It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.
I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.
Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.
would love to here what people think
SOS has to be a factor. In the case of Lancaster, their SOS is so weak that it does overcome their record. I think it's widely believed that the teams ranked above them would probably have the same record if they played Lancaster's schedule. Hey, if they win their league, they'll get their shot to prove everyone wrong...
From what I was told... it absolutely has to do with the SOS. It is. 421 and I have been told by several committee sources that they can't justify it especially when using the .03 SOS = 2 games system.
Now, there are some factors that will come into play later like vRRO that will change the equation. Remember, LBC's game against F&M isn't really being evaluated right now. It might be when it comes to common opponents, but that's it. When it comes to East Region discussions, not a lot - if any - of the East has played F&M. So, that game will pop up and maybe give LBC a boost.
All of that is also the same with Behrend.
No, dcahill, I would caution you comparing to the D3hoops.com Top 25. It isn't a criteria. We enter dangerous waters when we say, "but they are ranked xx, why aren't they being considered." The coaches and administrators on these committees are fully aware of the Top 25 and who are the best teams, but they have to ignore that stuff when it comes to the NCAA criteria. Plain and simple.
I have said it publicly and some committee members know I am concerned about LBC being left out of the tournament. If, worse case scenario, they lose their first game in the conference final, it seems clear they may be left out of the NCAA Tournament. If that were to happen, I think we set a precedent that SOS is indeed more important that WL% even if they try and argue it away by using the .03=2 element. The problem is that 1 loss is 1 loss. Last year we saw the women's committee, who understands and uses the same ratio but doesn't rely on it clearly as much as the men, put McDaniel in the tournament when they picked up their second loss of the season in the conference title game. Their reasoning: at some point the fact is they only lost two games out of 26 or 27. That has to mean something.
I don't think this plays for Behrend, though. We have already seen three and four loss teams left out of the tournament. But this committee, in recent years, has never allowed a team with a below .500 SOS into the tournament. I am not saying that happens this year because I think a number of at-large teams will be sitting there with below .500 SOS numbers. But if they stick to that plan, then we are saying the SOS is more important than WL% and I think that is getting a little dangerous.
The irony is WL% does play a role when a team with a very strong SOS is left home because they lost too many games (North Central might get put in this situation if they are an at-large team). I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that the optics of leaving a 1-loss team at home with a bad SOS (basically because of their conference) is a precedent I don't like.
Is this right? I feel that isn't enough SOS shift for two games, that means a 25-0 Lancaster Bible with a .421 would be considered roughly equal to a 0-25 team with a .500 SOS. Is it maybe supposed to be .3 SOS=2 games?Math edit: it's actually worse than that because under your numbers the difference between .421 SOS and .500 SOS is a 52 game swing.
I retract this whole thing, I messed up a decimal point. This is why I was into writing and not math.