D3boards.com

D3baseball.com => National topics => 2009 season => Topic started by: Jim Dixon on April 24, 2008, 03:47:31 pm

Title: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jim Dixon on April 24, 2008, 03:47:31 pm
http://ncaa.com/rankings/default.aspx?id=212508
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 24, 2008, 04:57:53 pm
Hmm ... only five ranked MW teams. Come on up north, Central Region or some team that needs a flight. Apparently there's room in the Oshkosh Regional for you as of today.

I would like to think another MIAC team steps into the No. 6 spot in the Midwest, but did the NCAA send a message to the Midwest about the overall strength of the region by ranking just five teams? Interesting any way you look at it, if every other team outside the top 5 is fighting to make the rankings. Probably not the place you want to be.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 24, 2008, 05:05:14 pm
Of the 54 regionally ranked teams, nine are from NE, nine from the M-A and seven from the Mideast. Six teams from all other besides the Midwest, which has five.

Again, interesting. To me at least.

EDIT: Kean's ranking is also interesting to me.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jim Dixon on April 24, 2008, 05:08:35 pm
Also interesting: St. Scholastica is missing from the Midwest regional rankings. 
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 24, 2008, 05:14:46 pm
Also interesting: St. Scholastica is missing from the Midwest regional rankings. 
Exactly ... looks like it's a horse race for the second MIAC team and CSS to scratch their ways into the rankings.

That CSS loss to Martin Luther must have been really bad in the NCAA's eyes. CSS beat the Nos. 1 and 2 teams in the Midwest Region and are now 15-3 in-region, for crying out loud. If my math is correct, CSS was 9-3 11-3 in-region when the rankings were done. But CSS still had the splits with Oshkosh and St. Thomas on its resume at that time. Who knew that wasn't good enough? And East Bay's (or some other bottom-of-the-regional-rankings team) resume is good enough? I cry foul on these first rankings. I hope the NCAA corrects that one ...

EDIT: UGH! Ripon is NOT 18-13 overall and St. Thomas does NOT play in "Minnestoa." Guess what, NCAA? No team does.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 24, 2008, 05:57:28 pm
St. Joseph's (Brooklyn) isn't eligible for the NCAA playoffs either, but St. Joseph's (Long Island) is.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 24, 2008, 06:28:52 pm
Do the other sports' regional rankings closely correlate to the number of championship-eligble teams in each region?

The breakdown of the baseball rankings bears that out. NE (62 eligble teams), M-A (57) and ME (47) have the most teams and the most regionally ranked teams. The remaining regions are similar in numbers except for the Midwest, which has only 30 teams.

The Midwest had 31 (I think) teams last season, but I don't remember any rankings with five teams. Just trying to figure this thing out and wondering if the Midwest has some sort of quota. Throwing stuff at the wall here ...

Either that or the Midwest Region conference call today was done by four dudes with hangovers or something.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: kscer on April 24, 2008, 07:15:30 pm
Can someone tell me why Eastern Connecticut warrants a #4 ranking in NE with the year they are having? Is it just Holawaty homage or legit?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 24, 2008, 08:06:32 pm
Could be strength of schedule. We don't have those numbers at our fingertips but in the other sports we cover the OWP and OOWP played a very large role.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 24, 2008, 08:18:08 pm
Could be strength of schedule. We don't have those numbers at our fingertips but in the other sports we cover the OWP and OOWP played a very large role.
Based on overall schedule against all D3 teams and not just in-region, correct? That's the way I interpreted the Appendix.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 24, 2008, 08:28:07 pm
I am hoping Dixon or someone else can answer this perplexing question for me. WHat are the qualifications for a loss in region, as listed on the regional rankings? I know for a fact Hopkins has only lost one game against teams in their regions which was one to Muhlenberg. THeir other three losses are against keene state, wheaton, and Cortland state, all out of region and pretty far away, and all played in arizona. How are regional records put together, and is it just me, or is their in region record of 24-3 a mistake????
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 24, 2008, 08:37:09 pm
I am hoping Dixon or someone else can answer this perplexing question for me. WHat are the qualifications for a loss in region, as listed on the regional rankings? I know for a fact Hopkins has only lost one game against teams in their regions which was one to Muhlenberg. Their other three losses are against Keene State, Wheaton, and Cortland State, all out of region and pretty far away, and all played in Arizona. How are regional records put together, and is it just me, or is their in region record of 24-3 a mistake????
JHU in Baltimore, MD is in the same Administrative Region (#1) as Keene State NH and Wheaton MA.  Cortland is in Adminstrative Region #2 (NY and PA)

On first review, the JHU's regional record is correct.

FAQ -- NCAA Tournament (http://www.d3baseball.com/faq/category/NCAA+Tournament)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 24, 2008, 09:02:32 pm
Could be strength of schedule. We don't have those numbers at our fingertips but in the other sports we cover the OWP and OOWP played a very large role.
Based on overall schedule against all D3 teams and not just in-region, correct? That's the way I interpreted the Appendix.

No, not for regional rankings -- just regional games.

Perhaps in the selection process they would look at the secondary criteria, which includes all Division III teams, but not in the regular regional rankings.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 24, 2008, 09:03:09 pm
Do the other sports' regional rankings closely correlate to the number of championship-eligble teams in each region?

The breakdown of the baseball rankings bears that out. NE (62 eligble teams), M-A (57) and ME (47) have the most teams and the most regionally ranked teams. The remaining regions are similar in numbers except for the Midwest, which has only 30 teams.

The Midwest had 31 (I think) teams last season, but I don't remember any rankings with five teams. Just trying to figure this thing out and wondering if the Midwest has some sort of quota. Throwing stuff at the wall here ...

Either that or the Midwest Region conference call today was done by four dudes with hangovers or something.

Yes, dude.  The men's basketball regional rankings are allocated that way.  (Women's Hoops are not.)

The number of teams ranked in a Region is roughly one team for every 6.5 teams in the region.

Central -- 40 teams (6 bids times 6.5 = 39)

Mid-Atlantic -- 57 teams (9 times 6.5 = 58.5)

Mideast -- 47 teams (7 times 6.5 = 45.5)

Midwest -- 30 teams (5 times 6.5 = 32.5)

New England -- 62 teams (9 times 6.5 = 58.5)

New York -- 37 teams (6 times 6.5 = 39)

South -- 38 teams (6 times 6.5 = 39)

West -- 40 teams (6 times 6.5 = 39)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 24, 2008, 09:41:48 pm
Could be strength of schedule. We don't have those numbers at our fingertips but in the other sports we cover the OWP and OOWP played a very large role.
Based on overall schedule against all D3 teams and not just in-region, correct? That's the way I interpreted the Appendix.

No, not for regional rankings -- just regional games.

Perhaps in the selection process they would look at the secondary criteria, which includes all Division III teams, but not in the regular regional rankings.
Sorry, Pat. That wasn't clear. So when I later calculate updated OWP and OOWP (might try to pull that off for the MW teams), use only in-region records and opponents for all teams involved? Hope that question makes sense to you.

Ex.: St. Thomas is currently 13-5 in-region. Only use the in-region records of opponents (minus the result of the St. Thomas game(s)) involved in those 18 games, and only those 18 games?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 24, 2008, 09:42:59 pm
That's right.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 24, 2008, 09:52:15 pm
Do the other sports' regional rankings closely correlate to the number of championship-eligble teams in each region?

The breakdown of the baseball rankings bears that out. NE (62 eligble teams), M-A (57) and ME (47) have the most teams and the most regionally ranked teams. The remaining regions are similar in numbers except for the Midwest, which has only 30 teams.

The Midwest had 31 (I think) teams last season, but I don't remember any rankings with five teams. Just trying to figure this thing out and wondering if the Midwest has some sort of quota. Throwing stuff at the wall here ...

Either that or the Midwest Region conference call today was done by four dudes with hangovers or something.

Yes, dude.  The men's basketball regional rankings are allocated that way.  (Women's Hoops are not.)

The number of teams ranked in a Region is roughly one team for every 6.5 teams in the region.
Well, that's bad news for St. Scholastica and good news for other Pool B's. There's virtually no way for CSS to move ahead of any currently ranked MW team based on CSS's remaining schedule and while using the primary criteria and if there's going to only be five ranked MW teams.

My only contention would be the MW had 31 eligible teams last year and always had six ranked teams. Must be a new rule/guideline that I'll have to accept, apparently.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 24, 2008, 10:00:11 pm
They don't have to be regionally ranked to get a Pool B bid.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: rjburke on April 24, 2008, 11:42:41 pm
I wonder how closly the regional rankings will predict the teams playing in the regionals?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BaseballFan on April 25, 2008, 12:20:40 am
Also interesting: St. Scholastica is missing from the Midwest regional rankings. 
Exactly ... looks like it's a horse race for the second MIAC team and CSS to scratch their ways into the rankings.

That CSS loss to Martin Luther must have been really bad in the NCAA's eyes. CSS beat the Nos. 1 and 2 teams in the Midwest Region and are now 15-3 in-region, for crying out loud. If my math is correct, CSS was 9-3 11-3 in-region when the rankings were done. But CSS still had the splits with Oshkosh and St. Thomas on its resume at that time. Who knew that wasn't good enough? And East Bay's (or some other bottom-of-the-regional-rankings team) resume is good enough? I cry foul on these first rankings. I hope the NCAA corrects that one ...

EDIT: UGH! Ripon is NOT 18-13 overall and St. Thomas does NOT play in "Minnestoa." Guess what, NCAA? No team does.

Thank god people are noticing this!!! The Midwest region should be mad in general that only 5 teams are ranked. In my opinion that shows no respect, where I believe the midwest is one of the best and equally talented regions. Hopefully they did what Ralph said and only did a percentage of teams

Yea CSS might not have to be regionally ranked to get a pool B but thats like saying oh its ok that Chapman is ranked they are a pool B. CSS has split to UWO and St thomas (2 of 3 region losses) and their other loss came at the end of a 8 game road trip in 6 days.

The regional rankings will closely predict the teams playing in the regionals. Most regions have played all their games, the north has maybe has about 8 games left so wont change much.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 25, 2008, 02:01:30 am
The Selection Committee has the rest of the region ranked when it gets down to the last of the bids.

