Author Archives: Pat Coleman

Projecting the playoffs

Posted on by

Welcome one and all to the game we annually call our playoff projections. It’s the wacky, madcap event where we take 21 automatic bids, most of which are not yet set, then figure out at-large bids, some of which will lose between now and Selection Sunday, then seed them and pair them up logically … or fiscally … or geographically … or randomly, depending on the bracket.

In doing this every year, we have to toe a fine line. We can call some conference races, leave some open, pretend we know what’s going to happen, or ignore what has yet to be played. This is an inexact science, but it’s an attempt to look at the entire field using the NCAA’s stated selection/seeding criteria. But you can’t simply try to project one bracket in isolation. How do you know if there are eight South teams getting into the field, and not seven or nine or 10?
Continue reading →

Immediate thoughts on Week 9

Posted on by

Every year I spend my “fall back” extra hour of sleep right here, on the site. Then I look up and think, “crap, is that 2:15 daylight or 2:15 standard?”

So far, still daylight time, I believe.

There’s a couple of teams whom we won’t hear much clamoring for Top 25 consideration after today. Ferrum folks probably will continue. Waxing Greensboro isn’t entirely unique, however. You know the deal, Week 11. Until then it’s just talk.

Saw Wesley just crush Salisbury today. I’ve had the pleasure of watching Salisbury several times in the past few years with Dustin Johnson at quarterback (seriously, the guy is fun to watch), but the Sea Gulls were awful today. They had 11 rushing yards at the half and finished with 76 for the game. Wesley came out with a five-man front that had Salisbury in trouble all day. Meanwhile, Chris Warrick just picked the Salisbury secondary apart (other than All-American Byron Westbrook, whom they worked away from). He hit receivers in perfect stride, and when he didn’t, they came down with jump balls.

Obviously you have to worry about Wesley under less-than-perfect conditions. Dry turf is ideal but a playoff team needs to be able to play in the mud as well, like last week’s 47-0 loss at Brockport.

I would be very surprised now to see Salisbury make the NCAA playoffs. They may struggle at home with Widener next week, because Widener isn’t exactly a pushover.

The three teams who announced this week they were leaving the MAC went 0-3.

Meanwhile, I think those who sat through the entire five-game set at the Metrodome on Friday may still be recovering. Our photographer shot all five games for the league and I have barely seen him online since. (That and the St. John’s/St. Olaf game, which he shot but we have yet to see.) I hope someday the MIAC gets back into the Metrodome.

Interested in:
What Monmouth can do in the playoffs. Will they be like St. Norbert, competitive in every first-round game, or like Lake Forest, the only non-Norbert team to make the playoffs and a 45-0 loser to Wartburg?
Union finally playing one of the other Liberty League front-runners next weekend. Talk about a backloaded schedule. (St. Olaf knows what that is.)

Concerned about:
Hardin-Simmons, though maybe they have found their quarterback by default now.
Can DePauw make it to Monon Bell unscathed?
Rowan, with pieces dropping like flies. Today it was key defender Brian Bond tearing two knee ligaments against Brockport.

Crazy e-mail of the week:
There’s a good set to choose from, including one from a person last night advocating for Johns Hopkins to be in the Top 25. I gave him my honest assessment last night. But I think Hopkins coaches already know they were ranked too high in the AFCA poll … again.

Anyway …

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
[name removed] (xxxxxxxxxxxx@uww.edu) on Saturday, October 29, 2005 at 07:17:58 PM
—————————————————————————
Subject: UW-Whitewater
Notes: Don’t you think its kinda weird how Whitewater is ranked number 2 in the nation for D3 football and there were no players from Whitewater in the person-all americans and never get any recognition for what they have accomplished this season. I bet if you go and ask anyone outside the state of Wisconsin and ask them where Whitewater is they would not have a clue. Come on now show everybody out there what UW-Whitewater is all about and give them some props.
Thank You

Well, let’s see, recognition. Whitewater has had people on the Team of the Week twice this season, they are, as noted, ranked No. 2 in our poll, they’ve been on the front page at least twice … oh yeah, and Keith McMillan and I have been there this season.

If people don’t know where Whitewater is, it’s not our fault.

