Regional Rankings

[GV Retired Bum]

I have thought about this from about every angle I could, and tried to work #'s however I could. I think I'm with Brandon...my gut is telling me that GV is going to end up on the 4 almost any way this gets sliced. I tend to agree also that NW has a real good chance of jumping all the way to the 2...

I dont know if the committee only looks at the pure numbers but if GV can get another convincing win I dont see them dropping. But then again thats based on actually watching the games and looking at scores which idk if thats realistic for D2 lol. Just hard to sit here and rank a team 4th in the super region when their only loss is by 7 to the #1 team in the country.

[KleShreen]

I have thought about this from about every angle I could, and tried to work #'s however I could. I think I'm with Brandon...my gut is telling me that GV is going to end up on the 4 almost any way this gets sliced. I tend to agree also that NW has a real good chance of jumping all the way to the 2...

That would be an absolute joke considering GV would have been undefeated on the road (and in the past, the committee has favored road records over home records), with their only loss coming to the #1 team in the region, and they have the strongest SOS of any of the other teams that would have 1 loss.

Harding lost on the road to the #8 team in the region, NWMS lost on the road to the #9 team in the region. So if GV not only doesn't move up to #2, but gets LOWERED to #4, it would be an example of outrageous inconsistency by the regional committee. Between having both a better road record *and* a better SOS than the other 1 loss teams no matter how things play out this weekend, there's zero reason for GV to not be #2 in the region.

[Brandon]

Just hard to sit here and rank a team 4th in the super region when their only loss is by 7 to the #1 team in the country.

I totally get that.

[GV Retired Bum]

That would be an absolute joke considering GV would have been undefeated on the road (and in the past, the committee has favored road records over home records), with their only loss coming to the #1 team in the region, and they have the strongest SOS of any of the other teams that would have 1 loss.

Harding lost on the road to the #8 team in the region, NWMS lost on the road to the #9 team in the region. So if GV not only doesn't move up to #2, but gets LOWERED to #4, it would be an example of outrageous inconsistency by the regional committee. Between having both a better road record *and* a better SOS than the other 1 loss teams no matter how things play out this weekend, there's zero reason for GV to not be #2 in the region.

Totally agree Kle. The numbers and actual gameplay doesnt support GV being #4 in the region. I would say playing less games is definitely a negative the committee cant ignore. It sucks, because we all know the level of competition Harding plays, but they do have more games played which should be a positive for them.

[Brandon]

That would be an absolute joke considering GV would have been undefeated on the road (and in the past, the committee has favored road records over home records), with their only loss coming to the #1 team in the region, and they have the strongest SOS of any of the other teams that would have 1 loss.

Harding lost on the road to the #8 team in the region, NWMS lost on the road to the #9 team in the region. So if GV not only doesn't move up to #2, but gets LOWERED to #4, it would be an example of outrageous inconsistency by the regional committee. Between having both a better road record *and* a better SOS than the other 1 loss teams no matter how things play out this weekend, there's zero reason for GV to not be #2 in the region.

The bolded is no longer part of the criteria - and rightfully so.

The best argument is the argument made by GV Retired Bum despite the fact that it is not part of the criteria. The weakness in the argument would be the failure to recognize that it was a home loss for GV. An argument that GV (or any other team) should have a better rating based upon results against other teams in the very same rating, is circular at best.

Any argument that "my team" is getting raised or lowered fails to recognize that all of the results are not in. The data is not complete. If the season were 10 games long, the Lakers would be the #3 seed. All data will change by 10% this week.

GV is obviously getting penalized for having fewer games. I find that frustrating.

[Brandon]

Totally agree Kle. The numbers and actual gameplay doesnt support GV being #4 in the region. I would say playing less games is definitely a negative the committee cant ignore. It sucks, because we all know the level of competition Harding plays, but they do have more games played which should be a positive for them.

The numbers might. Reality might not.

[GV Retired Bum]

The numbers might. Reality might not.

Do we know how much they actually sit down and talk about the teams? or do they just have a set of data markers that show them who should be ranked higher? I dont really know how it all works

[Brandon]

To this point, I have found that the Performance Index seems to most closely resemble what I believe to be reality across the country. I used Massey to project the games. This is how it would look in SR3 using PI:

	Current
1.	Ferris State	29.889
2.	Northwest	28.444
3.	Grand Valley	28.000
4.	Harding	27.900
5.	Lindenwood	27.444
6.	Henderson	27.100
7.	Neb-Kearney	26.400
	Projected
1.	Ferris Sate	28.900
2.	Northwest	27.800
3.	Grand Valley	27.111
4.	Harding	26.909

[Brandon]

Do we know how much they actually sit down and talk about the teams? or do they just have a set of data markers that show them who should be ranked higher? I dont really know how it all works

Both.