CSS might even get a Pool C bid as a Pool B;  SJF and York did last year.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: goldengear on April 25, 2008, 09:51:21 am
Only 5 midwest teams is just a math problem, wouldn't read too much into it,  they rank the top 15 percent of each regions teams and the Midwest falls just on the 5 side of the math equation.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BaseballFan on April 25, 2008, 11:13:56 am
I understand they might only due a percentage of teams, but they have not done that in the past. Seems to make a lot of sense to just rank 6-8 teams from every region so they know where they stand right now and thats how many make the playoffs
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 25, 2008, 12:16:38 pm
I understand they might only due a percentage of teams, but they have not done that in the past. Seems to make a lot of sense to just rank 6-8 teams from every region so they know where they stand right now and thats how many make the playoffs
Each region is not allocated a specific number of bids.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BaseballFan on April 25, 2008, 12:20:28 pm
I understand they might only due a percentage of teams, but they have not done that in the past. Seems to make a lot of sense to just rank 6-8 teams from every region so they know where they stand right now and thats how many make the playoffs
Each region is not allocated a specific number of bids.

I guess I wasnt clear enough. I mean that 6 teams make the midwest regional not necessarily that it would be 6 midwest teams. My opinion is that the midwest region is stronger than the central, therefore should not ship a central team to the midwest
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 25, 2008, 12:32:33 pm
I understand they might only due a percentage of teams, but they have not done that in the past. Seems to make a lot of sense to just rank 6-8 teams from every region so they know where they stand right now and thats how many make the playoffs
Each region is not allocated a specific number of bids.

I guess I wasnt clear enough. I mean that 6 teams make the midwest regional not necessarily that it would be 6 midwest teams. My opinion is that the midwest region is stronger than the central, therefore should not ship a central team to the midwest
The NCAA has moved to designating the region after the city where the playoffs occur.

Last season, the Wisconsin Rapids Regional (http://www.titans.uwosh.edu/NCAAChampionship/2007/regionals/scheduleresults.html) had Pool A's Ripon, St Thomas and UW-Stevens Point,  Pool B CSS and Pool C's UW-Oshkosh and St Olaf.

As long as the tournament can allocate a comfortable 6-team bracket to the Midwest region, and fill it appropriately, then I think that we see a similar configuration.  The UMAC getting the Pool A bid only moves CSS to Pool A, or Pool c, if they were upset in the conference tourney.   :)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: A.G. on May 01, 2008, 02:46:47 pm
The latest rankings are now out:
http://www.ncaa.com/baseball/default.aspx?id=212508

Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: bluejayfan on May 01, 2008, 03:31:27 pm
Okay I have a question, I'm hoping someone can answer for me. Hopkins has more regional wins and less losses then Kean and TCNJ and is ranked third in the region. Can someone explain why that is to me?? I'm not saying Hopkins is better, I'm just curious as to what exactly goes into that??? Thanks.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jim Dixon on May 01, 2008, 03:50:55 pm
Okay I have a question, I'm hoping someone can answer for me. Hopkins has more regional wins and less losses then Kean and TCNJ and is ranked third in the region. Can someone explain why that is to me?? I'm not saying Hopkins is better, I'm just curious as to what exactly goes into that??? Thanks.

It has to do with the quality of competition.  The rankings are not just winning percentage.  For the exact formula I refer you to the Handbook.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: bluejayfan on May 01, 2008, 03:56:10 pm
Thanks Jim! Like I said I was just curious and didn't understand.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 01, 2008, 04:31:00 pm
I'm of the opinion that the NCAA also corrected some of the oddities of the first rankings. I thought Kean and Heidelberg were too low last week, and now I think they got those teams right.

Without the other numbers, I can't prove that. But the past week's results and the new/old regional rankings suggest it. I didn't see anything from the past week that would make Kean jump four spots. I just think Kean was underranked (if that's a word) to begin with.

I wonder if Ripon reappears next week after its split with Stevens Point. Also wonder if Stevens Point stays in the rankings if it doesn't win 3 of 4 over Whitewater, considering St. Olaf and Ripon are knocking on the door.

It's getting good.

EDIT: That Linfield/George Fox series was huge, huh?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 01, 2008, 05:47:18 pm
Okay I have a question, I'm hoping someone can answer for me. Hopkins has more regional wins and less losses then Kean and TCNJ and is ranked third in the region. Can someone explain why that is to me?? I'm not saying Hopkins is better, I'm just curious as to what exactly goes into that??? Thanks.

It has to do with the quality of competition.  The rankings are not just winning percentage.  For the exact formula I refer you to the Handbook.
 
      Jim, I completely understand the fact that because the njac teams play better competition, other teams in the mid-atlantic such as hopkins needs to have much better records to be ranked higher, but these last rankings are confusing. TCNJ gets swept by kean who was ranked 6th in last weeks region rankings, and they stay at number 1. Kean loses last week, and then sweeps tcnj at home, and then hops in front of hopkins. It just seems as if the committee is determined to give the number 1 seed to an njac champion simply bc they win the njac, regardless of other losses or final record. Can you try to give your personal opinion on this, because this just seems a little fishy.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jack Parkman on May 01, 2008, 07:17:44 pm
Maybe I am really lost here but how does Redlands not jump in front of Pomona after Pomona gets swept by a team under .500?

Where did Concordia-Austin come from?  Were they on the last regional rankings?

Does anyone have the last regional rankings?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 01, 2008, 08:09:15 pm
Jack, the Regional Rankings blog has last week's Rankings.

April 24 Regional Rankings (http://www.d3sports.com/dailydose/2008/04/24/regional-rankings/)

West Region
Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
1 Chapman (28-3; 22-3)
2 Texas-Tyler* (33-7; 30-7)
3 Linfield* (29-7; 27-6)
4 Pomona-Pitzer* (27-7; 18-6)
5 Redlands (26-11; 19-6)
6 Cal State East Bay (20-13; 14-9)


West Region --May 1st
1 Chapman 32-3 25-3
2 George Fox 28-12 27-11
3 Texas-Tyler 35-7 32-7
4 Concordia-Austin 28-14 24-11
5 Pomona-Pitzer 27-10 18-9
6 Redlands 26-11 19-6

That tells me this is a real horse race!  I will bet that Linfield, CSU-EB and probably Trinity TX are an eyelash behind!  (Linfield has the NWC Pool A bid; Trinity, the SCAC.)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on May 01, 2008, 10:18:03 pm
Is there a May 8th regional rankings, or was this the last (public) rankings?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 01, 2008, 10:45:03 pm
Is there a May 8th regional rankings, or was this the last (public) rankings?
Yes to May 8th!
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jack Parkman on May 01, 2008, 10:52:55 pm
Geez, rough crowd doing these rankings!  I realize there will be another next week which will be good.  I just dont really see how a team like Concordia can jump a team with 5 less in-region losses?  Eh, what the hell, I guess I just don't really understand the whole process :)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: HALLEBASEBALL on May 01, 2008, 11:25:14 pm
Not A NCAA rule however after following my sons school (Chapman 2005) since 1999 a West Independent better win 30 games or guess what most likely a no go to  the playoffs  Example 2002  Chapman wins 29 and dosnt get in. You might get in with less but you better be in the top 10 in the nation.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 01, 2008, 11:55:31 pm
Not A NCAA rule however after following my sons school (Chapman 2005) since 1999 a West Independent better win 30 games or guess what most likely a no go to  the playoffs  Example 2002  Chapman wins 29 and dosnt get in. You might get in with less but you better be in the top 10 in the nation.
Since then, the NCAA has expanded the number of Pool C bids due to the March Madness TV contract monies.

In 2002, 31 Pool A bids, 6 Pool B bids, 5 Pool C bids.

In 2008, 34 Pool A bids, 6 Pool B bids, 14 Pool C bids.

2002 Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/baseball/2002/2002_d3_baseball.pdf)  :)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: beachlover on May 02, 2008, 12:21:34 am
Jack, the Regional Rankings blog has last week's Rankings.

April 24 Regional Rankings (http://www.d3sports.com/dailydose/2008/04/24/regional-rankings/)

West Region
Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
1 Chapman (28-3; 22-3)
2 Texas-Tyler* (33-7; 30-7)
3 Linfield* (29-7; 27-6)
4 Pomona-Pitzer* (27-7; 18-6)
5 Redlands (26-11; 19-6)
6 Cal State East Bay (20-13; 14-9)


West Region --May 1st
1 Chapman 32-3 25-3
2 George Fox 28-12 27-11
3 Texas-Tyler 35-7 32-7
4 Concordia-Austin 28-14 24-11
5 Pomona-Pitzer 27-10 18-9
6 Redlands 26-11 19-6

That tells me this is a real horse race!  I will bet that Linfield, CSU-EB and probably Trinity TX are an eyelash behind!  (Linfield has the NWC Pool A bid; Trinity, the SCAC.)

Ralph -
To get back to Jack's question.  How does a team that wasn't ranked the previous time (Concordia-Austin) jump into 4th place, especially when the #6 team didn't lose a game? 
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: HALLEBASEBALL on May 02, 2008, 12:33:28 am
Wins or setting up for two Texas teams just like 2002.  I would say not enough wins by Cal State .
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 02, 2008, 12:43:25 am
Jack, the Regional Rankings blog has last week's Rankings.

April 24 Regional Rankings (http://www.d3sports.com/dailydose/2008/04/24/regional-rankings/)

West Region
Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
1 Chapman (28-3; 22-3)
2 Texas-Tyler* (33-7; 30-7)
3 Linfield* (29-7; 27-6)
4 Pomona-Pitzer* (27-7; 18-6)
5 Redlands (26-11; 19-6)
6 Cal State East Bay (20-13; 14-9)


West Region --May 1st
1 Chapman 32-3 25-3
2 George Fox 28-12 27-11
3 Texas-Tyler 35-7 32-7
4 Concordia-Austin 28-14 24-11
5 Pomona-Pitzer 27-10 18-9
6 Redlands 26-11 19-6

That tells me this is a real horse race!  I will bet that Linfield, CSU-EB and probably Trinity TX are an eyelash behind!  (Linfield has the NWC Pool A bid; Trinity, the SCAC.)

