Pool C

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

David Collinge

Maybe I'm just stupid, but what do the asterisks signify?

pg04

I think it signifies Pool C teams that played each other during that round (below each round it shows the game(s))

Greek Tragedy

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM
Pool C teams

1st Round
Ohio Wesleyan
Scranton
North Central (IL)
Amherst
WPI
Susquehanna
Plattsburgh St.
Trinity
Tufts
Hope
La Grange
St. Thomas
Elmhurst
Whitman
NYU
Salisbury
Marietta
Oswego St.
Wooster
Record 10-9

No Pool C teams played each other

2nd Round
Ohio Wesleyan
Amherst
Susquehanna
Tufts
Hope
*St. Thomas
*Elmhurst
Whitman
Oswego St.
Wooster
Record 7-3

St. Thomas beat Elmhurst (both Pool C)

3rd Round
Ohio Wesleyan
Amherst
Tufts
*St. Thomas
*Whitman
*Oswego St.
*Wooster
Record 4-3

St. Thomas beat Whitman (both Pool C)
Wooster beat Oswego St (both Pool C)

4th Round
*Amherst
*Tufts
St. Thomas
Wooster
Record 2-2

Amhesrt beat Tufts (both Pool C)

23-17

Semis
Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)

Pool C goes 2-1 at the Final Four and claims the Walnut and Bronze
Pointers
Breed of a Champion
2004, 2005, 2010 and 2015 National Champions

Fantasy Leagues Commissioner

TGHIJGSTO!!!

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 20, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM
Pool C teams

1st Round
Ohio Wesleyan
Scranton
North Central (IL)
Amherst
WPI
Susquehanna
Plattsburgh St.
Trinity
Tufts
Hope
La Grange
St. Thomas
Elmhurst
Whitman
NYU
Salisbury
Marietta
Oswego St.
Wooster
Record 10-9

No Pool C teams played each other

2nd Round
Ohio Wesleyan
Amherst
Susquehanna
Tufts
Hope
*St. Thomas
*Elmhurst
Whitman
Oswego St.
Wooster
Record 7-3

St. Thomas beat Elmhurst (both Pool C)

3rd Round
Ohio Wesleyan
Amherst
Tufts
*St. Thomas
*Whitman
*Oswego St.
*Wooster
Record 4-3

St. Thomas beat Whitman (both Pool C)
Wooster beat Oswego St (both Pool C)

4th Round
*Amherst
*Tufts
St. Thomas
Wooster
Record 2-2

Amhesrt beat Tufts (both Pool C)

23-17

Semis
Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)

Pool C goes 2-1 at the Final Four and claims the Walnut and Bronze

This was the barely-est Pool C of all time, I think.  They went from #1 overall seed to #1 Pool C selection with one game.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Titan Q

The last 3 national champions have come from Pool C (my personal projection of the Pool C order as of Selection Sunday each year)...

2014 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2  *national champion*
3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
14. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2
15. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
16. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
17. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
18. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
19. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7

2015 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4) *national champion*
4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
19. (NE) Springfield (.704/.584/3-5)

2016 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1 *national champion*
2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
14. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
15. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
16. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
17. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3
18. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
19. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3


Out of 57 selections...

* Only one team with a sub-.700 WP has been selected - Emory in 2014.

* Only four teams with SOS lower than .510 have been selected - Hope in 2016 (.504), Catholic in 2015 (.506), Whitman in 2016 (.509), and NYU in 2016 (.509).

* Only two teams have been selected with zero wins vs RRO - Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Connecticut in 2015.

* No team has been selected with fewer than two total games played vs RRO.

* Only four teams have been selected with fewer than four total games played vs RRO - Hope in 2016 (2), Eastern Connecticut in 2015 (2), Whitman in 2016 (3), Dickinson in 2014 (3).

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 16, 2016, 05:40:48 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM



23-17   (.575)

Outcome versus non-Pool C 19-13 (.594)


Semis
Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)

Finals

Benedictine  (Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)
Outcome versus non-Pool C teams 21-14 (.600)

fantastic50

Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

"After gathering feedback from Division III sport committees, the Championships Committee recommended a trio of changes related to the championships selections and rankings. The committee recommended that results against ranked opponents from the year's third published ranking and the final published ranking be considered in championships selections; that the final rankings be published at the time of championships selections; and that nonconference strength of schedule be included among secondary selection criteria. The Division III Management Council will review these recommendations at its July meeting."

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1

sac

Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

"After gathering feedback from Division III sport committees, the Championships Committee recommended a trio of changes related to the championships selections and rankings. ; that the final rankings be published at the time of championships selections; and that nonconference strength of schedule be included among secondary selection criteria. The Division III Management Council will review these recommendations at its July meeting."

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1

The non-conference SOS part would be the most significant change. 



"The committee recommended that results against ranked opponents from the year's third published ranking and the final published ranking be considered in championships selections"

This might actually create more confusion as the rankings change from week 2 to 3 by adding a criteria that wasn't taken into account the week before.  :-\

KnightSlappy

Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

"After gathering feedback from Division III sport committees, the Championships Committee recommended a trio of changes related to the championships selections and rankings. The committee recommended that results against ranked opponents from the year's third published ranking and the final published ranking be considered in championships selections; that the final rankings be published at the time of championships selections; and that nonconference strength of schedule be included among secondary selection criteria. The Division III Management Council will review these recommendations at its July meeting."

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1

I just do not understand the desire to include these results as separate criteria. Why should we pay particular care to what a team did in a specific subset of games against unranked opponents?

Gregory Sager

Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

magicman

Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

Knowing the NCAA that'll probably be around the same time that Hell freezes over.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Per final regional rankings be released... that might be a good thing if it is now in the hands of the Management Council. There are members on that council who I believe are absolutely for releasing this data. If the Management Council votes that the data and rankings are to be released, then it is no longer up to the individual sport committees. Those committees have been voting each year and the majority do not want the info released. Despite arguments by men's basketball, football, and possibly others, the majority (and last year it was the vast majority) were against it and thus no rankings were released. If the Management Council says they are to be released, those committees have absolutely no choice. That would be a significant step.

By the way, there isn't anyone in the governorship - eh, except maybe one - or elsewhere that I talk to that doesn't agree that transparency means that information should be released. But because they allow the individual committees to vote on the issue, those who have delicate egos or want to keep from being questioned get to determine things for the entire division. This might be a sign that pressure from outside the NCAA including coaches and administrators has finally pushed this issue past those who are clearly ignorant to what is best for the division and their sport and to a place where this moves forward. I am thrilled to see the Management Council has this in front of them. If this does not pass from their point of view (which includes student-athletes on the committee who I bet would vote for this), then I will be beyond disappointed.
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: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! 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.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

Isn't this what I said to you at Salem?  Now that the first few rankings don't matter for selection, there's no reason not to add that week back again.  I agree it's a great idea.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere