Pool C 2022

[HOPEful]

thanks dudes, looks like those final RR #7 spots are going to be very valuable for some higher ranked squads

Which is why, yet again, the whole RR setup is so ridiculously stupid. A win against the seventh best team in a region is valuable while a win against the eighth best means nothing outside of being a win. In region 4, for instance, a win against Denison is marginally and debatably better than a win against Wabash or Wittenberg. And losing to Denison is nowhere near the same as losing to Platteville, despite both currently projected to be sitting on their region's 7th RR spot. We have SOS already; RRs are just an arbitrary line in the sand that has the potential to make a big impact depending on where the line is drawn. I'd much rather the committee go to a best wins, worst losses approach. Especially in football, where they're only looking to fill the 5 spots and only 10 teams will ever get to the table. The committee should be able to dissect each team's resume without being given any arbitrary number like 1-1 or 0-2....

[crufootball]

Yes, what Greg said. So at selection time, it's teams who are in the Selection Sunday ranking, and the ones who were in the post-Week 10 ranking that qualify as RRO.

What did you or Greg (or anybody) think of once ranked always ranked? With as few as rankings as we get I could see some value in it, of course I get it would be easy to manipulate as well.

[Cowboy2]

thanks dudes, looks like those final RR #7 spots are going to be very valuable for some higher ranked squads

Which is why, yet again, the whole RR setup is so ridiculously stupid. A win against the seventh best team in a region is valuable while a win against the eighth best means nothing outside of being a win. In region 4, for instance, a win against Denison is marginally and debatably better than a win against Wabash or Wittenberg. And losing to Denison is nowhere near the same as losing to Platteville, despite both currently projected to be sitting on their region's 7th RR spot. We have SOS already; RRs are just an arbitrary line in the sand that has the potential to make a big impact depending on where the line is drawn. I'd much rather the committee go to a best wins, worst losses approach. Especially in football, where they're only looking to fill the 5 spots and only 10 teams will ever get to the table. The committee should be able to dissect each team's resume without being given any arbitrary number like 1-1 or 0-2....

What system would you propose then?

I think it's pretty good for the most part before it becomes  participation trophies. I mean if a team wins their league they're in. Each team controls their own destiny. Now for the leagues that are a bit stronger than some of the others, those teams have higher SOS, which help the
Over a weaker conference. I assure you a 9-1 solid resume is discussed. Sometimes They may not be as good as an 8-2 resume and are left out. Bethel proved that last season over HSU. There are Only 5 spots and 200 teams or so to choose from. I mean I guess the NCAA could do away with the bye weeks and start playoffs a week earlier. Add 16 more teams to the field and double up on 32 team rounds one and two for 2 weeks. Top teams would get a bye. But then people would argue how to assess the top teams to receive 1st round byes. And then there would be 7-3 or 8-2 teams that still missed the playoffs. Where does it stop?

The system is flawed but it's probably the best system. I don't know how to fix it. It stinks when a good team isn't in the bracket, but by the way of how the ball bounces and a few inches here or there, the team that misses out misses out because they didn't win their league to begin with, which means the deserving team for that conference in X region is already in and should be.

[bluestreak66]

Man, there are a lot of 2-loss teams that look OK for a "C" right now.

In Region 6: UW - LAX has a tough schedule in front of it - three opponents of quality and distinction. The UWRF - UWW game is an elimination game.

St. John's - Carleton is definitely an elimination game. If St. John's and Bethel face each other in the MIAC championship, I don't know if loser is out of the running. The WIAC knocking each other silly helps, and unless George Fox stuns everyone, the NWC won't have a viable C contender. CMS vs. P-P is an elimination game as well.

I think the top Region 5 slot is the winner of Wheaton vs. Wash U. A 2-loss Wheaton isn't out of it. If Monmouth beats Ripon, that could mean Ripon's in the C mix but they haven't played the tomato cans of the MWC yet and that'll hurt the SOS.

Region 4 may be all about the MIAA. A 2-loss John Carroll loses luster as W&J stumbles. Alma and Albion end the year playing the same teams, then each other. If Olivet or Adrian pip one of them the MIAA could be shut out too.

