Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - KnightSlappy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 285
1
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Posters' Poll
« on: Yesterday at 02:32:44 pm »
I could not possibly vote for a team holding The BeltTM. Even a first place vote would be like casting swine before pearls.

2
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Top 25 talk
« on: January 16, 2018, 02:51:05 pm »
While we're talking about schedule strength indicators, I've added a new one to my efficiency ratings page.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency.html

SOS Win50 is the median of each team's opponent's efficiency rating. This is a simplified version of what Sagarin (and now KenPom) does for the D1 ratings systems. It's basically the Efficiency Margin each team would need to go .500 against their to-date schedule.

My previous SOS (which is also still on there as SOS OppEM) is a simple average of each opponent's efficiency rating. Straight averaging is more susceptible to swings caused by one or three particularly strong (or poor) opponents, though I find both methods to be somewhat useful.

3
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Top 25 talk
« on: January 16, 2018, 10:12:19 am »
Not nearly as crazy as the new poll, though.

East Coast bias is strong with this one.

Fortunately the selection committee showed last year they have more regard for strength of schedule than the poll voters. Unfortunately they can't balance out the brackets to really expose the difference in quality.

Of course you have to trust the SOS number.  Massey has JCU at 37 right now - they've played only four marginally decent opponents - I'd argue it's really only been two - I just included the other two because JCU lost to them.  If that's the 37th best schedule, I'm very confused.

Maybe it's a strange year and that's properly rated, but it feels odd not to be able to trust the 37th best schedule at this point.

I think you're conflating opponent record and opponent quality.

4
Great Lakes Region / Re: MIAA pick 'em
« on: January 15, 2018, 08:36:36 am »
Jan 17

Calvin - 4
Trine - 3
Hope - 2
Adrian - 1

5
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Top 25 talk
« on: January 13, 2018, 11:32:33 am »
One thing to note: Massey right now is running further behind than usual. Results updates normally run a couple of days behind, but right now I don't see anything updated for the entire week. I don't know why that is.

Looks to me like Massey is updated through last night?  https://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cb2018&sub=11620

Massey ratings always get a full update on Monday mornings. Sometimes results get updated between that (it seems). I'm not sure what the schedule is with his code except that Mondays by about noon are the most up-to-date.

6
Great Lakes Region / Re: MIAA pick 'em
« on: January 12, 2018, 01:02:54 pm »
Saturday January 13
Alma-3
Calvin-4
Adrian-1
Albion-2

7
But, I mean, IF one wanted to gripe about the officiating I'd point to Hope's possession that began with about 2:12 left to play. Preston Granger enters the lane with 2:04 on the clock. Jason Beckman drives and attempts to pass to Granger at 2:02. The ball is tipped by Carlos Amoros and Granger secures and dishes to Teddy Ray at 2:00. Ray swings the ball to Dante Hawkins who drives at 1:55. Tony Canonie defends the play (and perhaps fouls) but the referee signals for "straight up" then "hand on top of ball". Hawkins bats the rebound at 1:53 and the ball travels through the rim from below (no violation is called). Granger (still in the lane) collects the ball after it is batted again and scores at 1:50. This tied the game at 69 and Calvin did not lead again.

As I have previously stated, however, I do not think the refs were a particularly large factor in the game. They were fine overall.

8
I thought the refereeing was fine. I wouldn't go down that road as a Calvin fan.

9
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Top 25 talk
« on: January 10, 2018, 02:49:46 pm »
Do we know for a fact that Massey considers Division I and Division II games in the rankings?

I have always assumed so, but was never 100% sure because Massey does differentiate between the divisions.  If you go to the Division III ratings and click on a particular team profile.  Then, click on Division III on the menu bar, both the record and the list of results changes to reflect Division III only.

I do not follow Massey close enough to watch for evidence, but when I look at a team such as No. 151 Eureka, it is hard for me to imagine that they should be ranked so high when we know Massey considers margin of victory and they were defeated by three Division I teams and one Division II team by an average margin of victory of 35 points.  My guess is that these teams are excluded from the rankings. 

Then again, Eureka may be proof that the other divisions are being considered.  Maybe Eureka is rewarded for playing significantly higher rated teams.

Massey does include D1, D2, NAIA games in the calculations, and also takes into account the relative ratings of the team. A 35-point loss to a D1 is not a bad result for the average D3 team.

In a good system, a win is not always positive (in terms of rating) and neither is a loss always a negative. A single-digit road loss to Whitman should boost the rating of most D3 teams. Similarly, a single-possession home win over Goucher (sorry Dave!) should been seen as a negative for most teams.

