The NCAA has, thankfully, moved away from its flawed Quality of Wins Index to incorporate more relevant numbers into its strength of schedule calculation.
The only variation the NCAA made to this formula over the years it was in place was to change the name, rather than make the formula work better. Now at least we have a wholesale change.
SOS will now be determined using a schools’ opponents’ winning percentage and their opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. That is, not only will it measure a team’s opponents record, but the teams that opponent played in order to get to that record.
There are too many numbers to post here. They have their own page. Click here to read, but feel free to comment.
By my calculations, assuming all of the other numbers you have are right, Mount Union has OWP of 0.333 and OOWP of .594.
One important question that will need to be understood is how the NCAA intends to use these numbers. In the handbook, these numbers take the place of the QOWI, but they are not comparable numbers.
QOWI factored in the team’s record; in fact, these numbers are best thought of as an adjustment (up or down) to a team’s record. So teams with the best record generally had a very good QOWI, and vice versa.
These factors do not include the team’s record. So the teams with the best numbers here are not necessarily going to be among the best in the country. That’s why the NCAA ordinarily creates the RPI, which has 25% winning percentage, 50% OWP, and 25% OOWP.
If you read the handbook, it’s simply one factor of many and tends to be more of a factor when you’re trying to figure out who’s going to get that last Pool C bid. MUC has nothing to worry about from this index.
This is why there are several criteria and a human committee to interpret them.
Record, in the form of in-region winning percentage, is already a criteria (-ion?)
So I’m guessing that doesn’t need to be repeated in an SOS formula, what we need to know is who built their undefeated record playing Lewis & Clark in a non-conference game, and who did it against Christopher Newport.
All same records are not the same; the team that did it against the better competition should get the nod.
With the regional rankings, record against common opponents and head-to-head also ranking as “primary” criteria, there are several things the committee can use beyond just record or SOS to determine playoff participation and position once in the field.
Keith Your exactly right. With so many teams at the D3 level it is almost impossible to get a true Strength of Schedule, therefore we need only look at “who built their undefeated record playing L&C in a non-conference game ,and who did it against CNU”.
What about the reverse? What about a team like CNU who may go 8-3 playing quite possibly the toughest non-conference schedule in the Nation as compared to a 9-1, 10-1 team? Who gets the at-large? This is why I am not a fan of the current playoff system for At-larges. Teams have be very picky with their schedules. If they play a weak schedule then they don’t get in, even with a 9-1 record (2003 HSC) or they play a bunch of highly ranked teams and lose and not get in.
All you have to do is look at Averrett and think if last year they had not played Mt. Union or Wesley and had been 10-1 that maybe the committee would have given them a look. But at 8-3 and playing top notch opponents the committee just crossed them off for the 3 loses. They got penalized for playing the best.
Run Ferrum,
The nice thing about the blogs and message boards is that you can propose an alternative to anything that you don’t like.
Given the constraints of
a 5-week, 32-team bracket,
and 22 Automatic Qualifiers going to the conference winners (Pool A),
and the 3 at-large Pool B bids that have been allocated to the independents and the members of conferences that don’t get an AQ bid (The number of “3 bids” was determined by a ratio that roughly reflects the average conference size divided into the number of schools who are true independents and members of non-AQ Conferences like the ACFC),
how would you allocate the remaining 7 AQ bids?
Thanks you in advance. 🙂
Every system with an at-large factor has problems. Just look at the D1 with the BCS – individuals vote on who should play in what game. Now D3 definitely has a better system in place. I just think with the D3 at-large is arbitrarily done. Why do I think this? 1) D3 is a much larger than D1, so many teams and in a lot of instances there is very little to compare 2) resources are not as available to voters (decision-makers) this is not D1 where we have 800 analyst discussing each game, therefore how can we tell if a 9-1 team is better than an 8-3 squad?
Earning the Right – I would much rather see a team that has earned the right on the field rather than a team given the opportunity. Is it fair for some “objective” person to decide who gets an at-large and who doesn’t when it is almost impossible at the D3 level to have enough knowledge of the teams to make a fair decision? They can’t get it right with all the info at D1 how are we suppose to get it right at the D3 level?
Also – I doubt an At-large has ever WON the national title. Correct me if I am wrong.
As for the question of proposing a system – I have no details – but if anything it should be one where a team earns the right by winning their conference or whatever standards are to be met.
Not many teams other than Mount Union have won Division III football titles. That’s not very meaningful.
However, two at-large teams have won titles in the Pools era: Pacific Lutheran (1999) and Linfield (2004). Both were Pool B selections, which is at-large. PLU was not even the top finisher in its conference, having tied for the title and lost the head-to-head.
RunFerrum,
Thank you for the response. I encourage you to follow Pat Coleman’s prognostications towards the end of the season. D3football.com has added the tools, including almost all of the data that the selection committee sees, for us to project the teams and also project the seeding of the brackets. Pat Coleman has gotten very good at predicting the entire 32 team field for the last several years. His analysis, based on the data, is then explained in the ways that we fans can understand. Any quibbling that has arisen seems to be about the 32nd team, which is the way that it should be.
Also concerning the at-large bids, UMHB was a 2004 Pool C team and was the finalist in the Stagg Bowl…Both teams in the 2004 Stagg were at large! In fact, the South Region Champion for the last three years has been an at-large team (2004 — UMHB; 2005 and 2006 — Wesley).
The commentator on ESPN’s L’viile/UConn game said that he choses a one loss Oklahoma over undefeated Ohio St, as no. 1 because some of these teams keep scheduling the ” Baldwin Wallace’s and Frostburg St’s every year and go undefeated”!!!!