Pool C 2022

[desertcat1]

The rules should be the same in each region period.  That's glass to look at. 

[USee]

If you want to know who is on the Regional Committees to set the order:

Region VI:
Nick Winecke Saint Mary's Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference


The National Committee is made up of the chair of each of the regions with JJ Nekoloff from Region III set as the National Chair.

Is this a typo, or are there actually reps on these committees from schools that don't have football teams?? Why on earth would a school that doesn't play football have any say in this process?

Here is my source so see for yourself:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d3/2022-23D3MFB_PreChampionshipManual.pdf

I would only point out that 3 of the regions have 6 members of the RAC and 3 have only 5 and this one is one of the ones with 6.

[desertcat1]

You get my VOTE. I agree with you "they" should NOT. 

[hazzben]

No attempt to kill the messenger here USee, it's just really bizarre IMO.

[AO]

It should be pointed out that the regional committees are only in an advisory role, and the regional rankings are completely up to the national committee to determine. 

[USee]

No attempt to kill the messenger here USee, it's just really bizarre IMO.

I agree. No offense taken. Seems weird.

[hazzben]

I'd love to hear from Pat or Wally on what they expect the National Committee to do here. Either the number is a solid 7, or other deep regions should be ranking down to 8 as well. How does this affect RRO given the extra slot? Does the National Committee have the power to tell Region 3 to cut it down to 7 or if you really can't break the tie, we'll just consider your top 6?

We've seen regions play with the criteria to help a Pool C candidate, etc. But this looks like a pretty bullish, to hell with what the rules say, we are ranking 8 and making our own rules kinda move.

Listened to the ATN podcast with Pat and J.J. Nekoloff, gotta say, it actually makes me less confident they rectify this. He never commits to this being bumped back to 7 for Region 3, and actually implies that they are totally comfortable with a "Tie" scenario and that there isn't likely to be a National Committee stepping in to say, figure out a way to break the tie. It's a bad look, only made worse by the fact that Nekoloff is leading the RAC that did it, and now leads the National Committee that has to police it.

The worst part of this is that we don't have visibility to the final Regional Rankings, so who knows if they actually fix it or not. 

[USee]

I think the two loss Pool C picture is interesting and far more precarious than most realize. Bethel/St Johns loser has very different circumstances than a year ago. If Bethel loses they will have 2 losses to their region #2 (presumably) and #6 vs last year they had 2 close losses to the undefeated consensus region #1. They also will have between 1-3 RRO wins. For St Johns, should they lose Saturday their 2 losses are to Region #2 with at least 1 other RRO win. For Wheaton their two losses are to undefeated Region 3 top seed and undefeated and probable overall #1 Region 5 top seed with another RRO win. This gets into a team's placement in a region and which region is stronger, etc. I am not sure how this gets sorted but it doesn't appear to be as clear cut as it may seem. The national committee might just avoid all the confusion and pick only 1 loss teams:

UWL
Kings
HSU
JHU
MIAA loser
Utica

[D3fanboy]

I'd love to hear from Pat or Wally on what they expect the National Committee to do here. Either the number is a solid 7, or other deep regions should be ranking down to 8 as well. How does this affect RRO given the extra slot? Does the National Committee have the power to tell Region 3 to cut it down to 7 or if you really can't break the tie, we'll just consider your top 6?

We've seen regions play with the criteria to help a Pool C candidate, etc. But this looks like a pretty bullish, to hell with what the rules say, we are ranking 8 and making our own rules kinda move.

Listened to the ATN podcast with Pat and J.J. Nekoloff, gotta say, it actually makes me less confident they rectify this. He never commits to this being bumped back to 7 for Region 3, and actually implies that they are totally comfortable with a "Tie" scenario and that there isn't likely to be a National Committee stepping in to say, figure out a way to break the tie. It's a bad look, only made worse by the fact that Nekoloff is leading the RAC that did it, and now leads the National Committee that has to police it.