Ralph -
To get back to Jack's question.  How does a team that wasn't ranked the previous time (Concordia-Austin) jump into 4th place, especially when the #6 team didn't lose a game? 
The 2-8 (or 9) teams must be a logjam with every game affecting the race. Notice that George Fox went from unranked to No. 2 after taking 3-of-4 from former No. 3 Redlands Linfield, which is now unranked as a result (but in as a Pool A). Ah, the wild West ...
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: beachlover on May 02, 2008, 12:45:26 am
Wins or setting up for two Texas teams just like 2002.  I would say not enough wins by Cal State .

Halle - I think I didn't explain my question clearly.  I understand why Cal State dropped from the list, but I don't understand how Concordia, who wasn't ranked last week,  jumped into #4, especially when Pomona and Redlands have better records and winning percentages?  

From your response are you stating that you think the ranking favor Texas teams vs. California teams?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: beachlover on May 02, 2008, 12:49:27 am
Jack, the Regional Rankings blog has last week's Rankings.

April 24 Regional Rankings (http://www.d3sports.com/dailydose/2008/04/24/regional-rankings/)

West Region
Rank Team (Overall; In-Region)
1 Chapman (28-3; 22-3)
2 Texas-Tyler* (33-7; 30-7)
3 Linfield* (29-7; 27-6)
4 Pomona-Pitzer* (27-7; 18-6)
5 Redlands (26-11; 19-6)
6 Cal State East Bay (20-13; 14-9)


West Region --May 1st
1 Chapman 32-3 25-3
2 George Fox 28-12 27-11
3 Texas-Tyler 35-7 32-7
4 Concordia-Austin 28-14 24-11
5 Pomona-Pitzer 27-10 18-9
6 Redlands 26-11 19-6

That tells me this is a real horse race!  I will bet that Linfield, CSU-EB and probably Trinity TX are an eyelash behind!  (Linfield has the NWC Pool A bid; Trinity, the SCAC.)

Ralph -
To get back to Jack's question.  How does a team that wasn't ranked the previous time (Concordia-Austin) jump into 4th place, especially when the #6 team didn't lose a game? 
The 2-8 (or 9) teams must be a logjam with every game affecting the race. Notice that George Fox went from unranked to No. 2 after taking 3-of-4 from former No. 3 Redlands, which is now unranked as a result (but in as a Pool A). Ah, the wild West ...

I'm the first to admit that I'm often confused, but George Fox hasn't played Redlands.  Can you help me understand?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 02, 2008, 12:55:02 am
I believe that he means Linfield.  I count Menlo as 11-12, in-region.  (The Simpson is Simpson of California.)  CSU-EB's beating Menlo actually hurt them more than GFU beating Linfield, which gave GFU a boost.

Concordia Texas beat UOzarks, 2 of 3.  UOzarks had a very good in-region record.

There are about 6 primary criteria, and any of them can juggle teams that you don't expect, especially when all of the teams are so close.

I really think that these teams are more accurately described on a 100 point scale.

Chapman -- 97.0
George Fox -- 93.0
UTTyler --   92.9
CUA  ---   92.8
PP   --     92.75
Redlands -- 92.70

Linfield  --  92.65
CSU-East Bay --  92.60
Trinity TX  -- 92.55
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 02, 2008, 12:55:16 am
Wins or setting up for two Texas teams just like 2002.  I would say not enough wins by Cal State .

Halle - I think I didn't explain my question clearly.  I understand why Cal State dropped from the list, but I don't understand how Concordia, who wasn't ranked last week,  jumped into #4, especially when Pomona and Redlands have better records and winning percentages? 

In-region winning percentage is only one of the criteria.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 02, 2008, 01:23:12 am
It's late in the game, but has anyone compiled in-region records for a lot of teams?

I have the 35 Midwest teams and ~30 others that have played MW Region teams this season, all but one of which is from the Central. Thought there would be an outside chance we could throw together some peripheral numbers besides in-region records. Shot in the dark ...
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jack Parkman on May 02, 2008, 01:41:45 am
I guess those numbers make a little more sense to me now.  I am curious though, isn't Ozarks a South team?  Maybe I am wrong, its happened once before ;D

I guess I will see how it's hard for Redlands to get in over Pomona since Pomona beat them head-to-head.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 02, 2008, 01:43:57 am
I guess those numbers make a little more sense to me now.  I am curious though, isn't Ozarks a South team?  Maybe I am wrong, its happened once before ;D

I guess I will see how it's hard for Redlands to get in over Pomona since Pomona beat them head-to-head.
West.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 02, 2008, 07:08:43 am
I guess those numbers make a little more sense to me now.  I am curious though, isn't Ozarks a South team?  Maybe I am wrong, its happened once before ;D

I guess I will see how it's hard for Redlands to get in over Pomona since Pomona beat them head-to-head.
Ozarks is carried with the ASC into the West Region.

That actually helps increase the number of schools that qualify as in-region.  Ozarks picks up the other 25 "West Evaluation Region" schools to go with the Administrative Region #3 schools.  The same occurs with Mississippi College and Louisiana College.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jack Parkman on May 02, 2008, 10:50:35 am
Got ya.  I really figured they were a shout team.  Silly me.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: utilitycat17 on May 02, 2008, 02:46:28 pm
Not A NCAA rule however after following my sons school (Chapman 2005) since 1999 a West Independent better win 30 games or guess what most likely a no go to  the playoffs  Example 2002  Chapman wins 29 and dosnt get in. You might get in with less but you better be in the top 10 in the nation.

Chapman didn't get in that year, not because they didn't deserve to get in, but because the national committee refused to select Dallas with their 37-3 record.  2002 isn't the best example of history.  You had two of the best independents in the country not get in with excellent records for different reasons.  Dallas didn't get in because they played nobodys all year.  Chapman didn't get in because they were ranked behind Dallas in the region, and the national committee couldn't jump Dallas to select them.  You had the top two teams in the region not make the playoffs.  Also, Hayward(East Bay) has gotten into other regionals with even less wins than 29.  You're right to say it's not an NCAA rule to get to 30 wins.  It is pretty close to a sure thing if you get to 30 wins though, especially if you play a good schedule. 
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 02, 2008, 03:00:54 pm
Got ya.  I really figured they were a shout team.  Silly me.
Jack, Hendrix (SCAC-West Division) is also put in the West Region, as is Mississippi College (ASC-East Division).  I wish that Millsaps (SCAC-West Region were in the West Evaluation Region as well.  That way, games versus ASC teams in Texas and westward would be in-region games.  It would be great to have Millsaps count as in-region for UT-Tyler, Concordia-Austin, McMurry, etc.

Millsaps would still be in Administartive Region #3 (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY, IN, MI, OH, WV)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: tiger_fan2000 on May 08, 2008, 10:42:54 am
when do the newest regional rankings come out?

thanks.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Just Bill on May 08, 2008, 10:45:02 am
Typically the final regional rankings aren't released publicly.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Big Louie on May 08, 2008, 10:48:06 am
Your right the final rankings aren't released publicly....however there still is another regional rankings that will come out sometime this afternoon
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: tiger_fan2000 on May 08, 2008, 10:48:53 am
thanks for that.....

i didnt think this could be the final rankings since there are still teams playing this weekend.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jim Dixon on May 08, 2008, 11:28:34 am
The picture in the Mideast, Midwest and Central I find pretty clear, assuming no upsets in the conference tournaments.  Even then, the teams don't change much. 

The rankings this afternoon will illuminating for the other regions and go a long way to clearing up the whole playoff picture.  I am sure the committee is going to enjoy a relatively easy time in creating the regionals.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 08, 2008, 03:35:46 pm
They're back.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/default.aspx?id=212508 (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/default.aspx?id=212508)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: A.G. on May 08, 2008, 03:40:00 pm
Sweet!  Will the fine folks like Dixon and Turner perhaps prognosticate what they think the selection committee will do?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2008, 03:59:33 pm
Sweet!  Will the fine folks like Dixon and Turner perhaps prognosticate what they think the selection committee will do?
Let me get home and look at the Poll more carefully.

The 7 Pool B's that catch my eye are Chapman, Salisbury, Ithaca, Piedmont, Emory, CSU-East Bay and CSS for 6 Pool B's

(Last year we had SJF and York PA make Pool C as a Pool B.)

I also don't think that there are any Pool C's who are not on the list, with the possible exception of UT-Tyler.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: bigbuckhunter on May 08, 2008, 07:56:15 pm
WOW who puts these together
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: killerdude on May 08, 2008, 09:42:26 pm
SO WHATS THE DEAL WITH THE SOUTH REGION??...WHOSE IN???....THE RANKINGS SHOW THE TEAMS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT SOME TEAMS ARE LEFT OUT!!...WHAT ABOUT NCWC??...THAT HAVE TO STAND A BETTER THAN GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING IN....WHAT DO U THINK??
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jim Dixon on May 09, 2008, 01:28:41 am
SO WHATS THE DEAL WITH THE SOUTH REGION??...WHOSE IN???....THE RANKINGS SHOW THE TEAMS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT SOME TEAMS ARE LEFT OUT!!...WHAT ABOUT NCWC??...THAT HAVE TO STAND A BETTER THAN GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING IN....WHAT DO U THINK??

The rankings speak volumes about what the committee is thinking.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 09, 2008, 12:09:01 pm
Good point, Jim. I think it will be tough to move up or down in the regional rankings right now and if you are currently not ranked, you MUST win your conference tourney (or go very deep in it) to even have a shot and an NCAA bid. Teams like Texas-Tyler really shot themselves in the foot with a 1-2 conference tourney. Carthage could do the same with a loss to a Wheaton (IL) team tonight.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: woosterbooster on May 09, 2008, 06:21:08 pm
So, with Heidelberg moving ahead of Wooster in the regional ranking, if they lose the OAC tournament to Marietta, which it appears they might, is Wooster in trouble as a Pool C?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 09, 2008, 06:30:48 pm
So, with Heidelberg moving ahead of Wooster in the regional ranking, if they lose the OAC tournament to Marietta, which it appears they might, is Wooster in trouble as a Pool C?
The problem for Heidelberg is that the committee was looking at a team that had not lost in-region games in the tournament.   Two losses for Heidelberg might drop them beyond Pool C.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: KYGrizzly on May 09, 2008, 06:52:17 pm
The 6th & 7th Rated teams in the Mideast lost their first games in the HCAC Tournament. Transy beat Mt. Saint Joseph 3-2 in extra innings and Rose-Hulman lost to Franklin 9-5.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: woosterbooster on May 09, 2008, 06:55:21 pm
So, with Heidelberg moving ahead of Wooster in the regional ranking, if they lose the OAC tournament to Marietta, which it appears they might, is Wooster in trouble as a Pool C?
The problem for Heidelberg is that the committee was looking at a team that had not lost in-region games in the tournament.   Two losses for Heidelberg might drop them beyond Pool C.

