BB: General NY Region Talk

[Ralph Turner]

Of course, the Cortland fans are saying to themselves,

"There's another reason why Brockport is such a ****** part of the state!" 

 

[Old Man]

it seems some are getting confused by what i posted the other day.  

here is an example of an in region game - Umaine-Farmington vs. Washington College in MD. - - BY mapquest - 579.94 miles. but Maine and Maryland in same region BY NCAA definitions- Region 1
  
 Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont

Bob M. is correct - in the Brockport vs. Keene Games - Mapquest shows 338.83 miles - non region games

can anyone explain the differences in mileage by in region out of region by NCAA?

Old Man

[Ralph Turner]

Old man, the distance between two schools within the administrative region has no bearing on the 200-mile radius rule.

The fourth administrative region extends from East Texas Baptist in Marshall, TX to Pacific Lutheran in Tacoma, TX, and from Wisconsin-Eau Claire to Chapman in Orange CA.

The administrative regions divide the membership roughly into four groups.  That was the device that the NCAA used to expand the definition of "in-region" when it was adopted two years ago.

[Bob Maxwell]

Ralph and Old Man,

I think we all understand the concept of regional games ane what the criteria is that makes them such.  I think that the problem I'm having is on one hand you set a hard 200 mile radius... and on the other you set up an Administrative Region using hard state boarders.   Then you have bordering states count as regional games when they are by far outside of the 200 mile radius.

These two things seem to say the opposite thing to me... yes they are in the manual therefore are the rules... but they just seem to be making the opposite statement.

Old man uses a very good example... two teams that are 580 miles apart count as in region games... yet two others who are only 340 apart don't?  That is becasue of state boundaries...

And Ralph, you mention that there are 82 in region opponents for teams from NY (about 25% of D-III)... Most of those are in NY for most teams, the others are mostly in the souther corridor of PA in the Philly and Pittsburgh areas.  Almost all of which are further then the 200 mile radius... so in this case the state borders make them in region.

I know that is done for simplicity of the end of season numbers... as if it was done with only the mileage radius each school would have its own list of schools.  But I suggest that is possible... so you could have a list for each school at a set limit.

Interesting discussion... but we do all understand it, and are going round and round now.
 


I've taken this off the point of what I am trying to say... and that is to try to find a way for a team to play a schedule with some strong non-region teams on it and have that work for them and not work against them in the end of season numbers.  It seems that if you lose a non-region game against a nationally ranked team... it hurts you because you have a loss on your overall record.  If you win that game it doesn't help at all because you don't get any BIG ponits for it (and you could have gotten that win against a .333 in region team)...  Yet if you play a schedule against mostly teams that finish the season with an under .500  winning percentage and win most of your games against those teams you can get in the NCAA tournament because you have over 30 wins, single digit losses and you've accumulated a lot of 9+ point games...  Other then playing a higher level of baseball, there is no incentive to play a strong schedule.

I understand the regional concept of D-III (and like it)... but if you have a national championship at the end of the season  you have to find a way to have a way to have some incentive to play a stronger schedule.  If the post season was a strict 8 regionals with teams from within in that region then I can see just counting the in region games and not even considering the non-region games like they do...but when you move teams from region to region to fill the field you need to find a way to have some weight to non-region games... or the teams getting in and moving regions are playing with a different deck of cards.

Just my thoughs... and it has stimulated some discussion at least among the three of us.

Everyone plays with the same rules from the start so it isn't like anyone gets blind sided... I just think there should be a reward of some type for playing an upgraded schedule.

[Bob Maxwell]

After that last post, the light bulb just went off in my head...     Thanks Old Man and Ralph for staying on the subject long enough for me to figure it out... LOL   

Reading the past few posts I just figured out what my problem is with the D-III system.  Other then teams moving from one region to another for the NCAA tournament I'm OK with how it is set up.  The fundamental problem I'm having... is not the games against nationally ranked teams... but with how the quality points are awarded for games against teams within each region.   