When it comes to Augustana/Illinois, my guess is that it has very little bearing on their ranking. I think (and we're on very dangerous ground here with me thinking) I remember that Massey discounts the results of games between extremely mismatched teams.

Per the shot at Goucher... no worries from me. Fine example. I would have used it, too. :)

As for the last part... the problem I have is that it isn't a game for Augustana. It shouldn't factor in at all. If Augustana played that game as a real game, so be it. I wouldn't like the non-DIII games considered, but it is a game on their schedule like Catholic's game against Maryland. However, Augustana played that game as an exhibition game. For Augustana, it does not count. The fact it is factored in is an issue for me. And Augustana is not the only team in this boat and thus why I think the numbers start to get fuzzy.

I agree that games that are exhibitions for one and not the other are problematic. I think the difference it makes (particularly once we get to January) are quite small. Particularly if you're using Massey et al. as a general guide rather than hard and fast numbers

10
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Top 25 talk
« on: January 10, 2018, 01:49:08 pm »
Do we know for a fact that Massey considers Division I and Division II games in the rankings?

I have always assumed so, but was never 100% sure because Massey does differentiate between the divisions.  If you go to the Division III ratings and click on a particular team profile.  Then, click on Division III on the menu bar, both the record and the list of results changes to reflect Division III only.

I do not follow Massey close enough to watch for evidence, but when I look at a team such as No. 151 Eureka, it is hard for me to imagine that they should be ranked so high when we know Massey considers margin of victory and they were defeated by three Division I teams and one Division II team by an average margin of victory of 35 points.  My guess is that these teams are excluded from the rankings. 

Then again, Eureka may be proof that the other divisions are being considered.  Maybe Eureka is rewarded for playing significantly higher rated teams.

Massey does include D1, D2, NAIA games in the calculations, and also takes into account the relative ratings of the team. A 35-point loss to a D1 is not a bad result for the average D3 team.

In a good system, a win is not always positive (in terms of rating) and neither is a loss always a negative. A single-digit road loss to Whitman should boost the rating of most D3 teams. Similarly, a single-possession home win over Goucher (sorry Dave!) should been seen as a negative for most teams.

When it comes to Augustana/Illinois, my guess is that it has very little bearing on their ranking. I think (and we're on very dangerous ground here with me thinking) I remember that Massey discounts the results of games between extremely mismatched teams.

11
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Big games today
« on: January 10, 2018, 08:18:49 am »
Today's Big Games.... 1/10/18.... a busy Wednesday

AMCC     Hilbert  (H) (5 - 1)  (8 - 4 ) vs Penn State-Behrend (A) (6 - 0)  (11 - 2 )
CCIW     Augustana  (H) (3 - 1)  (11 - 2 ) vs Wheaton (Ill.) (A) (4 - 1)  (10 - 3 )
HCAC     Transylvania  (H) (5 - 1)  (10 - 3 ) vs Mount St. Joseph (A) (6 - 0)  (9 - 4 )
IIAC     Loras  (H) (3 - 2)  (10 - 4 ) vs Nebraska Wesleyan (A) (3 - 1)  (12 - 1 )
LEC     Eastern Connecticut  (H) (3 - 0)  (11 - 2 ) vs Mass-Dartmouth (A) (2 - 1)  (9 - 4 )
LEC     Western Connecticut  (H) (3 - 0)  (6 - 6 ) vs Keene State (A) (3 - 0)  (9 - 4 )
MACC     Lycoming  (H) (5 - 1)  (14 - 1 ) vs Albright (A) (4 - 1)  (11 - 2 )
MIAC     Augsburg  (H) (6 - 2)  (11 - 2 ) vs Bethel (A) (4 - 3)  (9 - 3 )
NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan  (H) (5 - 1)  (10 - 3 ) vs Hiram (A) (4 - 2)  (8 - 5 )
NEAC     Keuka  (H) (3 - 1)  (5 - 6 ) vs Morrisville State (A) (3 - 0)  (5 - 6 )
OAC     Baldwin Wallace  (H) (5 - 1)  (11 - 2 ) vs Ohio Northern (A) (4 - 2)  (9 - 4 )
PrAC     Grove City  (H) (3 - 3)  (10 - 3 ) vs Westminster (Pa.) (A) (5 - 1)  (11 - 2 )
SKY     Farmingdale State  (H) (5 - 2)  (7 - 4 ) vs SUNY-Purchase (A) (5 - 1)  (8 - 2 )
SLIAC     Westminster (Mo.)  (H) (5 - 1)  (9 - 4 ) vs Eureka (A) (4 - 2)  (9 - 4 )
WIAC     UW-River Falls  (H) (1 - 1)  (10 - 2 ) vs UW-Platteville (A) (2 - 0)  (12 - 1 )

Also tonight is Calvin at Hope. Not a big game in terms of records this year, but always big for the rivalry aspect.