Ahah, good point.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: beachlover on May 11, 2008, 12:35:44 am
I posted this in the SCIAC thread, but this might also be a place for questions.   The west regional rankings were modified after the initial posting (and dropping SCIAC/Redlands) from #5 to off the rankings and shuffling other teams into contention for a pool C bid. 

What would cause this modification after posting? 

Thanks.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 11, 2008, 01:03:55 am
I posted this in the SCIAC thread, but this might also be a place for questions.   The west regional rankings were modified after the initial posting (and dropping SCIAC/Redlands) from #5 to off the rankings and shuffling other teams into contention for a pool C bid. 

What would cause this modification after posting? 

Thanks.

I don't know, unless it was a recalculation of the OWP/OOWP and in-region percentages.  UT-Tyler has a good one.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jim Dixon on May 12, 2008, 02:01:20 am
Playoffs release available on D3baseball.com in the Daily Dose
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 08, 2009, 01:29:46 pm
Is April 23 a good bet for the first rankings?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 08, 2009, 02:25:12 pm
Is April 23 a good bet for the first rankings?

Quote
Tuesday, April 7—Committee conference call.
Thursday, April 16—Committee conference call.
Thursday, April 23 - Committee ranking conference call.
Thursday, April 30 - Committee ranking conference call.
Thursday, May 7 - Committee ranking conference call.
Sunday, May 10—Selection call.
Wednesday-Sunday, May 13-17—Regional competition.
Friday-Tuesday, May 22 - 26—Championship competition, hosted by the University of
Wisconsin, Oshkosh and Lawrence University.

Yep!
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on April 08, 2009, 02:35:25 pm
Is April 23 a good bet for the first rankings?

Quote
Tuesday, April 7—Committee conference call.
Thursday, April 16—Committee conference call.
Thursday, April 23 - Committee ranking conference call.
Thursday, April 30 - Committee ranking conference call.
Thursday, May 7 - Committee ranking conference call.
Sunday, May 10—Selection call.
Wednesday-Sunday, May 13-17—Regional competition.
Friday-Tuesday, May 22 - 26—Championship competition, hosted by the University of
Wisconsin, Oshkosh and Lawrence University.

Yep!
LOL. Is the sun bright? There's nothing like wasting everyone's time ...
Title: Regional Rankings
Post by: AlleyCat on April 23, 2009, 02:33:21 pm
Here is the first regional Ranking

Central
1.Carthage
2.Ill Wesleyan
3. Webster
4. Buena Vista
5. Augustana
6. Beloit

Mid Atlantic
1. Kean
2. Keystone
3. Montclair St
4. Penn St Behrand
5. Wilkes
6. Rowan
7. Frostburg
8. TCNJ

Mid East
1. Heidelberg
2. Wooster
3. Otterbein
4. Adrian
5. Franklin
6. Rose-Hulman
7. Marietta

Mid West
1. St Thomas
2. St Scholastica
3. Whitewater
4. Stevens Point
5. Rockford
6. St Olaf

New England
1. Southern Maine
2. Trinity
3. Wheaton
4. Eastern Conn
5. WPI
6. Curry
7. Suffolk
8. Worcester st
9. WNEC
10. St Joes Maine

New York
1. Rensselaer
2. Cortland St
3. Ithaca
4. Old Westbury
5. Fredonia St
6. Rochester

South
1. Millsaps
2. Salisbury
3. Shenandoah
4. Christopher Newport
5. York

West
1. Pomona Pitzer
2. Texas Tyler
3. Pacific Lutheran
4. Redlands
5. Texas Dallas
6. McMurry

Should create some discussion
Title: Re: Regional Rankings
Post by: ppfan on April 23, 2009, 02:56:17 pm
How could they possibly have Redlands above Cal Lu?
Title: Re: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2009, 03:16:10 pm
How could they possibly have Redlands above Cal Lu?
I don't know...

Head-to-head Cal LU wins the series over Redlands, 2-1.
Cal Lu is 10-2 in non-conference in-region games (LaSierra WWW, Chapman WL, Hendirix W, CSUEB WWW, Menlo WWL)
In-region ranked teams 0-3 (P-P LLL)
LaSierra may be killing the OWP/OOWP.

Redlands lost the Cal Lu series 1-2.
Redlands is 7-4 in non-conference in-region games ( Whittier L, Pac Lu WL, CSUEB WWL, Menlo W, UPS WL, Chapman W, CMS W))
In-region ranked teams 1-2 (Pac Lu)


I have moved my discussion onto the Daily Dose on the front page.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 23, 2009, 03:44:09 pm
I have to be honest...these rankings are a joke.

2 biggest issues:

1.) The face that George Fox is not ranked in the West is laughable. They have a 26-5 regional record which blasts everyone else's exept Pomona Pitzer. I realize they only play in the NWC, but same with Pac. Lutheran. There is no way McMurry's 19-13 in-region record in more impressive. With McMurry and Texas-Dallas and Texas Tyler ranked, it is obvious the committee thinks very highly of the ASC this year, although wasn't "tough" enough to merit Texas Tyler getting in with 36 wins last year. I am not even mentioning the fact that Texas Lutheran has a better overall and conference record than McMurry, and they are not ranked. The West regional rankings...craziness.

BTW...Texas Tyler, don't lose in your conference tournament, you went from No. 2 in your region to out of the playoffs last time you lost 2 games (2008)

2.)Mid-Atlantic, really guys, Montclair St. ranked 3rd...really? C'mon. So arbitrary. I am not going to touch their terrible winning pct., and you can't  defend that because of a tough schedule because they lost 7 games outside the NJAC. How do rank them over Wilkes, and even if you do, what makes Montclair state any better than William Paterson? To me they are at least equal, and Montclair aint that far in front if they are. William Paterson beat Kean twice...twice, and oh yea, they beat montclair 16-3, and oh yea, they are ahead of Montclair in their conference. No sense.

Sorry to blast you guys. The west region is the bigger issue.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jim Dixon on April 23, 2009, 03:50:44 pm
I have to be honest...these rankings are a joke.

2 biggest issues:

1.) The face that George Fox is not ranked in the West is laughable. They have a 26-5 regional record which blasts everyone else's exept Pomona Pitzer. I realize they only play in the NWC, but same with Pac. Lutheran. There is no way McMurry's 19-13 in-region record in more impressive.....The West regional rankings...craziness.


The quality past the top 3 is low in the NWC  and since George Fox has yet to play Linfield, they don't have those wins added to the OWP/OOWP.  Just like Cal Lutheran suffers with blow out wins over teams like La Sierra.  Linfield and George Fox has the same problem.  Last week was not kind to both the Wildcats and Bruins with losses to teams they are expected to sweep.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2009, 04:04:59 pm
For new readers of these boards, the UT-Tyler issue in 2008 revolves around the fact that UTT lost twice to Concordia-Texas (CTX) in the double elimination ASC playoffs.  They did not have the quality wins outside the ASC-East to help their OWP/OOWP.  As the committee got down to the last Pool C bids, IMHO, the next 2 teams from the West Region at the table were UT-Tyler and CTX.  How do you pick UTT over CTX which has just beaten UTT twice in the playoffs?  As a result, there were stronger picks around the table for those 12th, 13th and 14th Pool C bids and those bids went to other regions.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 23, 2009, 04:12:27 pm
I have to be honest...these rankings are a joke.

2 biggest issues:

1.) The face that George Fox is not ranked in the West is laughable. They have a 26-5 regional record which blasts everyone else's exept Pomona Pitzer. I realize they only play in the NWC, but same with Pac. Lutheran. There is no way McMurry's 19-13 in-region record in more impressive. With McMurry and Texas-Dallas and Texas Tyler ranked, it is obvious the committee thinks very highly of the ASC this year, although wasn't "tough" enough to merit Texas Tyler getting in with 36 wins last year. I am not even mentioning the fact that Texas Lutheran has a better overall and conference record than McMurry, and they are not ranked. The West regional rankings...craziness.

BTW...Texas Tyler, don't lose in your conference tournament, you went from No. 2 in your region to out of the playoffs last time you lost 2 games (2008)

2.)Mid-Atlantic, really guys, Montclair St. ranked 3rd...really? C'mon. So arbitrary. I am not going to touch their terrible winning pct., and you can't  defend that because of a tough schedule because they lost 7 games outside the NJAC. How do rank them over Wilkes, and even if you do, what makes Montclair state any better than William Paterson? To me they are at least equal, and Montclair aint that far in front if they are. William Paterson beat Kean twice...twice, and oh yea, they beat montclair 16-3, and oh yea, they are ahead of Montclair in their conference. No sense.

Sorry to blast you guys. The west region is the bigger issue.

After my comment above, I suppose I should give my own West Region Rankings. Please, people not on the committe, give me your thoughts:

1.)Pomona Pitzer    31-3 (23-1)

2.)Texas-Tyler         32-8 (29-7)

3.)George Fox         29-8 (26-5)

4.)Pacific Lutheran  27-8 (25-8)

5.)Cal Lutheran       27-7 (22-4)

6.)Texas Lutheran   28-12 (27-11)


Also Considering:

7. Linfield                27-9 (26-9)

8. McMurry             25-15 (22-14)

9. Texas-Dallas      25-15 (24-11)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2009, 04:35:30 pm
I have to be honest...these rankings are a joke.

2 biggest issues:

1.) The face that George Fox is not ranked in the West is laughable. They have a 26-5 regional record which blasts everyone else's exept Pomona Pitzer. I realize they only play in the NWC, but same with Pac. Lutheran. There is no way McMurry's 19-13 in-region record in more impressive. With McMurry and Texas-Dallas and Texas Tyler ranked, it is obvious the committee thinks very highly of the ASC this year, although wasn't "tough" enough to merit Texas Tyler getting in with 36 wins last year. I am not even mentioning the fact that Texas Lutheran has a better overall and conference record than McMurry, and they are not ranked. The West regional rankings...craziness.