Back in the day, a group of people would simply select the best four teams in each region. I liked that model better.

[Inkblot]

The awkward thing is that the W%+SOS formula does not adequately account for number of games played. That is evident when comparing Northwest Missouri State with Harding (or Henderson State, should they win). Harding will have .500 SOS + .909 W% = 1.409. NW will have .533 SOS + .900 W% = 1.433. If they'd played Lincoln, the numbers would be identical. Is NW more deserving than they would be if they had played Lincoln?

Basically, any system that compares overall OWP without considering the number of games played does not make mathematical sense.

[Redwing]

A factor that we've not discussed is the Silo thing. With no OOC games for 1/2 the conferences, it's somewhat difficult to judge the quality of the wins/losses. IF the voters would watch the games, they may be able to evaluate the quality of play. But, very few minutes, if any, of the games are watched so the comm. votes with mostly the metrics presented to them.

And even then, none of us know how much each metric is weighed to determine the seeding order. Suffice to say, my suspicions are that each voter has is own way of determining the order and should differences emerge (yes they do, LOL) personal relationships and persuasion come into play.

I'm focused on GV, and frankly I don't get why they aren't a 4 now.. and maybe even a 5. But if I'm looking at SOS, PI and who they lost to, I'd put em at #2. I suspect all of us posting here would love to sit in on that selection meeting on Sunday!

[Redwing]

The awkward thing is that the W%+SOS formula does not adequately account for number of games played. That is evident when comparing Northwest Missouri State with Harding (or Henderson State, should they win). Harding will have .500 SOS + .909 W% = 1.409. NW will have .533 SOS + .900 W% = 1.433. If they'd played Lincoln, the numbers would be identical. Is NW more deserving than they would be if they had played Lincoln?

Basically, any system that compares overall OWP without considering the number of games played does not make mathematical sense.

I get your point. Somewhat related, I believe that using mathematics/numbers alone is flawed. I certainly don't have a formula to decide a seeding. And that's why I'm perfectly fine for using judgement to rank the teams. Without a doubt, the data to make the judgements should be supplied by one source to promote consistency. But after that, IMO, all bets are off. True, inconsistencies from region to region will exist, but that is better than using objective data alone that results in selections that don't meet the eye test. Though, many a time, it's clear cut to use a metric. Other times using the same metric will lead to a questionable or just plain wrong conclusion.

[KleShreen]

I get your point. Somewhat related, I believe that using mathematics/numbers alone is flawed. I certainly don't have a formula to decide a seeding. And that's why I'm perfectly fine for using judgement to rank the teams. Without a doubt, the data to make the judgements should be supplied by one source to promote consistency. But after that, IMO, all bets are off. True, inconsistencies from region to region will exist, but that is better than using objective data alone that results in selections that don't meet the eye test. Though, many a time, it's clear cut to use a metric. Other times using the same metric will lead to a questionable or just plain wrong conclusion.

Yea it would be nice if there was some kind of judgement at play, but unfortunately, I just don't think that's possible at the D-II level. I really doubt that anyone outside the GLIAC, MIAA, or GAC has watched any games from the other conferences at any point. I would bet the number of people in the country who have watched D-II schools from multiple conferences each week is in the double digits, at best, not counting pro scouts. I doubt anyone even on the SR3 committee has watched a second of football of more than maybe 2 teams in the regional rankings right now.

[Brandon]

The awkward thing is that the W%+SOS formula does not adequately account for number of games played. That is evident when comparing Northwest Missouri State with Harding (or Henderson State, should they win). Harding will have .500 SOS + .909 W% = 1.409. NW will have .533 SOS + .900 W% = 1.433. If they'd played Lincoln, the numbers would be identical. Is NW more deserving than they would be if they had played Lincoln?

Basically, any system that compares overall OWP without considering the number of games played does not make mathematical sense.

That is exactly why they should be considered equally and not as a mathematical equation.

A 1.000 winning percentage is achievable.

A 1.000 SOS is not achievable except by an independent team that plays every otherwise undefeated team in the country.

The winning percentage will always have a greater mathematical value.

[Brandon]

I'm focused on GV, and frankly I don't get why they aren't a 4 now.. and maybe even a 5.

I think their SOS has kept them higher - as it should have.