12
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Top 25 talk
« on: January 09, 2018, 05:02:13 pm »
The number Matt Snyder puts together aren't rankings, they're just using the NCAA formula and an RPI to predict the regional rankings.  I think just about anyone will admit that "the numbers" sometimes need a dose of the eye test now and then.

I started running true ratings numbers last season as well as the SOS data stuff. I'm mirroring the KenPom method using only D3 vs. D3 games.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency.html

13
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: January 09, 2018, 04:07:26 pm »
The rationale for the change in the definition of regionally ranked teams is explained in the June, 2016 report of the DIII Championships Committee.  This change was initially proposed by the DIII Men's and Women's Soccer Committees, in order to stabilize a team's standing heading into selections.  Various input was heard from all of the sport committees, and I believe that this change is in keeping with the notion that a team's entire season should be taken into account at the selection, not just performance in the final week, which is usually conf tournament week.  Barring adoption of the RPI, I believe that this is an acceptable compromise between the "once ranked, always ranked" camp, and the "rankings at the time of selection" position.  Keep in mind that this definition applies to all d3 team sports.

The Championships Committee does not currently support adopting the RPI for DIII, even though the basketball committees have asked the Championships Committee to consider it.

As I understand it, one of the problems they're trying to solve is that a team could be "hurt" by making their conference tournament. I'm thinking here of the 5th place CCIW squad that might be on the fringes of Pool C discussion not having to take a loss.

But the question I have is what value are we adding by giving a team a RvRRO for playing an opponent that is now ranked 10th in a region that ranks the top 8? The selection committee is going to drill down into that data and see that said team is not in a ranked position and discount that result greatly. Sure, it could be used as a tiebreaker of sorts, but what about the 9th ranked team in that same region? Perhaps their position never changed. Games against them count less than games against the team below them.

14
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: January 09, 2018, 01:12:19 pm »
As of January 9, we are still waiting for the NCAA to release its 2017-18 edition of the Men's Basketball Pre-Championship Manual.

I read on another forum where somebody believed that in order to be eligible for selection, at least 75% of the opponents on the schedule had to be DIII in-region.  It is actually at least 70%, just for clarification, and the requirement is not very difficult, in most cases to meet, as conference games count as in-region, so the rest of the requirement applies to non-conference scheduling.  The Championships Committee can grant a waiver from this requirement if a team can prove hardship in meeting this requirement.

This year, Finlandia has been granted a waiver from the scheduling requirement for both men's and women's basketball for the 2017-18 season.  Waiver requests are voted on at the June meeting of the DIII Championships Committee.

FYI, here are the other 3 criteria for a non-conference DIII opponent to meet the in-region scheduling requirement:

1.). Team is in the defined evaluation region.
2.). Team is within 500 miles, or
3.). Team is in the same NCAA geographic region.

All DIII games (excluding 1st and 2nd year provisional/reclassifying teams) count in the primary criteria for evaluation purposes.

I don't know if it popped up or not after you posted this, but said manual actually is available.

Thanks for providing the link.

The NCAA just published the manual this morning, and I have taken a look at it.

Of note:

1.). In the primary criteria, results vs ranked DIII opponents are defined as those DiII opponents listed in the final ranking and the ranking immediately preceding the final ranking.  Conference postseason tournament results are included.

2.). DIII non-conference strength of schedule is included as part of the secondary criteria.

43 AQs, 21 Pool C selections for this year's tournament.

First published ranking is on Wed. Feb. 7, while results against teams in the rankings on Feb. 21 and Feb. 26 will count as results vs ranked teams for selection purposes.

I hate results versus regionally ranked opponents being a primary criteria, but I really really hate also counting games against teams that may have fallen out of the final rankings. This is a big big benefit to the power conferences who might have several teams jockeying for position in the regional rankings.

15
Good luck to Hope and Calvin Wednesday night, may the best  .............  well everybody just have a good time. :)

This contest will carry a lot of weight for being just the third of the conference slate. It feels like a game that Hope needs to win more than Calvin, but, either way, the loser is going to have to climb themselves out of a hole. They'll be two games down on the Adrian-Trine winner.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 285