BTW...Texas Tyler, don't lose in your conference tournament, you went from No. 2 in your region to out of the playoffs last time you lost 2 games (2008)

2.)Mid-Atlantic, really guys, Montclair St. ranked 3rd...really? C'mon. So arbitrary. I am not going to touch their terrible winning pct., and you can't  defend that because of a tough schedule because they lost 7 games outside the NJAC. How do rank them over Wilkes, and even if you do, what makes Montclair state any better than William Paterson? To me they are at least equal, and Montclair aint that far in front if they are. William Paterson beat Kean twice...twice, and oh yea, they beat montclair 16-3, and oh yea, they are ahead of Montclair in their conference. No sense.

Sorry to blast you guys. The west region is the bigger issue.

After my comment above, I suppose I should give my own West Region Rankings. Please, people not on the committe, give me your thoughts:

1.)Pomona Pitzer    31-3 (23-1)

2.)Texas-Tyler         32-8 (29-7)

3.)George Fox         29-8 (26-5)

4.)Pacific Lutheran  27-8 (25-8)

5.)Cal Lutheran       27-7 (22-4)

6.)Texas Lutheran   28-12 (27-11)


Also Considering:

7. Linfield                27-9 (26-9)

8. McMurry             25-15 (22-14)

9. Texas-Dallas      25-15 (24-11)
Great start on your analysis...

Let me see your discussion on the other criteria that were used by the West Region Committee..

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/baseball/2009/3_baseball_handbook.pdf  (Handbook)

Quote
Selection Criteria.

Primary Criteria

The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA
championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
• See Appendix B for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/
selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth
years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members
shall remain ineligible for rankings and selection.

Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 23, 2009, 05:09:43 pm
I would but i just dont feel like it. Thats where my analysis ends. Maybe that is incomplete research, and if I researched the other factors I would see that redlands belongs in the top 6 (doubtful), but i have a wife and a job lol. sorry!

You can really say you stand by these west rankings? If so, I am surprised.

No response about william paterson vs. montclair state. Does no one else see a discrepancy???
Title: Re: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jack Parkman on April 23, 2009, 05:30:43 pm
How could they possibly have Redlands above Cal Lu?
I don't know...

Head-to-head Cal LU wins the series over Redlands, 2-1.
Cal Lu is 10-2 in non-conference in-region games (LaSierra WWW, Chapman WL, Hendirix W, CSUEB WWW, Menlo WWL)
In-region ranked teams 0-3 (P-P LLL)
LaSierra may be killing the OWP/OOWP.

Redlands lost the Cal Lu series 1-2.
Redlands is 7-4 in non-conference in-region games ( Whittier L, Pac Lu WL, CSUEB WWL, Menlo W, UPS WL, Chapman W, CMS W))
In-region ranked teams 1-2 (Pac Lu)


I have moved my discussion onto the Daily Dose on the front page.

Ralph-  You have Cal Lu at 0-3 against In-Region ranked teams (Pomona-Pitzer LLL).  They have not even played yet so I am confused where you got this.

Overall I have to say that I was pretty surprised to see Redlands at #4.  I don't see them finishing above 3rd in the SCIAC so would that make them inelligable for the post-season?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: royhobbs on April 23, 2009, 05:36:46 pm
With the games coming up this weekend and next, these West rankings could change quite a bit. The ASC could be in for another big shakeup, especially if UTT stumbles again. That's just part of having a year end tournament, it gives you more games, but can knock you out if you don't win it. I like TLU's chances. The Linfield/ Fox series ends up being huge, but Pac Lu could be in the driver's seat. It's possible Pomona sweeps Cal Lu, which could really take CLU out of the picture. CLU needs this series. I don't know if the pitching's as strong for CLU as people might think. Where's Redlands fit into this? They depend too much on one arm. Look what happened to Chapman with Kitchens going down- when was the last time they weren't part of this mix? Fox controls their own destiny, can they put it away? If UTT and PP finish strong, they are the best of the West! At any rate, a lot can change within the next two weeks.  
Title: Re: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2009, 06:13:53 pm
How could they possibly have Redlands above Cal Lu?
I don't know...

Head-to-head Cal LU wins the series over Redlands, 2-1.
Cal Lu is 10-2 in non-conference in-region games (LaSierra WWW, Chapman WL, Hendirix W, CSUEB WWW, Menlo WWL)
In-region ranked teams 0-3 (P-P LLL)
LaSierra may be killing the OWP/OOWP.

Redlands lost the Cal Lu series 1-2.
Redlands is 7-4 in non-conference in-region games ( Whittier L, Pac Lu WL, CSUEB WWL, Menlo W, UPS WL, Chapman W, CMS W))
In-region ranked teams 1-2 (Pac Lu)


I have moved my discussion onto the Daily Dose on the front page.

Ralph-  You have Cal Lu at 0-3 against In-Region ranked teams (Pomona-Pitzer LLL).  They have not even played yet so I am confused where you got this.

Overall I have to say that I was pretty surprised to see Redlands at #4.  I don't see them finishing above 3rd in the SCIAC so would that make them inelligable for the post-season?
Boink!  My bad!  (That is why I try to list all the data that I considering in these analyses...for everyone to consider.  We are trying to figure out the conference call and what happened on it!   ;)  )

That drops Cal Lu to "0 results" vs regionally ranked teams.

Roy Hobbs is right about this weekend.

My impression is that the closeness of these rankings are more like cyclists in the peloton.  McMurry may be one-half of a wheel length ahead of five other teams for 6th place!  In any case, I see that McMurry needs to win the ASC tourney to get to the playoffs!
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2009, 06:23:11 pm
I would but i just dont feel like it. Thats where my analysis ends. Maybe that is incomplete research, and if I researched the other factors I would see that redlands belongs in the top 6 (doubtful), but i have a wife and a job lol. sorry!

You can really say you stand by these west rankings? If so, I am surprised.

No response about william paterson vs. montclair state. Does no one else see a discrepancy???
WPU is 20-14 overall /17-12 in-region / 10-5 NJAC.  They lost the DH to TCNJ, whom I think bumped them out of the "4th" NJAC slot.
Title: Re: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jack Parkman on April 23, 2009, 06:23:56 pm
How could they possibly have Redlands above Cal Lu?
I don't know...

Head-to-head Cal LU wins the series over Redlands, 2-1.
Cal Lu is 10-2 in non-conference in-region games (LaSierra WWW, Chapman WL, Hendirix W, CSUEB WWW, Menlo WWL)
In-region ranked teams 0-3 (P-P LLL)
LaSierra may be killing the OWP/OOWP.

Redlands lost the Cal Lu series 1-2.
Redlands is 7-4 in non-conference in-region games ( Whittier L, Pac Lu WL, CSUEB WWL, Menlo W, UPS WL, Chapman W, CMS W))
In-region ranked teams 1-2 (Pac Lu)


I have moved my discussion onto the Daily Dose on the front page.

Ralph-  You have Cal Lu at 0-3 against In-Region ranked teams (Pomona-Pitzer LLL).  They have not even played yet so I am confused where you got this.

Overall I have to say that I was pretty surprised to see Redlands at #4.  I don't see them finishing above 3rd in the SCIAC so would that make them inelligable for the post-season?
Boink!  My bad!  (That is why I try to list all the data that I considering in these analyses...for everyone to consider.  We are trying to figure out the conference call and what happened on it!   ;)  )

That drops Cal Lu to "0 results" vs regionally ranked teams.

Roy Hobbs is right about this weekend.

My impression is that the closeness of these rankings are more like cyclists in the peloton.  McMurry may be one-half of a wheel length ahead of five other teams for 6th place!  In any case, I see that McMurry needs to win the ASC tourney to get to the playoffs!

Man, you had me thinking I slept through the weekend and the series.  This just shows how important this weekend is for CLU.  If they struggle, they are likely done.  Its too bad if a team that could get to 30 wins misses out on the post-season.  I know it has happened before, so I feel the pain for UT Tyler!
I was thinking of this as well.  If George Fox and Linfield split, that will give PLU the title in the NWC.  With neither GF or Linfield in the top 6 right now, will both of them get shut out of the regional and they fly 3 Texas schools up there?  I guess we just need to wait and see how it all ends up.
One last thing....it UT Tyler loses this opening series to McM, are they done?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Jack Parkman on April 23, 2009, 06:25:03 pm
Oh yeah, GO LA SIERRA!  2 more wins are 2 more wins, I guess, but then again, thats 2 more loses for Cal Tech :-\
Title: Re: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2009, 06:45:25 pm
How could they possibly have Redlands above Cal Lu?
I don't know...

Head-to-head Cal LU wins the series over Redlands, 2-1.
Cal Lu is 10-2 in non-conference in-region games (LaSierra WWW, Chapman WL, Hendirix W, CSUEB WWW, Menlo WWL)
In-region ranked teams 0-3 (P-P LLL)
LaSierra may be killing the OWP/OOWP.

Redlands lost the Cal Lu series 1-2.
Redlands is 7-4 in non-conference in-region games ( Whittier L, Pac Lu WL, CSUEB WWL, Menlo W, UPS WL, Chapman W, CMS W))
In-region ranked teams 1-2 (Pac Lu)


I have moved my discussion onto the Daily Dose on the front page.

Ralph-  You have Cal Lu at 0-3 against In-Region ranked teams (Pomona-Pitzer LLL).  They have not even played yet so I am confused where you got this.

Overall I have to say that I was pretty surprised to see Redlands at #4.  I don't see them finishing above 3rd in the SCIAC so would that make them inelligable for the post-season?
Boink!  My bad!  (That is why I try to list all the data that I considering in these analyses...for everyone to consider.  We are trying to figure out the conference call and what happened on it!   ;)  )

That drops Cal Lu to "0 results" vs regionally ranked teams.

Roy Hobbs is right about this weekend.

My impression is that the closeness of these rankings are more like cyclists in the peloton.  McMurry may be one-half of a wheel length ahead of five other teams for 6th place!  In any case, I see that McMurry needs to win the ASC tourney to get to the playoffs!