The worst part of this is that we don't have visibility to the final Regional Rankings, so who knows if they actually fix it or not. 

its just really, really hard to figure out a way to break a tie, plus *technically* the rules never said that you couldn't have a tie.

I would love nothing more than a RAC to produce a ranking next week with 3 or 4 teams "tied" for 7th, because sometimes you just can't break a tie

[HOPEful]

The national committee might just avoid all the confusion and pick only 1 loss teams:

UWL
Kings
HSU
JHU
MIAA loser
Utica

Let's hope not! Part of what has made this season so special has been the crossover of elite teams willing to schedule and play each other non-conference. By refusing to look at 2 or even 3 loss teams, you're effectively telling those teams to only schedule non-conference games they know they'll win. I want to see the trend continue! And the only way to do that is reward teams for scheduling a gauntlet vs. a cakewalk.

[USee]

I agree but when he says things like "the margin of victory in a RR result shouldn't be a factor" to which Pat replies "That's the first time a chair in ANY sport has ever said that..." it doesn't promote confidence that the guys at the top making these decisions "get it".

[jakeMN91]

If you want to know who is on the Regional Committees to set the order:

Region VI:
Nick Winecke Saint Mary's Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference


The National Committee is made up of the chair of each of the regions with JJ Nekoloff from Region III set as the National Chair.

Is this a typo, or are there actually reps on these committees from schools that don't have football teams?? Why on earth would a school that doesn't play football have any say in this process?

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Gary Fasching was on the Johnnie radio weekly show recently (just before the alphabetical ranking came out). He said he was the MIAC's rep for football this year and talked about the process they were going through to prepare.

[hazzben]

I agree but when he says things like "the margin of victory in a RR result shouldn't be a factor" to which Pat replies "That's the first time a chair in ANY sport has ever said that..." it doesn't promote confidence that the guys at the top making these decisions "get it".

100% my take. Ummm, you are suddenly going to be hyper wooden on Regional Ranked Result = you can't factor in MOV?!? This from the guy who has no problem with 7ish/8 teams being ranked. I was glad Pat pointed out that this was a total break from how it's historically been approached. I wish he'd pushed a little more on the "it was a tie, what could we do, but the national committee is good with it" line. It's real simple, the NC tells the RAC, either you can figure out how to break the tie, or we will do it for you. So you can be driving the process for who gets the #7 spot or you can have your #7 spot dictated to you.

[Pat Coleman]

weird way for Region 3 to get 8 teams ranked

I am shocked...shocked! that Region 3 would be the only region to have a "tie"

It's a deep region. 

And to be honest, BSC would probably spank most 4-7 RR teams in a handful of the other regions. Outside of getting toasted on the road last year to UMHB, remind you everyone else did as well, BSC has lost 3 other games the past two seasons; Two to Trinity on the last 10 seconds of each game by a total of 4 points. And 1 to Huntingdon, by 3 points.

Checks notes ... the Region 6 #4 team beat UMHB on the road  BSC might make the top 10 in the region. 

I'd love to hear from Pat or Wally on what they expect the National Committee to do here. Either the number is a solid 7, or other deep regions should be ranking down to 8 as well. How does this affect RRO given the extra slot? Does the National Committee have the power to tell Region 3 to cut it down to 7 or if you really can't break the tie, we'll just consider your top 6?

We've seen regions play with the criteria to help a Pool C candidate, etc. But this looks like a pretty bullish, to hell with what the rules say, we are ranking 8 and making our own rules kinda move.

I expect the national committee to break this tie.

I feel like I pressed that point as far as it needed to be.

[Pat Coleman]

I agree but when he says things like "the margin of victory in a RR result shouldn't be a factor" to which Pat replies "That's the first time a chair in ANY sport has ever said that..." it doesn't promote confidence that the guys at the top making these decisions "get it".

I mentioned in our post-interview conversation that this is something that is coming from above.