold, a Cortland at UMHB would be a fun game to watch in Round #3!

[wally_wabash]

There is room for the committee to use their brain and stay true to the criteria.

Listen, I'm not naive. I know that all this is code for: "We all know those East teams aren't national contenders, do we really need to put the LL runner-up in just so they lose in the 2nd round by 28 points (if they avoid a first-round upset), while a team that might make the national quarters or semis like H-S or Wheaton is at left home?"

Which, sure. I said elsewhere, I don't think Ithaca's on the level of those teams. But ultimately, I don't like the mentality that we use the criteria, except when we don't. Because while it might be super cut and dry in everyone's mind now, because the East is the East, someday down the line, it's not going to be, and we're going to have all these complaints about some other in/out decision, and someone thinks the committee should  stick to the criteria and other people think they should "use their brain."

The system is imperfect. There are ways I'd like to see it changed too. But I see the positives in using criteria for at-large bids — though perhaps, to Wally's point, the criteria could be different

IMO, if Ithaca gets to 9-1 and is not an automatic qualifier or if Union are 9-1 and not an automatic qualifier, those teams should absolutely be at-large selections without extensive conversation or controversy.  LL has earned that. 

[MRMIKESMITH]

Regional Ranking 2 Updated Bracket - (I kept my other bracket intact until after this weekend slate of games) Unofficial DIII Bracketology

#1 seeds are: NCC, UWW, Mount, and St. John's
#2 Seeds are: UMHB, Central, Delaware Valley, and Cortland State
Pool C: UW-Lacrosse, Union, Birmingham Southern, Baldwin-Wallace, and Wheaton (Ill.)

Total Flights - 6-8

If it is 500 miles, you'll have to switch W&L with Huntingdon and Albion with Carnegie Mellon

I think this bracket solves the St. John's number 1 seed issue. It's possible! With the same number of flights. Unofficial DIII Bracketology