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.

bopol

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)

D-Mac was hinting that they have some insider info on how the regional committees have shaped their final rankings -- and how the national committee may have then tweaked those rankings in turn.

In other words, it sounded as though the three mock selectors have some behind-the-scenes insight into UWO being placed sixth in the Central, behind UWRF, Wash U, UWW, Benedictine, and Augustana.

Since the regional committee would have been getting some feedback from the national committee, moving Oshkosh up that high would indicate that the national committee thinks they are a viable Pool C.  But history just tells me that they won't be willing to pull that trigger.

iwumichigander

Quote from: bopol on February 26, 2017, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)

D-Mac was hinting that they have some insider info on how the regional committees have shaped their final rankings -- and how the national committee may have then tweaked those rankings in turn.

In other words, it sounded as though the three mock selectors have some behind-the-scenes insight into UWO being placed sixth in the Central, behind UWRF, Wash U, UWW, Benedictine, and Augustana.

Since the regional committee would have been getting some feedback from the national committee, moving Oshkosh up that high would indicate that the national committee thinks they are a viable Pool C.  But history just tells me that they won't be willing to pull that trigger.
My thinking a little different and I think I have got this about right - Oshkosh was ranked 4th in the 3rd regional ranking through games of 2/19 with a 5-6 vRRO based upon the 2nd week rankings.  I think it was more about pushing Oshkosh further down and below Augustana.  By doing that, and in some order, you have Eau Claire, IWU and Carthage all at 17-8 with .680 WP% very close SOS with the differentiator being vRRO.

fantastic50

My final Pool C picks...

1) Babson (0.926, 0.585, 5-2, NE)
2) Susquehanna (0.800, 0.559, 5-5, MA)
3) Tufts (0.769, 0.570, 4-3, NE)
4) Rochester (0.840, 0.538, 4-2, EA)
5) Whitworth (0.852, 0.546, 1-3, WE)
6) Williams (0.704, 0.602, 7-5, NE)
7) Amherst (0.708, 0.602, 5-5, NE)
8) Wesleyan (CT) (0.760, 0.561, 4-3, NE)
9) New Jersey City (.750, 0.533, 6-3, AT)
10) UW-Whitewater (0.769, 0.568, 1-3, CE)
11) Emory (0.720, 0.551, 2-3, SO)
12) Hope (0.800, 0.525, 2-1, GL)
13) Salisbury (0.741, 0.548, 3-4, MA)
14) Cabrini (0.760, 0.532, 4-4, AT)
15) Mt St Joseph (0.760, 0.522, 2-3, GL)
16) Skidmore (0.731, 0.525, 5-1, EA)
17) St Lawrence (0.760, 0.524, 3-5, EA)
18) St Thomas (MN) (0.731, 0.530, 2-2, WE)
19) Augustana (.704, 0.543, 2-3, CE)
20) UW-Eau Claire (0.680, 0.572, 3-3, CE)
21) Keene State (0.679, 0.578, 1-3, NE)

Left at the table
AT) TCNJ (0.692, 0.519, 2-4)
CE) Illinois Wesleyan (0.680, 0.557, 6-2)
EA) Brockport (0.731, 0.522, 2-3)
GL) John Carroll (0.680, 0.560, 1-4)
MA) Moravian (0.720, 0.530, 4-5)
SO) LeTourneau (0.815, 0.499, 3-2)
WE) Nebraska Wesleyan (0.708, 0.524, 2-2)

It's been fun!

goscots

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
First pass at guessing hosting sites. Need one more, probably in the central region (a de facto Wash U. pod at a non-legitimate hosting site like Benedictine or Hope). Hardin-Simmons deserves a host but probably only gets one if they have 4+ flights approved instead of the minimum 3.

Middlebury
Babson
Tufts

UW-River Falls
UW-Whitewater

Whitman

Marietta
Hanover

Christopher Newport
Susquehanna / Scranton

Neumann
Ramapo

St. John Fisher
Rochester

Emory

Begin primarily knowledgeable wit the Greta Lakes I agree with Hanover and Marietta being the locations. I then think Hope, Wooster and a CCIW team get sent there.  My guess for Marietta is Calvin, Thomas More, and an a team from the east -- Ramapo?

Mr. Ypsi

The Whitman women also won the AQ, and women have the first weekend priority in odd-numbered years.  Anyone have info on whether the Whitman men will be able to host?

ronk

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
First pass at guessing hosting sites. Need one more, probably in the central region (a de facto Wash U. pod at a non-legitimate hosting site like Benedictine or Hope). Hardin-Simmons deserves a host but probably only gets one if they have 4+ flights approved instead of the minimum 3.