On regional rankings

Posted on by

I see plenty of angst around the message boards and in my e-mail about the regional rankings the NCAA published today (a day late, by the way — if the NCAA is going to fine schools for reporting scores late then perhaps the NCAA should pay $50 to every ranked school to which it reported a day late).

Remember one thing — regional rankings are not like the national rankings. They do not consider all games. Any win is better than any loss.

We have a lot of info about the playoffs and how teams are ranked by the NCAA in our FAQ. But let’s run through them quickly and take a look at what the salient numbers are.

Almost always these run heavily on regional winning percentage and QOW, the Quality of Wins index. We calculate this for you each week. You can find a link to it on the menu rail of any news page.

I’ve listed regional record, regional winning percentage, and QOW.

East Region
1. Rowan 4-0, 1.000, 12.000
2. Hobart 5-0, 1.000, 11.600
3. Delaware Valley 7-0, 1.000, 10.857
4. Union 5-0, 1.000, 10.800
5. Alfred 5-0, 1.000, 10.600
6. Ithaca 6-1, .857, 10.286
7. RPI 5-1, .833, 10.000
8. St. John Fisher 7-1, .875, 9.875
9. Cortland State 5-2, .714, 9.143
10. Wilkes 5-2, 8.857

Every unbeaten team is by default better than every team with a loss. The rankings are just basically a rehash of the QOW, with the exception of Fitchburg State (6-1, .857, 11.000), the only nod to actual team strength. Also left out, Buffalo State, which has a QOW of 10.500 but only a 2-4 overall record, 1-1 in region.

North Region
1. North Central 5-0, 1.000, 13.500
2. Wabash 6-0, 1.000, 11.333
3. Ohio Northern 5-1, .833, 10.571
4. Mount Union 5-1, .833, 11.500
5. Augustana 5-1, .833, 10.333
6. John Carroll 6-1, .857, 9.857
7. Mount St. Joseph 6-1 , .857, 9.571
8. Carthage 5-2, .714, 10.286
9. Otterbein 5-2, .714, 10.000
10. Capital 5-2 , .714, 9.143

Ohio Northern is out of order in terms of QOW but has the head-to-head win against Mount Union. Similarly John Carroll is somewhat out of order but has a win against Ohio Northern. Left out? Alma, 4-1, .800, 10.400 But there won’t be five OAC teams in this ranking forever.

South Region
1. Trinity (Texas) 5-0, 1.000, 12.400
2. Ferrum 7-0, 1.000, 10.333
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor 4-1, .800, 10.000
4. Thiel 7-0, 1.000, 11.429
5. Bridgewater (Va.) 4-1, .800, 9.000
6. Hardin-Simmons 5-1, .833, 10.333
7. Johns Hopkins 6-0, 1.000, 11.167
8. Salisbury 2-0, 1.000, 13.500
9. Washington and Jefferson 5-1, .833, 8.833
10. Wesley 4-0, 1.000, 12.500

Looks for all the world like Thiel should be above Ferrum, as should Johns Hopkins. Not sure what’s going on there. And our QOW number doesn’t include Ferrum’s game against Chowan — which it shouldn’t, really. Chowan has scholarship players now. If you include the Chowan game, it lowers Ferrum’s QOW even more. No teams left out that have a particularly good reason to be in according to the criteria.

West Region
1. Linfield 4-0, 1.000, 10.250
2. UW-Whitewater 6-0, 1.000, 12.000
3. St. John’s 7-0, 1.000, 10.571
4. Occidental 6-0, 1.000, 11.167
5. St. Olaf 7-0, 1.000, 9.857
6. Coe 5-1, .833, 11.000
7. Monmouth 7-0, 1.000, 10.714
8. Concordia-Moorhead 5-1, 9.167
9. Whitworth 4-1, .800, 9.800
10. Central 6-1, .857, 11.143

Well, Linfield doesn’t have the highest QOW but they hold the Walnut and Bronze. That usually counts for quite a lot. Coe is higher on the head-to-head win against Central, and St. John’s because of beating Concordia-Moorhead.

Regional rankings don’t measure the games that make national rankings most accurate — games between regions. They don’t see the difference between a one-point win and a blowout. All of these things get measured in a national poll.