Ralph, I have a couple of questions about the regional rankings. First, (and I know that the OWP and OOWP figure in) but let's look at MC and McM against the same opponents in the ASC. MC is 17-3 and McM is 17-4. That's says MC is the better team and should be ranked over McM. I know you are going to say that McM beat MC but look at the losses: MC split with UTD, lost to HPU and McM; McM lost to UTD, split with HPU, HSU and CTX. The difference is CTX, MC beat them by 19 points when the best that McM could do was split games.
Second: Do you think that MC is not good enough to be ranked regionally?
Lastly: Ralph are you the person on the regional ranking committee from the ASC who is keeping McM ranked so they can get a bid.
As I stated earlier the only way MC will get to the NCAA tournament is to win the ASC tournament otherwise the committee will pick who it wants.
Let's take the last question first.Handbook, page 9
has the national committee members. Page 39 has the Regional Committee members. Nope, not me.
All of the answers are in the Handbook.
First question next...
Here are the criteria that the committee uses in their weekly ranking session. (Handbook pp 16.)
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 F 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.
If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary
criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority
order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and all
other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e.,
provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.
• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team’s win-loss percentage
during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of
season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the women’s basketball committee. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B or
C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against Division III inregion
opponents. Coaches’ polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not used
as a selection criterion by the women’s basketball committee for selection purposes.
Margin of victory, Massey ratings and D3hoops.com Top 25 are not part of the criteria.
Second question last...
Yes I think that MC is good enough to be ranked regionally. (In the eyes of the committee, they are probably 7th.) My complaint with the women's committee is that they only rank 6, (publicly, whether that is the case or not.) I wish that they would rank 15% of the teams in a region as they do in many other sports. In fact, I don't think that the ASC gets enough respect by virtue of how hard it is to schedule non-conference in-region teams when the conference mandates single round-robin inter-division/double round-robin intra-division schedules at the conference's direction. Those mandated dates eliminate opportunities to play quality in-region games in November, December and early January. I think that MissColl assembled a very good schedule. To make it better, I recommend bringing in quality opponents like UMHB did (Baldwin-Wallace and Southern Maine) and as McMurry, HPU, and HSU has done with Southwestern and Trinity in the past. Millsaps and MC or LaColl and MC could bring in-region opponents from the OAC or the Michigan IAA or the HCAC to boost the OOWP/OWP.
As for the 17-3/17-4 that is mandated by the ASC, get your AD and both of your head coaches to change the "mandated" 20/21 game schedule. I agree that we will probably end up playing 20/21 games most years, just don't mandate the dates which take those dates off the schedule as possible dates for your coaches to pick better games.
This is the real crux of the conference. SRSU, Schreiner and TLU need the games, as I suppose UOzarks and LaCollege need the games, too. We play the mandated 20-21. Dec 4th Dec 6th is off the table at dates for non-conference games.
Replacing SU (1-24) and TLU (7-18) with a road trip to Maryville TN (16-8) and Emory (12-10) really improves the OWP/OOWP. That change in mandated 20/21 to something more flexible and probably won't happen, because that decision is made at the presidents' level.
While we are talking presidents, let's split the conference in half.
That would take about 7 new sports at about 4 schools to achieve. (I have my notes at home.) Then, the "ASC" has 2 Pool A bids in M/W Soccer, Volleyball, M/W Basketball, M/W Tennis, Baseball, and Softball
! And most of those sports are very inexpensive sports to add (Cross country, Tennis, Track and Field), or add women's sports like volleyball.