Man, you had me thinking I slept through the weekend and the series.  This just shows how important this weekend is for CLU.  If they struggle, they are likely done.  Its too bad if a team that could get to 30 wins misses out on the post-season.  I know it has happened before, so I feel the pain for UT Tyler!
I was thinking of this as well.  If George Fox and Linfield split, that will give PLU the title in the NWC.  With neither GF or Linfield in the top 6 right now, will both of them get shut out of the regional and they fly 3 Texas schools up there?  I guess we just need to wait and see how it all ends up.
One last thing....it UT Tyler loses this opening series to McM, are they done?
Let's say that McMurry beats them 2 of 3, and Mississippi College beats McM in the ASC finals.

UTT will be 2-4 versus McM and 1-2 versus Mississippi College.  That is not a stellar resume for the "3rd" best team in the ASC.

As a conference we are beating ourselves up.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 26, 2009, 09:57:54 pm
I have to be honest...these rankings are a joke.

2 biggest issues:

1.) The face that George Fox is not ranked in the West is laughable. They have a 26-5 regional record which blasts everyone else's exept Pomona Pitzer. I realize they only play in the NWC, but same with Pac. Lutheran. There is no way McMurry's 19-13 in-region record in more impressive. With McMurry and Texas-Dallas and Texas Tyler ranked, it is obvious the committee thinks very highly of the ASC this year, although wasn't "tough" enough to merit Texas Tyler getting in with 36 wins last year. I am not even mentioning the fact that Texas Lutheran has a better overall and conference record than McMurry, and they are not ranked. The West regional rankings...craziness.

BTW...Texas Tyler, don't lose in your conference tournament, you went from No. 2 in your region to out of the playoffs last time you lost 2 games (2008)

2.)Mid-Atlantic, really guys, Montclair St. ranked 3rd...really? C'mon. So arbitrary. I am not going to touch their terrible winning pct., and you can't  defend that because of a tough schedule because they lost 7 games outside the NJAC. How do rank them over Wilkes, and even if you do, what makes Montclair state any better than William Paterson? To me they are at least equal, and Montclair aint that far in front if they are. William Paterson beat Kean twice...twice, and oh yea, they beat montclair 16-3, and oh yea, they are ahead of Montclair in their conference. No sense.

Sorry to blast you guys. The west region is the bigger issue.

After my comment above, I suppose I should give my own West Region Rankings. Please, people not on the committe, give me your thoughts:

1.)Pomona Pitzer    31-3 (23-1)

2.)Texas-Tyler         32-8 (29-7)

3.)George Fox         29-8 (26-5)

4.)Pacific Lutheran  27-8 (25-8)

5.)Cal Lutheran       27-7 (22-4)

6.)Texas Lutheran   28-12 (27-11)


Also Considering:

7. Linfield                27-9 (26-9)

8. McMurry             25-15 (22-14)

9. Texas-Dallas      25-15 (24-11)

Do we have any believers in George Fox now after taking 3 of 4 from Linfield??
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on April 26, 2009, 10:07:03 pm
Linfield can kiss its post-season goodbye. Going to be painful hosting when you are not invited.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: cubs on April 27, 2009, 09:46:02 pm
Just wondering....  Do the rankings come out each Thursday now for the next two weeks?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: coachmilburn on April 27, 2009, 09:49:30 pm
Just wondering....  Do the rankings come out each Thursday now for the next two weeks?

Tuesday, April 7—Committee conference call.
Thursday, April 16—Committee conference call.
Thursday, April 23 - Committee ranking conference call.
Thursday, April 30 - Committee ranking conference call.
Thursday, May 7 - Committee ranking conference call.
Sunday, May 10—Selection call.

Wednesday-Sunday, May 13-17—Regional competition.

Friday-Tuesday, May 22 - 26—Championship competition, hosted by the University of
Wisconsin, Oshkosh and Lawrence University.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: cubs on April 27, 2009, 09:56:38 pm
Thanks!!!
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 30, 2009, 02:47:22 pm
Regional Rankings #2

Ok, you just can't put Texas-Dallas over both Texas Lutheran and Miss College. you just can't. I dont care if Texas-Dallas swept TLU, you cant put them over Miss College.

Both teams have a better conference and overall record....and they play in the same conference. If you are using the sweep of UTD over Texas Luthern to justify that ranking, what about Miss college taking 2 of 3 from UTD, and better record, and conference record.....that is really unbelievable to me.

Plus, 21-10 really gets Illinois Wesleyan #2 in the region? They really might get a pool C bid with that? c'mon. Then give Texas Lutheran some love at 30-12. It's just inconsistent. A 21-10 will get you in in the Central, but 31-5 and Curry is scrambling for a C bid in the NE?? cmon
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: AlleyCat on April 30, 2009, 02:57:22 pm
These rankings make no sense! What are they looking at? How can Chapman even be ranked at 17-11 in region? Ill Wes ranked #2 at 21-10 and 19-9 in region, Wheaton and WPI still ranked pretty high in NE after losing in their tourneys. Cortland goes 3-2 during a week, and RPI goes 3-0 in a week and they switch spots.  Somebody please explain this screwed up system.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 30, 2009, 02:59:34 pm
These rankings make no sense! What are they looking at? How can Chapman even be ranked at 17-11 in region? Ill Wes ranked #2 at 21-10 and 19-9 in region, Wheaton and WPI still ranked pretty high in NE after losing in their tourneys. Cortland goes 3-2 during a week, and RPI goes 3-0 in a week and they switch spots.  Somebody please explain this screwed up system.

touche`......touche`
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 30, 2009, 03:13:04 pm
In the Mid-Atlantic, I really dont see why Manhattanville at 23-15 is ranked over a team like William Paterson at 22-16??...if indeed the NJAC is so good as everyone else says!!

William Paterson has 2 wins over #1 Kean and a win over #3 Montclair. I certainly dont think their resume is any worse than Montclair, who is 0-2 vs. Kean
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on April 30, 2009, 03:15:35 pm
In the Mid-Atlantic, I really dont see why Manhattanville at 23-15 is ranked over a team like William Paterson at 22-16??...if indeed the NJAC is so good as everyone else says!!

William Paterson has 2 wins over #1 Kean and a win over #3 Montclair. I certainly dont think their resume is any worse than Montclair, who is 0-2 vs. Kean

OH yea, and William Paterson beat manhattanville.....small point...

(added at 9:19pm)--they just beat Kean again...make it 3-0......they would be in my tournament if I was picking
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: AlleyCat on April 30, 2009, 03:16:47 pm
Another good point! Very random to say the least
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on April 30, 2009, 03:53:44 pm
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ncaa/sports/m-basebl/auto_pdf/NR-DIIIBB-4-30-09-RegionalPoll.pdf
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 30, 2009, 04:14:21 pm
These rankings make no sense! What are they looking at? How can Chapman even be ranked at 17-11 in region? Ill Wes ranked #2 at 21-10 and 19-9 in region, Wheaton and WPI still ranked pretty high in NE after losing in their tourneys. Cortland goes 3-2 during a week, and RPI goes 3-0 in a week and they switch spots.  Somebody please explain this screwed up system.

Greetings and welcome to the message boards...

We all wish that we had the data that are produced for the committee, but the Handbook is copied on another board, and here are the links to the web pages for IWU and Chapman

http://www.d3baseball.com/region/West

http://www.d3baseball.com/region/Central

How do you think that Chapman at #6 might not be the right place for them in the West Region?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on April 30, 2009, 04:58:50 pm
What happen to Cal Lu that beat Pomona one game....

28-9 overall 14-4 in conference and 7-3 in last 10 games and

Cal Lu has losses to
Claremont which Chapman sweep
Ithaca who Chapman beat
Menlo who Chapman beat
Redlands who Chapman split with

Cal Lu and Chapman both beat
Occidental, Hendix, and Westmont

But
Chapman lost to Whittier, East Bay, and La Verne

MAY 10...11:59 PM we will all know how this all sorts out
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: LA Mike on April 30, 2009, 05:04:59 pm
If Chapman gets into the mix, they should be put out to another region and Hendrix, the auto-bid from SCAC be placed into the West Region where their conference is. 

I am still not convinced that Chapman is a Pool B #6 bid after seeing them play all season..........

LA Mike
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on April 30, 2009, 05:43:43 pm
Chapman must sweep University of Dallas this weekend to have any chance to keep the pool B bid. Anything less and their out.

Hendrix may get sent to a region closer to there location to save NCAA travel costs
which as many know is always a factor these days. Hendrix not too close to Linfield, Oregon...

What happens to Texas-Tyler IF the dont win the ASC tourney....?

Are they a POOL C bid team ?

Last time they stayed home....

How many days until May 10..........Nervous time for many teams on the bubble right now

Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on April 30, 2009, 09:30:53 pm
Chapman must sweep University of Dallas this weekend to have any chance to keep the pool B bid. Anything less and their out.


I doubt it. Chapman is one of only four Pool B teams in the rankings and six Pool B bids will be awarded. The can drop one, even two games this weekend and still get in. They only have to be one of the top six Pool B teams which is very weak this year.
Title: NCAA DIVISION III BASEBALL REGIONAL RANKINGS
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on May 07, 2009, 02:54:24 pm
May 7, 2009

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ncaa/sports/m-basebl/auto_pdf/NR-DIIIBB-5-7-09-RegionalPoll.pdf


http://www.d3sports.com/dailydose/2009/05/07/regional-rankings-third-and-final-week/

Edit:  Let's move the discussion of this ranking onto the blog!
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: cubs on May 07, 2009, 03:08:18 pm
Regional Rankings for Week #3

Central Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Carthage 29-5 25-2
2. St. Norbert 21-11 19-10
3. Illinois Wesleyan 23-13 21-12
4. Coe 21-17 20-12
5. Loras 25-12 2011
6. Luther 27-11 25-11

Mid-Atlantic Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Kean 33-9 29-6
2. Montclair State 25-15 22-8
3. Keystone 34-4 28-1
4. Penn State-Behrend 27-7 25-6
5. The College of New Jersey 23-16-1 21-13-1
6. Manhattanville 25-16 24-15
7. Wilkes 28-11 26-8
8. Frostburg State 24-13 23-8
9. William Patterson 24-16 21-14

Mideast Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Wooster 33-8 27-7
2. Heidelberg 33-7 29-6
3. Otterbein 22-15 18-8
4. Marietta 26-12 22-11
5. Washington and Jefferson 28-11 23-8
6. Adrian 27-9 24-4
7. Franklin 28-9 22-8

