Pool C

Started by Pat Coleman, January 20, 2006, 02:35:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dcahill44

its a great debate.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: spwood on February 11, 2016, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.

I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.

Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.

rant over.

would love to here what people think

SOS has to be a factor.  In the case of Lancaster, their SOS is so weak that it does overcome their record.  I think it's widely believed that the teams ranked above them would probably have the same record if they played Lancaster's schedule.  Hey, if they win their league, they'll get their shot to prove everyone wrong...

From what I was told... it absolutely has to do with the SOS. It is. 421 and I have been told by several committee sources that they can't justify it especially when using the .03 SOS = 2 games system.

Now, there are some factors that will come into play later like vRRO that will change the equation. Remember, LBC's game against F&M isn't really being evaluated right now. It might be when it comes to common opponents, but that's it. When it comes to East Region discussions, not a lot - if any - of the East has played F&M. So, that game will pop up and maybe give LBC a boost.

All of that is also the same with Behrend.

No, dcahill, I would caution you comparing to the D3hoops.com Top 25. It isn't a criteria. We enter dangerous waters when we say, "but they are ranked xx, why aren't they being considered." The coaches and administrators on these committees are fully aware of the Top 25 and who are the best teams, but they have to ignore that stuff when it comes to the NCAA criteria. Plain and simple.

I have said it publicly and some committee members know I am concerned about LBC being left out of the tournament. If, worse case scenario, they lose their first game in the conference final, it seems clear they may be left out of the NCAA Tournament. If that were to happen, I think we set a precedent that SOS is indeed more important that WL% even if they try and argue it away by using the .03=2 element. The problem is that 1 loss is 1 loss. Last year we saw the women's committee, who understands and uses the same ratio but doesn't rely on it clearly as much as the men, put McDaniel in the tournament when they picked up their second loss of the season in the conference title game. Their reasoning: at some point the fact is they only lost two games out of 26 or 27. That has to mean something.

I don't think this plays for Behrend, though. We have already seen three and four loss teams left out of the tournament. But this committee, in recent years, has never allowed a team with a below .500 SOS into the tournament. I am not saying that happens this year because I think a number of at-large teams will be sitting there with below .500 SOS numbers. But if they stick to that plan, then we are saying the SOS is more important than WL% and I think that is getting a little dangerous.

The irony is WL% does play a role when a team with a very strong SOS is left home because they lost too many games (North Central might get put in this situation if they are an at-large team). I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that the optics of leaving a 1-loss team at home with a bad SOS (basically because of their conference) is a precedent I don't like.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

BTW dcahill - you didn't even have Lancaster Bible in your mock regional rankings from the East a few days ago. And you are asking the question? LOL
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

dcahill44

You are right Dave but I was going with what I thought the NCAA would do not my gut. but way to call me out LOL

dcahill44

Thank you for clarifying everything. I know not to use the d3hoops rankings but if the coaches and administrators trust they are that good than why shouldn't the NCAA ?

HOPEful

Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses.
Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.
In Behrend's case, history is not on their side. The AMCC has had a hard time getting out of the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. Lake Erie, before leaving D3, was often highly ranked in the region only to get bounced early. More recently, the AMCC has...

2015 NCAA (1st round) - Medaille 81 - Marietta 120
2014 NCAA (1st round) - Behrend beat Hope in OT (I don't want to talk about it)
2014 NCAA (2nd round) - Behrend 40 - Wheaton 68
2013 NCAA (1st round) - Behrend 44 - Wooster 62...

As for Lancaser, who's better? Lancaster Bible or SUNY-Oneonta? No one really knows...

Lancaster Bible has played only 1 remotely good oppenent; a very impressive win against Franklin and Marshall but way back in November!

SUNY-Oneonta has 7 losses, but according to Massey, every one of those losses was to a better team than Lancaster Bible's second best win (Eastern Univ. also back in November!) Oneonta's wins against Brockport St, Geneseo St, Oswego St, Central Iowa, St. John Fisher, Williams, and Hartwick are all "better wins" than every one of Lancaster Bible's other than Franklin and Marshall. You could easily make the argument that an average team with Lancaster Bible's schedule should be at worst 18-1.





Let's go Dutchmen!

