33 thoughts on “Third regional rankings”

1. And remember, the following unranked teams have clinched automatic bids:

   Concordia (Wis.), Widener, N.C. Wesleyan

   The MIAA winner will be unranked.

2. Pool B teams in this ranking:

   North
   3. Case Western Reserve 7-0 9-0

   South
   2. Wesley 6-1 8-1
   5. Salisbury 4-1 8-1

   West
   9. Whitworth 7-1 7-2

   Three are guaranteed slots.

3. So 4 bids are going to teams off this list already. That leaves 28 left for this 40 – and Rochester or Union and Cal Luth and Illinois Wesleyan could each walk away with one (they aren’t on the list above). Could be as few as 25, then you pick off the AQ’s tagged, there’s going to a bunch of teams fighting for the last couple o’ spots. Velly interesting.

4. I will freely admit I do not totally understand all the intricacies of the criteria used for these rankings but I do understand regional records and overall records are important; however, why did Muhlenberg switch 3 and 4 with UMHB this week in the South? I know Muhlenberg is undefeated but they were last week as well. Insight from d3 gurus who understand how to read the NCAA tea leaves will be much appreciated.

5. rick…I’m guessing that Muhlenberg moved up because (as you noted) they are still undefeated…which is not an easy thing any more! Even though the NCAA regional committees has to use a lot of various number crunching criteria to make the regional rankings , my theory would be being undefeated is still pretty big as there are only 9 undefeated teams left throughout all the D-III schools football playing schools.

6. Does anyone find it interesting how the Empire 8 conference is so equal, no AQ yet and still 4 teams I believe in the running…wow….this weeks games will be huge

7. So does the ODAC pay off the people who do these rankings? How is NCW not ranked above RMC and HSC. CNU is better than both of them also. Neither RMC or HSC has played a tough opponent. Its like CNU and NCW gets penalized for playing a tough Non-conference schedule. HSC is a joke. There coach purposely schedules soft teams – this is straight from a former player.

   Maybe I was wrong – thank god there is a playoff in D3 if not the voters would completely mess this thing up.

8. That’s an interesting diatribe, RunFerrum, but the stats completely do not support your assumptions. Check the Strength of Schedule numbers — we post them on the site for your education.

   http://www.d3football.com/strength-of-schedule/2007

   Hampden-Sydney 7-2 0.778 0.493 0.556
   Randolph-Macon 8-1 0.889 0.496 0.594
   North Carolina Wesleyan 7-1 0.875 0.497 0.528

   First number regional winning percentage. Second number opponents’ winning percentage. Third number opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. They have nearly identical opponents’ winning percentages and Macon’s opponents played a significantly tougher class of teams than NCWC in getting that record.

9. Rick,
   Muhlenberg beat a 7-1 Ursinus team this week while UMHB beat ETBU (5-5) last week, which probably helped their OWP.

   Also, Muhlenberg picked up a win over a team in the field when TCNJ clinched. Granted, TCNJ was regionally ranked last week.

   I don’t know exactly, without really thinking it through.

   Primary criteria, according to: http://www.d3football.com/faq.php?answer&category=Playoffs&id=25

   • Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
   • Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
   – Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
   – Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
   • In-region head-to-head competition.
   • In-region results versus common regional opponents.
   • In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

10. Re: R-MC/H-SC vs. NCW OOWP:

    Every Wabash (via Denison), Muhlenberg (via Johns Hopkins) and Case Western Reserve (via Carnegie Mellon) win helps the Jackets.

    Every Rowan (via Widener) loss hurts NCW.

    Wesley helps NCW’s OWP, but they help H-SC (via Huntingdon) and R-MC (via Frostburg) OOWP.

    These three teams also have a common opponent: Emory & Henry.

    NCW beat the Wasps by 4, R-MC by 3 and H-SC lost to them.

    I agree that Wesley, and probably Widener, were tougher opponents than anyone R-MC or H-SC scheduled non-conference (although Carnegie Mellon was 11-1 last season), but NCW would have helped itself by beating one of them. As it stands, none of the three teams have a win over another regionally ranked team, although R-MC and H-SC are about to play each other and the loser might remain ranked.

    The ODAC also had a really good year (23-3) non-conference this season. So that boosts the OWPs (though not necessarily the OOWPs) of both R-MC and H-SC.

    I think.

    In other words, Run, your personal feelings on strength of schedule nor mine stand up against pre-established criteria intended to judge teams fairly. They might not nail the strongest team all of the time … but what does it matter anyway?

    As the 7 and 8 seeds, are you fighting for a game at Wesley instead of at Washington & Jefferson? You sure your USAC peeps want that?