Midwest Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. St. Thomas (Minnesota) 28-9 21-8
2. St. Scholastica 31-4 22-3
3. St. Olaf 25-11 20-8
4. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 27-13 25-12
5. Concordia Chicago 29-13 27-7
6. Wisconsin-Oshkosh 23-15 22-14

New England Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Southern Maine 34-5 29-4
2. Eastern Connecticut State 31-6 28-6
3. Trinity (Connecticut) 26-5 26-3
4. Curry 34-7 30-6
5. Suffolk 30-8 27-7
6. WPI 26-11 25-8
7. Wheaton (Massachusetts) 30-12 27-10
8. Williams 24-10 20-7
9. Western New England 29-15 26-14
10. St. Joseph’s (Maine) 31-13 28-9

New York Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Cortland State 29-12 24-8
2. Rensselaer 31-9 29-8
3. Ithaca 28-7 22-4
4. Rochester 30-11 27-11
5. Farmingdale State 25-13 24-10
6. Fredonia State 25-10 16-10

South Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Salisbury 36—6 29-6
2. Millsaps 32-8 29-7
3. Shenandoah 33-8 27-7
4. North Carolina Wesleyan 27-19 25-15
5. Christopher Newport 24-11-2 20-11-1

West Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Pomona-Pitzer 35-5 27-3
2. Texas-Tyler 38-10 35-9
3. Cal Lutheran 31-9 27-6
4. Pacific Lutheran 31-8 29-8
5. George Fox 32-9 29-6
6. Texas-Dallas 28-18 27-14
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: cubs on May 07, 2009, 03:10:35 pm
The first thing to catch my eye, is Saint Norbert going from unranked to #2 in the Central Region Rankings. 

Could they really get a Pool C bid if they were to lose the MWC Tournament Championship?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 07, 2009, 03:55:48 pm
It looks like Cal Lutheran has clinched a Pool C bid, as well as Curry and probably WPI. Montclair State will also receive a Pool C bid. Wheaton is still on the bubble. And Concordia (Ill) and Rochester put themselves in a better position.

A couple things:

1. First, some of these records are incorrect. Incorrect for May 5th as well, which is when they were to be updated until.

PS Behrend is not 27-7, they are 28-11. That is a big difference guys. Plus, they go 1-4 and stay #4 in the region??

2. Second, how does Rose-Hulman drop out after going 3-0 this week!?! They have won 8 games in a row....makes no sense, especially considering Otterbein jumped them after going 3-3 this week! That is just stupid guys...c'mon.

3. Third, Texas-Dallas is not better than Miss. College. I am sorry....that is ridiculous! Miss. College made it to the ASC final. Second, they beat UTD 3 out of 4 times this year, including last week. Third, their regional record is similar and was far better in the ASC season. They were also 3-3 vs. Texas Tyler, showing they had a tough schedule, while UTD was 1-3 vs. this elite common opponent

4. Fourth, Montclair state goes 2-2 and jumps Keystone who didn't play?? C'mon. Can you make it any more obvious you are finagling their Pool C bid?

5. Fifth, how does Beloit go 3-0 and get jumped by St. Norbort who is 19-10 in region when Beloit is 19-5?

6. Sixth, how does Luther go 4-0 and get jumped by 3 teams?


These rankings are inconceivably random. There must be a better system than this.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: AlleyCat on May 07, 2009, 05:53:38 pm
It looks like each region is trying to set up their Pool C bids which is way too obvious. I thought with this new system things weren't going to be random and make no sense at all. Well, it looks like we're back to the drawing board.

How does 19-10 in any region give you a good enough in region record to be #2?

How does a team go .500 in a week and jump a team that didn't play and is 34-4 and 28-1 in region?

How can teams with just over a .500 record even be ranked this late in the season, are they playing MLB teams?

Please, Please give the credit to the teams that deserve it and make decisions based on what teams have done this year and not what you think they might do? If a region doesn't have enough good teams to be ranked, bring teams in from another region (Central)

If NY is an eight team regional then Cortland, RPI, Ithaca, Farmingdale and Rochester should represent NY
Their should be at least 5 NY teams in the NY Regional, especially after looking at some of these other regions rankings.

Just my thoughts
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 07, 2009, 10:37:54 pm
It looks like Cal Lutheran has clinched a Pool C bid, as well as Curry and probably WPI. Montclair State will also receive a Pool C bid. Wheaton is still on the bubble. And Concordia (Ill) and Rochester put themselves in a better position.

A couple things:

1. First, some of these records are incorrect. Incorrect for May 5th as well, which is when they were to be updated until.

PS Behrend is not 27-7, they are 28-11. That is a big difference guys. Plus, they go 1-4 and stay #4 in the region??

2. Second, how does Rose-Hulman drop out after going 3-0 this week!?! They have won 8 games in a row....makes no sense, especially considering Otterbein jumped them after going 3-3 this week! That is just stupid guys...c'mon.

3. Third, Texas-Dallas is not better than Miss. College. I am sorry....that is ridiculous! Miss. College made it to the ASC final. Second, they beat UTD 3 out of 4 times this year, including last week. Third, their regional record is similar and was far better in the ASC season. They were also 3-3 vs. Texas Tyler, showing they had a tough schedule, while UTD was 1-3 vs. this elite common opponent

4. Fourth, Montclair state goes 2-2 and jumps Keystone who didn't play?? C'mon. Can you make it any more obvious you are finagling their Pool C bid?

5. Fifth, how does Beloit go 3-0 and get jumped by St. Norbort who is 19-10 in region when Beloit is 19-5?

6. Sixth, how does Luther go 4-0 and get jumped by 3 teams?


These rankings are inconceivably random. There must be a better system than this.
5. BC's OWP is .440. SNC's is .548. Then look at who both teams beat.
6. Luther's OWP is .493. Coe's is .545. Loras has a much better OWP than LC.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 07, 2009, 11:11:16 pm
 I dont care what their OWP is. You cant drop in the rankings to teams losing when you go undefeated. I am sure they dropped bc their OWP dropped this week because of the teams they played. If you go undefeated it shouldnt affect it that much. The OWP's are factoring way to high into rankings when you can go 3-0 and drop.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Sprt16 on May 08, 2009, 12:33:48 am
im going to be a homer here and wonder where Elizabethtown is in the Mid-Atlantic rankings?!? 27-13 overall and 24-11 (i believe) in region...they just won there third conference tournament in 4 years so they know what the regionals are all about...
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 12:48:33 am
im going to be a homer here and wonder where Elizabethtown is in the Mid-Atlantic rankings?!? 27-13 overall and 24-11 (i believe) in region...they just won there third conference tournament in 4 years so they know what the regionals are all about...
Welcome aboard Sprt16.

E'town in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Rankings?

Probably about 10th or so...   :)

E'town is 23-13 in-region (.639)  (Mass Maritime, Kenyon twice and PSU-Harrisburg don't count as in-region games.)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 07:49:18 am
Anyone see Luther beat Coe in the IIAC tournament???

Get Coe out of there. Get Luther back near the top where they belong at 28-11
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 08:58:10 am

5. BC's OWP is .440. SNC's is .548. Then look at who both teams beat.
6. Luther's OWP is .493. Coe's is .545. Loras has a much better OWP than LC.
[/quote]

Here is why I dont buy this stuff.....its not consistently used.

Hopkins is 20-13 in region....certainly no worse than the records you are quoting to me out of the midwest/central.

And their OWP is .540, right up there with the best in the country.Have i heard a word about them possibly receiving a pool c bid if they would have lost the conference tournament?? No. I didn't. If you are going to throw some of these ridiculous teams in the mix from the midwest on the basis of their high OWP, its time you start employing that criteria to the other regions. If IWU, Coe, and St Norbert is being discussed for a Pool C bid based on their OWP, so should Hopkins have been
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 08, 2009, 09:05:19 am

5. BC's OWP is .440. SNC's is .548. Then look at who both teams beat.
6. Luther's OWP is .493. Coe's is .545. Loras has a much better OWP than LC.

Here is why I dont buy this stuff.....its not consistently used.

Hopkins is 20-13 in region....certainly no worse than the records you are quoting to me out of the midwest/central.

And their OWP is .540, right up there with the best in the country.Have i heard a word about them possibly receiving a pool c bid if they would have lost the conference tournament?? No. I didn't. If you are going to throw some of these ridiculous teams in the mix from the midwest on the basis of their high OWP, its time you start employing that criteria to the other regions. If IWU, Coe, and St Norbert is being discussed for a Pool C bid based on their OWP, so should Hopkins have been
[/quote]
Who's discussing them for a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 09:22:28 am
St. Norbert is ranked 2nd in their region. They certainly will get a look.

Coe is a joke. I don't know who they paid to get on the rankings.

My point is, if Hopkins or a team from any other region had the numbers all around that IWU had....they would not even be in the discussion. This proves that Pool C bids are not nationally chosen but regionally chosen. I could pick 5 pool C bid teams that are more deserving than IWU, but the committee will not take all of them. Additionally, there are teams in the Mid Atlantic  that are ranked, but still have better records/OWP than IWU, but will not get a look bc they are not regionally ranked.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 08, 2009, 09:27:59 am
D3Nut- you are the biggest conspiracy theorist that I have ever met.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 09:31:36 am
D3Nut- you are the biggest conspiracy theorist that I have ever met.

I dont think the committee is doing it intentionally, i just think their are major inconsistencies in the Pool C selection
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 10:01:29 am
D3Nut- you are the biggest conspiracy theorist that I have ever met.

I dont think the committee is doing it intentionally, i just think their are major inconsistencies in the Pool C selection
If SNC wins the MWC, then they are in.

If they lose 2 games in the MWC tourney, then the committee will look at the recalibrated numbers and look at Pool C.  My guess is that 2 more losses will drop MWC a couple of places.

I struggle to find analogies that "newbies" can use to understand this stuff.

Think NASCAR.  You just had a 15 second pitstop and you drop 9 places in the standings.  It is that close!

Have you actually seen SNC play this season?  The guys on the regional ranking committee are impressed enough with their play to believe that they are the 2nd best team in the Region.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 08, 2009, 10:19:12 am
What I find impressive is that SNC regrouped after 2008 SS Adam Frost was drafted and left after his junior year. They did not skip a beat and just kept on rolling.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 10:40:36 am
D3Nut- you are the biggest conspiracy theorist that I have ever met.