2015-2016 1-&-Done Tournament Fantasy League Co-Champion

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 12:14:51 PM
Thank you for clarifying everything. I know not to use the d3hoops rankings but if the coaches and administrators trust they are that good than why shouldn't the NCAA ?

Because almost NO selection criteria in the entire NCAA - any division - uses the Top 25 (20, 15, 10) polls as criteria. There are too many items that can cause problems with coach's and media polls and they aren't going to have polls be part of the system. The only one I know it was a factor in was the BCS, but that isn't run by the NCAA. I think there might be another group that has it, but I think it is used as a tie-breaker, that's why I say almost no one uses a poll - it could be that it isn't a criteria for any poll. That includes, by the way, the Division I men's and women's basketball tournaments.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

sac

#6292
I watched Lancaster Bible online once in December, I think they're quite good, they're opponents not so much.  Lancaster Bible has three distinct problems.

1)  They play in a large conference
2)  They play in a large conference that is very bad
3)  They play in a small region where only 6 teams get ranked, so RRO's are nearly impossible to get from conference play, esp. being in a bad one.

I'll even throw a 4th in here, they play in what appears to be the weaker(admittedly minimal) of the two divisions of the NEAC, meaning they playing 1 more game each against weaker teams than they would if they played in the other division.  (NEAC plays double round robin against your division opponents, single against the other)

In the unrealistic world of playing all unbeaten teams in the non-conference on the road and every league team goes unbeaten in the non-conference the maximum OWP Lancaster Bible could hope for is .850, while a team in an 8 team conference can hope for an OWP of .988    That's a potential difference of 16%, so Lancaster (and all large conference schools) are at a distinct disadvantage to begin with.  I haven't extended that math to OOWP and calculated it out for SOS but I'm sure that difference is similar, lets be conservative and say 10%.  That disadvantage is compounded by the fact the NEAC just wasn't very good in the non-conference this year.  They were 15-66 overall excluding Lancaster Bible.  Lancaster Bible has no control over how bad its conference is, this compounds the difference in maximum OWP they could have by another 20%.

The very maximum OWP Lancaster Bible could have had this year was .611 and that's only if they'd managed to schedule 7 road games against unbeaten teams.

Being 30% or more behind the 8-ball just because of your conference is just really hard to make-up, one of the many things about this system we use that doesn't add up for me.


Now it should be said Lancaster didn't help themselves by scheduling a pretty weak non-conference slate to begin with.  6 teams are currently below .500 and F&M who are 18-3 right now.  I will say they at least tried a little by only playing 1 home game, 5 away games and 1 neutral.  So they tried to take advantage of the 1.25 multiplier.  That might just point out how astonishingly bad their conference is.

But they are primarily being punished for playing in a really bad conference, something they really can do almost nothing about and that would also apply to PSU-Behrend as well.


hickory_cornhusker

#6293
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 11:52:03 AM
Quote from: spwood on February 11, 2016, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.

I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.

Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.

rant over.

would love to here what people think

SOS has to be a factor.  In the case of Lancaster, their SOS is so weak that it does overcome their record.  I think it's widely believed that the teams ranked above them would probably have the same record if they played Lancaster's schedule.  Hey, if they win their league, they'll get their shot to prove everyone wrong...

From what I was told... it absolutely has to do with the SOS. It is. 421 and I have been told by several committee sources that they can't justify it especially when using the .03 SOS = 2 games system.

Now, there are some factors that will come into play later like vRRO that will change the equation. Remember, LBC's game against F&M isn't really being evaluated right now. It might be when it comes to common opponents, but that's it. When it comes to East Region discussions, not a lot - if any - of the East has played F&M. So, that game will pop up and maybe give LBC a boost.

All of that is also the same with Behrend.

No, dcahill, I would caution you comparing to the D3hoops.com Top 25. It isn't a criteria. We enter dangerous waters when we say, "but they are ranked xx, why aren't they being considered." The coaches and administrators on these committees are fully aware of the Top 25 and who are the best teams, but they have to ignore that stuff when it comes to the NCAA criteria. Plain and simple.