11. And, at the risk of getting way off-topic here, the cross-conference competition between the ODAC and USAC this season:

    Emory and Henry 50 Ferrum 7
    Shenandoah 6 Catholic 7
    Guilford 50 Methodist 47
    Bridgewater (Va.) 20 Shenandoah 6
    Emory and Henry 16 North Carolina Wesleyan 20
    Ferrum 16 Bridgewater (Va.) 41
    Averett 13 Guilford 47
    Averett 21 Washington and Lee 35
    Emory and Henry 13 Methodist 3
    Guilford 41 Greensboro 35

    Looks like that NCW win over E&H kept y’all from getting skunked.

    I count 9-1 with a lot of them not that close. I realize CNU and NCW aren’t on there but once (and neither is R-MC or H-SC) … but you can understand how all these results affect opponents winning percentages, can’t you?

12. Pat –

    Maybe you missed the non-conference schedule part. No team can help how strong their conference opponents are. As bad as HSC wanted to avoid Bridgewater over past years – they had to still play them.

    So lets look at what coaches have control over. Their non-conference schedules.

    HSC:

    John Hopkins – 3&6
    Gettysburg – 6&3
    Kings Col. – 0&9
    Huntingdon – 4&5

    Opp. Combined record of 13 and 23 for a convincing winning % of .361

    RMC

    John Hokins – 3&6 (One of their wins came against HSC)
    Denison – 3&6
    Frostburg State – 2&6
    Carnegie Mellon- 5&4

    Opp. Combined record of 13 & 22 for a winning % of .371

    Now for NCW and CNU….

    NCW

    Wesley – 8&1(ranked # 6 at time of game)
    Widener – 7&2
    Emory and Henry – 4&5

    Opp. Combined record 19 & 8 for a winning % of .704

    CNU

    Rowan – 4 & 5 (ranked #10 at time of game)
    MHB – 8 & 1 (ranked #4 at time of game)
    Salisbury- 8 & 1 (ranked #11 in current poll)

    Opp. Combined record of 20 & 7 for a winning % of .741

    Just the comparison of their non-conference schedules should be enough to tell who has played a tough schedule and who has not.

    The numbers you look at are overly deceptive. First, both CNU and NCWC scheduled teams who were ranked or at least thought who would be ranked.

    Secondly both HSC and RMC scheduled teams who were not ranked.
    The ODAC played only against one team that was ranked…that was Bridgewater v. HSC.

    The ODAC as a whole scheduled games against teams who were not that strong. Giving them a great winning percentage heading into conference play. I think every ODAC team had a winning record going. Amazingly the ODAC have a 23 and 3 record outside of their conference. So this is either one of the best conferences in the nation or played one of the weakest schedules in the nation. Seeing how they played no one ranked outside their conference I am going with the latter.

    So Pat- after looking at the stats I think they fully support my assumptions.
    Actually after looking at it again these are facts. You can look at the regional and opponent’s winning % and opp. opp. winning % but when you fill up your schedule with cupcakes and then have to play conference games it really helps with those percentages.

    I am not trying to attack HSC or RMC but the facts are pretty evident. You take who they have played at face value. But maybe teams like CNU, NCWC and the rest of the USA South should play teams like Kings College instead of Wesley, Salisbury, Mt. Union, Rowan and MHB? It seems to work for HSC and RMC.

13. The comparisons b/t the ODAC and USA South are great but have no relevance when looking at NCW, CNU, RMC and HSC. Both top teams from the USA South played quality opponents. Both top teams from the ODAC played below average teams at best. The ODAC may be better from top to bottom but NCW and CNU are the cream of the crop.

    Both NCW and CNU scheduled ranked teams. The sad thing is if CNU would have scheduled either RMC’s or HSC’s non-conference slate they would be 10-1 at the end of the year with a shot at the playoffs. Now at 7-3 they will not even get a look.

    I love RMC and I think they really have something good going on there. As for HSC, their players, well at least the older one’s, know they schedule a weak non-conference schedule.

    Keith do you honestly believe the 23-3 non-conference ODAC record is because they played quality opponents? 7 of the 10 games you showed in the USA S v. ODAC comparison come against the bottom four in the USA South Conference, of which no team has a winning record. And of HSC and RMC only one played a non-conference game against a team with a winning record.

    If not for conference play – of which no ODAC team played a rugged non-conference schedule – their resumes are not that impressive.

    Plus in “Around the Mid-Atlantic” the unofficial rankings exclude HSC and place both NCW and CNU…along with RMC in the top 5. This is D3football’s own analyst for this area and he agrees that both NCW and CNU are quality teams yet neither make the South top 10. Unfortunately – again – the ODAC is credited for playing sub-par opponents and then getting to play each other with solid records.