So now that I'm in the light on this... LOL    I'm done with the national conversation about playing games... although I still think a non-regon game against a nationally ranked team should give some points...  Lets look at it from a regional point of view.  Because as Ralph ALWAYS points out, this is where everythng happens in D-III.

The way the points are alotted for wins and losses is the problem... you get more points (8) for winning at HOME to a team with a win percentage under .333 then you do for losing on the road to a team with an over .667 win percentage (7). 

This is what is out of whack... there is NO incentive for teams to play tough in -region schedules... there needs to be a change in the points awarded based on teams final records.  This would give incentive for teams to play upgraded schedules within their regions.  And would make the strong teams within a region more popular opponents for weak teams.  That may cut down on travel to distant in region and out of region games... meaing less lost class time... that fits into the D-III philosophy. 

I won't give any examples, but as it is now... teams can be rewarded for playing weak schedules.  And when you question it you're dismissed with being told to win the games.  While that is a good point... the strength of the opponents needs to be brought into the mix more of those in region games.

Change the points awarded so that playing against a team with an over .667 WP (win or lose) means more then any win against a sub .333 WP team.

Ralph, What do you think... is this a more palatable position then what I've tried to say on the national level?  From working in D-I for 20 years I got lost and was trying to make a regional point with a national example... becasue that is what I work in daily...

Its nice to be in the light... LOL
 

[dgilblair]

I don't think a lot of teams schedule games against weak teams to get more points. Thats not going to help you at the end of the year when the opponents get tougher.  I think most coaches want to play a tough schedule to improve their team.

Maybe the team with the 333 win percentage has play mostly top tier teams and ended up on the losing side of those games and the 667 teams have played weaker opponents. 

[Ralph Turner]

The fall sports have already begun to work with the Opponents Winning Percentage (OWP) and the Opponents Opponent Winning Percentage (OOWP), which we get in the spring.  I think that we get a better idea of how this works next winter with the basketball bids.  Basketball is more like baseball...more teams, more games, more contests between teams.

Please take a look on the football page for the Strength of Schedule stuff.

The link is on the left side rail.

The Regional Rankings are good for two things: (1) Determining seeding. (2) Awarding one of the 6 Pool B and 14 Pool C baseball bids.  The New York Region should count on getting 2-3 bids in Pool B and C.  Anything more than that will be hard, like sweeping the series 3-0, instead of winning 2 of 3.

Using the old system last year for basketball, I felt comfortable with a reason why a team flet just short of the Pool C bid.  UW-Oshkosh was 21-6/ 18-6/ 12-4 (overal/in-region/conference).  UW-Oshkosh clamored about not making the playoffs.  They lost three times to UW-LaCrosse, include the WIAC semis.

Please give me a season to follow this new system.  My first thought is that if you left the winning run in scoring position, then that is a game that you just blew.

[Bob Maxwell]

DGilblair

I agree with you... coaches who want to move on do schedule as tough as they can...  but it doesn't always happen, as you can be rewarded for 30 wins and single digits in your record becasue of the overall record and points accumulated with 8 point wins.   I think it is a little funny that a win at home vs a team with a .333 win percentage is work more then any game against a team with a .667 or better win percentage.  I would like to see those two at least flip in the point awarded matrix...

As your last statement suggests, record doesn't always tell the story of a teams abilities .  Although I don't think anyone will win or lose all of those games as some have suggested in previous posts... if the teams are generally equal, it shakes out in the schedule.

The changes that Ralph indicates have been made this year are a step in the right direction to give some weight to teams who play as strong a schedule as they can...  I am anxious to see what differences it may make at the end of the year. 

No matter what system is followed, there is always a team or two that feels as if they didn't get the consideratin they felt they deserved.  As I recall, last season there were several who were in that category in baseball... all from different regions.  So while I am talking about it specific to our area of the country (NY Mid-Atlantic & NE regions), it happens everywere... every year.

That is one of the things we all enjoy about sports...

[Bob Maxwell]

Ralph,

thanks for the link to the football data... interesting.  I don't have time in the fall to keep up with it, but it is interesting to see it.