I have said it publicly and some committee members know I am concerned about LBC being left out of the tournament. If, worse case scenario, they lose their first game in the conference final, it seems clear they may be left out of the NCAA Tournament. If that were to happen, I think we set a precedent that SOS is indeed more important that WL% even if they try and argue it away by using the .03=2 element. The problem is that 1 loss is 1 loss. Last year we saw the women's committee, who understands and uses the same ratio but doesn't rely on it clearly as much as the men, put McDaniel in the tournament when they picked up their second loss of the season in the conference title game. Their reasoning: at some point the fact is they only lost two games out of 26 or 27. That has to mean something.

I don't think this plays for Behrend, though. We have already seen three and four loss teams left out of the tournament. But this committee, in recent years, has never allowed a team with a below .500 SOS into the tournament. I am not saying that happens this year because I think a number of at-large teams will be sitting there with below .500 SOS numbers. But if they stick to that plan, then we are saying the SOS is more important than WL% and I think that is getting a little dangerous.

The irony is WL% does play a role when a team with a very strong SOS is left home because they lost too many games (North Central might get put in this situation if they are an at-large team). I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that the optics of leaving a 1-loss team at home with a bad SOS (basically because of their conference) is a precedent I don't like.

Is this right? I feel that isn't enough SOS shift for two games, that means a 25-0 Lancaster Bible with a .421 would be considered roughly equal to a 0-25 team with a .500 SOS. Is it maybe supposed to be .3 SOS=2 games?

Math edit: it's actually worse than that because under your numbers the difference between .421 SOS and .500 SOS is a 52 game swing.


I retract this whole thing, I messed up a decimal point. This is why I was into writing and not math.

sac

#6294
I think Dave described it as .030 = 2 games, but .060 doesn't necessarily equal 4. ergo .090 doesn't necessarily = 6 and so on

sac

I just noticed on the East Region data sheet that Lancaster Bible is being credited with only a 17-0 record.  Through Sunday they were 19-0 and I don't see the two D3 games that shouldn't be counting for them.    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3

Is there a conference team that is going through the provisional process
????

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Yeah... but this year's committee has hinted (on air and some people off air) that they may be pushing to .060 equals 4 despite clearly the words from the committee last year saying as it pushes out they lose a little faith that it as even. The NCAA Stats people have apparently poured over the numbers with them the last few years per the equation .030 SOS = 2 games.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2016, 01:57:18 PM
I just noticed on the East Region data sheet that Lancaster Bible is being credited with only a 17-0 record.  Through Sunday they were 19-0 and I don't see the two D3 games that shouldn't be counting for them.    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3

Is there a conference team that is going through the provisional process
????

Yes... Wilson is provisional.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Also, if this Lancaster Bible team is as good as we suspect they are, there is almost literally (outside of some mass disease) no way for them to lose in their conference.  The NEAC is far and away the worst conference in the country.  This isn't like Albertus Magnus of recent years where we were worried about one decent team clipping them and them missing out.  If Lancaster Bible loses in their conference tournament this year, I won't feel bad about it.

In some sense it is unfair.  The only thing they can control is who they play non-con.  That F&M game is likely the best they could do (and I doubt G-Rob schedules them outside a tourney like that).  No one wants to play them because the chance of losing overwhelms the benefit.

I'd be interested to see the numbers on how a conference impacts an SOS.  The NEAC's out of conference winning percentage is .256.  That's awful, but it would be interesting to know what their OOP is and how that impacts things overall.  Dave and I had a little back and forth the other day about what effect a bad conference has on overall SOS.  I was trying to argue that the NEAC is so bad, it's actually going to bring down LBC's SOS (even though typically conference play moves the SOS number towards .500).

I just don't know for sure, because I didn't run the number.  I don't know if there's an easy way for Matt or somebody else to run those numbers and get an overall conference SOS for each conference, just to see how that impacts things.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

AO

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 01:58:05 PM
Yeah... but this year's committee has hinted (on air and some people off air) that they may be pushing to .060 equals 4 despite clearly the words from the committee last year saying as it pushes out they lose a little faith that it as even. The NCAA Stats people have apparently poured over the numbers with them the last few years per the equation .030 SOS = 2 games.
Did the stats people study the broken multiplier?  I noticed they still haven't changed the championships manual to reflect the way they actually calculate SoS.  Do we think that most committee members are aware of how the multiplier is currently used to give more weight to road games rather than make them appear in the SoS as tougher?