14. RunFerrum: The numbers say otherwise and that’s what’s being used by the NCAA. Other rankings are irrelevant here.

15. Y’all have to continually remember that to try and compare teams that never meet in competition nor do they ever play common opponents acroos different parts of the country is next to impossible….therefore how do you know? Using the ‘supposed’ critera as reported by the NCAA seems to help to some degree but you’re still looking at numbers that only compare schools within regions, not across national boundaries, its not comparing Starbucks to Starbucks…..so how does the NCAA committee do it ? Don’t they have to take into account the “normal” strength of a conference and how they have done in the past as it relates to national play-off games? Look at the numbers of Mount Union, shoot they are low but who wants to play them? To ignore the traditional strength or weakness of a conference as it relates to success in the play-offs seems like a real flaw in the system. There appears to be teams that are ranked very high in each region this year that have traditionally gotten their butts whumped right out of the gate and yet they are still being ranked extremely high….why give them the agony of being crushed ’40 something’ to ‘very little’….there has got to be a way, which includes the infamous NCAA number criteria, plus some common logic that will build a very strong field. The AQ’s are a given, but the 10 remaining spots should go to the ten best teams that are in the hunt that have proven repeatedly they play in a tough conference or they have proven their mettle in play-offs. Weak sisters with good records from poor conferences need not apply.

16. Thank you Touchdown! The AQ are a given.

    I am glad Pat pointed out other rankings don’t matter, such as his his colleague’s who covers the mid-Atlantic region. There is no discussion that Most ODAC teams played teams who were not suppose to be strong in their conference. This therefore gives each conference team a solid record, which work for Pat’s numbers. Yet when you only look at non-conference records – because we need to remember WE HAVE TO PLAY CONFERENCE GAMES – both RMC and HSC couldn’t manage to average an opp.’s winning % of .375 and no matter how you want to twist the numbers you can’t change that. CNU beat a ranked team, NCWC played tight with a highly ranked team, yet HSC gets ranked for beating Kings College.

    So another question – the WIAC goes 17-7 in non-conference play – supposedly the toughest conference in the nation. The ODAC goes 23-3. Is the ODAC really the strongest conference? The numbers say so right Pat!

17. RF: Dude, you have to stop mixing apples with oranges. You are not worth trying to discuss anything with at this point.

18. Pat my argument is valid. Obviously at least one person from D3 agrees with me, whoever covers that region. The non-conference schedules speak for themselves, yet you conveniently ignore them. My problem is that if HSC would have won against John Hopkins (which they should have) there could possibly be two ODAC team with 1 loss. Both teams therefore could get into the playoffs. Yet CNU and NCW, both better teams, are sitting there with 2 and 3 losses – though both easily could have ended the season with 1 loss each. My friend (HSC Alum) said, “you know after we went 11-1, we all thought we were going to the playoffs – if coach would have scheduled some decent teams maybe the voters would have given us another look”.

    You continue to push their conference success, yet the ODAC as a whole played no one that was that great (and I am including Ferrum). USA South played multiple top 10 teams…the ODAC didn’t play a top 20 team.

    These aren’t apples and oranges – its looking at all the stats and coming to a logical conclusion. That conclusion is 1) RMC and HSC played a very weak non-conference schedule 2) the ODAC played a weak non-conference schedule 3) These weak non-conference schedules gave strong “records” to their conference opponents which directly influence the numbers you rely on.

    You still have to go out and win – thats no an easy thing for anyone but Mt. Union – but there is a difference b/t scheduling Wesley and Kings.

    I hope you can at least appreciate this argument.

19. Building ones record on weak non-conference opponents, should in reality, come back to bite the team in the butt as those weak non-conference teams should most probably lose to their regular season oppoenents….unless….the weak non-conference opponets also play in a weak conference….thats when the NCAA’s OOWP (opponents-opponents win-loss) should kick into play. If one were really to analyze the criteria the NCAA is using, why isn’t the OOWP a better measure as it measures the team’s actual strength of schedule against schedluing just patsies….depending on where a D-III is geographically located, all games can be in-region games, therefore any win or loss is really measured 2-3 times by the criteria mentioned above in d3keith….if one losses to a ranked team, its not only a loss in the W-L but also a mark against you with the same contest in the criteria of W-L of Ranked teams…therefore a team is being penalized at least twice for just losing one game….playing in a tough & balanced conference that has 4 or even 5 good teams is definitely a disadvantage in the current system…with mandated overtime, someone has to lose each week….ultimately strong conferences lose Pool C opportunities because they beat each other up….two loss or more teams in the play-offs that are not AQ’s is becoming very rare. Ones best chance to get in, if schedule is of concern, is to be a Pool B team and go undefeated against all patsies—I’ll bet you’ll get in

20. TD — it is indeed a good measure but the handbook doesn’t give us a lot of guidance as to how it is evaluated.

21. TD – The OOWP seems like a solid measure but when conferences as a whole, like the ODAC play weak non-conference teams it can actually boost the OOWP when playing against each other in conference.