I dont think the committee is doing it intentionally, i just think their are major inconsistencies in the Pool C selection
If SNC wins the MWC, then they are in.

If they lose 2 games in the MWC tourney, then the committee will look at the recalibrated numbers and look at Pool C.  My guess is that 2 more losses will drop MWC a couple of places.

I struggle to find analogies that "newbies" can use to understand this stuff.

Think NASCAR.  You just had a 15 second pitstop and you drop 9 places in the standings.  It is that close!

Have you actually seen SNC play this season?  The guys on the regional ranking committee are impressed enough with their play to believe that they are the 2nd best team in the Region.

I haven't. But are we judging my numbers, or watching them play? That seems arbitrary and not applied to every situation.

BTW, i was surpised that Webster lost. They need to win the tournament
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: AlleyCat on May 08, 2009, 10:50:31 am
baseballnut. I agree! These committee members cannot see all of the other teams in the country play and the numbers should speak for themselves. Some committee chairs may not be as strong selling the region members and this will hurt there ability to be Pool C contenders if they go by "well I saw them play and they were good!" Reward teams for what they have done during the year as long as they play a good schedule and not all cream puffs. As for league games, you can't change the league your playing as a coach or a player. No one should be looked down on if the league they play in is considered weak. Who's to say what a weak league is anyway. That can change year to year based on recruits and development.  If you're going to go on well they look good, then you need to dig into numbers and see if they have more than 4 pitchers, how they play on the road, can they play D and can they swing the bat. That's how it was done years ago before all of the automatic bids.

I still think the committee is playing games to try to get more Pool C bids for their regions.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on May 08, 2009, 11:54:46 am
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 12:01:47 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 12:27:29 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )

But Luther went 4-0 and dropped out completely?
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 01:08:43 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )

But Luther went 4-0 and dropped out completely?
No.  Luther dropped to 6th when Dubuque's in-region winning percentage numbers (2-20 in conference/ 5-25 in-region (.167)  and 8-31 overall) were added into the OWP/OOWP calculations.  That can explain the committee's decision.

http://www.iowaconference.com/TASBS/2009-BB/HTML/dbq.htm


April 30th
Central Region
1. Carthage 23-5 19-2
2. Illinois Wesleyan 21-10 19-9
3. Webster 26-11 25-7
4. Buena Vista 25-9 20-8
5. Luther 23-11 21-11
6. Beloit 22-7 16-5


May 7th
Central Region
1. Carthage 29-5 25-2
2. St. Norbert 21-11 19-10
3. Illinois Wesleyan 23-13 21-12
4. Coe 21-17 20-12
5. Loras 25-12 20-11
6. Luther 27-11 25-11
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 08, 2009, 01:11:40 pm
What people need to realize is that each team only has themselves to blame if they are left out. Every team can point to one or two losses to teams they should have beaten and see that it is their own fault they were not invited, not the committee's.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 01:13:46 pm
What people need to realize is that each team only has themselves to blame if they are left out. Every team can point to one or two losses to teams they should have beaten and see that it is their own fault they were not invited, not the committee's.
Exactly, just like a NASCAR race where one bad pit stop of 2 seconds delay can drop a car from first place to out of the Top 10.

There is that little tolerance for error!
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 08, 2009, 01:26:32 pm
What people need to realize is that each team only has themselves to blame if they are left out. Every team can point to one or two losses to teams they should have beaten and see that it is their own fault they were not invited, not the committee's.
Exactly, just like a NASCAR race where one bad pit stop of 2 seconds delay can drop a car from first place to out of the Top 10.

There is that little tolerance for error!

...but those teams/fans will not often see it as their own fault.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 08, 2009, 02:03:37 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Or a blog with all the OWP's and in-region records for all MW/C teams. If only ...  ;)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 02:21:59 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Or a blog with all the OWP's and in-region records for all MW/C teams. If only ...  ;)
Awww dude,

Go clone yourself!  :D
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 08, 2009, 02:49:00 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Or a blog with all the OWP's and in-region records for all MW/C teams. If only ...  ;)

OshDude... Ha! FYI: I visit your site 2-3 times a day to check out OWP and other stuff. Great work.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 02:49:53 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Or a blog with all the OWP's and in-region records for all MW/C teams. If only ...  ;)

I am not saying its not their fault. Yes, they lost their conference tournament. But that doesnt mean we cant demand consistency and efficiency in selection Pool C bids.

When someone voices a concern about selections, and you say "its their fault, they can't complain" it is as if you are saying consistency and good selections dont matter.

The issue is not whose fault it is. The issue is, are the right teams being selected by logical, good criteria.

That is ridiculous that Luther dropped bc they played a bad team. It's not like they lost. They won....4 times. This type of rationale would not survive at any other level. Why should we let it survive here. They should have just canceled the games....
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 02:52:27 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Or a blog with all the OWP's and in-region records for all MW/C teams. If only ...  ;)

I am not saying its not their fault. Yes, they lost their conference tournament. But that doesnt mean we cant demand consistency and efficiency in selection Pool C bids.

When someone voices a concern about selections, and you say "its their fault, they can't complain" it is as if you are saying consistency and good selections dont matter.

The issue is not whose fault it is. The issue is, are the right teams being selected by logical, good criteria.

That is ridiculous that Luther dropped bc they played a bad team. It's not like they lost. They won....4 times. This type of rationale would not survive at any other level. Why should we let it survive here. They should have just canceled the games....
:D
Basically, their RPI dropped! It's that simple!
 ::)
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 08, 2009, 03:18:15 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Or a blog with all the OWP's and in-region records for all MW/C teams. If only ...  ;)

OshDude... Ha! FYI: I visit your site 2-3 times a day to check out OWP and other stuff. Great work.
So you're the one  ;D. Been up and down as far as site hits go, but it's been fun to do this year, especially with the lack of that info available. I kinda like how it turned out with the right-side rail stuff like the stats page and such. Not the cleanest layout, but it'll do.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 08, 2009, 03:19:11 pm
One of the things that may be making the rankings look bad is that we're missing some crucial criteria numbers (most especially OOWP).  Similar OWP's may mask very different SOS in the absence of OOWP.

What mystifies me is the volatility of the rankings so late in the season.  In week 2, SNC was unranked.  What could they possibly have done in one week to suddenly be #2? :o
http://www.snc.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.html

They went 6-0 over the week from Wednesday April 29th to Saturday May 2nd and 15-11 to 21-11 and 13-10 in-region to 19-10 in-region.

(Man, I wish we had Patrick Abegg to work this stuff out.   :(  )
Or a blog with all the OWP's and in-region records for all MW/C teams. If only ...  ;)

I am not saying its not their fault. Yes, they lost their conference tournament. But that doesnt mean we cant demand consistency and efficiency in selection Pool C bids.

When someone voices a concern about selections, and you say "its their fault, they can't complain" it is as if you are saying consistency and good selections dont matter.

The issue is not whose fault it is. The issue is, are the right teams being selected by logical, good criteria.

That is ridiculous that Luther dropped bc they played a bad team. It's not like they lost. They won....4 times. This type of rationale would not survive at any other level. Why should we let it survive here. They should have just canceled the games....
:D
Basically, their RPI dropped! It's that simple!
 ::)

Some people can't handle the truth if it hurts their favorites.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: OshDude on May 08, 2009, 03:28:08 pm
Pops,
You have the kids truncating pi to the one millionth decimal or something? You're as active on here as this third-shifter  :). Love it.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: BigPoppa on May 08, 2009, 03:32:24 pm
Pops,
You have the kids truncating pi to the one millionth decimal or something? You're as active on here as this third-shifter  :). Love it.

Pretty close.... I will be AWOL for the next few hours as I am on my way to practice. Hoping for good news from Kenosha when I return.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 05:58:52 pm


A couple things:

2. Second, how does Rose-Hulman drop out after going 3-0 this week!?! They have won 8 games in a row....makes no sense, especially considering Otterbein jumped them after going 3-3 this week! That is just stupid guys...c'mon.

5. Fifth, how does Beloit go 3-0 and get jumped by St. Norbort who is 19-10 in region when Beloit is 19-5?

6. Sixth, how does Luther go 4-0 and get jumped by 3 teams?

These rankings are inconceivably random. There must be a better system than this.

Hmm....think d3baseballnut may have not been so crazy???

Beloit......beat st. norbert
Luther....won (Coe and loras lost)
Rose Hulman...now 10 in a row

.......how about changing those ridic regional rankings committee.....
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on May 08, 2009, 09:37:10 pm


A couple things:

2. Second, how does Rose-Hulman drop out after going 3-0 this week!?! They have won 8 games in a row....makes no sense, especially considering Otterbein jumped them after going 3-3 this week! That is just stupid guys...c'mon.

5. Fifth, how does Beloit go 3-0 and get jumped by St. Norbort who is 19-10 in region when Beloit is 19-5?

6. Sixth, how does Luther go 4-0 and get jumped by 3 teams?

These rankings are inconceivably random. There must be a better system than this.

Hmm....think d3baseballnut may have not been so crazy???

Beloit......beat st. norbert
Luther....won (Coe and loras lost)
Rose Hulman...now 10 in a row

.......how about changing those ridic regional rankings committee.....

actually they split their 4 game series.
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: d3baseballnut on May 08, 2009, 11:11:08 pm


A couple things:

2. Second, how does Rose-Hulman drop out after going 3-0 this week!?! They have won 8 games in a row....makes no sense, especially considering Otterbein jumped them after going 3-3 this week! That is just stupid guys...c'mon.

5. Fifth, how does Beloit go 3-0 and get jumped by St. Norbort who is 19-10 in region when Beloit is 19-5?

6. Sixth, how does Luther go 4-0 and get jumped by 3 teams?

These rankings are inconceivably random. There must be a better system than this.

Hmm....think d3baseballnut may have not been so crazy???

Beloit......beat st. norbert
Luther....won (Coe and loras lost)
Rose Hulman...now 10 in a row

.......how about changing those ridic regional rankings committee.....

actually they split their 4 game series.

Not tonight....beloit won. Now beloit has won 3 of 5
Title: Re: BB: Regional Rankings
Post by: augie77 on January 09, 2013, 03:05:06 pm
.