Middlebury
Babson
Tufts

UW-River Falls
UW-Whitewater

Whitman

Marietta
Hanover

Christopher Newport
Susquehanna / Scranton

Neumann
Ramapo

St. John Fisher
Rochester

Emory

Scranton women presumably hosting so the men won't and CNU women have a possibility to host also which would eliminate the CNU men from doing so.

Fifth and Putnam

Quote from: goscots on February 26, 2017, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
First pass at guessing hosting sites. Need one more, probably in the central region (a de facto Wash U. pod at a non-legitimate hosting site like Benedictine or Hope). Hardin-Simmons deserves a host but probably only gets one if they have 4+ flights approved instead of the minimum 3.

Middlebury
Babson
Tufts

UW-River Falls
UW-Whitewater

Whitman

Marietta
Hanover

Christopher Newport
Susquehanna / Scranton

Neumann
Ramapo

St. John Fisher
Rochester

Emory

Begin primarily knowledgeable wit the Greta Lakes I agree with Hanover and Marietta being the locations. I then think Hope, Wooster and a CCIW team get sent there.  My guess for Marietta is Calvin, Thomas More, and an a team from the east -- Ramapo.

Ramapo will likely host...if Thomas More doesn't go to Marietta, I could see Medaille coming down from Buffalo again and Thomas More goes to Hanover. I agree that Calvin seems to fit at Marietta, especially if Hope hosts or goes to the Central Region.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.
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.

FCGrizzliesGrad

Didn't the NCAA say a few years back that New Jersey schools couldn't host because of gambling laws? Is that a thing still or did it get rescinded (or am I just remembering the past wrong?
Football picker extraordinaire
5 titles: CCIW, NJAC
4x: ODAC:S
3x: ASC, IIAC, MIAA:S, NACC:S, NCAC, OAC:P, Nat'l
2x: HCAC, MIAC, ODAC:P, WIAC
1x: Bracket, OAC:S

Basketball
2013 WIAC Pickem Co-champ
2015 Nat'l Pickem
2017: LEC and MIAA Pickem
2019: MIAA and WIAC Pickem

Soccer
2023: Mens Pickem

Greek Tragedy

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2017, 11:46:54 PM
Didn't the NCAA say a few years back that New Jersey schools couldn't host because of gambling laws? Is that a thing still or did it get rescinded (or am I just remembering the past wrong?

On Hoopsville, they interviewed the Ramapo coach and he brought that up and basically said things may have been different that year had they hosted. I don't know what happened to that law, but it sounded like he's hoping they host.
Pointers
Breed of a Champion
2004, 2005, 2010 and 2015 National Champions

Fantasy Leagues Commissioner

TGHIJGSTO!!!

sac

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 11:48:55 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2017, 11:46:54 PM
Didn't the NCAA say a few years back that New Jersey schools couldn't host because of gambling laws? Is that a thing still or did it get rescinded (or am I just remembering the past wrong?

On Hoopsville, they interviewed the Ramapo coach and he brought that up and basically said things may have been different that year had they hosted. I don't know what happened to that law, but it sounded like he's hoping they host.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9023840/ncaa-lifts-ban-tournaments-new-jersey

2013, oy we're all old

NEPAFAN

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?
A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall.
Vince Lombardi

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 07:24:02 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?

According to the rankings we "gleaned," Scranton moved ahead of Susquehanna into 2nd in the MA.  Even though they can't host, in the past, if someone has earned in, they've not skipped them, but kept them top seed in a pod hosted by the "3rd" seed.  That's why I have Scranton the top seed at a pod at NJCU.

At that point, though, you can't really "predict" anything - just make a bracket that makes sense and fits the criteria.  They very well could be hosting. 
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

ronk

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 07:24:02 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?

According to the rankings we "gleaned," Scranton moved ahead of Susquehanna into 2nd in the MA.  Even though they can't host, in the past, if someone has earned in, they've not skipped them, but kept them top seed in a pod hosted by the "3rd" seed. That's why I have Scranton the top seed at a pod at NJCU.

At that point, though, you can't really "predict" anything - just make a bracket that makes sense and fits the criteria.  They very well could be hosting.

Is the reasoning to have the 1st seed play the 4th seed on a neutral court rather than having the 4th seed host and making it an away game for the 1st seed?

NEPAFAN

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 07:24:02 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?

According to the rankings we "gleaned," Scranton moved ahead of Susquehanna into 2nd in the MA.  Even though they can't host, in the past, if someone has earned in, they've not skipped them, but kept them top seed in a pod hosted by the "3rd" seed.  That's why I have Scranton the top seed at a pod at NJCU.

At that point, though, you can't really "predict" anything - just make a bracket that makes sense and fits the criteria.  They very well could be hosting.

Thanks for the insight Ryan.


I'll put my agreement on why Scranton should be ahead of Susquehanna back in my pocket. Was going to ask about your thoughts on updated MA regional ranking, but figured you were a bit busy last night.
A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall.
Vince Lombardi