If Howard Payne doesn't shock the world, HSU will be in a familiar "C" position. A Bridgewater loss to W&L will eliminate them, I think. Bellhaven's SOS is miserable.

Region 2 could be fun: Utica seems to be in a great spot if they beat Morristown, who also have to play Brockport. A 2-loss Union is shaky, as is a two-loss Ithaca. I think someone mentioned the Cortaca jug could be an elimination game for Ithaca. JHU and Susquehanna loser has to feel decent - if Susquehanna can get past Muhlenberg. Salisbury - CNU is probably an elimination game.

I'd love to see a 9-1 Kings in the tourney. The SOS is decent now but will drop a bit the next two weeks. If Salve Regina beats Endicott, is Endicott a 1-loss C contender??

Contenders (in no order):

Bethel / St. Johns rematch loser
Wheaton / Wash U winner
UWW / UW-LAX / UW-RF depending on results upcoming (A 2-loss LAX is definitely in some sort of mix)
HSU
Alma / Albion loser
Utica
JHU / Susquehanna loser
King's
Ripon if they lose to Monmouth
Bridgewater if they beat W&L
John Carroll could sneak in if chaos ensues.


Those top 3 will all have 2-losses. But I bet at least 2 get in.

As someone who's team is skating on very thin ice and needs total chaos, I am pulling for what I call WIAC Doomsday! That involves:

Whitewater losing to River Falls to finish 7-3
River Falls losing to LaCrosse to finish 7-3
LaCrosse losing to Oshkosh and Platteville to finish 7-3

that leaves 7-3 Platteville, possibly the biggest wild card in the field in this scenario, as the WIAC champion. Will they beat the MIAC champ or get smoked by the ASC runner up? Who knows!

I realize this scenario leave 7-3 Oshkosh in play with a 7-2 record within the division, but this is probably the only real scenario where the WIAC would only get 1 team in.

[HOPEful]

thanks dudes, looks like those final RR #7 spots are going to be very valuable for some higher ranked squads

Which is why, yet again, the whole RR setup is so ridiculously stupid. A win against the seventh best team in a region is valuable while a win against the eighth best means nothing outside of being a win. In region 4, for instance, a win against Denison is marginally and debatably better than a win against Wabash or Wittenberg. And losing to Denison is nowhere near the same as losing to Platteville, despite both currently projected to be sitting on their region's 7th RR spot. We have SOS already; RRs are just an arbitrary line in the sand that has the potential to make a big impact depending on where the line is drawn. I'd much rather the committee go to a best wins, worst losses approach. Especially in football, where they're only looking to fill the 5 spots and only 10 teams will ever get to the table. The committee should be able to dissect each team's resume without being given any arbitrary number like 1-1 or 0-2....

What system would you propose then?

I like the system. Just not RROs. We already have SOS and a committee. Why are we telling them in advance which wins and losses matter more in advance. Can't that figure that out themselves by looking at each team at the table, their SOS, their best wins, their worst losses, etc.? Why are we drawing an arbitrary line in the sand between the seventh and eighth best teams in each region?

[hazzben]

I think it helps a committee know who experts in another region think are the best teams. Sure the line is a bit arbitrary, but it's a helpful data point for Region 6 to know where Huntington and their result against Linfield stacks up. That's not a team they probably have a ton of familiarity with. That said, I think once ranked always ranked for RRO is helpful to alleviate the problem you describe.

[wally_wabash]

Yes, what Greg said. So at selection time, it's teams who are in the Selection Sunday ranking, and the ones who were in the post-Week 10 ranking that qualify as RRO.

What did you or Greg (or anybody) think of once ranked always ranked? With as few as rankings as we get I could see some value in it, of course I get it would be easy to manipulate as well.

I've learned that I tend to be in the minority on this, but I liked once ranked, always ranked for the exact reason you cite- it's extra information. 

Having seen how the ranking process has evolved over time to include some maybe (definitely?) icky business at the bottom of the rankings, I think I'm ok with how it is now. 

I'll also acknowledge HOPEful's pain point on RROs as a kind of double counting of SOS.  There's some truth to that. 

We do go over this every year- it's not a perfect process.  This selection process is one that has to be robust enough to be good enough to use across all of D-III's team championships.  If we were goign to be allowed to start to update the process, I don't think I'd start with ORAR or even the number of teams being ranked, or number of rankings.  I'd probably start with a better SOS metric. 

[HOPEful]

I'll also acknowledge HOPEful's pain point on RROs as a kind of double counting of SOS.  There's some truth to that. 

That's all I'm saying. It's an arbitrary double counting of SOS.

If you're going to do it, do the quadrant thing like D1 does for basketball. That way, even though you're still drawing lines at 25%, 50%, and 75% when the difference between the 25% and 26% is minimal, you're at least acknowledging that Q2 wins/losses are better than the undefeated conference champion who never played any school better than a Q3. You're also getting a broader picture of how a certain team's record and SOS are laid out and it forces you to take into account best wins and worst losses.

[IC798891]

I'll also acknowledge HOPEful's pain point on RROs as a kind of double counting of SOS.  There's some truth to that. 

That's all I'm saying. It's an arbitrary double counting of SOS.

I don't think it's that at all.

SOS cares not (or little) about conference strength and weaknesses. The people who come up with RRs do.

[HOPEful]

I don't think it's that at all.

SOS cares not (or little) about conference strength and weaknesses. The people who come up with RRs do.

I'm confused by this response. SOS is literally an algorithm to quantifiably rate the strength (or weakness) of a team's schedule. As Wally pointed out, you can certainly ask for the SOS metrics to be improved upon... but we disagree fundamentally on how to rank teams if you think a bunch of humans in a room, inherent with bias, are better at reassessing a team's strength of schedule.

I like the system. I think a committee is necessary to then take that data and debate/discuss which teams are most deserving. There are nuances that a computer alone shouldn't be solely responsible for working out. (I'm remembering the BCS and universal hatred for solely using computer rankings) But a committee then ranking those teams and creating a new metric (RRs) and then assessing teams solely on their performances against those teams and no one else, is an arbitrary and perverted double counting of SOS. In football, when each team at the table will have 1-3 losses, how does a RR of (2-2) better equip the committee than simply discussing the team's losses and best wins? Despite being from Michigan, I don't need a (1-1) metric next to Hardin Simmons to direct me to their 41-0 win at Platteville or their 50-20 home loss to MHB. And when RRs are shown on a list, all you see is Hardin Simmons (1-1) or Kings (1-1), as though those two records are equal. Never mind that Kings' win was against Stevenson and loss to Delaware Valley. Not to mention that the rest of the ASC teams not in the region 3 rankings are significantly better than the rest of the MAC teams not on region 1. No mention that (0-7) Albright took Kings to OT. Or that a 3-4 Lycoming team had the ball down 28-23 with a chance to win the game against them.

A national committee shouldn't need RRs to tell them which games were most meaningful. And I would strongly argue that using them doesn't aid the process but degrades it.

[Cowboy2]

Hopeful you make good common sense arguments. I'm not going to act like I know why the committees do or don't do something.  I would say maybe it's more so to further emphasize why a team is regionally where they are on placement.

10-0 vs 10-0 doesn't show much. Yes you can look at SOS but does it really reflect how good a team is if it's a tenth or hundredth difference if they're in a weaker conference that has a down year?  When you factor in who a team beat or not, by not have the RR you can get into historical bias. Not knocking UWPs win or UWW, but if UWW loses again will they be in the  regional rankings? So for example would that loss UMHB had to UWW look as good? In my example, yes UWW is a historically amazing program, but if they're not in the regional rankings, with another unforeseen loss, you can't factor in who a team played well based on saying," hey so and so beat them or played close against them or them." You know?

IMHO it helps the regional committees ensure they get their teams right as opposed to letting the national committee just pencil whip a MU UWW etc in because they feel they would do the best. I think it makes sure they fill out the remaining spots of the bracket on teams that need state their case. In the end, if a team wins their league, they get the AQ...

