My version of the 2019 Week 1 regional rankings

File this post under: Merely Because I Have A Tracking Document For Week 1 [2019 regional ranking prep].

Let’s start with the FAQ. The first official regional rankings are due out Oct. 23. Yes, I always keep close tabs on regional rankings both before and after they are published. Each .500 or better team earns at least a cursory peek at their overall resume. Teams in the “Not Quite” sections are in no particular order. No, I do not have reliable strength of schedule figures for the first week. No, I do not get worked up about the first rankings, which do not factor RESULTS vs. ranked opponents. Great question. Given the lack of SOS figures, I do not know why I published this post besides the fact that I have a tracking document. My rankings become solidified after Week 1 with reliable SOS numbers and RESULTS vs. ranked opponents.

With those excuses planted firmly, here is what I would do with the first regional rankings (with the big assumption that I am close on my SOS figures).

Midwest Region 1. Chicago 2. Wisconsin-Whitewater 3. Carthage 4. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 5. Wisconsin-Oshkosh 6. Wisconsin-Stout 7. Cornell 8. Wisconsin-Eau Claire

The Midwest Region has a clear top four. Teams 5-8 provide a fun debate. My biggest issue was what to do with St. Norbert. SNC was blocked by Cornell in my mind. I thought SNC would fare better in these rankings before I started drilling down, but blocking isn’t just a selection day concern. Reverse last weekend’s SNC vs. Cornell result and SNC is probably fifth.

Central Region 1. Washington-St. Louis 2. St. Thomas 3. St. Olaf 4. Saint Benedict 5. Augsburg 6. Bethel 7. St. Scholastica 8. Wartburg

The Central Region debate starts at the top. Any number of eventual outcomes are plausible depending on who you like at No. 1. I did not think WashU was going to top my Central rankings before I started. Ditto St. Scholastica in the top eight. There are particular hierarchies within conferences that I prefer, but even those should provide robust debate.

Like stated above, I do not get too concerned about the first rankings unless outliers are included without factual backing. As long as deserving teams are listed logically based on the criteria, there are several ways in which to go after accepting peer debate. Not every deserving team was listed in my rankings because that is the nature of any ranking ever ranked.

My rankings above are definitely open to debate and criticism, but I think there is a hint of logic and reason behind those rankings. However, my rankings are the result of long debates with myself, not several of my peers. I am more than willing to have those difficult debates and to be convinced that your logic is sounder. I’m sure that the various regional and national committees are open to that challenge as well. Pretty please with sugar on top, pleasepleaseplease do not defer to the criteria scorecard when civilized, logical debate is available (and explicitly requested through language used in the Manual).

RESULTS, -Ricky Nelson