Also, I do recall some conversations on these boards about football being easier to track then baseball because of the one game a week.  And also in baseball not everyone would report scores in a timely manner and rainouts caused problems too.  Guess now with the information superhighway we have it is easier and can be done at least at the end of the year very accurately.

thanks again...
Bob

[Old Man]

As we all know - most schools also have limits in amount of travel time during the spring semester - after all football mostly plays games on weekends while baseball is an everyday sport.  many schools are limited by proximity to other "quality schools" that they can play during the week without hurting the "STUDENT-ATHLETE" in missed class time.  i agree with dgilblare in the hopes that most coaches at the DIII level schedule the toughest games they can to hopefully prepare their teams for post season.  other schools are just in better areas to have quality opponents in easy travel distance.

Bob - i agree the point system does seem out of whack - but "sorry to bring this up"  lokk at DI football and BC - most people are complianing about their schedule but if you look at their opponents - in previous few years the schedule that they had whould have been ++++ but this year many of their opponents are having down years.

Maybe it is not the scheduling but the system that generates power rankings.

[Bob Maxwell]

Teh one thing baseball has is a lot of weekend conference games so other then the spring trip and a weekend or two in march (BRRRR...) there isn't really much opportunity to get out of region.  And a couple posts back, I stated that it was not really an out of region issue, it was the rating system that is out of whack.

When you talk about regional strength of schedule... everyone is pretty much equal in NY. In fact, I like where Brockport is in that regard being in the SUNYAC and near Rochester area.  Its the distance to the teams in PA that was the problem I referred to.

The point system does seem to want to reward teams for playing weak teams vs strong teams unless you win.  But for a lot of programs that are trying to move up, it is daunting to play the strong teams... but you have to try.

I think a change in the points as simple as flipping the wins vs .333 teams and losses vs .667 teams makes sense.  But I think Raplh made a great point, lets give the new strenght of opponets schedule changes a year to see what impact they will have... and I'm not sure if will completely eliminate the point system or just supplement it.


As for the BCS stuff... I am a proponent of an 8 team playoff system that take in and would use some of the existing bowls as the first round and then use the present BCS bowls on a rotating annual basis for the final two rounds.  but that is another topic and not D-III related so I will leave it at that....

[Jim Dixon]

The point system does seem to want to reward teams for playing weak teams vs strong teams unless you win.  But for a lot of programs that are trying to move up, it is daunting to play the strong teams... but you have to try.

Of course this only really means something if you can not win the conference....or need something to discuss in the off season.

[Bob Maxwell]

Jim,

I would change your comment to read "do not"... rather then "can not"... win the conference.    And I would add... and don't receive a pool C bid.

And yes, it is something that has stimualted some off season conversation,  and is interesting whether or not you win the conference.

Regardless of what the case is... I think that if the point system is still part of the selection criteria that there should be an adjust ment so that a game against a team with a .667 winnning percentage is worth at least as much... if not MORE... then a win over a team with a .333 winning percentage.

That just seems to be out of whack to me... either way, it is still only an 8-point game so not enough to boost you into a pool C if you go 25-0 against sub-.333 teams.  Just an observation...  that I would think many would agree with when they really think about it.

But mentioning it has sparked conversation... in the off season.
 

[Bob Maxwell]

Many schedules are starting to show up on the web sites (minus the spring trip opponents)... and a couple of rosters too.  Here are links to the SUNYAC teams that have them up.

Schedules:
http://www.brockport.edu/athletics/baseball/schedule.php

http://www.fredonia.edu/athletics/baseball/baseball_schedule08.asp

http://athletics.newpaltz.edu/baseball/schedule.cfm

http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/athletics/baseball/schedule/

Rosters:
http://www.fredonia.edu/athletics/baseball/baseball_roster08.asp

http://athletics.newpaltz.edu/baseball/roster.cfm


Does anyone know of any other NY teams have their schedule up?

[Cards7580]

SUNY Plattsburgh

http://www.plattsburgh.edu/athletics/cardathletics/baseball/schedule.php