[MRMIKESMITH]

Hopeful you make good common sense arguments. I'm not going to act like I know why the committees do or don't do something.  I would say maybe it's more so to further emphasize why a team is regionally where they are on placement.

10-0 vs 10-0 doesn't show much. Yes you can look at SOS but does it really reflect how good a team is if it's a tenth or hundredth difference if they're in a weaker conference that has a down year?  When you factor in who a team beat or not, by not have the RR you can get into historical bias. Not knocking UWPs win or UWW, but if UWW loses again will they be in the  regional rankings? So for example would that loss UMHB had to UWW look as good? In my example, yes UWW is a historically amazing program, but if they're not in the regional rankings, with another unforeseen loss, you can't factor in who a team played well based on saying," hey so and so beat them or played close against them or them." You know?

IMHO it helps the regional committees ensure they get their teams right as opposed to letting the national committee just pencil whip a MU UWW etc in because they feel they would do the best. I think it makes sure they fill out the remaining spots of the bracket on teams that need state their case. In the end, if a team wins their league, they get the AQ...

They have done this on occasions, when all the data didn't makes sense, but the "eye test" was the most common sense way to go.

Also, I do agree that historical biases do play apart, but with so little crossover data and less information as our Div 1 FBS counterparts, it's something that is utilized. In some instances data may indicate that one team is still better than a team that another team loss to, that's when I have the issue, considering records are fairly similar and one team just didn't have a bad day or were missing key players. I'm sure the Committee uses the data it has as a starting point and then when it is necessary use "Eye Test/Historical Data/Common Sense" in less frequent occasions, for example Mount Union in 2016, that team resume is eerily similar to this year's team, but that 2016 team went on the road for three straight weeks, beat the best of R2 and then went toe to toe with the UMHB at UMHB.

[Inkblot]

Logan Hansen has an adjusted SOS metric that seems to more closely match the decisions that the committees actually make when it comes to ranking teams with the same record.

[HOPEful]

10-0 vs 10-0 doesn't show much. Yes you can look at SOS but does it really reflect how good a team is if it's a tenth or hundredth difference if they're in a weaker conference that has a down year? 

I will agree that SOS is less valuable when comparing unbeaten teams. And I would be keener on using RRs when comparing teams without losses. But the only time we're comparing 10-0 teams is when we're considering matchups and hosting. If you're 10-0, you won your conference and the AQ that goes along with it. When it comes to pool C, the committee is comparing teams with 1 or 2 (on rare occasions 3) losses. At that point, I don't see how RRs is a useful stat when you can simply look at each teams SOS, their losses, and their best wins.

[Cowboy2]

A bit off topic, but I think with all the social media outlets and recruiting nowadays, and the growing number of high schools, kids playing sports, more and more people will continue to want to play at the next level.

D3 is in a good spot numbers wise with so many programs. I think there is more parity at the top today then there may have been 10-20 years ago which is awesome. With that being said, there are only 5 coveted spots currently for pool c bids. I think moving forward the norm will be for more and more teams to schedule top tier programs OOC. Not so much to prove themselves on a national stage early in the season for regional rankings, but more so to get their squad ready for conference play. Granted, sometimes teams can only schedule someone that is available at the time, or where the budget makes sense for travel, but I think through attrition good teams in prior years will only be able to field better teams in OOC play. Plus with the rules for AQ, there may be less spots in the future for pool c with more conferences adjoining for travel costs.

Winning a high profile game does help RR or for polling, but it also helps coaches measure their team against the grain all while having the ultimate goal of making their team better for conference play. This is where RR help because some conferences do not have open weeks for OOC play. So when evaluating those final spots, it helps them look at the data on who is most deserving before the national committee makes the selection....without the underlying bias.

While this year has been chaos in evaluating The Who beat who for poll purposes, it also has opened eyes to the rise quality of play across the league. For example a program on the rise may go 0-3 in OOC play, but finish 6-1 in conference, they may be more prepared for playoffs. Yea, they'd be 6-4, but they're in the bracket and that's all that matters is 0-0 at that point.