    If everyone in say the ODAC starts conference play with a 4-0 record then it directly affects the OWP then with the inter-conference games it affects the OOWP

    It is just too difficult to pick at larges sometimes. Can we really figure out that a 8-2, 7-3 or even a 6-4 team is better than a 10-1? I personally feel the OWP and OOWP are very unreliable. I would love to see another NCW v. Wesley game but unfortunately HSC or RMC will get the nod over them in the regional rankings and playoff positioning.

22. Muhlenberg is undefeated in their keague and beat TCNJ(a tournment team) and Union (a possible tournament team ) 15-0 and 33-0. Their last game they beat Ursinus who was ranked #9 in the region by 31-7. That is why they moved up.

23. If OWP is so important then in the South why is Mary Hardin-Baylor with a 21 OWP rank listed behind Muhlenberg(46 OWP rank) and WJ(59 OWP).

24. It’s important, but it’s not the only thing.

25. This is why I do not like at-large bids. The AQ are fair for all participants. At-larges are done by voters, while qualified, use flawed information. It has been shown that the writers disagree on who is actually stronger. If D1 can’t get the bowl series right with all the information, experts, money, etc. How realistic is it that we are better at the D3 level with double the amount of teams?

26. Who’s the team in the modern era (more than 16 teams, 1999 or later) that got left out of the field that could have won the football national title?

    Nobody, I would submit.

27. So you think its find that a more deserving team is left out as long as you feel they can’t win the title. If thats the case then lets just decrease the number of teams who actually have a decent shot.

    That was a mighty bold statement for someone who works for D3football. You imply that it doesn’t matter who is let into the playoffs as long as we have the teams that are capable of winning it all. Seems like you are getting a little agitated. I would rather see the best 32 teams. You shouldn’t get upset because someone is just pointing out the obviously flaws with the system. I think we have the best college football system in D3 – I just want to see it get better. The first step is finding the flaws.

28. RF: Your point is you hate the system. We all get that. And you don’t agree with the at-large choices, also clear. Do you have anything else? Who was wronged that would’ve gotten in and made noise? Anything like that or just abject hatred of the system?

29. Pat: I just don’t agree with you that a lesser team gets in over a team thats more capable. A team that has a better chance at “making some noise”. I would rather the best teams get in. It’s obvious this does not matter to you. Its great to know that as a D3 spokesman this is how you feel. The truth is you cannot really know how a team will perform unless you give them a chance to perform. Therefore I would rather have the best playing.

    You take this so personally. At least 4 people on this individual blog can agree the system is not perfect and all you can do is blow it off and make childish remarks.

    I think everyone – well except you – wants the best possible teams playing. You are the (questionable) expert, how would you help improve the system?

30. I would like to get the best possible at-large teams in and have every conference that’s eligible have an automatic bid. That way we accomplish several things — everyone has something to play for in terms of a real path to the playoffs and the lesser conferences have a way to measure themselves against the top conferences.

    I am perfectly willing to discuss with reasonable people. I don’t have a lot of time for cranks in November and December, however, and all you’ve done is come around with your ax to grind. You don’t look at the selection criteria, you ignore the numbers, and you don’t seem interested in changing that. We have actual information that is used to make these decisions, and you are talking about strength of schedule from a gut-feeling aspect. Seems like a waste of my time.

31. Well your comments have shown different. I look at the selection criteria – but as I’ve said, I think its flawed. I apologize that I don’t wholeheartedly accept the standard and blindly defend it. Actually Pat, I went and looked up the additional numbers that aren’t shown (ie non-conference winning %, games against ranked opp.s, non-conference opp. overall record). It’s a waste of your time because you are fine with the status quo. I am sorry that the numbers you gave me I discredited and you feel upset. So maybe we can now talk about how to fix it.

32. it will be interesting to see how NCW stacks up again W&J

33. I think they will do well. I am really hoping for a Wesley rematch. HSC is not as good as they are credited as being. Anyways NCW is alot better than they were at the beginning of the year. I could see and upset but W&J is ranked #1 for a reason.